Board_Advisors_etc 3..5

flesh,’’ in turn driven by the ‘‘return of the gods’’
coming from 9 o’clock and its ‘‘theatre of reality.’’
The pure reportage or photojournalism at 3
o’clock does not seem to have reawakened. Interest
in it has further declined in favor of a reflection
upon society that comes from the ‘‘north’’ and a
formalistic (in a positive sense) attribute that comes
from the ‘‘south’’ and is expressed in the pictures of
Joseph Koudelka or in documentary commissions
(Franc ̧ois Hers’s DATAR-projects in France).
Thus, according to the most recent state of
affairs, the 9 o’clock pole has proven to be the
shining victor. Its protagonists were Paul de Nooi-
jer and the Dutch School and elsewhere (in France,
Georges Rousse and Bernard Faucon) have be-
come numerous. By way of the intermediate stages
of social conception in photography (as the team of
Magnum Photos) this pole tends almost to super-
sede traditional reportage. And by way of the
exploration of the material possibilities of photo-
graphic production, the movement leads to the
‘‘direct’’ photograph. For no thinking photogra-
pher today forgets—regardless of how strongly he
may reject any subsequent manipulation of the
picture—that the print which he produces is noth-
ing other than the sum of its tactile value.
All these movements first take form and make
sense in the long view. We should always remem-
ber that contemporary art—in contrast to
science—does not advance more quickly than the
arts of the past. We notice that from 1930 to 1950
the central pole lay approximately at 3 o’clock
(Brassaı ̈, Henri Cartier-Bresson), while today it is
located on the opposite side (at 9 o’clock). And
that in the 1970s, the liveliest points were likewise
opposite each other: 12 o’clock (conceptual artists,
Christian Boltanski) and 6 o’clock (Pierre Cordier,
Jean-Pierre Sudre). The 9 o’clock pole stood at the
beginning of its ascent: Michael Szulc Krzyza-
nowski and others were still lonely exceptions.
And a certain dynamic definitely emanated from
the 3 o’clock pole: Gilles Caron, Gilles Peress,
Carl De Keyzer, David Hurn, Martin Parr, and
many others. The dynamic proceeded ‘‘south’’
(toward 6 o’clock) with William Klein, and
‘‘north’’ (toward 12 o’clock) with Robert Frank,
who finally tipped the balance.
Studying the contemporary photography you
can conclude that both—two major currents—the
‘‘southern’’ and the ‘‘northern’’ supremacies today.
Photographers such as Suzanne Lafont, Crai-
gie Horsfield, Dirk Braeckman, Pentti Sammal-
lahti, Sophie Calle, Thomas Struth, Andreas
Gursky, Anselm Kiefer, David Hockney, Thomas
Ruff, Joan Fontcuberta, Andreas Mu ̈ller-Pohle,

Annette Messager, Peter Fischli and David

Weiss, Wolfgang Tillmans, Bernard Faucon,

Rineke Dijkstra, Pierre et Gilles are to be the

truly great artists of our time, representing the

United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, the Neth-

erlands, France, Spain, and Finland.

But more than in other art forms, the subversive

and revolutionary strength of photography lies in

the muteness of the forms, and the conceptual

photography of the 1970s lost significance to the

extent that it failed to pose the relevant questions

and denied the material qualities of the work,

because the true artist’s only problems are techni-

cal problems.

As for the future, it appears that it lies at 6

o’clock, in a photography that is supported by

the objective reality of its material forms, after

having forgotten for a moment that in art there

are only material forms. But the philosophical

point of view (12 o’clock) is also lively. At first

sight philosophy and photography appear to be

closely linked, until one checks which philosophers

have written an essay on the topic. Apart from the

major exceptions of Roland Barthes and Walter

Benjamin, hardly any have. This is quite astonish-

ing, but then again it is not. It is not, because

philosophy reflects; it is a re-view that looks back

at what has occurred, and photography is too

recent an event already to be part of the question

of the essence of humankind. This is because

photography displays a similar ambiguity to philo-

sophy. Both show something and are therefore

knowing, but also put a question and are therefore

unknowing. In the Merleau-Ponty vein, philoso-

phy is an unknowing knowing. And ambiguity is

a central element of philosophy. This was formu-

lated somewhat more emphatically by Samuel Ijs-

seling, when he sought to define philosophy in two

opposing statements:

Philosophy is a body of well-founded affirmations and

justifiable denials which altogether display a certain

coherence; it is in other words a ‘‘science.’’ Philosophy

is a body of questions which again and again question

what has already been stated (the entirety of affirmations

and denials); this means it is an un-knowing.

Photography is equally ambiguous. It shows

something, a fragment of reality framed by the

camera or in the darkroom which, considering the

objectivity of the process, can lay significant claim

to factual knowledge. Each one also asks a ques-

tion: what is the reality-value of an image? And

how is the objective de-objectified by the subjectiv-

ity of the maker and the viewer, augmented by the

contextual influences on both? This ambiguity has

EUROPE: AN OVERVIEW, PHOTOGRAPHY IN