Oh Gregory Crewdson. If I had a dollar for every time an AD asked if he does commercial work… well I wouldn’t quite be able to buy the spring issue of Aperture but I’d be close.
No. Gregory Crewdson doesn’t do commercial work. But he did, once, for HBO’s Six Feet Under. Here is what he says about it, quoted in PDN:
“I told HBO I would accept the assignment if I had complete artistic control and I stipulated that I would deliver just one final image. Those terms were met and I don’t regret taking the assignment and I don’t think I’ll do it again.”
One final image. Imagine delivering (if you are a shooter) or being delivered (if you are an AD) ONE final image.
I find that this shot is, on the surface, nothing more than a content substitution with some of Crewdson’s earlier work- completely appropriate to Six Feet Under but nothing new here in terms of Crewdson as an artist. Nevertheless, there is huge value in this photograph, but it lies in the collaboration itself and not in the final image. This is interesting: the associations between Crewdson’s body of work and the TV show have been cleverly leveraged to elevate the whole impact of this campaign- Six Feet Under benefits from its relationship with Crewdson through several implicit and explicit associations. Crewdson’s photographs have an underlying edge of anxiety and isolation- just as the show does. There is also a sense of eeriness to his work that jives with Six Feet Under, both within and outside of this promo shot. The show’s producer Alan Ball told the New York Post:
“[Crewdson's] works seems to be about the sort of secret, surreal life that exists just beneath the surface of mundane surroundings—and that’s very much what our show is about.”
Moreover, the show’s writers felt it appropriate to sew the seeds of this association prior to Crewdson ever being contacted to shoot the still- the art-school-misfit Claire name-drops Crewdson (along with Cindy Sherman) as an artist she admires. There is certainly the presumption that the audience is urbane enough to understand these references and nod their heads knowingly at what it infers about Claire and by association her family and the show itself. Everyone wins.
But why Gregory Crewdson? Why now?
Well, there is a fantastic feature on him including interviews and behind the scenes info at the Aperture website. Check it out here.
Look, when I am asked if I think a particular Fine Art shooter (or International Commercial star, a la Nadav Kander- hey, wait a minute, isn’t Kander’s style a bit similar to Crewdson’s? Curious…) might consent to do your particular Ad, my motto is “Never Say Never”. But when it comes to Crewdson, I have this to say: Oh sure, he did do a commercial shoot once when the content and the context of the shot promised to be rich with associations that would extrapolate far beyond the image itself. Can you say that about your Ad? If so, lets give him a call.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
I find the image that he delivered to be a stunning representation of family dynamics. The roses underneath help to accentuate the conflict evident on the faces of the people. The myriad of differences between characters, between the roles they evidently fill, or simply the clothes they wear or their posture help to convey the tension and discomfort. I find this a stunning still example of the same type of feelings that are conveyed through the show.
I would disagree that there is not a significant value to the image past that of the collaboration, although that seems to be of imeasurable value itself due to today’s industry!
Heather, I definitely agree that the associations go well beyond his image. Fantastic piece!
PS – I would love to know in what context the image was used!
Heather-
Great Insight. I bet there’s more than a few photographers that given the budget and crew that Crewdson requires could pull off anything an AD could imagine. There’s a great promo piece here about Greg and his work method (http://www.aperture.org/crewdson/) Let me know if you want me to call his Director of Photography, Camera Operator, and Production Designer. I’m sure they’d be interested in commercial work.
Thanks for your comment Russell. This is a very good point that touches on a few things I’d like to explore on the Blog in the future. In the past, to practice photography one needed to possess both technical proficiency and aesthetic ability. Although I’m sure Crewdson knows how to work a camera, ultimately he has a crew taking care of all of the technical side. In our industry, I see more and more digital tech’s taking on this role too. How does this impact the “skill set” one needs to have to be a successful photographer?
Different photographers will serve the needs of different markets
There are still many markets that demand a photographer who has an all-around skill set.
In film-making the skill sets are so well separated (director doesn’t need to operate the camera…) and I think photography will go down the route of specialization too (it’s common here in New York…I’ve worked with photographers who never even touch the lighting, their technical assistants handle those aspects)
Yes, and as follow up on this issue in a Fine Art context, JM Colberg (who knows more about Fine Art Photography than all of us put together) has provided a link to an article in the Guardian on-line discussing the “helpers” of major artists such as Damien Hirsch and Mark Wallinger. To introduce this link, Colberg mentions the criticism he regularly hears with regards to this issue and Crewdson’s work. See his note here.
Heather
First off, nice blog-thank you for writing. As others have said, it’ll be nice to have the p.o.v. from the other side.
R.E. Crewdson:
- I agree COMPLETELY with your assessment that the image is really nothing new, and that he’s just ‘substituted content’, however many artists do that, some for their whole careers. NOT saying that’s what he does on an ongoing basis, but since the genre is established . . .
-Considering that the final image is probably cobbled together from at least ten (more?) images it’s not surprising that he’s only going to deliver ‘one image’. I remember reading an article on him (in the NYT?) and his production methods and he related scanning something like 20 or 30 8×10′s to get just the ‘right pieces’ to be assembled in post, for ONE shot. So to echo Jing, perhaps that’s his thing now-vision only. If so, more power to him I suppose, although I’m sure he knows how to run the camera.
So many people shooting print today DO seem to rely on the computer (and the digital tech to run the camera, AND do the final image assembly on said computer) to not only solve their problems but also make up for their own lack of technical proficiency. A good thing? Not in my book, but hey I’m still shooting film so I guess I’m the Luddite. That’s a WHOLE other discussion: vision v. technical skills, or having a balanced combination thereof.
If you look to the Film Industry there are more than enough directors who have NO idea how to run their cameras, or even how to light. And they hire crew accordingly. Then there are directors like Eastwood, Soderbergh (sp?), Ron Howard, Coppola, etc who both direct AND shoot. AND know how to light, or at least communicate what they want/need to their grips, gaffers and the DP. Are their films made stronger by their enlarged skill set? Something to consider.
As an aside, I think that Film by its very nature is completely reliant on a skill-set stratified crew anyhow, there’s just WAY too much money being burned at a constant rate to not maximize every minute of possible shooting time. So you have to work collaboratively, delegate and trust your crew to translate your vision; conversely print jobs (in most cases anyhow) are not at that scale in terms of the money at stake on a minute by minute basis. Unless you’re shooting a 747 on an active runway or something like that, then by all means have a BIG crew, 2nd shooters, digi techs etc.
Crewdson’s vision IS reliant on his crew because of what he’s doing, and the digital post is all part and parcel of that end goal. He could NOT do what he’s doing w/o retouching, extensive lighting, grips, production design, etc. And his final images ARE interesting to look at.
R.E. Kander- as far as I know does all his own darkroom work, delivers only one final print PER ad, AND insists on getting them back from the client/agency/etc. OR he bills them BIG $$$. He runs his camera AND knows how to light.
Is it Kander who is close to Crewdson, or is it the other way around?
Complete artistic control-I’ve read that Michael Kenna insists on the same thing. Good for him, and good for the AD & AB who hired him to trust their judgement enough, to trust HIS judgement. After all, aren’t we supposed to be hired for our vision, not just for being able to run the camera? (And yes, many other skills too, hopefully)
I suppose in closing I’d add that it’s my impression that it’s mainly the ‘new ones’ coming in now who don’t know the technical stuff. And it’s not just the photographers- I was shooting with an AD recently (albeit young) who was surprised that I had ‘that sticks thing’ and ‘wow’, look at those big pictures’! Translation? A tripod and a 4×5 polaroid.
All Hail the Digi Revolution!
Respectfully
Robb Scharetg
I wanted to append my comment, after reading both Colberg’s writing and the comments of ‘Louisa Buck-Former Turner Prize jurist’; there’s a difference between being ‘just the artist’ behind the work, or actually having the skills and know-how to do the work IF required. I.E. even though as the architect you’re not actually building your structure, but in a perfect world you SHOULD know how.
Photography is (was?) predicated on actually knowing and understanding composition, exposure, film latitude, lighting skills etc. Has that gone by the wayside as the computer has supplanted the needs for those inherent skills, and does that matter? To Art Buyers, and ADs . . .?
I think that photographers tend to get quite uptight about the craft
there’s a school of thought that believes the photographer should know everything and shame on you if you don’t know how to mix your darkroom chemicals
there’s another school of thought that’s just concerned with the final image, it doesn’t matter what the means are.
frankly, I never knew how expensive Mr Crewdson’s productions were, and knowing how much it costs of course does affect my perception of the work
Yes when money is being burnt it makes more sense to hire specialists in each of their fields, it can help enhance the quality of a picture.
That is even more important when we’re working to create a single powerful image
Ultimately though, in the course of history what people remember is: how affecting is the artwork, they don’t remember so much how much something costs .
I’m curious though, from an advertising agency viewpoint, does it matter whether a photographer achieves an image through digital manipulation or analogue manipulation, when the costs end up being the same?
My only two cents to this discussion is to say that i don’t consider Crewdson a photographer but more of a digital artist whereas Nadav Kander is a photographer. To me, i would always, regardless of economics and prestige of the work, want to be considered first and foremost a PHOTOGRAPHER.