This is not writing for no ink has been laid on paper. Writing is dead.

Is Pizza delicious?

Yes.

Should the “P” in “Pizza” be capitalized?

Technically no, but then again if you consider god a divine entity, I bet you capitalize the “G” in h(H)is name. And maybe for you Pizza seems a ridiculous thing to put faith, love and devotion into, but I must ask, what does god have that Pizza doesn’t? Does Pizza spread love, and unity, and create a moral grounding for its followers? Why it sure does. Everyday Pizza sacrifices itself unto its followers, allowing us to devour its deliciousness as a community. But before we do such a thing we must ask ourselves how to divide such a holy entity so that all parts are equal, and also in which shape should we worship this divine creation, party squares, or triangle slices? Whichever decision you make you are rewarded with the loving warmth of cheesy delicacy. Although Pizza’s mission is to spread love and unity, it does not refrain from reprimanding its followers. A fresh Pizza teaches us patience and resistance to temptation, but what happens when we cannot resist those urges? We are met with a piping hot slap of cheese and sauce on the chin, which for repeat offenders may result in blisters and or scarring marking them forever as individuals who lack essential self control. More importantly, Pizza is all inclusive. Anybody can enjoy a delicious Pizza, there are no rules as to who can or cannot partake in the sharing of a Pizza. Pizza can even change form to accommodate followers with allergies, or who have chosen to not eat dairy products. Furthermore Pizza is genderless and thus negates a cultural bias towards one gender. It is this all inclusive nature that allows Pizza to spread its teachings to all corners of the world. Pizza is and forever will be the hero of society as the chief disseminator of love and unity, and also a vessel for nutrients so that it’s followers can live long and spread its teachings throughout the world.

Is photography over?

No.

Is painting over?

No.

Despite the fact that it is an old medium whose ability to recreate reality was rendered null when photography was invented. But painting didn’t die, modernism happened, post-modernism happened.

Photography is not over, and never will be. It will constantly change as all forms of art do (to remain contemporary, perhaps.) But, it can never be dead. Art is only a tool to contextualize and understand the world around it and disseminate an internal experience out onto the world. Unless an art form is suddenly unable to do that, it will never be dead. 

Also, as long as the world around us is changing, all art forms will continue to be contemporary, and thus will be “alive”

For example, here are two similar paintings:

Jacques Louis David, “Bonaparte Crossing The Grand Saint-Bernard Pass, 20 May 1800” Oil on canvas 232cm x 271cm

Kehinde Wiley, “Colonel Platoff on His Charger” 2008, Oil on canvas 9’ x 9’

These are two pictures of men on white horses. The visual similarities are endless, yet they are not the same. If painting were dead, as it is proposed that photography may be, then this Kehinde Wiley painting would not have any value to society. Is that not what death is – the moment you become purposeless/valueless to society? Yet, because the world is ever changing Kehinde’s painting is different than David’s and because David’s painting is not a piece of history, Kehinde’s painting also bears significant value for its references to contemporary culture, and also for it’s references to it’s own history. 

As I said before, as long as the world around is changing, there will always be space for art (in any form, photography included) to interpret that world. Even art forms that may be outdaded or “dead” can still be relevant to today as seen in Kehinde Wiley’s paintings. 

Here is an example of the same happening in photography:

Unknown Artist, “H.E. Hayward and slave nurse Luoisa” 1858, Ambrotype

Myra Greene, Untitled (Character Recognition series), 2004-07, Ambrotype,  3x4 inches

Here are two photographs of black women made using the exact same process. But, the difference is that the second photograph is using this process to relate this historical happening to contemporary life. 

Vince Aletti - I agree with a lot of what Aletti has to say, and if you agree with these points, then the most of the other responses to this question, and the question itself become irrelevant and lacking in their understanding of what photography is and art's ability to remain relevant despite technological advances.

George Baker essentialy wrote, “This question is stupid, but I will still ramble on about some other bullshit.”

Walead Beshty - If I am understanding this intensely pedantic response correctly, then I agree with Walead. From what I can decipher, he seems to be mirroring Baker’s views, that the question is irrelevant, and that the issue is not whether or not photography is dead, but rather, what is it that can be defined as photography by institutions? He sort of explains that this question is as well irrelevant and goes on about the anxiety of being able to categorize art into a specific medium. Again feelings that are reflected in Baker’s “Photography’s Expanding Field.” I agree with what he has to say, especially this portion of the text, “Why do we maintain photography departments within art schools, most absurdly graduate art programs, when these professional distinctions barely exist within contemporary art?”

diCorcia - “The real question should be "Is Art over?" To me, it is more like:"Was it ever relevant"? To that I say Photography has always been an unwelcome bedfellow to Art, which is for most of the world irrelevant, and Photography has been, and remains, relevant. So, if it's over then the issue has to be looked at as either a precursor to the demise of Art's sanctity, or the liberation of Photography from the threadbare criteria that Art History has imposed.”

This seems a sort of nihilistic view about the worth of art in society, but, being quite the nihilist myself, I find it interesting to think about.

Also, I can’t help but see so many connections between my own work and this statement diCorcia makes, “Photography, a mechanical form of looking, is intrinsically limited in what it can show. There lies the wisdom. The current crisis is partially caused by attempts to extend Photography's capability. Maybe it will succeed and show us something new we don't really need to see, or maybe it will fail and be the wiser for it.”

Peter Galassi - I feel like his views mirrored a lot of what I had to say earlier.

“And, whether or not anyone actually believes that all mediums have now become equal, is that any reason to suppress the distinctness of any one of them? There is a difference between anything being possible and everything being the same.”

Blake Stimson - Implies a difference between digital photography and analog photography. I wonder, is there any difference between a static image of something that is made with a digital camera and that made with an analog camera, despite the differences in process of its creation? If I take a photograph on a film camera scan the negative and print on an inkjet printer what is the difference (besides grain structure) between that and an inkjet print of a digital photograph? There is none, Blake Stimson isn’t arguing whether or not photography is dead he is arguing whether or analog photography is dead, which is not the question being asked.

Corey Keller -  “For much of the 20th century to self-identify as a photographer (rather than an artist) was to take a deliberate political stance, and remarkably, it still is, despite the enormously important role photography plays in both the art world and the real world.”

I think that in our current situation it would be more of a stance for a “photographer” to self-identify as an “artist” in an attempt to say that which has already been accepted “photography is art” but more importantly it is to say, “there is no need for a distinction between photographer/photography and artist/art”

Trends in comments:

Talk about photography becoming something more than itself. A conversation that we have had many times about how all art forms are becoming one entity, used together. 

Questioning of the “truth” of photography being “over” which really is a dead conversation.

Connections to the physicality of photography. Where something is not photographic unless it is physically present. An idea which I disagree with completely. I personally feel that photography and the process of making a print are two completely separate entities and that what photography really is is to make a photograph, not a print. Gary Winogrand made loads of photographs, many of which were never turned into prints, or even developed. But that doesn’t matter. The print is only a way to translate a photograph into a means that is easily viewed and understood, but again is separate from a photograph. In the digital world a photographic negative does not need to be translated, like slide film (except slide film would be hard to look at by many people because of it’s small size, digital photographs don’t have this issue)

I have a friend who writes a blog in which he curates a group of artists he finds on the internet, and from a flickr pool. He does not have a gallery space where one can come and see the prints in a physical form, they exist only online. But does this take away their definition as photographs? No.

Photography is not over, the attachment to objects is.

Unfinished

Does community customization mean that consumers are creating their own products? Even professionals have begun to mimic the processes used by “amateurs” and by social media constructs. Here Ron Howard is part of Canon’s Project Imagin8ion. Which is using user generated content from social media sites as the basis of inspiration for a short film. What is interesting is that Canon, an electronics company, is supporting itself by subtly urging uses to use its products to create and share their content, which then supports social media sites such as Flickr and Youtube (where the content would be uploaded to) Canon creates products > Users purchase product, create and upload to social media sites > Canon uses that content which inspires more production of that content > inspires new users to purchase products, or current users to upload more > Canon makes money. Canon is selling users their own content. This is the case with all social media. Though it is interesting to see a company that creates physical objects using this tactic to inspire the purchasing of it’s own products. This is an ad for the video game Gears of War 3 which allowed users to decide what happened in part of the story of the video game. Again, an instance in which the consumers choices are being sold back to the consumers, although not on the scale or to the degree of social media sites. Manovich writes, “Game producers, musicians, and film companies try to react to what fans say about their products, implement fans’ wishes, and even shape story lines in response to conversations among cultural consumers.” (P. 329) “To oppose the mainstream, you now have plenty of lifestyles—accompanied by every subcultural aspect, from music and visual styles to clothes and slang—available for purchase.” Manovic (P. 324)

Liquid Intelligence

To Jeff Wall, liquid intelligence is photography's connection to its own history. A connection that is quickly fading due to the advent of the digital age, which negates the need for the usage of water in making a picture.

The death of water in the photographic process also represents the death of the unknown In photography. Analog photography is subject to the chaos theory, which states that minuscule differences in conditions can yield widely diverging outcomes. The tactility of analog picture making allows this theory to present itself within photography. The chaos theory is common throughout nature. Digital photography puts an end to the chaos theory in picture making, and severs photography's connection to nature.

If the natural and the chaos are some of the ontological qualities of photography, then is "digital photography" really photography at all? Does the fact that a digital image is static, and is captured using a similar mechanical means provide enough of a link to the history of photography for digital photography to be considered in the same realm as analog photography? Or does the absence of chaos mean that digital picture making is not photography, but rather something other?

Perhaps the chaos theory is not completely absent from digital photography.

In analog photography, the "wet" existed in the film and the printing process. Film is created and processed using various liquid chemicals. The same process applied to printing. Although present in film, many photographers are never confronted with it's true physicality. Although some photographers process their own film, raising their awareness to the wet-ness of the process, many do not. So, unless a photographer is creating and processing his or her own film, they may lack awareness of the "wet" in this aspect of photography. This also applies to the process of printing. When printing b/w photographers take the paper through a series of chemical baths. Here liquid is clearly present. Creating a clear instance where the wet cannot be denied. Though, when printing colour, many prints are processed using a processor which takes the prints through the chemical baths for you. In this case the chemicals are neither seen nor touched.

Knowing this, there is potential for an analog photograph to be made without requiring the creator to ever be confronted with the wetness of the process. Printing with a colour processor isn't entirely different from printing an inkjet print. During both processes a machine that houses liquid is used to create an image. Despite inkjet printing being a digital process, it still uses paper that is coated with liquid chemicals, and uses ink, another liquid, to lay down dots and create an image. While different than traditional practices, wetness still exists within inkjet printing.

The wetness of photography has been removed for quite some time. I feel the real issues to be considered in digital photography are those concerning the instant gratification of digital photography.

Chapter 10 of Michael Fried's "Why Photography Matters As Art As Never Before" is titled "good" versus "bad" objecthood: James Welling, Bernd and Hilla Becher, Jeff Wall

Fried begins this chapter speaking about a photograph by James Welling titled Lock.  Fried compares this photograph with the abstract sculptures of John McCracken. Fried then takes the time to note the difference between the objectivity of these two similar artworks. He then delineates a difference between “good” and “bad” objectivity. (It is to my understanding that) In this case, Fried presents Welling’s Lock as an example of “good” objectivity stating, “the concern in Welling’s photograph with the specificity of this particular two-by-four, with its individual history and identifying nicks and blemishes, comes out the other side of minimalism or literalism into the world of real and not ‘generic’ objects.” (p.304) What he is trying to say here (in so many words) is that what Welling is doing, is raising the status of the plank, putting it on a pedestal, giving the object weight, and thus causing us to consider what is important about this object. Assumably, Fried would then consider McCracken’s work not objective, because of the other factors that come into play when viewing his work. When looking at McCracken’s work, one would undoubtedly consider the space surrounding the planks, the colours of the planks, the repetition of the planks, etc. This removes an emphasis from the object and causes us to consider the elements of design rather than the object itself.

Fried then begins to talk about Bernd and Hilla Becher’s work, presumably for their honest attempt to look at the structures/things they photographed objectively. Fried gives multiple quotes and makes many statements backing this idea. He talks about how the Becher’s photographed in mostly overcast lighting to eliminate shadows, how they photographed every structure identically, and from multiple directions to show the object completely. It is apparent that the Becher’s truly view their photographs as merely documents, as a simple and convenient way to deliver the object to the viewer. In a perfect world the Becher’s would be able to have a show where the structures themselves were actually present in the room, and no photographs would need to be shown.

Fried also draws our attention to the format in which the Becher’s work is displayed, grids. He also can’t help but inform us that the grids form a much larger singular work….yes, you’ve guessed it, a tableaux. Despite the infuriating relentlessness of Michael Fried’s fetish for the Tableaux he makes several good points as to why the Becher’s work is tableaux and how the grid (and yes, the tableaux) transforms their work. Here is a paraphrased quote from the chapter (I have changed a few unnecessarily obscure words, so is more easily understood): The viewer is thereby invited to know from the 9,12, etc, individual instances, the potential “presence” or operation of a single type (of structure) and at the same time to enjoy a heightened apprehension of the individuality or uniqueness of the particular instances relative both to one another and to the latent or implied type. Fried is bringing up multiple ideas here, all of which have been brought to light through the use of the great and almighty tableaux form. The grids are separated bye type of structure. When a grid is viewed as a whole it operates to represent one singular idealized form, in our minds we composite all of the images together, making one perfect imagined form. When viewed at a closer distance, we are able to easily see the differences and similarities between each image/object.

A comparison is made between The Becher’s work, and that of August Sander and Francis Galton. Although Sander approached his subject matter in a similar way to the Bechers, he is quickly discounted due to his aims of classifying and portraying contemporary trends in classes rather than objectifying. Fried informs us that Galton’s procedure was typological (as was the Bechers) and that the image eventually took the form of a grid. Despite the similarities, however, Galton’s work was much different from the Bechers. Galton’s work required him to predetermine how many faces he would choose to composite together, thus limiting his potential objectivity due to the fact that he must make decision on which faces to include and which to exclude. Fried then makes the case that because Galton’s composited photograph far outweighs the individual portraits that frame the center image. He also states that the Becher’s work implies this composited type of image, but it is never shown.






The rest, is well….over my head.

Michael Fried (b. 1939) is one the most established and reputable art critics and historians alive today. His approach to criticism is closely linked with that of his mentor, the late Clement Greenberg, who Fried first encountered while an undergraduate at Princeton. Much like Greenberg, Fried was suspicious of academics and critics who insisted on critiquing modern art within a historical and/or cultural context, instead of formally examining the work of art on its own terms. Another of Fried's notable contributions was his staunch opposition to what he observed as the lack of differentiation between the work of art itself and the experience of viewing it, a phenomenon he described as "theatricality."

Key Ideas / Information

• Fried was wary of the dangers of categorizing art as an event. When this happened, he thought, viewers don't appreciate the artwork itself, rather its broader cultural context (i.e. Abstract Expressionism, color field painting, as opposed to a specific painting by Pollock or Rothko.). If art becomes nothing more than a cultural event, then it adversely compromises the way in which art can be appreciated; reactions will be conditioned by surrounding socio-historic circumstance, which will avoid consideration of the artwork as an independent entity.

• Fried believed that great art is an untangling of historical forces, the result of a Hegelian dialectic or a synthesis of many different points in history all coming together to form something new and original.

• Fried was highly critical of art critics and historians who asserted themselves as objective observers of art, which is to say, most of them. He defined the duties of the formalist critic in the following manner: "It is.. imperative that the formalist critic bear in mind at all times that the objectivity he aspires toward can be no more than relative." This statement was fairly provocative, given the tone and writing style of the era's greatest critics, who aspired to write objectively. Fried essentially called their bluff, and argued that all critical judgments are nothing more than subjective.

(Source: http://www.theartstory.org/critic-fried-michael.htm)



It is important to be aware, when reading or looking or considering anything, of the creator that which you are considering. Here we have Michael Fried and his book "Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before" published by the Yale Press in 2008. In this book, Fried brings his knowledge and thoughts on renaissance painting and attempts to apply them to photography.

This is particularly disheartening as since the creation of photography, there have been those who try to make it replicate paintings, so it would more easily be accepted as art. This is due to the fact that photography was relatively new and seen as a science, and later as a hobby, rather than as art. Perhaps this is due to the thought that the artists hand was less present in photography and photography was not an artists rendering of the world but a document of it.





"Winter - Fifth Avenue" by Alfred Stieglitz (1892)

Eventually, with modernist photography, photographers began to use the camera for what it was made for, rather than attempting to create something that was familiarly appealing like painting.

Fried relates a list of artists to photography, through their use of the tableaux form, and other aesthetic means. These artists include Thomas Ruff, Bernd and Hilla Becher, Andreas Gursky, Rineke Dijkstra, Hiroshi Sugimoto, and Luc Delahaye, among others. Fried dilutes these artists reasons for their form, and also the thesis of their work in an attempt to relate their style of photography to that of pre-modernist paintings. As if to claim that there is a common unifying theme/ideas/formats among all great (as according to Fried) works of art. These being foremost, anti-theatricality, and the tableaux form.

Anti-theatricality can easily be summed up as that which is not theatrical, or that which does not perform for the camera. This is translated visual as images whose subjects do not directly acknowledge the viewer.

"Judith Beheading Holofernes" by Caravaggio (1598-99)

"Mimic" by Jeff Wall (1982)

Here are two constructed scenes (obviously in the first image, because it is a painting). Neither of these scenes would be considered theatrical by Fried's definition. Also both are of the tableaux form with Wall's "Mimic" being 198 x 226 cm large.

As stated previously, one must consider Fried's background, some of which he clearly states in the introduction to his book. Fried openly admits that he was not originally interested in photography, and that he studied and was involved with painting much before his interest in photography. This explains why Fried is so interested in comparing photography and painting so closely. It is perhaps more important to note that even in 2008 where the debate for photography to be considered an art form has long been nullified, and photography is widely accepted as an art form, Fried still feels the need to create a category of "art photography". This is a sign of Fried's dated thoughts on photography.



Fried fails to consider historical context multiple times throughout the introduction alone and frames the history of photography rather poorly. Not surprisingly considering his thoughts that art should be viewed outside of its historical context so as to give more weight to the object itself rather than to the time period during which it was created. Fried disregards many influential artists and choses to omit any explanation of the event leading up to the genesis of the tableaux form in photography in the 80s.

Thus, he frames god's gift to "art-photography" Jeff Wall as being leaps and bounds ahead of his time and greatly exaggerates his worth and contributions to photography. He does this as well with Struth and Bustamante. Fried ignores many of the obvious stepping stones to the tableaux form that allowed these three artist to start using it at nearly the same time, in favor of exalting them as geniuses. The tableaux form was a logical progression in the 80s.

Reasons Tableaux form is a logical solution for artists in the 80s

1. 1936 Walter Benjamin publishes "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" addressing the issues of easy reproduction of images (especially photographs) and also the loss of "the aura" or the experience of viewing an original work of art which is now lost as much art is viewed through reproductions.

- tableaux form makes sense here because it re-introduces "the aura"

2. Photography previous to the 80s was relatively small. It could be argued that some of the work was even created to be viewed in a book form. although early modernist photographers, such as those working for the Farm Security Administration and many early Modernist photographers (Edward Weston, Berenice Abbot, etc) did not possess the means to create large photographs, due suffering through the great depression.


-tableaux form makes sense here because it is different than that which came before, something all artists strive to do

3. Photographers during the 80s were also able to use advanced technologies to create their images, that which previous photographers did not have access to.


- tableaux form makes sense here because for the first time it is easy to create, it is finally possible to make large images.

It is easy to see how, considering all of these things, photography would naturally progress to taking a tableaux form.




Another example of Fried's ignorance of historical context is when he makes this statement about voyuerism "...voyeurism, which I shall go on to suggest may also be thought of as an essentially
photographic trope." There is no doubt that photography contributed to the idea of voyeurism, as well as the consideration of ones own appearance, but to claim that voyeurism is a complete result of photography is absurd. The creation of photography coincides with the advent of the modern day city, as well as electricity.



The city is the true creator of voyeurism. Living in a city brought you, literally, closer to people. The city gave us a place where we were close enough to watch eachother. Also, around the same time, electricity was invented. this may not seem that important, yet, consider this: during the daytime a window would reflect the sun. If a room was illuminated from within, however, there would be no reflection when viewing this room from the outside. Therefore creating an easy viewing situation for the voyeur.

It is necessary to bring these example of misconstrued information to light, because it is important to be aware while reading "Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before" that what many of the events have been exaggerated to reflect Fried's opinions and arguments. Also, many things have been diminished, as well, to apply to Fried's arguments. Here he reduces Susan Sontags writings about Jeff Wall's "Dead Troops Walk" to be about nothing more than there anti-theatricality, which in an entire paragraph, Sontag makes one comment about their theatricality.

Fried's "Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before" should be taken with a large grain of salt, and perhaps a further investigation into art history, as well as the history of the world during the time previous to Jeff Wall.