impassive photography exhibitions

About a month ago i saw the Henri Cartier-Bresson exhibition at MOMA. And my oh my, it was a great one. Something resembling an hour-long voyage through the best photo-essays that I could ever expect from the Sunday Times magazine, I realised that this man was a pioneer. I questioned how much I appreciate the photographic revelations that I enjoy every weekend, and what might journalism be without those photos that make issues seem to much more real.

As entertaining as this was, it had almost wholly moved out of my head until yesterday, when I found myself at the tate modern for the first time in about a year. I’m not sure why such time had elapsed, but I know I was drawn back in part by the exhibition: EXPOSED. and what a show it is. Reading what other people have made of the exhibition, I’m quite sure on reflection that I missed some rooms. But nonetheless, I think this was an even more compelling look at 20th century photography. Being implicated as a voyeur in the exhibition leaves you in a peculiarly active place, not just viewing the photographs, but doubling the illicit spectacle. The exhibit was wonderfully curated in a way that allowed this tension to rise to a disconcerting hiatus where you’re actually a visual element of the art. A must-see.

one of the portraits that made him famous

What these two photography exhibitions reminded me is that we cannot be passive in enjoying art. By its nature, visiting galleries is implicating. It’s a nod towards something. The very best exhibitions will find a way to continue to arouse these reactions: be they discomfort, pleasure, amusement…we can’t be passive viewers. I really feel that art has to find a way to engage itself to new audiences.

Advertisement