Clarke, Graham (1997) The Photograph. New York: Oxford University Press

Graham Clarke’s The Photograph provides a brief overview of the history of photography, and attempts to introduce the concept of ‘reading’ a photograph. 

I received The Photograph as part of my learning materials package from The Open College of the Arts, and read this during the first few weeks of my studies. 

I’m sorry to say that I did not enjoy this book. I found the prose to be rather dry and in places rather pretentious. I also found myself questioning many of the conclusions that Clarke drew, particularly in regard to such subjects as the psychological reasoning behind an image, or passages on the “the male gaze”. 

Clarke (1997, p27) states:

Indeed, rather than the notion of looking, which suggests a passive act of recognition, we need to insist that we read a photograph, not as an image but as a text. That reading (any reading) involves a series of problematic, ambiguous, and often contradictory meaning and relationships between the reader and the image.

To me this is the crux to my difficulties in relating to this text. Whilst undoubtedly, some photographers will place vast symbolism into their images; my own viewpoint is that “sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar”.  Clarke’s reading of the subject leaves no room for ambiguity, or serendipity and for me reads in such a way that every object in every image must contain some deeper meaning. It does not allow for an object to appear simply because it is an object that just happened to be there. This for me is particularly problematic when viewing images taken under circumstances where the environment is not controlled or dressed by the photographer. 

As I state above, I agree that symbolism can and does exist in photography. But I believe it to be unwise to state that this is deliberate in each photograph. 

The Male Gaze

My other primary issue is how Clarke seems to frequently find outmoded beliefs to be at the heart of many images. Mainly it would appear to be the subjugation of woman in any image containing female nudity. This is it argued is for the sole purpose of satisfying “the male gaze”

Regarding the following image

David Seymour’s Bernard Berenson at the Borghese Gallery, Rome (1955)

Clarke (1997, p133) notes:

The female presence here is seen only in terms of a frozen object. The male figure is free to roam the gallery I search of female images and female forms It is, as it were, feast for his eye.

I interpreted this image is a significantly different way. For me we have an older male subject at the centre of the room, caught in the gazes of the female statues. He is placed as the lowest figure in the room, and so, is literally been looked down on. 

To me this image is not about a man feasting his eyes on a nude female statue. This is a humorous image of the tables being turned. The man is subject being studied from all angles by both the statues and by us, as the viewer of the image. 

This is just one of many ways in which I found my own interpretation, or reading, of a photograph significantly different to Clarke’s. With such opposing viewpoints, and my dislike of the writing style and a mediocre selection of images, it comes as little surprise that I find myself unable to recommend this book.