Transforming Practices: Imogen Cunningham’s Botanical Studies of the 1920s Caroline Marsh Spring Semester 2014 Dr. Juliet Bellow, Art History University Honors in Art History Imogen Cunningham worked for decades as a professional photographer, creating predominantly portraits and botanical studies. In 1932, she joined the influential Group f.64, a group of West Coast photographers who worked to pioneer the concept of “Straight Photography,” a movement that emphasized the use of sharp focus and high contrast. Members of Group f.64 included Ansel Adams and Edward Weston, whose works have since overshadowed other photographers in the group. Cunningham has been marginalized in histories of Group f.64, and in the history of photography in general, despite evidence of her development of many important photographic practices during her lifetime. This paper builds on scholarship about Group f.64, using biographical information and analysis of her photographs, to argue that Cunningham influenced more of the ideas in the group than has been recognized, especially in her focus on the simplification of form and the creation of compelling compositions. Focusing on her botanical studies, I show that many of the ideas of f.64 existed in her oeuvre before the formal creation of the group. Analysis of her participation in the group reveals her contribution to developments in art photography in that period, and shows that her gender played a key role in historical accounts that downplay her significant contributions to f.64. Marsh 2 Imogen Cunningham became well known in her lifetime as an independent and energetic photographer from the West Coast, whose personality defined her more than the photographs she created or her contribution to the developing straight photography movement in California. However, her largely overlooked oeuvre offers a view into a vital moment in the history of American photography: the development of Group f.64 and the “straight” photography movement in the west, a photography group that formed in California in 1932 and included such recognizable names as Edward Weston and Ansel Adams. F.64—whose name refers to a specific diaphragm in the camera that gives the photographer the clearest, most focused image—came together in order to promote the ideals of straight photography, a movement that emphasized the use of sharp focus and high contrast in order to create “pure photography.” Their concept of pure photography was one that was not influenced by other media. Straight photography developed in opposition to the pictorialist movement, a photographic movement focused on bringing painterly qualities to photography. Histories of photography generally do not accord Cunningham much credit for the straight photography aesthetic developed by members of Group f.64; often the development of these concepts is primarily credited to Edward Weston as well as other male photographers in the group. This occurs despite the fact that her work highly influenced other photographers and that she played a significant part in developing the f.64 aesthetic. Reconsidering Cunningham’s work of the 1920s with a particular emphasis on her botanical studies, I will argue that her ideas proved crucial to the practices of Group f.64. At the same time, I will explore her decision to not always adhere to the prescribed methods of the group—an action that indicates a certain independence she felt from her contemporaries as she explored the possibilities of photographic technique. This independence is, again, embodied in her botanical studies, which represent the Marsh 3 way in which she expanded upon the associations of a subject traditionally viewed as “feminine” through the aesthetic of “straight” photography. These works also clearly show Cunningham’s development of practices espoused by Group f.64 prior to the formation of the group. Considering the work she created leading up to and after her period of focus on botanical studies shows how this experience with photographing the organic forms of flowers represented an important shift in her photographic practice. Surveying the scholarship concerning Imogen Cunningham and f.64 helps to give a clear picture of why Cunningham and her influence on the group largely have been marginalized. The most extensive information available pertaining to her artistic contribution generally exists in the scholarship surrounding the history of the f.64. This group has been hailed by many photography historians, such as Beaumont Newhall, as one of the most prevailingly influential photography groups in the United States during the twentieth century. In the forward to Seeing Straight: Group f.64, Newhall writes that “our appreciation of ‘straight photography,’ which has continued strongly to the present time, is clearly due to the example of Group f.64.”1 It is clear from this assertion that Group f.64 influenced photography for generations, and therefore the importance of Cunningham’s contribution to the group needs further exploration. The group wrote a short manifesto in 1932 explaining that the name originated in the f- stop they found gave them the most clarity in their photographs.2 With a great emphasis on clarity and definition, the group wrote that its members were “striving to define photography as an art-form by a simple and direct presentation through purely photographic methods.”3 Their 1 Heyman, Therese Thau, ed. Seeing Straight: The f.64 Revolution in Photography, (Oakland, California: The Oakland Museum, 1992), IX. 2 Heyman, Seeing Straight, 53. 3 Heyman, Seeing Straight, 53. Marsh 4 focus on this aesthetic is often seen as a reaction against pictorialist photography, which is characterized by a painterly approach to photography using a soft focus lens.4 In the early 1900s, art photography diverged in two different directions, with one group adhering to pictorialist goals and another developing into straight photography. Pictorialists believed that their photographs must utilize the principles of painting in order to make them into true works of art.5 In a different approach, straight photographers believed that photography must develop a separate vocabulary that uses the unique qualities of photography, such as the sharp focus in a maximum depth of field, in order to make art photographs.6 Though the term originated in the 1880s as a way to reference unmanipulated photographs, it shifted to mean photography that emphasizes contrast and sharp focus and became the prominent art photography aesthetic into the 1970s.7 These artists saw their photographs as works of art, not necessarily as means of documentary. In a sense, this allows photography to evolve into a unique and separate medium, one that no longer must rely on other art forms for an artistic vocabulary. In “Perspective on Seeing Straight,” from Seeing Straight: Group f.64, Therese Thau Heyman implies that the concepts that Weston developed and that later became the focus of the group acted as a reaction to pictorialism. This was his attempt to move away from this romantic style and toward his preferred style of “straight” photography. In her contribution to this book, entitled “f.64 and Modernism,” Naomi Rosenblum argues that the group found influence in the modernist aesthetic of straight photography originating in Germany, France, and photographers 4 "Straight photography," in The Oxford Companion to the Photograph (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) 5 "Group f.64," in The Oxford Companion to the Photograph (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). 6 "Group f.64," in The Oxford Companion to the Photograph. 7 “Straight photography,” in The Oxford Companion to the Photograph. Marsh 5 from the East Cost of the United States.8 Rosenblum explains that the flattening of forms and the focus on abstraction found in the work of Group f.64 originated in these modernist ideas.9 What the west coast straight photographers, especially Group f.64, contributed to the development of straight photography was their unique choice of subject matter.10 Whereas the straight photographers before them focused on machinery and the cityscape, Western photographers turned their focus to organic forms such as landscapes and flowers. The scholarship on Group f.64 tends to treat Edward Weston as something of a “father figure,” drawing heavily on Weston’s work and theory in analysis of the group despite the fact that other photographers played active roles in the group. The impression a reader receives upon reading this scholarship is that Weston developed these ideas independently; for example, Beaumont Newhall, one of the first authors of a comprehensive history of photography, writes, “Weston was very independent and not particularly interested in the group and its progress.”11 It almost seems as if a cult has formed around the idea of Weston as the leader of this group of forward thinking west coast photographers. This over-emphasis on Weston makes it easy to overlook and to obscure the other photographers who worked with the group despite their contributions to the practices and aesthetics of the group. Even more than the other members of the group, Cunningham often is relegated to a secondary status; she is often seen as simply following the others, perhaps “independent-minded” enough to operate as something of an entertaining addition to the characters of Group f.64, but nothing more. In writings about Group f.64, she is mentioned only when writers seem to feel compelled to point out the group’s 8 Heyman, Seeing Straight, 34. 9 Heyman, Seeing Straight, 34. 10 Heyman, Seeing Straight, 34. 11 Beaumont Newhall, “Forward,” in Seeing Straight: The f.64 Revolution in Photography, ed. Therese Thau Heyman (Oakland, California: The Oakland Museum, 1992), VIII. Marsh 6 accepting attitude toward women—as in Heyman’s section on women in the group.12 This lack of concern for Cunningham as an artist in her own right overlooks the significant fact that her work moved toward a form of straight photography prior to the creation of f.64, and thus seems somewhat independent of the influence of Weston and other members of the group.