Interview with Gregory Crewdson

[Rob de Loe]

Capture Integration posted a ~52 minute interview with Gregory Crewdson on YouTube that some of you might find interesting.

It has three sections: an opening interview with Crewdson in his house, talking about art making; an on-scene section that is mostly a promo for CI and Phase One gear (but still fascinating); and a closing section back in his house with more conversation about art making and photography.

Photography is a big, messy world with all kinds of people working in different ways. I enjoyed this video for several reasons.

I found it fascinating as a window into how the 1% of the 1% do photography. This is an artist for whom the 25 person crew he worked with for five solid weeks to produce the 20 photographs in the series was one of the smaller crews he's used recently.

His commitment to still photography is rock solid. It was actually quite heartening to hear someone who completely understands the importance of video and film be absolutely committed to still photography, and who believes in what still photography does.

I also enjoyed the insights into the arc of his career. Crewdson has an unshakable commitment to what he calls his story, and the form his images take.

Finally, I enjoyed hearing how he made the transition from working with 8x10 film to high resolution digital. Given what he does -- photographs made using the kinds of crews you see on movie sets -- working with film must have been unbelievable stressful.

 

[JimKasson]

I love Crewdson's work.

 

[DavidMillier]

Never quite sure how to categorise his work in my mind. I struggle to think of it as photography in the usual way, TBH. Impressive work, but does it count as photography in the usual meaning? Set dressing, perhaps or movies without the actual movie...

Does anyone else do this kind of thing? Can we even call it a genre?

 

[Jon Warwick]

I’ve been an avid fan of Crewdson for years. Stood in front of his work at various galleries, I’ve often thought the “look” of his prints was very consistent, despite the bridge from large format film to digital. The film “Brief Encounters” was a treat in terms of insight into his 8x10 workflow and artistry; loading that volume of sheets, with all those people involved, and with the light fast fading ……anyhow, I look forward to sitting down to watch this latest video, it looks very interesting.

 

[JimKasson]

Never quite sure how to categorise his work in my mind. I struggle to think of it as photography in the usual way, TBH. Impressive work, but does it count as photography in the usual meaning? Set dressing, perhaps or movies without the actual movie...

Does anyone else do this kind of thing? Can we even call it a genre?

Cindy Sherman comes to mid.

 

[SrMi]

Never quite sure how to categorise his work in my mind. I struggle to think of it as photography in the usual way, TBH. Impressive work, but does it count as photography in the usual meaning? Set dressing, perhaps or movies without the actual movie...

Does anyone else do this kind of thing? Can we even call it a genre?

If you have to label it, you could call it conceptual art. It is an important movement in contemporary photography.

That said, Crewdson’s work is breathtaking. Thank you for the post, Rob.

--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

 

[JimKasson]

Never quite sure how to categorise his work in my mind. I struggle to think of it as photography in the usual way, TBH. Impressive work, but does it count as photography in the usual meaning? Set dressing, perhaps or movies without the actual movie...

When it comes to photography, I'm a big-tent person. I call Man Ray's photograms photography. I call Kim Weston's painted nudes photography. I call Jerry Uelsmann's composites photography.

 

[Rob de Loe]

I have no trouble thinking of Crewdson's work as photography. At one point he talks about why he does still photography, and what makes his work photography. “There has to be an exchange between the camera and something that actually happened in front of you. That’s important. That it actually happened.” That fits nicely with my personal view on photography's essential nature. The fact that it's extremely staged is neither here nor there.

The more interesting question in my mind is whether or not there's a point at which you stop being a photographer. In the interview he points out that during the five weeks of work on the project documented in the video (often 12 hours per day), he never touched the camera once.

Are you still a photographer if you're not engaged in the "doing" side, but you are directing what is done? It's your vision, it's your idea, you are telling people what to do, and they are applying their expertise to do what you want. It's not how I work, that's for sure! But to my mind he's clearly the photographer, and the test is whether or not any of those photographs would exist if he didn't exist. Obviously the answer is they would not.

As a side note, Crewdson way of working is a lot like how science works in universities. The person who won the Nobel Prize may not have clue one how to turn on the instrument that was used.

 

[DavidMillier]

My feeling about his work is that the photographic element is a minor component. Most of the work is the theatre design. The photograph just keeps a record. I have this sense it's so different it deserves its own name separate from mere photography. That word doesn't do it justice somehow. It's like the difference between a shopping list and War and Peace. They're both writing...

 

[JimKasson]

My feeling about his work is that the photographic element is a minor component. Most of the work is the theatre design. The photograph just keeps a record.

How is that different from still life photography? How is that different from the kind of photography performed in making most motion pictures?

How is that different from Cindy Sherman's self-portraits? Or Man Ray's photographs? Or much nude photography? Or food photography? Or a lot of fashion photography?

I have this sense it's so different it deserves its own name separate from mere photography. That word doesn't do it justice somehow. It's like the difference between a shopping list and War and Peace. They're both writing...

 

[Macro guy]

I love Crewdson's work.

I find his work formulaic and repetitive.

 

[JimKasson]

I love Crewdson's work.

I find his work formulaic and repetitive.

Chacon a son gout.

 

[SrMi]

My feeling about his work is that the photographic element is a minor component. Most of the work is the theatre design. The photograph just keeps a record.

How is that different from still life photography? How is that different from the kind of photography performed in making most motion pictures?

How is that different from Cindy Sherman's self-portraits? Or Man Ray's photographs? Or much nude photography? Or food photography? Or a lot of fashion photography?

+1

I have this sense it's so different it deserves its own name separate from mere photography. That word doesn't do it justice somehow. It's like the difference between a shopping list and War and Peace. They're both writing...

 

[DavidMillier]

My feeling about his work is that the photographic element is a minor component. Most of the work is the theatre design. The photograph just keeps a record.

How is that different from still life photography? How is that different from the kind of photography performed in making most motion pictures?

How is that different from Cindy Sherman's self-portraits? Or Man Ray's photographs? Or much nude photography? Or food photography? Or a lot of fashion photography?

It's the weighting. The fact that the non-photography preparation involved utterly outweighs the photographic contribution. Theatre productions for example, involve a great deal more than writing (the script). Theatre has its own name as a result. A play includes writing but a play is not the writing, it is the composite of actors and props, the stage, lighting and sound, costumes and direction. No one calls a play a novel. Crewdson appears to me to be working in a strange composite medium where photography plays a part like the script plays a part in a theatre production, but all the other bits are at least as important. The core isn't the act of photographing but the act of setting up and staging. It is photography but it also a lot more. What is really going on is the staging rather than the recording. It seems uniquely strong in that regard, to the point it deserves its own name. Yes, the final output is a photograph or series of photographs, but "photograph" doesn't really do justice to all the input that went into to it. Whatever you call it, it seems more than a photograph. The choice of ISO, aperture, shutter speed, focal length seems a great deal less significant than the choice and position of the sofa and a hundred other props and signs.

--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

 

[paulraphael]

Never quite sure how to categorise his work in my mind. I struggle to think of it as photography in the usual way, TBH. Impressive work, but does it count as photography in the usual meaning? Set dressing, perhaps or movies without the actual movie...

Couldn't you say the same thing about most kinds of studio photography? Commercial and otherwise?

A friend of mine lectures on what she calls "staged and fantasy photography." Much of what she talks about is from a group of Czech photographers (including Pavel Pecha, Pavel Banca and others, along with their predecessor Josef Sudek), but also Americans like Joel Peter Witkin, who was probably famous before Wall was.

As she describes it, these people build sets and direct performances that exist for no reason other than to be photographed.

Which makes it seem like a hybrid artform rather than pure photography.

But seen in this light, I'm inclined to think the same way about most commercial photography, fashion photography, studio photography ... the photography itself is just the final technical step in bringing the work to fruition.

Edited to add ...

I don't think this is reason to stop calling any of it photography, or to push it into a different department at the museum. It's just a more expansive way of understanding it.

 

[Alexander6x6]

Never quite sure how to categorise his work in my mind. I struggle to think of it as photography in the usual way, TBH. Impressive work, but does it count as photography in the usual meaning? Set dressing, perhaps or movies without the actual movie...

I think David Hamilton did it perfectly in his film "Bilitis". The story of the film is of no interest to me but the way he uses different lenses to create images is breathtaking.

I was always interested to know which lens he used in an episode with the triangular lights in the background.

 

[SterlingBjorndahl]

My feeling about his work is that the photographic element is a minor component. Most of the work is the theatre design. The photograph just keeps a record. I have this sense it's so different it deserves its own name separate from mere photography. That word doesn't do it justice somehow. It's like the difference between a shopping list and War and Peace. They're both writing...

Would you feel differently if his tools and medium were paints, brushes, and canvas instead of cameras? Would one not call him a painter?

Regards,
Sterling
--
Lens Grit

 

[boastar]

I love Crewdson's work.

I find his work formulaic and repetitive.

Also artificial and superficial. Technically perfect, but void of any deeper meaning, at least to me. I know that’s the point of his work too, but I’m incredibly bored by it. Probably of all the „famous“ contemporary photographers, the one I like the least.

 

[Rob de Loe]

I love Crewdson's work.

I find his work formulaic and repetitive.

Also artificial and superficial. Technically perfect, but void of any deeper meaning, at least to me. I know that’s the point of his work too, but I’m incredibly bored by it. Probably of all the „famous“ contemporary photographers, the one I like the least.

I'm not a fan either, but that wasn't the point of this post. Even if you don't like Crewdson's photography, the interview may be worth your while for the reasons I outlined in the post that started the thread. It could just be me, but I value understanding the thinking of the person behind the work (whether or not I value the work).

 

[boastar]

I love Crewdson's work.

I find his work formulaic and repetitive.

Also artificial and superficial. Technically perfect, but void of any deeper meaning, at least to me. I know that’s the point of his work too, but I’m incredibly bored by it. Probably of all the „famous“ contemporary photographers, the one I like the least.

I'm not a fan either, but that wasn't the point of this post. Even if you don't like Crewdson's photography, the interview may be worth your while for the reasons I outlined in the post that started the thread. It could just be me, but I value understanding the thinking of the person behind the work (whether or not I value the work).

Oh absolutely. My post wasn’t to criticize yours at all. Even if you said you’re a huge fan, that would obviously be fine too. I wanted to simply give my perspective on his work. His style of working, with the huge crews, artificial fog and light, everything meticulously staged, is something that I see as a better fit with commercial photography. He wants to make art, but his modus operandi is that of a commercial photographer. That’s why his art leaves me completely cold. But I will check out the interview once I find the time.