Norsk museum for fotografi - Preus fotomuseum is showing

The Golden Age of Norwegian Photography

Norwegian fine art photography in the 1970`s and1980`s

(printfriendly version)

Preface

In 1999, the Norwegian Association of Fine Art Photographers (NAFAP) celebrated its 25th anniversary by, among other things, publishing the book Kunst Fotografi Norge [Art Photography Norway] in which both the museum’s director Øivind Storm Bjerke and I contributed. Last year, Fotogalleriet celebrated its 25th anniversary by casting a critical look at the past and future of the gallery. No attempt was made in connection with either of these celebrations to present an exhibition of the works of the first generation of photographers, however. Norsk museum for fotografi – Preus fotomuseum has risen to this challenge and is presenting at this year’s Summer Exhibition a small selection of the more than 280 photographers whose work was shown at the Spring Exhibitions and other exhibitions during the period 1971–1989. Not all of them were members of the NAFAP, nor were they active throughout the entire period in the milieu around Fotogalleriet. Nevertheless, they all played an important part in paving the way for the current flow of photographs in established institutions.

Norsk museum for fotografi – Preus fotomuseum has called this year’s Summer Exhibition “The Golden Age of Norwegian Fine Art Photography”. This title may seem somewhat pretentious, but we want the general public to understand that the 1970s and 1980s represent a very special period in a very special environment. In his book on the history of Norwegian photography up until the 1940s, Roger Erlandsen called the twentieth century the golden age of Norwegian portrait photography. The press says modern society is a golden age for Norwegian film and pop music. And the years between 1935 and 1950 have been called the golden age of Norwegian cartoon art. The phrase “Golden Age” is one with which the public should be familiar and we use this term with a clear conscience on this occasion.

No changes follow the calendar, and for this reason an exhibition spanning the 1970s and 1980s may well seem artificial. It is our intention in presenting this exhibition, however, to highlight an environment that has developed and consolidated during this period, from Kåre Kivijärvi’s showing of a set of photographs entitled “Vandringer I-III”, as the first person ever to have photographs accepted at the annual Norwegian Art Exhibition (the 84th Autumn Exhbition) in 1971 until the Norwegian Association of Fine Art Photographers celebrated its 15th anniversary with the exhibition Z & Z at Wang Kunsthandel in 1989. The milieu around the NAFAP and Fotogalleriet was not the only one in the photography environment involved in issues relating to fine art, but it was this milieu that took upon itself to create space on the established art scene for photographers who wished to work in the field of fine art.

This exhibition comes only in part from Norsk museum for fotografi – Preus fotomuseum’s own collection, since it is precisely the recent history of Norwegian photography that is most poorly represented at the museum. We would therefore like to thank Olav Løkke and Robert Meyer for their generosity in lending us photographs from their private collections. In addition, we extend our thanks to all photographers for lending us works when we have needed them.

Hanne Holm-Johnsen

Acting Director

“The nature of the photograph is documentary,” writes Carl Nesjar in his article “Photography as a means of expression” in the catalogue produced in connection with the 92nd National Art Exhibition held in 1979. It was in this year that the jury of the annual Autumn Exhibition had invited the Norwegian Association of Fine Art Photography (NAFAP) to be guest exhibitors and a jury comprising members of the NAFAP had selected a total of 79 photographs to be shown. Nesjar himself worked with photography and had been refused by the directors of Kunstnernes Hus around 1960 when he had applied to present his photographs. These photographs were not documentary in nature; rather they were natural abstractions like his own paintings. Nesjar’s statement reflects more the contemporary view of photography as a medium than it does Carl Nesjar’s knowledge that all techniques provide specific opportunities for development. The emergence of photography on the art scene in the 1970s and its consolidation in the 1980s is just as much about exploding the boundaries of prejudice as it is about finding new arenas in which to manifest oneself.

The first half of the twentieth century provided new opportunities and arenas for photography in line with the needs of modern society. Hand in hand with the development of consumer society and the media, we see the emergence of three new types of photography: fashion photography, advertising photography and press photography. Fashion photography, which is a variation on portrait photography, culminated in the making of Michelangelo Antonioni’s film “Blow Up” in 1966. This film gave leading photographers celebrity status and hundreds of young men dreamed of becoming fashion photographers. The shift from small and simple advertisements to the huge advertising and PR industry of the present day also provided a burgeoning market for photographers. First and foremost, however, it was the radical political and social changes that culminated in the Second World War that provided a large and, over time, a very visible new group of experts: documentary and press photographers. Their arena was the pictorial magazines such as Life (1936–73), Time (1923–), Paris Match (1937–) and Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung (1892–1945), which in many ways provided the inspiration for all other magazines. Norway too saw a huge growth in the publication of illustrated magazines after the Second World War, with the magazines Aktuell (1945–74) and Nå (1952–) being among the best-known titles. These magazines used both staff photographers and selected freelance photographers and rapidly became an ethical focal point in contemporary society.

Being a freelancer had both its advantages and disadvantages. As a staff photographer in the media, one could enjoy security but it was uncommon to be credited for one’s work. In order to improve this situation, and to avoid the paperwork, photographers joined forces to form their own picture agencies. Magnum Photos, which was formed by five photographers two years after the Second World War, is the most famous of these photographer cooperatives. In Norway, the group Manité (1962–67), which consisted of Arild Kristo, Robert A. Robertsen and Dan Young, was formed in the same mould. In 1976 Samfoto was founded. If one was ambitious and skilled, one could take one’s chances and try to go it alone, but the reality was that only a handful of photographers managed to build a position for themselves in which they could decide their terms and choose their assignments, as W. Eugene Smith, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Josef Koudelka or Sebasião Salgado have done in recent times. What characterizes these post-war photojournalists is first and foremost their human social interest, as can clearly be seen in both the Manité group’s famous photographs and the projects of Kåre Kivijärvi and Sweden’s Christer Strømholm.

The increase in activity in the field of reporting and documentary photography brought with it an interest from other environments within the field of pictorial culture, but this occurred at the same time as the pictorial magazines were being closed and television was taking over. Photographers who wished to use their creative powers were forced to find new arenas and careers. The Magnum photographers, who were concerned with controlling their own form of expression, had at an early stage also begun to publish picture books, and had done so in large quantities. Of critical importance in showing the way to new arenas for exhibiting photography was the Museum of Modern Art in New York, which had been collecting photographs since 1929. In 1942, the museum had appointed Edward Steichen as head of its photography collection. Steichen, who was already a renowned photographer within the fields of fine art photography and fashion/advertising, held this position until 1962, producing a number of exhibitions that highlighted this form of photographic expression. Best known is his exhibition “The Family of Man”, which was shown at the National Museum of Decorative Art in Oslo in 1957 under the title “Alle jordens mennesker”. The importance of this exhibition in providing leverage into the art arena should not be underestimated. Here the progressive powers that be in the art world saw a new and timely form of expression. First and foremost, however, the photographers saw a potential new arena.

In Norway too, the photographic milieus and the traditional world of art led parallel lives with limited interaction. The frequent exhibitions held in the many camera clubs, both nationally and internationally, together with exhibitions arranged by professional photographers, such as the one held at Oslo Municipal Museum in 1969 with Bjørn Winsnes as curator, largely seem to have found limited interest in their own fora. Interaction was limited to individual friendships, such as that between Kjell Sten Tollefsen and Gunnar S. Gundersen and several pictorial artists who also work with photography, such as Carl Nesjar. But exhibitions such as the one presenting the work of Kjell Sten Tollefsen, Bjørn Winsnes and Ivar Øiesvold at Galleri KB in 1956, all of whom were aesthetic photographers rather than photojournalists, were a rare event. And Carl Nesjar’s own photographs were also refused at Kunstnernes Hus. It would appear that the political climate in the 1960s and 1970s was more inclined to allow documentary and press photography, which many people considered to be the genuine photographic expression, rather than photography produced with a more traditional artistic intention. European and American trends manifested themselves in Norway too. The work of “ZAD Group of Young Photo-journalists” (Kåre Kivjärvi, Jürgen Heinmann and Claus-Peter Fischer) was shown at Oslo Kunstforening in 1960, and the first presentations of photography at Kunstnernes Hus were 1963 exhibition by the Norwegian Association of Press Photographers and the Universal Exhibition of Photography in 1965.

At the 84th National Art Exhibition in 1971, the first time ever that photography had been accepted, it was hardly surprising that the photographer was Kåre Kivijärvi. Exhibit nos. 116 to 118 in the catalogue were called ”Vandringer I–III”, and it is supposedly thanks to Gunnar S. Gundersen that these photographs had been included. The helplessness of the art world in respect of photography is clearly evident in the fact that Kivijärvi’s photographs are listed under “Paintings” in the catalogue and no information is given about techniques or measurements as has been done for all the other contributions. Nor has the Autumn Exhibition’s archive stored any documentation of this historic event, and it has therefore been difficult to identify these photographs. In all likelihood “Vandringer” was comprised of three of the photographs shown at Kivijärvi’s exhibition at the Finnish Design Center in Helsinki in 1962. One of the motives correspond with the image “Fra Vandringer” (1961/1991) in the museum’s collection.

Among those photographers who were members of the NAFAP from the very outset, several of them were involved in documentary photography: Kåre Kivijärvi, Knut Evensen, Robert Meyer and Arnt Sneve. Robert Meyer had his background from Christer Strömholm’s School of Photography, which had been established in 1962 in connection with courses arranged at the University of Stockholm. The objective of the school, which remained open until 1974, was to “provide basic training in photography and imagery, and a professional education in reporting and advertising” (School regulations 1970–71). Over time, more photographers emerged with the same background, including Tom Martinsen, Leif Gabrielsen, Ann Christine Eek and Halvard Kjærvik and Espen Tveit.

The group found interesting allies in other environments, some of whom were self-taught (Bjørn Falch Andersen, Alf Edgar, Solveig Greve, Jens Hauge, Bjørn Høgrann, Morten Løberg and Johan Sandborg) and some were professional photographers who had trained as apprentice or at Sogn Technical College (Børge Kalvig, Morten Krogvold, Herdis Maria Siegert and Bjørn Winsnes). Others had an artistic background (Henny Lie, Siggen Stinessen and Guri Dahl), while another group had received their training abroad at schools such as Trent Polytechnic in Nottingham or Bournemouth and Pool College of Art (Dag Alveng, Per Berntsen, Morten Haug, Øistein Klakegg, Helene Levand, Thera Mjaaland, Tom Sandberg and Arne Walderhaug). Several had started out in different camera clubs. In addition, several immigrants (Dan Young, Jim Bengston, Jamie Parslow, Karoly Buday and Jiri Havran) have helped provide the group with new insight, all of them with different educational backgrounds. This “multicultural” environment, full of conflicts and divergent interests, is essentially far more interesting as a breeding ground for pluralism than as an arena for personal conflicts. It is clear that by using the term “Fine Art Photography” one wished to carry out one’s activities in isolation from commissions and bookings, i.e. in a completely different setting to that of professional photographers and far removed from the contexts one had hitherto known. And it has also been said: “We use the word ‘free’ in our Norwegian title to distance ourselves from professional photographers, their professional problems, their organizations, and the associations one has to photography in the craft tradition.” (Knut Evensen, dated May/June 1974).

The creation of a professional organisation and a gallery represented the first important steps along the way to manifesting the group and in giving traditional artists and the general public a greater opportunity of seeing photography in other ways than in the press. As early as 1967, Jarle Strømme had founded a gallery at the National College of Art and Design, but the gallery was not a permanent feature. In 1971, Meyer and Imre Hancz opened a gallery called Fri Fotografi, but it hardly existed for more than a month. So, when Fotogalleriet opened in 1977, it became an important establishment for presenting art. One year earlier, Preus fotomuseum had opened its doors in Horten, and despite the fact that the museum’s primary focus was on technical developments, it also served as an important place for exhibiting photography outside Oslo. As regards position and opportunities within the established art world, however, exhibitions in established art institutions in the largest cities in Norway and, first and foremost, the cooperation initiated with the Henie-Onstad Kunstsenter in 1968 proved to be of great importance. As the only internationally oriented location for exhibiting contemporary art in Norway, it was only natural that the Henie-Onstad Kunstsenter also included photography. “Personally, I consider the best photographs to be art because the mechanical process never takes away from the photographer his interpretive ability”, said Ole Henrik Moe, director of the Henie-Onstad Kunstsenter, in an interview with Tore Holter in 1979 (“Photography – a catalyst in pictorial art” in Fotoforum no. 1/1979, p. 50).

In the current situation, it is difficult to understand the crass reactions to juries’ selection processes and the work of curators. Today, we take it for granted that a curator will produce a thought-provoking exhibition. Indeed, in some cases the exhibition’s curator appears to be more important than the participating artists, but in the 1970s and in the initial years of the NAFAP democratic principles applied. Everyone was to be allowed to show their pictures and membership of the NAFAP guaranteed that their pictures were good. Still, it is possible to trace developments during the period under consideration. “Z & Z”, the 15th anniversary exhibition, which was presented at Wang Kunsthandel in 1989, had been put together by Olav Løkke and was chiefly based on his own private collection. Even though Olav Løkke was one of the founders of Fotogalleriet, he was neither a photographer nor a member of the NAFAP.

One means of presenting art and highly important fora for discussion were the periodicals Nye Foto (1976–77) published by Vidar Askland, Fotoforum (1979–1982), which was published by Preus Fotomuseum, and Prisma-Nytt (1982–88), published by the Henie-Onstad Kunstsenter. Here photographers and their pictures were presented and important exhibitions were critiqued. Perhaps most important of all were the discussions, since they provide us with valuable insight into the different positions held by various parties. These publications supplemented each other and, more importantly, the sporadic information provided by the press and other professional journals.

When Knut Evensen wrote in the first edition of the periodical Fotoforum in 1979: “For too many years now the relatively technical nature of the medium of photography has contributed to the recruitment of individuals to its ranks with more technical than artistic abilities. This trend is beginning to change, however, as talented artists find themselves increasingly attracted to the unlimited potential of photography in respect of visual documentation, commentary, interpretation and poetry…” (“Rådville budbringere” [Bewildered messengers], Fotoforum no. 1/1979, p. 53), this reflected the general attitude to photography and the attempts of these photographers to redefine themselves. Knut Evensen, the first leader of the NAFAP, looked back on 140 years of scepticism to photography as an artistic medium and a five-year struggle to find a place in the Norwegian art world. Per Hovdenakk, who was, among other things, the editor of the Henie-Onstad Art Center’s journal Prisma-Nytt, filled numerous pages with discussion and information on photography: “Can photography be art? Of course it can. Technical methods have never limited artistic development, and photography is one method of producing images just as in any other graphical technique, or as in drawing and painting. [...] Any quality that (possibly) makes a photograph a ‘work of art’ will not be found in the motif (‘external reality’), but in the photographer’s relationship with it – manifested in his or her choice of motif, and in how he or she processes it using the camera and in the darkroom during the copying process.” (No. 3/1983, p. 5)

“Technique vs. creative independence” has been, and continues to be, a topic of discussion that regularly rears its head when we speak of art and photography. We meet a great deal of scepticism, and even rejection, from most art historians and critics with regard to photography as a contemporary form of expression – and in some cases we still meet scepticism today. Leif Østby, chief curator of the National Gallery from 1949 to 1973, wrote in his book Fra naturalisme til nyromantikk [From naturalism to neo-romanticism], Oslo 1934: ”It is inconceivable that a brilliant and personal realistic art form will ever be rendered redundant by photography […] What we expect from art is not reality but the artistic essence of reality.” Knut Berg, director of the National Gallery, played a key role, however, in both planning the organisation of national efforts to preserve photographs and in the task of establishing a Norwegian museum of photography. Bergs unwillingness to collect photographs at the National Gallery was because of the gallery’s precarious lack of space.

Erik Egeland, one of the most established art critics during this period, wrote in the Norwegian daily Aftenposten on 27 October 1981 about the exhibition by the rejected photographers at the Vigeland Museum: “I belong to that group of people who feel that the technical nature of photography holds such a dominant position that it foreshadows the human aspect.” The lack of interest in photography as a means of artistic expression meant that even well into the 1980s it was largely the photographers themselves who stepped in as critics when it came to exhibitions of photography mentioned in the newspapers. These included Knut Evensen and Morten Løberg and Ann Christine Eek in Dagbladet; Kåre Kivijärvi for a brief period in VG; Morten Løberg, Terje Gustavsen, Robert Meyer and Ann Christine Eek in Aftenposten; Gro Jarto in Morgenbladet; and Dag Alveng, Per Torgersen, Arnt Sneve and Randi Solheim in Arbeiderbladet.

As mentioned above, photographers in the 1960s often worked within the category “documentary photography”. Their pictures were often printed with high contast and they had a visible edge to signalise that the motif had not been cut. Other photographers, such as Nesjar and Tollefsen, worked with different forms of abstraction. In some cases, details had become so alienated that they only resembled shapes or tactile contrasts. In other cases, the motif was treated to remove the greytones completely. This technique, which is called photographics, can resemble woodcuts or linoleum-cuts and was often preferred by people who wished to remove from their pictures the so-called photographic expression.

In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a shift towards a more pluralistic expression. Given the increasing number of photographers with more varied backgrounds, it was only natural that we witnessed a new choice of tools and content. At the same time, we see that individuals from the same educational establishment can have entirely different ambitions and orientations. In the case of some expressions, it may to a greater degree be correct to seek the influences in other techniques than in contemporary photography. We can clearly see impulses that have gone both ways: from graphics to photography and back again. Nevertheless, photographers who work with older processes or who experiment with expressions that are reminiscent of graphics are in a minority.

The vast majority worked with direct photography, although within this group we see major differences. One small group, primarily consisting of female photographers, staged or photographed motifs that communicated human feelings or relations, while the largest group by far works within an American tradition whether it be influenced by Minor White, Ansel Adams, Ralph Gibson or the new topographical orientation. Up until the end of the 1970s, photographs were largely black and white. Colour photography was the domain of advertising and fashion photography. As far as fine art photography was concerned, colours were virtually taboo. Use of colour slowly emerged around 1970 through a number of new colour processes such as Cibachrome/Ilfochrome (1964) and Polaroid SX-70 (1972), but only really became accepted after the Museum of Modern Arts presented William Eggleston’s dye-transfer photographs in 1976 and through the ”New Color” exhibitions and books by Sally Eauclaire.

The end of the 1980s saw the debut of several photographers whose works have been included in this year’s Summer Exhibition because their pictures clearly represent new forms of expression and point towards the 1990s. These photographers include Per Maning, Fin Serck-Hanssen, Lill-Ann Chepstow-Lusty, Ole John Aandal and Mikkel McAlinden.

In the earlier mentioned article ”Can photography be art?” in Prisma-Nytt no. 3/1983, Per Hovdenakk writes: “Norwegian photography is still at an early stage, and it will be very exciting to see what the future has in store. For example, it will be interesting to see how (and if) the current generation of photographers will embrace the strong tradition of landscape photography that characterized Norwegian photography at turn of the twentieth century. There is much to suggest that it is precisely this openness to impulses from outside that will contribute to creating a greater regional identity among some photographers.” This was written at the same time as a new landscape photography movement emerged. And it was precisely this new brand of landscape photography that became one of the most pronounced and distinguishable emerging movements in Norwegian art in the 1980s.

Hanne Holm-Johnsen





Exhibition archive

To the top