Are Photographs Art

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

It took an awful lot of money or an awful lot of pull, maybe both. to shoot this series. Looking at these two, and more of his work, embiggened, lightened, etc, I keep finding details that may or may not been intentional, maybe part of the interpretation or just static. It's hard to figure out the plot when I can't tell the actors from the scenery. At least with a painting, if it's there it's supposed to be.
Yes, needs a interpretation center. Hopefully whoever paid $33 grand for the first OP picture, got an explanation or brochure.

His photo shoots are produced more like film shoots. I've worked in studios where there was a lot of production behind the image (food, product, and fashion) but even the most complicated, bloated photo shoot was simple compared to an average scene in a film shoot.

Crewdson (I thought there was a D in there) takes the film approach but makes a single frame rather than a whole movie.

This is a very well done clip illustrating his process. I find watching the process much more satisfying than the end result, but I'm a process-oriented guy. If getting there isn't half the fun, then why bother making the trip? Am I right, ladies?