When John Crook saw the destruction
the Ash Wednesday bushfires of February 1983 had wrought upon his Belgrave home
he broke down and cried. Caught on film by a passing news photographer his
image became one of many which documented the human cost of the conflagration.[1]
This situation was not devoid of irony as more than twenty years before Crook
had been involved with a photographic collective which had sought to raise the
medium’s standing in Australia by emphasising its capacity to document the
human elements of society. Now though, photographer had become subject.
Under the name Group M this
association espoused a philosophy of optimistic humanism, seeking to engender
social change, and foster greater connection between individuals, by acting as
a mirror to humanity. To fulfil these ends they mounted an annual photo
exhibition, Photovision,
from 1959 to 1966. Open to contributors worldwide it sought to place more
emphasis on the documentary approach to photography, rather than the technically
perfect but often thematically vacuous works which
were to be found in the salons and camera clubs of the day. As well, Group M
mounted two group exhibitions: Urban
Woman (1963) and A Time To Love (Photovision65). Although the exhibitions gained
less notice at the time than had been hoped for, Group M’s perseverance meant
that a number of these exhibitions toured Australia in the 1960s, Urban Woman going as far as Mexico for
the 1968 Olympics. Even more important, the group’s concerted lobbying of art
and archive institutions to raise the respect accorded to photography
contributed to the creation of the Photographic Department at the National
Gallery of Victoria in 1967.[2]
Thirty years on the former members
of Group M are seeking to have their work assessed for posterity and to stage a
retrospective exhibition. This thesis forms part of the project. Since the
group was never a constituted organisation the manner of its existence today is
problematical. Hence the commissioning has been undertaken by those most
involved with the retrospective, principally Albert Brown, with support from
George Bell and John Crook. Unlike some commissioned works it has been
important to Brown and his compatriots that this chronicling should be
impartial. Whilst they have provided information and support there has been no
attempt to influence the author.
The photographic historian
Anne-Marie Willis has pointed out that there have not been a surfeit of books
about Australian photography, and what there has been have been prone to fall
into the trap of seeing photography as a stand-alone medium rather than “bound
to other institutional forces which need to be examined as well.”[3]
In particular, she has highlighted the predilection of narrative studies to
concentrate on the “great man” approach, or to attempt to fit photos into a
predetermined past.[4]
Whilst remaining mindful of these pitfalls this thesis tells the story of
photographers first, photography second. This perspective has been the result
of a number of factors, not the least amongst them being my own background in
social history, not photography. A photographic theorist would undoubtedly ask
different questions of the evidence and thus present different answers. For my
part I have sought to relate and interpret the story that has been told to me;
to place Group M in the context of its social milieu, while not disregarding
its connections to photography both in Australia and overseas. Beneath all this
though I have striven to see the members as people first, rather than to define
them purely by their creative activity.
This then is the story of Group M,
its activities, philosophies and exhibitions. It is also, in part, the story of
the social network out of which it grew, the intriguingly titled Moggs Creek
Clickers. It is my contention that the principles espoused by Group M were
first formulated in the Clickers as a result of a mixture of certain
charismatic personalities with the buoyant mood of post-war Australia.
There are, as with any work of this
type, some limitations. Thirty years, while not very far into the big picture,
is still enough for memories to fade and documentary evidence to be lost. Exact
dates in particular have proved difficult for most interviewees. Where possible
I have sought external corroboration, but failing that have resorted to such
broad notations as ‘the mid-1950s’. The Ash Wednesday bushfires are implicated
again, as along with Crook’s house, they destroyed his photos, equipment,
substantial Group M memorabilia and two mounted exhibitions.[5]
Access to photographs has been another problem area since no exhibition remains
intact, and most shots exist only in negative form. Thankfully, as part of the
selection process for the retrospective, a variety of works have been
transferred to CD ROM. I realise however that what I see
is far from the total output, nor is it displayed in a medium or context
anything like it originally would have been. But historians are used to dealing
with incomplete records, indeed they tend to accept the situation as an occupational
hazard. They are therefore willing to flesh out the past from whatever skeletal
remains exist.
The principal sources for this work
have been former members of Group M who have been interviewed for their
recollections. I am well aware that memory is not the past, nor indeed history,
but rather can be the way we “provide security, authority, legitimacy and
identity in the present”.[6]
I have thus attempted to discern between opinions expressed now and those in
the past and to realise that with each participant I am dealing, to a degree,
with two people. I make no claims therefore that this is the absolute truth,
rather I present it as an amalgam of people’s recollections tested against each
other and my own historical training, then analysed in their social, temporal
and cultural context.
This is still a work about
photography and I have referred to the appropriate debates where necessary. The
group’s position in Australian and international photography has been evaluated
and analysed by an investigation of the considerable body of critique that has
been produced on documentary photography in the last twenty years, as well as
the observations of those who have been active in the Australian scene both
then and now. Many of the points I make in my discussion of the photographic
background are well-documented and references are
included as much to point the reader to a fuller discussion as to substantiate
information.
In summary, this thesis concerns
photography, but is at the same time about wider notions. In charting the
course of Group M a light is shone on a vibrant aspect of post-war Australian society which reveals a strand of Melbourne culture
otherwise consigned to the outer reaches of memory.
[2]Leading
member Albert Brown lobbied for the department’s creation and was appointed
honorary photographic consultant in 1966. See letter from NGV director Eric
Westbrook to Brown 11/11/66 located in the Group M archive held by Brown. Brown
and other members, George Bell and Harry Youlden, are
represented in the gallery’s photographic collection.
[3]Willis,
A-M., Picturing
Australia: A History of Photography(Angus & Robertson, North Ryde, 1988), p. 276.
[5]The
exhibitions were A Time to Love (Photovision 65) and Historical Photographs from the Gernsheim
Collection (Photovision 66).
[6]Hamilton,
P., “The Knife Edge: Debates about Memory and History” in Darian-Smith, K.,
& Hamilton, P., (eds) Memory and History in Twentieth Century Australia (OUP, South
Melbourne, 1994), p. 15.