Documentary Tradition Part I

Photographs are often categorized into different genres: documentary, fine art,and commercial. What makes a photograph a document? What is the difference between a document and piece of art work? Can a document be a piece of artwork? When we elvauate a photograph it can be helpful to ask ourselves the following questions:

• Who took the photograph?
• Why and for whom was the photograph taken?
• How was the photograph taken?
• Does the series or full portfolio explain more than a single print?

The Oxford Encyclopedia of photography defines documentary: "In the broadest sense, all photography not intended purely as a means of artistic expression might be considered ‘documentary’, the photograph a visual document of an event, place, object, or person, providing evidence of a moment in time...Yet the term ‘documentary photography’ has a more specific meaning. The Life Library's Documentary Photography (1972) defined it as ‘a depiction of the real world by a photographer whose intent is to communicate something of importance—to make a comment—that will be understood by the viewer."

We will keep this definition in mind as we look at some early documentary projects. Would you call these photographers Documentarians?

Eugene Atget



Eugene Atget, Lampshade Merchant 1899-1900

Atget captured over 10,000 views of Paris with his large, wooden, glass-plate camera. His aim was to show Paris, an old, historic city which disappearing to modernism. He strived to make photographs of both Paris' architectural details and colorful residents. Although hailed first by the Surrealists as a master artist and later by the MoMA Photo Director John Szarkowski as a photographic genius, Atget, himself, was a business man and a loyal Parisian who mourned the city's transformation.

Edward Curtis