Reading through the course notes I came across this:
...new platforms are pushing the boundaries of documentary and challenging stagnant and outdated conceptions of the genre. Take, for example, the long-held notion that documentary is necessarily the result of a recording process and not a product of the imagination, as Jean-François Chévrier argued in Documentary Now! (2005, p.47). If this were true then Mohamed Bourouissa, a French Algerian photographer based in Paris, would not be, strictly speaking, a documentary photographer.
So I googled Mr Bourouissa and clicked around on the front page of his website, which looks like this:
Music. Listening to Ms Gavin discuss the difficulties of categorizing photography is like listening to music writers trying to define a performance, recording, or artist as belonging to a particular genre. Is this collection of notes, harmonies and rhythms straight ahead, post-bop, or free? The need for definitions appears to be driven by publishing: how can editors best categorize a set of images (or, in the case of music, a set of recordings) so they can be easily found - and perhaps understood - by the target audience. Artists themselves seem to cling to these categories, as evidenced by Ms Gavin’s example of photographer Monique Stauder’s Latitude Zero, work claimed by neither camp to which she might belong, documentary or fine art. According to Gavin, Stauder preferred documentary, with the suggestion there was something untoward about her work being thought of as fine art. This apophatic approach seems to be a rather common way of making these kinds of definitions, identifying what something is not. Theologians speak of god in the same way, via negativa, because it so very difficult to say what precisely what god might be. Academics like to argue about definitions, imagining some great new understanding will emerge. On occasion one might, but 99% of the discussion is scratching itches, keeping busy, and justifying grants and salaries.
