Teething Troubles

The sharper-eyed among you will have noticed that a post here appeared and disappeared, and several have enquired why.

The story is simply this: I had written a little piece regretting the passing of the immensely distinguished UK photographic magazine Portfolio, whose current issue (Number 52) is to be its last. I was careful to hold my peace until the magazine arrived through the mail, when I saw that it contained printed (and therefore entirely public) announcements of its own demise. I was complimentary about the magazine and very complimentary about its editor. I was then surprised – more than surprised, to be honest; I was angry and offended – to receive a stroppy little e-mail from that same editor demanding that I withdraw the piece on the grounds that it was ‘ill-informed and ill-considered’. It was neither of those things, and nor, as the same e-mail alleged, did it contain any breach of trust. I might very well have left the piece here, to hold its perfectly legitimate ground. But I am new to this blogging game, and I don’t at all want these pages to become a forum for vituperation or calumny, so I took down the entry.

Perhaps I was wrong to take that Portfolio entry down; it certainly feels so now. But it is done. I count it a few blogger’s baby-teeth coming through.

I still very much do want informed debate to circulate, and to participate in it myself where I may, although this little episode knocked me a little. Photography in the UK is not in such great shape that we can easily afford to sit in silence while its institutions fail. No doubt I will receive plenty of stroppy e-mails in the future. From this range, so long as the ordinary human courtesies are observed, I will regard that as a price worth paying.

Meanwhile, what does everybody feel about Portfolio, the manner of its passing, and the chances of filling the gap it leaves in UK photographic publishing?

A Question of Placement

Visiting the National Portrait Gallery this weekend to see the (splendid) Thomas Lawrence exhibition, I noticed that the lay-out once again placed the micro-shop dedicated to selling the catalogues and other material in the middle of the exhibition. It is a separate space and clearly identified as such, but there is no way to see the entire exhibition without being channelled through it. Nothing wrong with museums and galleries striving to generate as much revenue as possible, and in Britain today perhaps more than elsewhere.

But the National Portrait Gallery went too far the other day. The terrific exhibition devoted to Camille Silvy, swansong of the distinguished photo-historian and curator Mark Haworth-Booth, had a shameless glass case right in the middle of the show, looking for all the world like one of the exhibits. Except that it wasn’t. It contained only samples of the material on sale in the bookshop elsewhere. This time, it wasn’t distinguished as being a specifically commercial space. On the contrary, it was camouflaged as part of the exhibition.

We can have some sympathy. The NPG must be desperate for every penny of revenue. But not that much sympathy. If the marketing and commercial people can’t see where they should back off, we have a serious problem of containment. Curators need plenty of courage to hold these commercial forces back, but hold them back they must. The Camille Silvy show was a grand demonstration of what public museums can do. But that one glass case was a disgrace. We need to notice these infringements or one day it will be too late.