Gregory Crewdson, Photographer or..

[Bill Harrison]

Is Gregory Crewdson a producer/director of single frame movies? Did he always have a photographer on set to make the exposure? His work is fantastic in the true meaning of the word, obviously his ideas, but are they his photographs alone? Should not his associates be credited? Do they, on set, add input that goes into the pot to get mixed? I enjoy seeing the end result but I'd like to know who else to thank.

 

[Vaughn]

They are his in the same way a Hitchcock movie is Hitchcock's. It would be a bit awkward to include everyone's names when referring to a Crewdson photograph. And I don't know of an easy way to run the credits in a single frame movie. Is a list of credits provided with one of his images?

Vaughn

 

[Ian David]

They are interesting images, but I don't know much about how they are produced. I guess if Crewdson has the creative vision and he orchestrates the sets, he gets top billing. Not too many photographers credit their assistants

 

[Tony Egan]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vB3hsbAXIk[/YOUTUBE]

You can see the list of people to thank is rather long! I like some of his images but others are a little too contrived for my taste.

 

[Tony Egan]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RywAfP4KFcY[/YOUTUBE]

Here's another one straight from the horse's mouth!

 

[Ian David]

Wow - really interesting clips! It was always clear to me that Crewdson had access to some pretty good props (fire engines, burning houses, etc) and used very serious lighting, but I never realised that his photos were such major productions... Any idea how he finances these shoots?

 

[Trask]

OK, enough about pictures. What's the music on the first video? Haunting stuff.

 

[Trask]

Actually, not enough about pictures. After watching them a few times, I ask myself -- is he a photographer? Given that he refers to his Director of Photography who expanded his vision of what was possible, I'd say he's more of a visualizer than a photographer. You can see that he sketches out a storyboard-like drawing, then works with a photographer and set arranger to create the tableau. I wouldn't say he's a photographer any more that Spielberg is a cinematographer. One provides the vision, the other the technique. We who call ourselves photographers have some of both in what we do.

I second the question about financing -- the Medicis aren't around anymore to fund such things. Can he possible sell enough prints or books to make this sort of effort cost-efficient? Or maybe (my personal fantasy) he won the lottery and chooses to spend his winnings in pleasing himself thusly...

 

[frotog]

I consider him a producer and an art world impresario more than anything else. Enamored with the working method of Jeff Wall ("The Eviction" in particular), he spent an entire summer cranking out eleven alternate versions of the same picture using essentially the same compositional structure as his favorite Jeff Wall picture. But he dumbed it down, making it more accessible with hokey, "mysterious" narrative elements - a bear following a trail of carefully laid out slices of white bread...an anomalous pile of dirt in someone's backyard...a pair of legs protruding from a dog house - that quoted everything from David Lynch to Robert Gober. Comparing Crewdson to Hitchcock would be like comparing Thomas Kinkade, "The Painter of Light" to Edward Hopper. The question that needs to be asked is not so much who else is there to thank but rather who else is there to blame.

 

[Vaughn]

For the record, Frotog, I did not compare Crewdson to Hitchcock, but I agree that I would call Crewdson more of a producer/director of still imagery rather than a photographer. But the label of "photographer" is a pretty loose one (some digital work has stretched the term quite a bit), so for ease of conversation, the label works well enough for him.

I enjoy the work and its narrative elements, and respect the work and mind that can keep such a production going...just like I admire what's-his-name who did the Lord of the Rings, even though I do not like what he did to the story line.

Vaughn

 

[sdivot]

Of course he's a photographer. These are just still lifes. Still lifes on an enormous grand scale. There are many different types of photography, and some require more assistance than others. He simply could not do everything himself, so he uses a crew of many different talented people. You can set up a still life of flowers and pears on your kitchen table by yourself. You don't need any help. His are a bit more complicated.
Do you have to work completely alone to be a photographer, or any artist for that matter?
All fashion and commercial photographers use uncredited assistants for their work. David Lachapelle, Annie Lebovitz, Richard Avedon all used assistants. Hell, Warhol had a "factory". There is little doubt the artistic vision was theirs.
Some of these things I like, some I don't. But they are definitely creative.
Was he the driving force behind these photographs? Yes. Could they have been made without him? Probably not. In the end, who cares? Do you like them?
Steve
www.scdowellphoto.com

 

[Brandon D.]

Image Maker.

[/thread]

 

[Tony Egan]

OK, enough about pictures. What's the music on the first video? Haunting stuff.

If you watch in native Youtube it has the credits:
Nothing improves the mood more than a little bit of Miles Davis - from the year I was born as it happens!
http://www.answers.com/topic/ascenseur-pour-l-chafaud-soundtrack