The Singular Approach of Photographer Gregory Crewdson
Gregory Crewdson is a wonderfully controversial figure, and not because his visions are particularly controversial in themselves. His photos are often very good, depicting small town loneliness and slightly surreal personal moments. But what really gets people’s blood boiling is how far removed he is from what most of us associate with photography.
His works might not be the most expensive to buy (though they come with a hefty price tag), but they may very well be the most expensive single shots to produce. According to this New Yorker article, he’s scarcely pressed a shutter the last ten years and works with a team of 40 (!) to produce these photos. The light is never natural, the subjects are actors put into elaborate soundstages or in Main Streets closed off and micro-managed for the purpose of a single photo. He sets houses on fire so he can get a single shot. A photographer with a director of photography. Nothing is spur-of-the-moment, nothing left to chance. Images are pieced together from a bunch of photos taken in carefully choreographed environs with a big view camera. Many question his right to call himself a photographer at all.
Here’s some of what he did before he poured the resources of a small movie into every shot.
Some of his critics are hypocrites. Don’t just stand there in awe of the production, they say, look at the pictures instead! Before they proceed to dismiss the pictures as not good enough because of the way they were produced. Others have a point. Some of these pictures are too artificial for their own good, signifying nothing in particular or a platitude in general. But others are wonderful. The art of creating a world for a picture is simply awesome, and I can sympathize with Crewdson’s desire to remove the camera from the picture, making it seamless. (Ironically, the micro-management makes some of his works too real to seem real.) They’re like scenes out of movies never made, people are fond of saying. No, he says, the difference between a picture and a movie is that in the movie the before and after is set in stone, but here, only the moment is captured. He prefers to leave the narrative open. Maybe that’s what’s so attractive about his works. That, plus the lighting is gorgeous. And I envy him the opportunity to put almost anything he needs of resources into his creative endeavors. (I bet the haters do, too.)
