MOMA influence on photography trends

MOMA in New York has been considered by some to be the authority on which

photographers get into the history books.

Was this ever true? Did Steichen and Szarkowski define and canonize the

immortals (at least in the U.S.)?

MOMA is influential in one country and perhaps only for a small part of its citizenry

and as a modern art gallery in but one city of that country. And the other major

modern art galleries in the US, or in some 200 other countries? In that context, and

with all due respect for a fine art museum, I think the history books will have other

sources.

I agree with Arthur, but on the other hand contemporary art and photography is happening

more and more on a global worldwide scale and here MOMA plays its very active role together

with a few tens of other major institutional actors, mainly due to their economic might. The

falling value of the dollar might change the balance of power also here.

Depending on how far back you want to go it would be Stieglitz who did the laying on of

hands. As to the MOMA I pretty much agree with Arthur.

Museums and galleries are rear view mirrors, they don't set "trends" except among sheep. Szarkowski herded sheep.

Magnum is nothing like a museum, it's a marketing organization that's owned by and serves its members, all highly accomplished photojournalists... who are invited to join by the acclaim of the group.

MoMA, for better or worse, has had a huge influence on photography, and it's not just Szarkowski. MoMA was the first museum to aggressively collect photography as part of its permanent collection. Beaumont Newhall, whose _History of Photography_, outdated as it may be, is STILL in print, had a long career at MoMA before Sazrkowski, as did his wife, who edited Weston's _Daybooks_ (also still in print).

I also think Stieglitz's role is more complex. Photographers like Steichen and Weston went to HIM in the first three decades of the 20th century seeking something (guidance? recognition? a one-person gallery show?), and he was willing to talk to anyone. There's a great anecdote in Weston's _Daybooks_ where Paul Strand (another Stieglitz protege)disses Weston's very early work, and Stieglitz sticks up for Weston.

The landscape has changed enormously. There are so many collections now that no single institution has the clout that MoMA had 50 years ago.

With the proliferation of museum collections, galleries, print media, the web and the unending river of new photography books, is it even possible to talk about photographic trends today or has the discussion become the likes/dislikes of specific photo editors and media events (e.g. Chinese photography)in key cities?

What/who determines that the Bechers are important to photographic history (or not)?

I mostly agree with you, Jon.

However, historic relevance is determined by non-photographers: irrelevant bystanders. Curators, critics, publishers.

"Trend" is an exhausted concept for all the "proliferation" reasons you mention.