Kenneth Josephson. New York State, 1970 (http://www.artic.edu/aic)
Culled from the permanent collection, the images that comprised the Art Institute of Chicago’s recent photography exhibition (on view from June 14 to September 7, 2008), “A Mind at Play,” celebrated the photographic medium’s inherent subjective experience. Thematically, the exhibition sought to separate photographs that act as records of what is in front of the camera in order to highlight those that contain moments more contingent, witty, serendipitous and inspired. The exhibition showcased the work of more than fifty artists whose influence spans the history of the medium. Selected by a team of curators and employees at the museum, “A Mind at Play” boasted a comprehensive display of photographs – everything from an image by Nadar made in 1863 to an inkjet print by contemporary Chicago photographer Suzette Bross (Blue, White and Red with Wheel, 2007). Certainly not lacking breadth, “A Mind at Play” showcased some of the medium’s most prominent – Duane Michals, Robert Frank, Kenneth Josephson and Joel Sternfeld – to name a few.
At a time when the discussion regarding the photographic medium and the role of digital technology is making weekly headlines, “A Mind at Play” seemed appropriately poised as a retrospective of the non-digital era. Although there were a handful of digital inclusions, the gallery walls were filled almost entirely with silver gelatin prints. Understandably, this bias lends itself to a conversation about contemporary photographic philosophy. In speaking to the photographer’s ability to manipulate viewer perception, a question arises about the tools photographers are using today versus those used in decades prior. Particularly when considering contemporary photographers such as Andreas Gursky, Gregory Crewdson or Jill Greenberg (all embrace computer based post-production techniques in order to reconstruct and redefine photographic reality), how should the manipulation of viewer perception be defined? Raising this question, “A Mind at Play” ignored that subjectivity, curiosity and experimentation are all inherent qualities of photography regardless of the argument between digital versus analog image making.
Positioned to parade highlights from the collection and attract viewers with the promise of tongue-in-cheek images, “A Mind at Play” hit the mark. The gallery was overflowing with funny and intelligent images. Entertainment aside, the Art Institute failed to acknowledge changes in contemporary photographic practice, leaving viewers stuck with a Modern vernacular. Philosophically this omission, albeit justifiable, seemed negligent – ultimately leaving the viewer asking for more.
