|
On the Academics of Book Shops |
|
|
|
24-01-2005 |
|
Something is something odd in book shops.
(Well, for starters, book shops here in Belgium are chaotic at best, I could start a whole blog on book shop adventures...)
Most book shops have an art section. This ranges from prehistoric paintings to conteporary conceptual art, and sometimes even extends to architechture. This is a good thing, art books are great. Now, many of those same book shops also have a separate section for photography, which is sometimes in the same neck of the woods than cinema. Now, librairies (even university libraries) are also organized this way, in general, with a fine art section separate from a photography and cinema section.
Now why is photography in a separate section, and not in a simple sub-section of fine arts ? I know, I know, it's petty bickering at that point, but trying to define what art is also is petty bickering, so bear with me...
Now, in the artistic community : galleries, museums, etc., there seems to be some confusion an the status of photography. Photography is usually not sold in galleries, except in some select galleries who sell very famous photographers, but the ordinary small gallery does not sell photos. It's a different medium, you'll tell me, but in fact most art galleries offer a variety of different art forms : paintings, lithographs, sculptures, all in one place under the term "art", wheras photography is sold in photography galleries. Yet, photographers who consider themselves artists try their darnest to be recognized as artists, and some do, but most of these use some visual or technical artifice to present something else than "simple photographs" : huge prints, installations, sculptures which include photographs, but very rarely simple, black-framed-white-matted, traditional images.
Which brings a questioning over the fact that photography is sometimes seen as too technical to be considered art : it's just pushing on a button at the right time, the camera does all the work. Is that why that some artists feel the need to use some technical artifice to present images in hope that they will be recognized as art ? Can a weak image that cannot stand on it's own without artifices be turned into art just by printing it ten feet tall ?
No answers still today it seems, we'll have to continue this tomorrow... |
|
