Lagrange a good theory intro?

[rdenney]

Okay, so I burned enough dollars through a charge card to earn the points needed to get a Kindle. As much as I travel, I figured it would be easier to carry than the usual couple of books that make my briefcase swell. Also, I am tickled at the ability to read PDF reports without having to drag my laptop down out of the overhead compartment.

So, now I'm fishing for a good theory book--the sort of thing I'd probably never run across in a book store, and never actually buy in the three-dimensional version.

The first one such that comes up in the Amazon search is Ashley la Grange's Basic Critical Theory for Photography. Apparently, it is a survey of key works, with excerpts accompanied by some explanation, intended more for breadth than depth. It includes writings from the names I usually see referenced here (Berger, Sontag, Szarkowski, Barthes, among many others), and seems to have a bit of everything from the last 40 years or so. I expect the photos to be uglified by the Kindle display, but it's not a book on technique where the point of the illustrations is image quality. I already have enough books on that topic.

It's sort of a Cliff Notes approach, but I wonder if anyone has looked through it and can say if it's a reasonable way for a curious amateur to spend twenty bucks.

(I found in the archives a recommendation of Liz Wells' Photography, A Critical Introduction, but it's not available for the Kindle and it's vastly more expensive. My curiosity does have limits, heh.)

Rick "happy to hear other suggestions, of course" Denney

[paulr]

I've been looking for something similar; if you get it please post your impressions. Also be sure to ask Struan. He has some opinions on the subject.

[AF-ULF]

I am not familiar with the Asley la Grange book, but it sounds like it follows the general approach of most theory books on photography: editing together others writings on photography to present a viewpoint. It is a fairly effective way to present the information.

I have read "The Education of a Photographer", editied by Traub, Heller and Bell (Allworth Press). It takes the approach of presenting the writings of photographers, and interviews of photographers, about their work. Photographer-centric theory.

"Inside the Photography: Writings on 20th Century Photography," Bunnell (Aperture Press) is a bit different in that it collects the writings of Bunnell, a Princeton professor and curator. Nice scope and even tone.

"Photographic Theory" edited by James Elkins (Routledge) is a bit uneven, a couple of the essays are pretty dense philosophy speak, but it is worth a read as the discussion is more contemporary than most discussions which focus on the earlier writers like Barthes and Bourdieu.

I'm not sure if these are available on Kindle yet. But they show up at Half Prices Books on a fairly regular basis as universities sometimes use them as texts.

[rdenney]

I've been looking for something similar; if you get it please post your impressions. Also be sure to ask Struan. He has some opinions on the subject.

And now that I've done a bit more searching around, I see that you asked a similar question on the Contemporary Landscape group recently. Yes, I hope Struan answers--I'll ring his bell if he doesn't see this.

Rick "who'll probably buy it in the absence of compelling reasons not to" Denney

[rdenney]

I am not familiar with the Asley la Grange book, but it sounds like it follows the general approach of most theory books on photography: editing together others writings on photography to present a viewpoint. It is a fairly effective way to present the information.

I have read "The Education of a Photographer", editied by Traub, Heller and Bell (Allworth Press). It takes the approach of presenting the writings of photographers, and interviews of photographers, about their work. Photographer-centric theory.

"Inside the Photography: Writings on 20th Century Photography," Bunnell (Aperture Press) is a bit different in that it collects the writings of Bunnell, a Princeton professor and curator. Nice scope and even tone.

"Photographic Theory" edited by James Elkins (Routledge) is a bit uneven, a couple of the essays are pretty dense philosophy speak, but it is worth a read as the discussion is more contemporary than most discussions which focus on the earlier writers like Barthes and Bourdieu.

I'm not sure if these are available on Kindle yet. But they show up at Half Prices Books on a fairly regular basis as universities sometimes use them as texts.

Thanks. I live in Northern "Full Price" Virginia and am seriously in need of a visit to a Half-Price Books next time I happen across one. I'll keep these titles in mind.

Rick "appreciative" Denney

[Brian C. Miller]

Rick, have you read Bill Jay's books? I have found all of them to be quite good.

[Struan Gray]

I'm a very reluctant guru, but thank you for your faith in me.

The short answer is that I haven't found a theory book that resonates. I suspect it's partly that my physics background demands more from something called theory than anyone can deliver in the arts, but mostly because I believe strongly in artistic empiricism: that data wins over speculation every time.

My own favourite writing about the arts tends to focus on providing context and background. Peter Campbell who writes in the London Review of Books (and paints its cover pictures) exemplifies the sort of open, informed approach that I enjoy: asking questions without being dogmatic, and making an inclusive appreciation of all the arts. If I were to recommend a single book it would be his relatively recent collection of essays from the LRB called 'At..'. Amazon.co.uk has it (here) or you can get it from the LRB's own bookshop (here).

Of the standard photography theory texts the only ones I've truly enjoyed, and re-read, are John Berger's "Ways of Seeing" and John Szarkowski's "Looking at Photographs". I don't think it's an accident that both are picture-rich and theory poor.

If you want to investigate the canon, I'd recommend googling your favourite ivy-league school with 'art history' and 'reading list'. Here's one from UCL, for example. You'll quickly find that despite all the fuss and bother about postmodernist deconstruction the classics are still in favour. It is also clear that hardcore education still involves wide reading - there is no single book that will tell you everything. The old recommendation to simply read everything and take what you need still has a lot of force.

I personally think that Wikipedia is very good for putting artists and movements into context, for finding out how some oddball who has resonated with you personally is regarded by the art world at large. Not, I hope, for revising your opinions to match the crowd, but for understanding how much your personal reactions to art are balanced between received wisdom and individual insight.

I also think that photographers can learn a lot from applied artists like potters, woodworkers and industrial designers. There can be the same agonising about the respect accorded to the field by the general art world, but for the most part people just get on with making things and appreciating the results. When, say, ceramics end up in the art museum it tends to be for their specific aesthetic qualities rather than an accompanying statement. That's a standard I prefer to apply to photography too.


PS: having browsed a number of reading lists, it looks as if Rosalind Krauss is a writer particularly worth investigating. I also liked the introduction to this reading list at Kings, Cambridge.

[Brian K]

There's another approach. Especially as it seems that the majority of people who write books on photography theory are not actually known for their ability as photographers. Why not just contact the photographers whose work you respect and ask them? Their perspective will be based on the reality of creating the work versus the theoretical or academic aspects of it. You'll find that most are willing to share their personal views on photography.

I would also recommend George Barr's "Why Photographs Work" not so much because of his interpretations/observations of the work, which are excellent, but because of the 52 other perspectives by the photographers who actually created the work.

[bobwysiwyg]

rdenney,

I also acquired a Kindle for the same reasons. It may not be relevant in this particular search, but don't limit yourself to Amazon. There are a number of free books available in a variety of electronic formats, such as Project Gutenburg and other sites. Just Google "free electronic books". There are quite a few photography related titles, granted many a quite old, but I find them interesting from a historical perspective, just the same.

[rdenney]

Thanks all.

Struan, much of what you say makes complete sense to me. My curiosity had little to do with my own work, and much to do with my desire to be able to communicate with academics a little less ignorantly. I am searching, it is true, for new subjects and new approaches, but I think I'll see those in the three-dimensional world, not in a book. For my purposes, the Cliff Notes approach might be most efficient, and might lead me to the original works that spark my interest. I just have no sense of the landscape, having never studied photography as art. During my time in architecture school, I studied art a lot, but that was too many decades ago to satisfy current curiosity.

I have indeed pursued books written by artists I admire, and not just photographers. Sometimes that has been fruitful, sometimes not. But usually it is and I enjoy the reading even if I take little from it. As far as asking current photographers, I don't know any current photographers whose work gets discussed in terms of modern theory--all the photographers I know are like many here, still practicing a craft with a vision that would be right at home 40 years ago. Maybe a little reading will give me the tools to appreciate stuff that now makes me scratch my head.

Rick "appreciative" Denney