It’s always tempting to judge these old photographs by modern standards. Take this photo of William Rothenstein and son. By modern standards I would judge this to be a very successful portrait and the low angle and framing adds to the effect. However, the 1936 annual opines that it “goes considerably farther from the accepted standard, for not only are the figures seen from a viewpoint appreciably lower than usual, but they are also shown at an angle that is a departure from the normal vertical. Whether the end has justified the means or not must be left to the reader to determine.”
In contrast this pair of photographs seem quite pedestrian by modern standards and I feel sure they would receive low marks if seen in a modern camera club competition. (Not that would necessarily be a gold standard by which to judge photographs).
The photograph of this pair of boxers appears more modern in tone though obviously posed. Today you’d expect to see an action photograph of a real bout.
Arthur Kales was a relatively well known photographer and this nude would, I suggest, be very acceptable in a modern context.
“Duet” owes rather more to Victorian ideas of classicism and I doubt it would be acceptable in mainstream photography today but I could well be wrong as the line between art nude and soft porn is hard to define.
As usual I have just picked out a few favourites to fit my narrative but the 1936 edition of Photograms of the Year had its full complement of still lives, portraits, landscapes, abstract compositions and often sickly cute shots of children and animals. For some reason there was a larger than usual representation of nudes this time around and I’ve only picked out a couple to discuss here.
As with literature it is a foolish endeavour to judge by modern standards but nevertheless it is interesting to see how standards have changed.
