How Photography Became Contemporary Art: Inside an Artistic Revolution from Pop to the Digital Age

This book gives you a great insiders look at the New York art world from the 70s on. Of course it centers on Photography , but really gives you a look at the ideas that shaped all the work. Definitely a great read.

What a swell ride! Andy Grundberg smoothly leads us along a tour of transformation as the contemporary art world dramatically shifts to embrace photography. This smart and thoughtful new book leaves you with a deep appreciation not only of the medium, but of the rich storytelling of a leading critic and curator who skillfully pairs his love of photography with sharp insight.

History can be studied as battles and dates and the names of kings, or it can be the study of the changes and movements in societies; the cultural, economic and other causes; and the results of these changes and movements. Andy Grundberg follows the first course.Grundberg was the New York Times photography guru between 1981 and 1991, and thus was "present at the creation" of the artistic revolution which he discusses. The book is both memoir and reporting. As is clear from the title Grundberg seeks to tell how photography became contemporary art. The book raises the question of how craft turns into art, but never answers the question. Instead, he provides long lists of photographers and galleries and the dates that these photographers appeared (or didn't appear) at these galleries. That this is his approach is emphasized by the back cover of the book jacket, which is merely a list of the photographers mentioned in the book, without further comment. The book contains a sample of photographs by many of the photographers, but having seen many of the originals, they lose something in reduced sizeWas there somehow always a demand for these photographers that galleries only discovered during this artistic revolution when the galleries needed to increase their income because of thinning margins? Had a new way of looking at art crept into society, because of the art introduced by the abstract expressionists? Did digital photography actually create new ways of seeing? I don't mean to suggest these were the causes of the revolution, but I would have expected Grundberg to examine questions like these. He didn't.Grundberg fails to mention whether the phenomena he chronicles appealed primarily to the coastal elites, and was ignored in fly-over country. My guess is that many more people in the center of the country were looking at pictures by say, Ansel Adams, then at the work of the photographers mentioned in this book. He also seems to show a certain insensitivity to public reaction to some of the art he discusses. If one is offended by a photograph of a crucifix in what purports to be urine (I am not), does it make it any less offensive if it is a plastic crucifix.It's really too bad. We could have used the insight.

The book is an interesting view of the evolving acceptance of photography as art mingled with the author's personal history as a reviewer.

The most useless book that's just a series of names with some anecdotes inbetween. Can't understand why anyone likes this. It's useless.Oh and why can't this dude shut up about female critics?? Like at this point I'm so sure he hates Susan Sontag and is trying to justify it with weak and vague criticism.

a good quick overview of recent art history

It illustrates how technical progress democratises a technical skill and makes it an accessible art form. Great book.