Dipping

Just curious—has anyone read Max Kozloff's The Theatre of the Face? I'd be interested to know what you think of it.

I found Kozloff too weighty and impenetrable when I first encountered him. Lost to memory is whether that was because of the particular piece I ran up against, or should be put down my own jejune unformed intellect of the time. More recently I've been enjoying dipping into my copy of Lone Visions, Crowded Frames, which is slowly winning me over to Mr. Max. (Mad Max? K? I daren't be too flippantly familiar, because he's out there, and he could find me....) Take this intro to one essay, for example:

By and large, artists aren't widely heard of in our culture unless their work is priced off the charts or they're censured for sexy subjects. War photographers don't typically enter the news unless they get shot. Hearing of such deaths, we may feel momentarily shocked, as if we had been impudently denied our natural right to reportage from dangerous areas....

How could anyone not keep reading that?

Dipping into PHOTO:BOX at random (and, as an aside, what do people think of that?) from time to time reminds me that it's been a long time since I really read much photography criticism for pleasure, or indeed for any other reason than self-improvement. I read out of duty, now, mostly.

Do people ever read about photography? That's another thing I wonder about. I mean criticism, history, or theory? Kozloff, Coleman, introductions to monographs, Geoff Dyer maybe? Time for a poll:

[UPDATE 11/19/12: Vizu Polls closed down, so I've taken a screen shot of the poll results and substituted it for the live poll. Best I could do to preserve the post. —Ed.]

I feel a distinctly old dog: most of the books that formed my own education are long out of print, dusty and uncontemporary. There are a number of books (such as The Theatre of the Face) that I'm curious about, but often not, it seems, quite curious enough to actually read them. I've reached that stage where I know enough to merely argue with authors I read, in my head. Maybe I should revisit some of the books that influenced me when I started out, and see what I think of them now.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Mike adds: I'm very encouraged by this poll. I'm not really even sure why...I basically agree that you don't necessarily have to read about photography to be good at it. I guess it's just something I enjoy so I hope other people enjoy it too....

Featured Comment by Jez: "While I love reading about photography, I usually don't get much further than introductions to monographs as I find most writing on photography dry and humourless. Having said that, Dyer's Ongoing Moment that you linked to above is absolutely fantastic. I've read it twice already and find myself dipping back in from time to time. If only more people could write about photography like that. And don't get me started on Sontag. What a tedious little book that is...."

Featured Comment by Yuanchung Lee: "I love A.D. Coleman. He's among my favorite writers on photography, next to Robert Adams, Szarkowski, and Papageorge. Definitely my favorite non-photographer writer. (Coleman, by the way, shows up in that terrific documentary about Shelby Lee Adams which was recently shown on Ovation. Great film; made me love S.L.A. even more.)

"Geoff Dyer, not so much—a bit smarmy, not enough editing. But I have the book, and have been planning to re-read it, so may change my mind. Sontag, no. (Coleman's critique of On Photography is devastating, and right on). Barthes, a big fat no. (Though I confess that despite a master's in philosophy, i only understood about 35% of what he wrote)."

Featured Comment by Geoff Wittig: "I want a book of photo criticism to make it worth my while to to read it closely. I lose interest if it doesn't quickly make a valid point or follow a logical thread.

Some have struck me as very worthwhile because they were brilliant, or perhaps reasonably perceptive—or at very least entertainingly catty. Geoffrey Dyer's The Ongoing Moment falls into the latter category; he's certainly not a member of the "academy", and some of his judgments are questionable. But he doesn't beat around the bush with his opinions, and sometimes says what the rest of us are thinking. (I chuckled at Dyer's analysis of Stieglitz's nudes of the much younger O'Keefe: hey, look who I get to sleep with.)

A.D. Coleman's books are wonderful; erudite, insightful, strong opinions backed by solid evidence. His brilliant essay on the very deliberate erasure of William Mortensen from photographic history by Beaumont Newhall et al. should be required reading. It sharply demonstrates how artificial and incomplete the 'canon' of photography-as-art really is. The late Bill Jay's collected musings are warmly entertaining, but really don't rise to the level of criticism. I'd much rather read a collection of David Vestal's pithy commentary, which sadly is not available in book form.

Among current photo criticism titles, Terry Barrett's Criticizing Photographs is a very approachable introduction to the conventions and jargon of criticism for interested amateurs, and it's often used as a college level text on the subject. After reading it at least you'll know what academics are talking about. Michael Fried's Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before is a turgid, tendentious book-length essay arguing that huge cinematically constructed photographs by Jeff Wall, Gregory Crewdson et al are the most significant art on the planet. Hookay.

Photography After Frank by Philip Gefter is a cut-and-paste collection of old articles and new essays that tries to connect Robert Frank's The Americans to subsequent "post modern thought" and confections like Jeff Wall's; the corpse doesn't quite fit into the coffin, but some sections are interesting. Ian Jeffrey's How to Read a Photograph: Lessons from Master Photographers turns out instead to be more like "how I personally read a photograph," wherein the author draws all sorts of unsustainable or frankly imaginary conclusions from "readings" of images famous and obscure.

I read 'em so you don't have to.

A few others: Frank Van Riper's Talking Photography (2002) is a bit dated now, but contains some very enjoyable essays on photographic craft and art. Vicki Goldberg's Light Matters is a collection of her essays across several decades; some are really good, others not so much. Overall they lack the elegance and coherence of A.D. Coleman or the deep thought behind Robert Adams' essays.

Comments

[David Paterson]

There's an option missing from your poll -

"Yes, I have but gave up".

[Rob Atkins]

Some books I've particularly enjoyed on photography criticism and literature are: At the Edge of the Light by David Travis; Print the Legend by Martha A. Sandweiss; A.D. Coleman's classic Light Readings; and Geoff Dyer's The Ongoing Moment was a particular favorite. (As is his But Beautiful for jazz lovers like you, Mike.) Up next on my to-read list is Burning with Desire by Geoffrey Batchen. And I'm about to order (via, TOP, of course) Peter Bunnell's Inside the Photograph.

[Robert Hoehne]

Your level of serious may be different to other's level of serious. The less you know the more you think you know and all that.

[Andrew Lamb]

Does Gerry Badger count? The Genius of Photography is a good read.

Definitely Geoff Dyer.

[robert e]

Coleman, yes, and Szarkowski, Adams, Shore... Never heard of Dyer or Kozloff. Guess I haven't read enough.

[Kerry Glasier]

Mike, Do I ever read serious writing about photography? Having read down as far as the question I just had to tick 'yes'. And of course I read ToP every night, really. Keep it up, though I dont know how you do it so well day in day out. Thelonious keeping you going? Regards.
KG. Cornwall.UK

[Jeff]

Studied and read about photography long before I bought a camera. Still have my full collection of books, including many comprised of history, essays, criticism and the like.

I find, for whatever reason, that I tend more to pick up first edition books of images by photographers I love than to re-read the rest. The exception seems to be books that offer commentary on individual images, for instance by Loengard or Szarkowski.

Good reminder to dust off the shelf. Maybe Sontag's On Photography?

[Ade]

Initially I thought, "Yep, I've at least read Dyer", but then remembered that I also read Robert Adams and David Hurn, and possibly a few others. Dyer seems to divide opinion quite strongly; I thought he was great - a singular yet pertinent viewpoint - but I read a review on a forum site that was absolutely shocked by his vulgarity in discussing Walker Evans's genitals and summed him up as the kind of smartarse who shows his intellect off loudly at parties. He does appear to rub some people up precisely the wrong way.

[charlie]

The Ongoing Moment is a right apt title. I have been "reading" it for going on a year now!

[Nicholas B.]

Two in particular:
Szarkowski has an idiosyncratic voice I particularly enjoy, and Barthes' La chambre claire, which I picked up following your recommendation, is a surprisingly intimate effort to wrestle with the idea of photography, from the author of Mythologies (which was itself an important read for me last century).

Also enjoyed the essays of Gisèle Freund and Moholy-Nagy, on their own term.

And so on, and so forth...

So yeah, I enjoy reading about it, looking at it and doing it (get your mind out of the gutter, son).

[Carlos Loret de Mola]

Moving on from the classics that you and your readership seem to favor, "Words Without Pictures" represents the bleeding edge of contemporary discourse about photography and is one of the most urgent and engrossing books on my night table.

http://iheartphotograph.blogspot.com/2009/07/words-without-pictures.html

-Carlos

[JonA]

The New Yorker and the Economist have both picked Geoff Dyer's latest book as one of the best books of 2009. However it is not a photography book and is not even non-fiction. I thought his name sounded familiar.

[Bill Poole]

I agree with previous posters on the impenetrability of Geoff Dyer. And reading Susan Sontag leaves me feeling stupid.

But I enjoyed Phillip Gefter's collection Photography After Frank -- about what modern photo-artists are up to.

And there is a wonderful collection EW 100 (Friends of Photography 1986) about a guy with those initials who made a photo or two at Point Lobos.

Robert Frank, who wrote an essay for that book that essentially said, "look at the pictures to know their author" is a writer who strikes me as very smart, widely read, and worth reading also because his own images suggest earnest deliberation over meaning.

[Martin Doonan]

Yes, I do, but not much or often. Like so much art crit, writing on photography seems to be mired in obfuscatory self-aggrandizement.
I would rather read some plain English that takes pleasure in the subject. Presently, blogs seem to be providing that content.

[John Camp]

Criticism and art (photo) history are things of their own, and not especially connected to the making of photographs. As an analogy of sorts, Mike J. has quoted himself as saying, when asked what kind of photographer he was, "I'm a writer." The making of art and the writing about it are distinct processes.

Sometimes I think that reading too much history or criticism can hurt an artist, because it may deflect him/her away from a particular vision. (Don't have a particular vision? Then you're probably not a particularly strong artist.) There are a number of artists, who I won't name, who are all over the place -- they run after styles. They're working from a critical or historical perspective, rather than an internal compulsion, and it just doesn't work as well.

But then this site, perhaps, is more about photography than about photographing, and so we get 77% who read serious criticism?

[Sean]

I wish I shot as much as I read, the balance is all wrong at the moment. I'm reading so that I can understand photography better, I also read so I can still have photography in my life when I am not practicing it. I judge a good book on photography by how much I forget my bus trip in to work while reading.

I'll often take something by Robert Adam's, he seems such a generous man and at peace with himself and his own place in photography. Other times it's Bill Jay or Bresson's The Mind's Eye. I've still not finished Susan Sontag's On Photography, she's rode the bus with me a few times but I don't think she was ever a bus kinda girl. I've read Geoff Dyers The On Going Moment and it's made it back on to the bus, which is the best critique I could give it.

There are other books that are too big for the cramped conditions. Danny Lyons Memories Of Myself or John Szarkowski's Looking At Photographs/The Photographer's Eye, are some of them. Dorothea Lange's new biography will be taking a trip with me next week.

[Simon Griffee]

My favorite photography writer: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/02/picture_19.png

[scott kirkpatrick]

Dyer?? Man, can he turn a phrase! A few pages into Amazon's free excerpt, I encountered this one:

The only time I take a picture is when tourists ask me to take one, with their camera. ( These rare works are now dispersed around the world, in private collections, mostly in Japan.)

scott

[oronet commander]

"And don't get me started on Sontag. What a tedious little book that is...."

A shameful complex has been lifted from me at last... I also found her as entertaining as filling tax forms, and never dared to own it up!

[latent_image]

The books that I repeatedly pull off my bookshelf are by Robert Adams, John Szarkowski, Stephen Shore, and Mike Johnston (The Empirical Photographer). All lucid and intelligent. When writing is obstruse, I figure the author hasn't made the effort to get his/her thoughts together and likely is blowing a lot of hot air. I also appreciate the very fine introduction Sarah Greenough wrote for the big Alfred Stieglitz book published by Callaway Editions and would look forward to reading other work by her.

[Mike Johnston]

Heh, thanks Simon G. [*blush*]

Mike

[Gianni Galassi]

I totally agree with oronet commander about Sontag. Definitely the most boring and unuseful book on photography I've ever read.

Whereas Camera Lucida, by the French semiologist Roland Barthes, is the most interesting and fascinating ever. And a real pleasure to read, promise.

[Paul]

For my money, Vince Aletti at the New Yorker (formerly at the Village Voice, I believe) is one of the most perceptive and skillful writers on photography. Although I haven't read any of his books, his (unfortunately) short articles in the New Yorker are a joy to read and reread. Many are available online. Be sure to check out the one on Paul Graham entitled "Ordinary Magic".

[Peter.]

I've returned more than once to Janet Malcolm's Diana and Nikon . Strong collection of essays, combining history and criticism.

[Kerry Glasier]

Hi the ToP team,

Lets not forget Minor White. Especially in 'Mirrors, Messages and Manifestations'. Doors are opened for us, scales are lifted, even if only partialy. The rest is up to us.

KG. Cornwall.UK

[Rana]

I'm a cultural historian and professor of environmental studies. Images are a big part of what I use in my work, so I have to be willing to engage with the weightier theoretical writings on image production and consumption on occasion.

As a photographer, of course, I get something different out of the experience, but I like being able to shift hats, depending on circumstance. Combining brainwork with instinct and aesthetics is almost always a pleasure for me.

[Dave Kee]

I have Sontag's On Photography under my bed. Puts me to sleep in five minutes. My Photo:Box on the other hand makes me want to read about just one more...

[Dennis Allshouse]

I think Geoff Wittig should write a book if he hasn't already. Great review of the critics. I see Robert Adams has a ton of books via the link, any one in particular a good place to start? And what's up with some of the prices for Coleman's books via the Amazon link.

[David Littlejohn]

I read Susan Sontag's essays from beginning to end and was thus cured. No more serious reading about photography.

[Mike Johnston]

"I read Susan Sontag's essays from beginning to end and was thus cured. No more serious reading about photography."

Is that like reading "Mein Kampf" and deciding you're not going to give Jefferson a try?

(I mentioned Hitler, I lose.)

I'm not even willing to do that WITHIN one writer's work, much less dismiss an entire field on the basis of one book. I tried "Ulysses," therefore I'm never reading "Dubliners." I tried "Civil Disobedience," so no "Walden" for me....

Mike

[Geoff Wittig]

Dennis-
You're too kind.
For Robert Adams, Beauty in Photography and Why People Photograph are his classic works of criticism; the latter is probably the more approachable of the two, and a good place to start. Adams can seem a bit vague or cerebral at first glance, but well worth digging into once you see where he's going.

[David Littlejohn]

<< Is that like reading "Mein Kampf" and deciding you're not going to give Jefferson a try? >>

Yes, it probably is. I would not normally have read Sontag, either. I read her because I felt that I "should"—just so that I would know for sure.

I think my position grows out of my personal interests. I'm very interested in doing photography. I'm interested in looking at photographs—and at other works of visual art. And I'm interested in reading the opinions and comments of others who like doing photograpy and looking at photographs. (That's why I'm a daily reader of TOP.)

On the other hand, I am not interested in whether photography has "meaning" in the wider world or in what its meaning might be. This tends to steer me away from books of criticism and philosophy related to photography. (I also makes me alergic to most "artist's statements.")

Just personal preference.

David

[Mike Johnston]

David,
Fair enough.

Mike