Reading

A key question that I have been asking myself for the past 3 years studying with the OCA, is what makes a photograph art?  More recently I have started to question what makes anything art and have been investigating a little art history and philosophy.  Recently, however, I returned to the history of Photography and a book that arrived with my TAOP course materials.  A recent student debate over how readable "The Photograph" by Graham Clarke is sparked my interest.  I got about half way through this first time around and simply got bored, how would I take to it with the hindsight of 3 years of reading photographic texts.

I can confirm that it is rather badly written, but provides a very concise and interesting review of both historical and contemporary photography.  Clarke, like many academics, takes great joy in using 100 words where 10 might have done.  He also makes allusions that are not easily understood by a beginner to the world of photographic art at whom this book is targeted.  Reading the book was like a journey through all the key photographers whose names and images appear again and again in historical or critical texts.  The scope and coverage makes the book worthwhile, he really does address most key practitioners and movements.

Of more interest to me right now was a short volume by Cynthia Freeland, "But is it Art?", an introduction to the theories behind what makes an object a work of art.

Freeland considers the essential properties of an object defined as art, from the religious through to the highly theoretical.  A key part of the text is a discussion of how different cultures elevate objects to a status of art, even if technically art is perhaps not what they have in mind for what is frequently a spiritual object.  She also addresses controversial works such as "Piss Christ" a very large photo of a crucifix in a vat of urine.  Why is this art, it is visually interesting, but most of all it provokes thought and introspection.  The more the religious right railed against it in the US the greater it's status grew as an art form, the work created controversy and asked real questions - given that Christianity already has a body fluid obsession why so much outrage .

The concepts are well described, but still difficult to grasp, I guess I am struggling still to understand why something is art, it clearly is not a purely aesthetic consideration.  My key take away from the book is this idea that a work of art must engage the viewer and ask questions, something that I think photography can do very well.