An exhibition at the Saatchi Gallery in London took my fancy, principally because of the title, although the American ‘Civilization’ has been chosen over the proper ‘Civilisation’, possibly so that it is not confused with Kenneth Clark’s seminal TV series from the late 60’s that so defined the meaning of the word in youthful minds of that time, and possibly not.  For whatever reason Civilization, like its almost namesake, suggests the type of huge subject that, given our familiarity with absorbing the nuances of the world through the moving image, makes the prospect of capturing it in still photography a challenge that is worth understanding if, and if so how, it succeeds.
 
For the detail of curators and exhibitors and all else that is required to attend, this is the link.

Go soon, for it ends in mid-September.
 

What I quickly found to be important was the thoughtfully written texts that accompany the imagery, and so they are included here alongside the one image that for me, best captures an Idea that properly tests these introductory theses. Interspersed you will find a few observations that occurred to me as I wandered through the show, principally about photography as a medium to elucidate Ideas as well as Kenneth Clark.

Candid shots in bedrooms rooms aren’t truly candid; there is a photographer, cameras, lights and the whole paraphernalia in there too. The candid photograph mostly seeks to speak of privilege, either with it or without it, but the inevitable pose brings with it a collusion, a liaison between the subject and the photographer that exaggerates the condition beyond belief.
 
Similarly, in a crowd or in a one to one context, the oft-put suggestion that the photographer can stand around for a while until they become unnoticed is hard to believe, and certainly spoilt by the one person looking straight at the camera, and by the fact that not one other person is looking in the photographer's general direction. 

My selection from Alone Together has a wider Idea, the human crowd being a force that is more than the sum of its parts.

Flow, which implies movement, in a still image. There are well-known photographic tricks to represent this, happily mostly avoided by the curators as they are technical and limited, and they are not an Idea.

However, the exhibition is awash with aerial photography, so often an exercise in pattern making. The photographer's delight in the drone is understood - being a newish technical opportunity to capture angles previously unseen - but are these images telling us more than an alternative geometry?

How refreshing are the views of the trucks from the bridge, where an Idea underlies the simple imagery.

Cleverness, Wit, Thoughtfulness.

And then there is the photographer's joy in the possibility of image manipulation brought by the digital medium. This turns the intent to capture the nuances of civilization into the photographer’s adjustment, or at best interpretation, of the facts.

Manipulation in photography seems firstly to be artistic rather than intellectual, forcing colour, using collage, highlighting where no highlights exist in the visual or social context, an enhancement of the visual and a demotion of the actual.  In this exhibition the subject is fundamentally documentary, and I want to be able to benefit from the photographer’s opinion/observation to enrich my own. Changing the captured situation to effect a better image does not fit with this, in fact, it distracts my interest in the original subject, failing to allow me to form an opinion due to the evident untruth in what I see.

My selections from the Rupture rooms represent manipulation as layering, in production and in subject.

The absence of Idea behind the images of Next is woeful - the prospect of photography capturing Next is already a non sequitur, making the need to exhibit an Idea fundamental. 

The majority of Next images are technically crafted shots of things that already exist - my selection is because I'm not certain that it yet does.

It is likely that the frequent absence of a relevant Idea is a matter of curatorial prudence, inevitably the technical/visual quality of the image is the paramount attraction.  I also imagine, although cannot confirm, that throughout the exhibition the curators are selecting images to suit the introductory theses, rather than this being the result of a collection of photographers having been commissioned to interpret the titles.

To my mind that doesn’t make the need to present a developed Idea any less important than technical prowess, art and pattern making which, in an exhibition that seeks to observe and interpret the nuances of our Civilisation, are simply not enough.