What was your latest theoretical/analytic/critical/art related photography book?

[cliveh]

Clive - there's a difference between appreciating an image (a perfectly worthwhile pursuit in itself) and being able to articulate WHY that image is brilliant, what it means not only in isolation but in context. If you had previously only seen Italian Renaissance paintings, and then had a Van Gogh plopped in front of you, you'd probably have a similar reaction to it that many of his contemporaries had... "WTF?!?!?!" in today's vernacular. You wouldn't see it as brilliant, in all likelihood - you'd see it as crap finger-painted by a lunatic. Today, we see Van Gogh as a visionary who completely changed the game. But why did he do what he did? Why is what he did so revolutionary? What about Monet? His water lilies are also game-changing paintings, but to understand them you need to know that Monet was painting with a very specific agenda - he was trying to replicate on canvas exactly what he saw through his cataract-laden myopic eyes. There's his theory - his art was all about painting the world as he visually perceived it rather than how it was supposed to appear, or how others saw it. You can certainly get into an argument about the metaphoric meaning of that act, but we're not here to argue about Monet or Van Gogh specifically.

You do have a very valid point, but I do think that much contextualisation today is a crutch for poor imagery.

 

[Heinz]

I recently read and enjoyed "The Photograph as Contemporary Art" by Charlotte Cotton:
http://http://www.thamesandhudson.com/The_Photograph_as_Contemporary_Art/9780500204184
Trying to categorize comtemporary photography in several different topics it shows a large number of photographs in good print quality (at least in the german translation
"Fotografie als zeitgenössische Kunst"
http://www.deutscherkunstverlag.de/buch/reihen/dkv-kunst-kompakt/++/buchid/597-fotografie-als-zeitgenoessische-kunst/buchdetail/1/seite/0
which I actually read.

 

[Moopheus]

You do have a very valid point, but I do think that much contextualisation today is a crutch for poor imagery.

It's not unreasonable to think that an image is created to communicate something to the viewer--whether it is an artistic metaphor, an instructional diagram, or scientific evidence--it does so without additional explanation. We would find, for instance, "Migrant Mother" compelling even without the knowledge of its creation. Of course, images often do come with captions and other background information. Sometimes you do need specialized knowledge. I mean, most people looking at Photo 51 by Rosalind Franklin would have no idea what it was, or what it meant, whereas James Watson knew exactly what it meant as soon as he saw it. But most people think art shouldn't need that kind of specialized knowledge to communicate. Or worse yet--the proffered context seems to have no relation at all to the image in front of you. Or perhaps worst of all--the context is so complex that you wonder why the artist bothered with the art at all, and just published the explanation.

 

[pdeeh]

Sontag seems to often trigger a strong, vituperative negative response.

I do wonder if one of the reasons is because she so neatly skewers many of the absurdities and contradictions photographers trot out.

When ideas are held on to and expressed with religious fervour, its not at all surprising that challenges to those ideas are met with outrage.