Perhaps we should not be too surprised that the early photographers saw their work in terms of a partnership with nature. The Romantics\u2019 adoration of the natural landscape had lingered on into the nineteenth century, and the newly available means of mirroring the world through the application of light and chemistry must have seemed almost magical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even in the following century, in the epoch of modernism, a similar sentiment remained. Although by this time the art of the photographer had come to be fully recognized and embraced, a recognition of the artistry of nature continued to permeate the work in a way that seemed to uncouple it from cultural determinants. In The Photographer\u2019s Eye (1966), John Szarkowski speaks of photography as being like \u201can organism born whole\u201d and describes a need to acknowledge the \u201cincomparable inventiveness\u201d of the world itself and to try to make permanent \u201cits best works and moments.\u201d^{2<\/sup><\/a><\/span>} 2 <\/a> - John Szarkowski, L\u2019\u0153il du photographe, Milan, 5 Continents \u00c9ditions, 2007, p. . The Photographer\u2019s Eye by John Szarkowski was first published in 1966 to accompany an exhibition of the same name at the Museum of Modern Art, New York. Szarkowski was curator of photography at MoMA, and in the text he identifies five important characteristics unique to photography. Strong emphasis is placed on form rather than referential meaning.<\/span>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the view of Szarkowski and other advocates of the formalist aesthetic, the tie between the object and the photographic image was such that it was the \u201cthing itself\u201d that was the salient focus of concern, and it was something very close to the object that was presented to the viewer.^{3<\/sup><\/a><\/span>} 3 <\/a> - \u201cThe Thing Itself\u201d is the first issue identified by Szarkowski in The Photographer\u2019s Eye. He stresses photography\u2019s connection with \u201cthe actual.\u201d<\/span>. Context and connotative meaning were largely seen as irrelevant, as the art object realized by photography was very much on the \u201cnature\u201d side of the fence and not connected with or sullied by cultural preconditions. In Edward Weston\u2019s succulents or Imogen Cunningham\u2019s calla lilies, it is the visual qualities born of natural form that shape the content of the picture and limit its referential scope. The play of light on the object and the sensitivity to light of the photographic material further cemented the idea of formalist photography sharing common ground with \u201cnature\u2019s works.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet, while it is true that photographs, like plants, are greatly dependent on light, for the most part, they fail to flourish without human agency. In their book Rethinking Photography: Histories, Theories and Education<\/em> (2016), Peter Smith and Carolyn Lefley challenge the assumption of autonomy and isolation that underpins a formalist engagement with images. They argue that such a response fails to take account of associated meaning and that photography \u201cbelongs to every discipline and every institution.\u201d^{4<\/sup><\/a><\/span>} 4 <\/a> - See Peter Smith and Carolyn Lefley, Rethinking Photography: Histories, Theories and Education<\/em>(Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2016), 32. 32. .<\/span>” In postmodern thinking, they affirm, photography is \u201cinescapably part of everything and its meanings are constantly^{5<\/sup><\/a><\/span> shifting.\u201d} 5 <\/a> - Ibid. ..<\/span>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\n

\n

\n