3 ms·

Photography has developed a very defined delineation between "documentary" and "art". For reference, compare the work of Dorothea Lange versus Robert Mapplethor

• benj111 8y ago
  "Lange's body of work definitely consists of many works of "art" but I think it all fits nicely into the category of documentary and photojournalism" That kind of proves my point? Yes Mapplethorpe's work is definitely 'art', Langes work isn't definitely 'documentary', to the point that if you saw a picture in isolation, I'm not sure you could reliably say which it was /supposed/ to be. I'm aware the line between 'art' and 'documentary' are very slippery. Thus the inverted commas, and thus (I would argue) the need for clear delineation. As I said in my prior post, there are plenty of exceptions, but I'm not sure you can get much past generalisations without defining art. And I've yet to see a definition of art without exceptions, to the definition. Edit: To expand further. Think of films like District 9 or Blair Witch Project. Both are shot in a 'documentary' style, but both are 'art'. But both are A. Notable for being in the opposing style (they're exceptions that prove the rule). B. Understood that they aren't really real (they aren't seeking to mislead). You don't really get that in photography, although the limitation of the medium doesn't really allow you to do that set up.
  • fetus8 8y ago
    I wasn't trying to prove opposition. I was simply providing examples of where there's a clear delineation between documentary and art, and how they can overlap and share aspects and details. However I don't agree with your statement: "Langes work isn't definitely 'documentary', to the point that if you saw a picture in isolation, I'm not sure you could reliably say which it was /supposed/ to be." Looking at her work, knowing that she's documenting real people and understanding that the "art" in her work doesn't inherently come from the subject, which is what defines her work. It's not supposed to be anything. She took a photo, using her best judgement in that split second, to create an everlasting image. That's the art. I am not going to a gallery to see her work so I can say, ah yes, this is what art is supposed to be. I'm going to see what she saw, and how she documented it, which due to her form and style, is the artwork. Defining art and the words used to define it, open up an immense rabbit hole that I don't particularly find interesting or worth getting into. The films you mention I think are terrible examples. District 9 barely falls into a documentary style. Think about a true documentary, something like La Soufrière (Herzog) which becomes a work of "art" due to the laborious efforts of our film maker to show us people who've accepted their incoming demise at the hands of a Volcano on the verge of eruption. The film is considered a piece of art due to nature of the documentary which explores confronting death through the eyes of real people and their real situations. Also Blair Witch did in fact attempt to mislead people with it's initial marketing campaign and release. It was an incredible marketing campaign that made it one of the most successful Independent films ever. Actually, photography does allow people to create fictitious stories and narratives, designed to look like documentary and other styles. Look at Cindy Sherman. She spent years, and hundreds of photographs creating fictional versions of herself, in tons of styles. Edit: The core of what I'm ultimately trying to convey, is that art, can be anything. Any style or genre descriptor your throw at something, can still be a work of art. It's the craft, and thought, and construction of something that makes it a piece of art, whether it's a photograph, an carpentry project, or a line of code.
    • benj111 8y ago
      "Looking at her work, knowing that she's documenting real people " That requires context outside of the work though? (how do you know it is documentary?) Your example of Mapplethorpe wouldn't require that clarification. The point I was trying to get to (badly) in my original post was that images like Lange's wouldn't look out of place in either a newspaper or an art gallery. That's a problem because you don't know if its supposed to be 'real' or not. A film like district 9 despite blurring the boundaries is clearly 'art', in film there is a division between 'art' and 'documentary' which the film plays with, but it can do that because it clearly isn't real. "The core of what I'm ultimately trying to convey, is that art, can be anything" Agreed, that's where it gets messy. 'documentary' should try to inform though? 'Art' may try to inform, or may not, so its important to know the difference.