By John Camp
There's a high-end art bookstore in Santa Monica that, whenever I'm passing through Santa Monica, I can't stay out of. I tell my friend, "Just a couple of minutes." I'm gone for an hour and it feels like a couple of minutes. Anyway, there's one whole wall of painting monographs, and another partial wall devoted to photography—and these are big walls. So I was in today, browsing the painting, and I found a bunch of books by Gregory Crewdson and another bunch by Jeff Wall amongst the painting books.
When I was paying for my purchases, I said to the guy behind the counter, "I don't know if you care, but there are a bunch of photography books in on the painting shelves."
He asked, "Really? Which ones?"
"A bunch by Gregory Crewdson and another bunch by Jeff Wall."
"Oh, we know that," he said. "A number of people have pointed it out—but we made a conscious decision to include them among the artists, rather than the photographers. I can't really explain why...."
I blurted out, "Oh, I think I know."
He said, "Yeah, there you are. We're talking about moving Cindy Sherman over there."
I said, "Mmm, I don't know about Cindy. She photographs about photographs, if you know what I mean."
He said, "Yeah, we're still thinking about it."
Walking down the street with my two tons of books, I started thinking more about the conversation. Are most art photographers "photographers" but not "artists?" Why is it so easy to put Crewdson and Wall in with the painters? Why do I so easily accept that, but not Cindy Sherman? Is the essence of photography sharply different than the essence of painting? Should some painting books be placed in the photography section? Will Ctein ever shave? Will the Packers beat the Vikings again?
John
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Slobodan Blagojevic: "For me, there is a profound difference between artists who just happen to be using photography as a medium, and photographers trying to create art."
Featured Comment by Michel Hardy-Vallée: "Here's the kind of questions that warrant (and must suffer from its deflating dryness) an academic response. I recommend heartily the book Photography Theory
Here's the Google Books link. And here's James Elkins' own page on the series.
"In Photography Theory, there's an interesting section called 'Jeff Wall as a Painter' (not written by Elkins, but I don't have the table of contents with me) which argues for exactly what your bookstore did, in other words that Jeff Wall is a painter using the materials of photography.
"It's the kind of argument that sound like an absurdist version of making one point clear (cf. Jorge Luis Borges' short story 'Pierre Ménard'), but the important point here is that we should not think of medium as strictly material. An artistic medium is a set of conventions, a set of codes and methods of production and appreciation, that is supported by an actual, material (or 'vehicular') medium. Just like you can make a drawing out of dry noodles when you're a kid.
"That kind of distinction was mostly championed by Joseph Margolis, currently at Temple University in 'Art and Philosophy' (Humanities Press, 1980), and taken up recently in a more elaborated form by David Davies from McGill University in Art as Performance (Blackwell, 2004)."
Featured Comment by Clay Olmstead: "Since the painting books have photographs of paintings, they're all essentially photography books. What you get is the experience of looking at a photograph of a painting, which can be very different from standing in front of the original."
Featured Comment by Kalli: "After a long time thinking my local library had a very meagre selection of photography books I finally struck gold. I was going to borrow Gerry Johansson's Sverige again but somehow got him mixed up with Lars Tunbjörk. That's how I found out the library had two books by Tunbjörk, Country Beside Itself and I Love Borås, neither of which was kept in the photography section. The former was filed under biography and the latter under geography. All the while Johansson's Sverige was filed under photography.
"Being absolutely baffled, and probably a bit annoyed, I asked the librarian why things were done this way. The funniest part of her explanation was that Johansson's book contained more technical photography than Tunbjörk's books. Johansson's book is, in my view, more 'geographical' than Tunbjörk's books, which, to those unfamiliar, might be crudely described at somewhat Martin Parr-esque street/documentary works. I might have somewhat understood it if they had been filed under sociology, but geography and biography?
"The problem seems to be on the mend now, though, with a shelf in one corner of the library nearly dominated by books on photography. Haven't seen Johansson's Sverige there, though. His 'technical' photos must have consigned his book to lie among the how-to books."
Mike replies: I know what you mean, Kalli. In both bookstores and libraries I've come across what I would consider photography books imaginatively filed. I'm surprised no one has mentioned in response to John's post that the salient feature for a bookstore to consider is not really how the clerks think of the artists, but where the customer is most likely to go look for the books. Of course, I would not look for Szarkowski's The Idea of Louis Sullivan under "Architecture," and yet I can acknowledge that that's probably where it belongs. But Lee Friedlander Photographs Frederick Law Olmstead Landscapes in "Gardening"? No.
Since you asked, the answer to that last question is yes, every time from now on, forever.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 09:26 AM
It feels like that entire conversation should be in a Christoper Guest or Wes Anderson movie.
Posted by: Arthur | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 09:35 AM
In the past sixteen years, the Packers lead the Vikings 17 to 15 games. As a Green Bay resident, I had to look that up and call you on it.
Posted by: Alex of the North | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 09:38 AM
I can answer one: Ctein won't shave, but his beard may be plucked by a flock of rabid psittacines.
Posted by: KeithB | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 10:05 AM
I think that the reason this nearly 150 year old question, "Is photography art," continues to be asked is that unfortunately photography has an traditional and established analogue--painting. What underlies this argument is the idea that photography may simply be mechanized painting, an imitation of real "art."
If you think of photography as a separate and distinct means of expression that stands on its own merits, then this argument largely goes away I think.
Posted by: Edd Fuller | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 10:11 AM
is there a Higgs boson?
Posted by: Dennis Allshouse | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 10:15 AM
"Will Ctein ever shave?"
I don't know about you, John, but I'm not that eager to find out what's hiding under that beard. ;-)
Posted by: Gordon Lewis | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 10:15 AM
Very interesting observation. I have been thinking of this concept for a while. There are photographers who take pictures of things and photographers who are less concerned with the "reality" of what they point their camera at, and a whole spectrum in between. Of course the same could be said for painters. Maybe someone like Robert Bateman (http://www.robertbateman.ca) should be classed as a photographer...
Posted by: Alan | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 10:22 AM
This is just silly -- a category mistake, as they used to say. Photography is a medium that can be used to create all sorts of works. Art is -- I'm not going there, but in any case art is not any one medium.
Being a masochist, I would be mildly curious as to why pomos count as artists but others don't. Is it a matter of posing the pictures? Where do they shelve Jerry Uelsmann? Where do they shelve the pictorialists? How about Karsh or Avedon?
But really, the bottom line has to be that if the store is that good, I'd be happy to shop there regardless of their shelving eccentricities. (If I had the money to shop in Santa Monica at all.)
Posted by: Andrew Burday | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 10:26 AM
The Packers had better beat the Vikings again... that part I can comment on. :-)
Posted by: Jason Titus | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 10:27 AM
Perhaps the reason that Gregory Crewdson's books fit-in so well with books about paintings is that his approach is fundamentally similar?
Rather than start with a complete, existing scene, and crop away bits of it to reveal the essential image as most photographers do, he instead starts with a blank "canvas" and creates his images from scratch, as most painters do.
Ultimately, the only significant difference between one of his photographs and a painting is that he used a camera instead of a paintbrush...
Posted by: Jeffrey Goggin | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 10:35 AM
Where would Thomas Demand fall?
Posted by: jeff hartge | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 10:39 AM
And where would you put Chuck Close? I think I'd put his painting books in the Photography section and his photography books in the Painting section. ;-)
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 10:41 AM
Is that Hennessy + Ingalls?
Posted by: Martha Benedict | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 10:51 AM
For me, there is a profound difference between artists who just happen to be using photography as a medium, and photographers trying to create art.
Posted by: Slobodan Blagojevic | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 10:52 AM
This website has been the most expensive reading I have ever done. Since joining this blog I have bought 2 Pentaxes (Pentaces?) plus a pancake lens and, of course, the 35mm f/2.8 Limited. I have a small shelf of recommended books that I have only learned of here. All from Mike's recommendations.
I know how to use Camera raw better and how to sharpen more effectively. All good things.
Now that f***ing John Camp comes along willy-nilly and recommends two books that I took one look at and had to get. I am going to be a very happy broke person when I'm done with this list.
Now, back to Virgil and the religious freaks.
Posted by: Jim Weekes | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 11:39 AM
Dear John,
Reminds me of a situation back in the 70's (and also relates to Mike's recent posts). City Lights Books in San Francisco insisted on filing the books of my pretty-well-known-poet friend, Wendy Rose, under "Native American" ethnography instead of with the, ummm, real poets.
pax / the-artist-formerly-known...
Posted by: ctein | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 11:43 AM
Gordon Lewis: I don't know about you, John, but I'm not that eager to find out what's hiding under that beard.
"Two Owls and a Hen, Four Larks and a Wren"?
Posted by: Ed Gaillard | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 11:49 AM
One dimension of this is that the basic material of painting has no meaning by itself and anything goes right/wrong the artists is totally to be appreciated/blamed. Closer to these kind of constructive arts, these photograph-art using a construction approach to "build" photography is like painting. Both are additive process controlled by the artist.
The basic material of most photos taken by us are different. They are from reality and got meaning by reduction (cutting, zooming, transforming by zone mapping / color mapping ...). The photographic material itself is part of the reality and got meaning by itself. The photographer has less control. It is a different kind of art.
A related dimension is effort. No doubt to be there and F8 take a bit of effort. But it is harder to know whether a picture is an artistic construction or just a random cutting of the real world (i.e. snapshotting) that just happen to be some meaning to someone. It might be just be luck ...
May be it is a man sleeping next to a bread just snap-shoted or may be it is an artists moment of a photographer deliberately trying not to be get pigeon-holed into any category. May be it is a robot who keep on taking photo of flowing water in Victoria Fall to help its "artists" thousand miles away to find an "art" or may be it is Ctein who takes his pictures and said that it is... whatever.
Who knows. One know, however, for those constructive-approach- photographer, it takes a lot of effort to put up these "art". Hence, not just in kind they might be a different art but effort wise one can be sure this is NOT a lucky snapshot. Not that snapshot is not art. Just that we are not sure and at least it belongs to another category! Those constructive photos showed efforts and in many cases showing something normal photographer cannot possibly produce. Being different at least.
Of course, one can paint using very large inkjet paint of snapshot. But other than spending large amount of money, it is NOT artistic effort. At least you cannot easily be 100% sure. Hence, the deductive type of art creation is at a disadvantage. It is much harder to stand out from the photographer point of view. It is much harder for the "reader" to be sure as well.
As regards whether any one is art, who knows. What is art anyway. But if one has to separate I guess those category seems make sense. A lot indeed.
Posted by: Dennis Ng | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 12:05 PM
A painter who happens to use a camera? Is Saul Leiter too obvious?
Posted by: Neill Brower | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 12:17 PM
hamburger at fred segal's says it's arcana. bill pierce likes it, too.
Posted by: aizan | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 12:33 PM
"the idea that photography may simply be mechanized painting, an imitation of real 'art.'" - Edd Fuller
"Ultimately, the only significant difference between one of his photographs and a painting is that he used a camera instead of a paintbrush..." - Jeffrey Goggin
This is very amusing. Is this not more or less the same reason given to explain both why and why not?
My simplistic and cynical take is that Wall and Crewdson consciously make stuff for gallery display, while Cindy Sherman makes stuff for books and studies.
Perhaps its more descriptive to say, as others have, that, using different approaches and similar methods, Wall and Crewdson produce things that are easy for people to identify as traditional art, while Sherman produces things that by intention look to most people like snapshots or commercial photographs.
And I suppose that part of what I'm saying is that modern artists consciously play with people's expectations about "photography vs art." Not saying there's anything wrong or right with any of this, btw.
But Wall and Crewdson are easy. I'd be more curious about where the store puts Eggleston or Shore or Arbus or Dan Winters (does he go on the Graphic Design shelf?), and whether black and white automatically relegates one to the photography shelf.
Posted by: robert e | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 12:45 PM
Hennessey + Ingalls, Santa Monica.
There IS a heaven.
Posted by: Rob Atkins | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 12:49 PM
My photos are art, but nobody'd ever put them with the paintings.
I like this line of inquiry very much.
Posted by: Ben Rosengart | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 01:05 PM
1. Painters use paint.
2. Photographers use cameras.
Posted by: Frank Nachtman | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 01:59 PM
This makes me think of a (maybe) related issue, a project for me eventually, that I have thought about for years. The pictures that I take are of things that I see that I think are interesting, while walking or driving around. (I also shoot some motorsport but that's different.) But given a blank background in a studio, say, would I be able to construct a visually appealing scene by creatively assembling props/objects (or things, I don't know what)?
Years ago, I saw a photograph on a micro-stock site, of all places, of a bunch of open books, placed over top of one another and the shot was taken at table level, and the open books looked like colourful waves of paper. I remember thinking to myself, would I ever have thought of doing that.
This post made me think of that because I always hear it said that painters put stuff in, while photographers take stuff out (of a scene). Can photographers put stuff in too? Is that a different activity, somehow?
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 02:10 PM
Paul Graham had some interesting things to say about this problem. Here is the link to his "Unreasonable Apple" article:
http://www.paulgrahamarchive.com/writings_by.html
I also like his "Photography is easy, photography is difficult" article on the same page.
Posted by: Paul C. | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 03:08 PM
"Are most art photographers "photographers" but not "artists?" Why is it so easy to put Crewdson and Wall in with the painters?"
Good topic, John.
Having met Greg Crewdson, and having good familiarity with Jeff Wall's work I can assure you that they would probably greatly prefer being with painters. (Jeff Wall actually was a painter and art historian.) I actually consider Greg Crewdson more of a set designer. The over-produced scenes for which he's famous are every bit the same efforts as a movie set design.
And, Mike, Chuck Close definitely want to be, and should be, considered as an artist rather than a photographer. He was here recently for a talk and his audience was overwhelmingly art students, not snappers.
Slobodan expressed my general opinion on this subject: there is a categorical difference between a conceptual artist incidentally using photography as a medium versus a photographer who might incidentally be doing conceptual work.
But of course this wagon train of thought ultimately lures the photo-oriented enthusiast into the murky, often disturbing world of conceptual art.
Ewww! Quick, I need to snap a travel landscape, my kids, my dog,....!!
Posted by: Ken Tanaka | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 03:14 PM
Martha Benedict:
Yes, it is Hennessey+Ingalls, on Wilshire between Second and Third streets. The clerk really seemed to know what he was talking about, and had given the matter some consideration, something I always appreciate in a bookstore. There's another one somewhere over in Hollywood, on Cahuenga Boulevard, but I haven't been to that one.
There are two large problems with the bookstore: the first is that they have stuff that you can't find anywhere else, except maybe in some art specialty stores in New York; and the second is that they're ungodly expensive. I try to check all the Half-Price Books stores before I start spending my book budget at Hennessey+Ingalls, but I usually wind up in there anyway.
Not to go on too long, but they are a prime example of why we need bookstores, and not just on-line stores - yesterday I bought $285 worth of book (four books) *and when I went in, I was not aware that I needed any of them.* I never would have seen them on-line, because I wouldn't be able to browse them. As it turns out, of course, I couldn't bear to go on living without them. 8-)
JC
Posted by: John Camp | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 03:17 PM
Since the painting books have photographs of paintings, they're all essentially photography books. What you get is the experience of looking at a photograph of a painting, which can be very different from standing in front of the original.
Posted by: Clay Olmstead | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 03:52 PM
John Camp, I will understand if you don't want to spend more time on this, but in case you do here's a question: did the clerk tell you that they had decided to put Wall and Crewdson among the artists or among the painters? You quote the clerk as saying the former, but then in your own musings you use both, with "artists" in quotes.
It makes a difference because a distinction between photographers and artists just sounds like the very old prejudice that photography is base mechanical reproduction while art is something higher -- with an exception being made for a few great photographers who have somehow elevated themselves. The distinction between photographers and painters seems obvious and unremarkable, until we learn that some photography counts as painting. That is puzzling and suggests something like the distinction Michel discusses, between painting as something done with paint and painting as "a set of conventions, a set of codes and methods of production and appreciation".
Posted by: Andrew Burday | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 04:05 PM
Andrew Burday:
The quote was accurate -- he said "artists" (meaning painters) and "photographers." That's why I asked the question about whether most photographers are photographers, but not artists...You also have to understand that this was a *very* casual conversation, and that in a formal interview, he might have said "painters" rather than "artists."
Posted by: John Camp | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 05:39 PM
Well, now that I think about it an appropriately anal manner, ever since I switched to printing with an inkjet printer, I am now a painter/printmaker, using a mechanical device to spray the ink on to paper in a manner that represents the image I envisioned. If photography is writing with light (from the Greek), then my "liquid on paper" prints are no longer photographs.
Posted by: Jim Simmons | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 05:59 PM
"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" anyone?
Posted by: Trevor Small | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 06:48 PM
Responding to Kalli's comment, one of my local libraries has Paul Strand's Time in New England shelved with regional material, a long way from the photo section. The first time I went to look for it, I thought I must have made a mistake.
And responding to Ctein's comment on his Indian friend who wanted to be shelved with the poets, I believe that's also a long-running problem for African-American authors.
Posted by: Andrew Burday | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 07:06 PM
John, thanks for the response. I should clarify: when I wrote, "this is silly", I meant that the clerk's distinction was silly. Your anecdote drew attention to a perennial problem for anyone interested in photographic art and elicited some helpful responses. It wasn't silly and if I seemed to be saying so, that was due to careless phrasing on my part. I hope I didn't come across that way and apologize if I did.
Posted by: Andrew Burday | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 07:27 PM
John, I know exactly what you're saying about H+I, and why browsing among physical books is totally different than clicking around Amazon. Something like what Mike means about seeing photographs in galleries, not just online or in books. I remember that store when it was on Pico near Sepulveda. Glad it's moved further west where traffic deters me from ever going.
Posted by: Martha Benedict | Thursday, 04 November 2010 at 11:58 PM
And should the paintings of Clive Head be listed in the Photography section?
http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=clive+head&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=7enTTIxQxY6MB6KluMoJ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQsAQwAA&biw=1140&bih=683
Posted by: Gary | Friday, 05 November 2010 at 07:30 AM
Is this a little like when bookstores have "Literature/Classics" and "Fiction" sections?
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Friday, 05 November 2010 at 01:23 PM
The answer to all these questions is very obvious:
Photography is a sub-genre of art - while in the same time, art is a sub-genre of photography
Just goes to show, that sometimes the question is more enlightening than the answer......
Posted by: Lars K. Christensen | Sunday, 07 November 2010 at 07:52 AM
Hennessey+Ingalls has a 20% off sale going that also applies online. I don't mean for this comment to be posted, just to let readers know that through Saturday (very little time!) a visit there in person or via web won't be as big a hit to your personal savings plan.
http://www.hennesseyingalls.com
Posted by: Martha Benedict | Friday, 12 November 2010 at 10:32 AM