Classifying Photography

I find it interesting that photography seems to be the only art medium where one is more concerned with the tools with thich the image was created (i.e, digital camera vs. film-based one, etc.)that which category the image falls (landscpae, portrait, etc.)

Therefore, it's refrshing that a number of art books covering photography are using the traditional genres to describe the works. These categories include portait, landscape, narrative, object, fashion, documentary, city, etc.

"Documentary" has been the hardest genre for me to understand. On one hand, it looks very much like the commercial genre photojournalism, in that it attempts to document "real life". (Albeit a "real life" that leans toward the shocking or heartwretching.) On the other hand, many of these scenes are set up with a care usually seen only in theatrical productions. The fact that "real people" (as opposed to professional models) are used in these images doesn't diminish their inability to effectively capture and record a moment of actual life as it happens.

Of course, there are those who will argue that the staged images were inspired by real life and capture a reality that does exist elsewhere. I'd argue that they go take a look at a Salgado exhibit and learn how a pure, communicative vision can be portrayed just by recording actual events. His work define what true "documentary" work should be.

Even street photography -- an activity which can undertaken by anyone dumb/brave enough to hang out some really seedy areas with a very expensive camera -- is a more honest art form.

Now let's say that the creator of a staged "documentary" image makes absolutely no attempt to represent the image as anything other than what is really is-- an act of artifice. Does it then qualify as art? And does the fact that an image is staged disqualify it as art? I think anyone reading my earlier post on the ParkeHarrisons already knows my answer to that one.