Historically, photography in Thailand has had a tenuous relationship with discourses of fine art. This is perhaps because the presumption of the medium’s verisimilitude has positioned it as antithetical to the ‘creativity’ of artistic practice. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to view painting and photography as wholly independent from each other. As is well documented, prior to King Mongkut’s (Rama IV, r. 1851–68) decision to have his photograph taken in 1855, public images of royalty were tabooed. The significance of the temporal concurrence between the advent of photography and the popularization of portraiture in Siam cannot be overstated. In fact, while photography itself was not recognized as ‘art’, it had a determining role in the delineation of what could be considered a ‘likeness’ (or ‘realism’) in other mediums. While this function of photography was important during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, after the establishment of Thailand’s first art school, Silpakorn, in 1933, discourses of ‘fine art’ and ‘beauty’ began to influence the aesthetics of ‘artistic’ photography. Specifically, the adoption of the ‘painterly’ effect of Pictorialism within the Royal Photography Society of Thailand, functioned as a way to find a way to prove the medium’s “value as art” through the introduction of “high levels of craftsmanship” (Musikpodok, 1962). In discussing these two ways in which photography has converged with painting, this paper will shed light on the way in which both formalist notions of media specificity, and concepts of ‘realism’ have been formulated in Thailand. In particular, what can photography’s liminal position reveal about the discursive potentials and limitations of definitions of ‘art’ and its ability to represent ‘reality’ in this context?
Historically, photography in Thailand has had a tenuous relationship with discourses of fine art. This is perhaps because the presumption of the medium’s verisimilitude has positioned it as antithetical to the ‘creativity’ of artistic practice. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to view painting and photography as wholly independent from each other. As is well documented, prior to King Mongkut’s (Rama IV, r. 1851–68) decision to have his photograph taken in 1855, public images of royalty were tabooed. The significance of the temporal concurrence between the advent of photography and the popularization of portraiture in Siam cannot be overstated. In fact, while photography itself was not recognized as ‘art’, it had a determining role in the delineation of what could be considered a ‘likeness’ (or ‘realism’) in other mediums. While this function of photography was important during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, after the establishment of Thailand’s first art school, Silpakorn, in 1933, discourses of ‘fine art’ and ‘beauty’ began to influence the aesthetics of ‘artistic’ photography. Specifically, the adoption of the ‘painterly’ effect of Pictorialism within the Royal Photography Society of Thailand, functioned as a way to find a way to prove the medium’s “value as art” through the introduction of “high levels of craftsmanship” (Musikpodok, 1962). In discussing these two ways in which photography has converged with painting, this paper will shed light on the way in which both formalist notions of media specificity, and concepts of ‘realism’ have been formulated in Thailand. In particular, what can photography’s liminal position reveal about the discursive potentials and limitations of definitions of ‘art’ and its ability to represent ‘reality’ in this context?