Ara Güler’s Leica archive exhibition opens in Istanbul

By Daniel Okafor

The Ara Güler Museum in Istanbul has opened its 13th exhibition, “Ara Güler – Master of Leica,” which remains open through 18 April 2027 in the Bomontiada Complex. The Ara Güler Archive and Research Center (AGAVAM) organized it, with content contributions from Leica Camera AG, across four galleries.

What does “Master of Leica” document?

At the centre sits a documented relationship with Leica: in 1962, Leica magazine announced Güler as a “Master of Leica.” The magazine published the announcement and devoted several pages to Güler, placing the title in the contemporary record rather than in a later retrospective label.

“This award has been bestowed on only 15 photographers so far, and Ara Güler is the only person from Türkiye to receive it,” said Çağla Saraç, art adviser and director of AGAVAM. Güler entered the Leica Hall of Fame in 2015.

Those dates place Güler within a selective institutional lineage. They do not tell the whole story. The show’s wider claim concerns how equipment, working methods and international connections shaped his photographs. That is a stronger proposition, and a harder one to verify.

What do the four galleries contain?

Saraç said each gallery tells its own story while the exhibition moves chronologically through different periods and themes, helping visitors understand his perspective and working methods. One gallery devotes itself entirely to colour photographs; another brings together the much-loved black-and-white images of Istanbul and Anatolia.

The sequence resembles a magazine spread rather than a single wall of prints: photographs share the account with cameras Güler purchased, notes he kept about the equipment and personal correspondence. Saraç said the correspondence has drawn particular visitor attention.

The magazine link predates the exhibition’s opening marker. Saraç said Güler began corresponding with Leica magazine in the 1950s, while the material documented here reaches back to 1961.

“These are letters written in Ara Güler’s own words and in his own handwriting, including exchanges with editors abroad. I believe all of these are very valuable for the history of photography,” Saraç said. With that material, the show becomes more than a display of celebrated images; it studies how an archive forms around a working career.

Why does the museum keep changing its exhibitions?

AGAVAM prefers to renew exhibitions regularly rather than maintain a permanent display because its archive contains enough material to sustain that approach. The current show follows an exhibition focused on Güler’s photographs at the Cannes Film Festival, and work on the Leica project began after that exhibition closed.

Saraç said Güler followed and photographed Cannes for many years, and that his pictures enabled Türkiye to follow the festival through his visual record. The institution also believed many visitors missed his iconic work, particularly the classic black-and-white photographs of Istanbul and Anatolia.

That reasoning gives the new show a clear purpose: revisit familiar images while adding a different strand through Leica magazine, the company and the photographer’s equipment choices. It is curatorial intent, not proof that the rotation has increased attendance or broadened the audience; the source provides no audience data.

What can the cameras establish?

Saraç said widespread international use of Leica cameras by leading photographers influenced Güler’s preference. He acquired his first Leica at an early stage, then continued using, replacing and purchasing different cameras throughout his life. The exhibition therefore follows both his images and the equipment behind them.

The cameras are working evidence. Güler used, replaced and recorded them in notes over decades, giving the exhibition a material trail around a practice built on publication, correspondence and sustained photographic work. The equipment matters only because it serves the pictures and their history.

That evidence has limits. The source names no specific camera models, gives no inventory of cameras or equipment notes, and does not identify a separate curator. “Journey” therefore describes a broad relationship rather than a fully itemized technical chronology.

How strong is the curatorial claim?

Saraç calls the selection very rich and the photographs beautiful. Those are curatorial judgments rather than independent assessments, and the report offers no print count, dimensions, individual image dates or conservation details against which readers can test that breadth.

That claim remains untested. Still, the exhibition has a coherent evidentiary spine: published magazine pages, handwritten exchanges, equipment notes and cameras held together by four chronological galleries. The Leica relationship becomes the connective structure, not a substitute for looking at the work itself.

The central caveat is simple. The awards establish recognition, the documents establish contact, and the images establish the career’s visible results; none alone explains Güler’s working perspective. That argument has to be made by visitors in the galleries.

Where does the archive go next?

AGAVAM says its regular programme will continue bringing more material from Güler’s extensive archive to visitors, while rotating displays keep any single exhibition from becoming the whole account. The next exhibition is not announced, but the stated method points toward continued public access to an archive kept in motion.