Polaroid, aperture, and Ansel Adams: rethinking the industry-aesthetic divide

Buse, P

Abstract

This article takes the history of Polaroid photography as an opportunity to question a presupposition that underpins much thinking on photography: the split between industrial (ie useful) applications of photography and its fine art (ie aesthetic) manifestations. Critics as ideologically opposed as Peter Bunnell and Abigail Solomon-Godeau steadfastly maintain the existence of this separation of utility and aesthetics in photography, even if they take contrasting views on its meaning and desirability. However, Polaroid, at one time the second largest company in the photo industry, not only enjoyed close relations with those key representatives of fine art photography, Ansel Adams and the magazine Aperture, but it also intermittently asserted the ‘essentially aesthetic’ nature of its commercial and industrial activities in its own internal publications. The divide between industry and aesthetics is untenable, then, but this does not mean that the two poles were reconciled at Polaroid. While Aperture may have underplayed its commercial connections and Polaroid may have retrospectively exaggerated its own contributions to the development of fine art photography, most interesting are the contradictions and tensions that arise when the industrial and the aesthetic come together. The article draws on original research undertaken at the Polaroid Corporation archives held at the Baker Library, Harvard, as well as with the Ansel Adams correspondence with Polaroid, held at the Polaroid Collections in Concord, Massachusetts

Citation

Buse, P. (2009). Polaroid, aperture, and Ansel Adams: rethinking the industry-aesthetic divide. History of Photography, 33(4), 357-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/03087290903283593

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Publication Date: Jan 1, 2009
• Deposit Date: Nov 1, 2011
• Publicly Available Date: Apr 5, 2016
• Journal: History of Photography
• Print ISSN: 0308-7298
• Publisher: Routledge
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 33
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 357-373
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03087290903283593
• Publisher URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03087290903283593
• Additional Information: Additional Information : This is a preprint of an article whose final and definitive form has been published in the History of Photography © 2009; History of Photography is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03087290903283593