The
Perfect Medium: Photography and the Occult
by Clément
Chéroux, Andreas Fischer, Pierre
Apraxine, Denis Canguilhem and Sophie
Schmit
Yale University Press, New Haven and London,
2005
288 pp., illus. Trade, $65.00
ISBN: 0-300-11136-3.
Reviewed by Anthony Enns
Department of English
anthony-enns@uiowa.edu
The Perfect Medium is a catalogue
issued in conjunction with a special exhibition
of occult photography, which is on view
from September 27 through December 31,
2005 in the Harriette and Noel Levine
Gallery and the Howard Gilman Gallery
at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. This
exhibition was co-organized by la Maison
Européenne de la Photographie in
Paris, where it was originally held from
November 2, 2004 through February 6, 2005,
and The Perfect Medium is a revised
edition of the French catalogue Le
troisième oeil: La photographie
et locculte. The animating force
behind this project was Pierre Apraxine,
curator of the Gilman Paper Company Collection.
Over the past three decades Apraxine has
purchased over 8,500 photographs for the
collection, which was recently acquired
by the Met. The Perfect Medium
marks the end of Apraxines tenure
as curator, and it showcases some of his
last purchases.[1]
It may no longer seem necessary to question
photographys relevance as an art
form, as the Met legitimized the medium
in 1928 when it accepted images from Alfred
Stieglitz, yet this exhibition seems to
resurrect older debates about the ontological
status of the photographic image. The
spiritualists notion that the photograph
could potentially provide physical evidence
of the existence of spirits seems to echo
the claims of Walter Benjamin, Roland
Barthes, and Susan Sontag, who similarly
describes the photograph as "a trace,
something directly stenciled off the real,
like a foot print or a death mask."[2]
This idea has been rejected by more recent
critics, like John Tagg, who asserts that
there is no "ontological or semiological
basis for the privileging of photography
as a means of representation which renders
a direct transcription of the real."[3]
Tom Gunning even identifies spirit photographs
themselves as evidence of this "lack
of tangible reference."[4] Reviewers
of the exhibition tend to avoid this problem
by focusing on the more humourous aspects
of the images; The New York Times
reported, for example, that "its
the most hilarious, not to mention the
most charming, exhibition the museum has
done in years."[5] The curators address
the problem of indexicality more directly,
however, by describing it as a purely
historical variable.
The catalogue is organized into three
sections: photographs of ghosts, photographs
of fluids, and photographs of mediums.
While the images selected to represent
each of these categories often seem fraudulent,
the curators refrain from expressing opinions
regarding their legitimacy. Apraxine and
Schmit explain:
"The traditional question of whether
or not to believe in the occult will be
set aside from the outset. The authors
position is precisely that of having no
position, or, at least not in so Manichean
a form
. To transpose such Manicheanism
to photography would inevitably mean falling
into the rhetoric of proof, of truth or
lies, which has been largely discredited
in the arena of photography discourse
today." (p. 14)
In contrast to the "aesthetic approach"
or the "believers approach,"
therefore, the authors describe their
method as "resolutely historical,"
as they are primarily interested in the
anthropological value of these images
(p. 14). While some reviewers have interpreted
this stance as "po-mo ooze,"[6]
it appears to me as an exemplary attempt
to understand the context in which these
images were originally produced and received.
According to Apraxine and Schmit, such
an approach was also necessary in order
to do such a show. Schmit says, for example,
that "[i]f I hadnt considered
at least the possibility of it existing,
I dont think I would have been interested
in doing the exhibit."[7] Apraxines
attitude is similarly ambiguous: "I
believe you can see a ghost, but that
doesnt mean I believe in ghosts."[8]
As this enigmatic statement makes clear,
the relationship between belief and sight
is precisely what these photographs so
powerfully disrupt.
My only criticism of the book is that
I would have liked to see the authors
make more precise distinctions between
the various types of photographs. Rolf
Krauss argues, for example, that the photographing
of fluids marked a fundamental shift in
the spiritualists understanding
of the role of the camera,[9] and Karl
Schoonover similarly claims that spirit
photographs and ectoplasm photographs
actually represent different conceptions
of the photographic process.[10] As purely
historical texts, however, the scholarly
articles that accompany these images are
thorough and provocative, and it is a
testament to their own imaginative powers
that the authors were able to raise such
serious questions with material that is
so rarely taken seriously.
References
1. For more information, see M. Filler,
"Reflections of a Golden Eye,"
Departures Sept. 2005 <http://www.departures.com/ad/ad_0905_apraxine.html>.
2. S. Sontag, On Photography (New
York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1977)
p. 154. See also W. Benjamin, "Short
History of Photography," trans. Phil
Patton, ArtForum Vol. 15, No. 6,
46-51 (February 1977) p. 47; R. Barthes,
Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography,
trans. Richard Howard (New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux, 1981) p. 9.
3. J. Tagg, The Burden of Representation:
Essays on Photographies and Histories
(Amherst: University of Massachusetts
Press, 1998) p. 188.
4. T. Gunning, "Phantom Images and
Modern Manifestations: Spirit Photography,
Magic Theater, Trick Films, and Photographys
Uncanny," Fugitive Images: From
Photography to Video, ed. Patrice
Petro (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1995) p. 67.
5. M. Kimmelman, "Ghosts in the Lens,
Tricks in the Darkroom," The New
York Times 30 Sept. 2005 <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/arts/design/30kimm.html?ex=1132894800&en=a8cb111c88a8c57c&ei=5070>.
6. A. Stuttaford, "Ghosts in
the Machine," National Review
Online 31 Oct. 2005 <http://www.nationalreview.com/stuttaford/stuttaford200510310824.asp>.
7. R. Kennedy, "The Ghost in the
Darkroom," The New York Times
4 Sept. 2005, p. 18.
8. R. Kennedy, "The Ghost in the
Darkroom," The New York Times
4 Sept. 2005, p. 18.
9. R. Krauss, Beyond Light and Shadow:
The Role of Photography in Certain Paranormal
Phenomena: An Historical Survey, trans.
Timothy Bell and John Gledhill (Tucson:
Nazraeli Press, 1995) p. 144.
10. K. Schoonover, "Ectoplasms, Evanescence,
and Photography," Art Journal
Vol. 62, No. 3, 30-41 (Fall 2003) p. 33.