I recall two shows at MoMA, about 1967 & '68. One was called something
like "Photography into Sculpture," and the other could have been
"Photography as Printmaking" or words to that effect. These included, not
just photographers, but important figures from "art world", like
Rauschenberg & maybe Warhol, etc., who used photography. I was a painter
at the time & the various special effects (negative prints, infra red,
posterizing, mackie lines) had a tremendous influence on my *painting* (it
was 10 years more before I got around to photography).
What's hard to realize today, when even the most trivial gallery show is
likely to have an elaborate catalog, is that there was no printed record
of these seminal shows -- no catalog, or anything in the MoMA archive
except probably an exhibition list & maybe a few installation shots.
> > I think it is clear that there were a very small number of people interested
> > and actively working in the 1970's - no doubt we could both add a few more
Betty Hahn & co were at Indiana State in the '60s. Henry Holmes Smith,
teaching there, had been advocating "alternative vision" since the '30s
when he wrote about Sabatier effect for Minicam,I think it was -- a
photo magazine.
> > However I think is was in the mid '80's with the approach of the 150 years
> > that things really started to take off, and that following this we have seen
> > an enormous growth of interest.
> >
Pratt had an elective in "non-silver" by 1976 or earlier; within a few
years it was required for photo majors. My impression was that the
"revival" actually died down during in this country during the '80s. My
photo major students during this period, who *had* to take the course to
graduate, often resented it -- the boys *especially.* They just wanted to
be in their darkrooms making c-prints.
The last few years there's clearly been a sea change -- a great interest
in the course, even the boys love it, even gum, especially gum, in fact. So
I'd say now is 2nd revival (both cause & effect of this list, perhaps).
Judy