An interview with Louise Lawler

Douglas Crimp is right to say that there is a blurry line being drawn into what becomes art. When is a photograph actually art. He focuses on Louise Lawler who is taking photographs of her own and other artists' work. So where is the art? Is it in her photograph, or the other people's work. He questions if it is just an installation shot? I feel the same confusion. When we look at photographs in class, sometimes, they are photographs of photographs. So it the original photograph the art, and the picture of it just a documentation or "journalistic" aspect of it? Like the Marcel Duchamp toilet seat. Is the photograph of it the art? Or the toilet part the art? Louise Lawler adds another dimension to this blurr in photographing documents about the art, like the reflection of a painting, or the sign next to it, or the information in a pamphlet about a work she did. Which one is the art part? She refuses to answer the question directly, kind of saying its both and it is whereever the viewer wants it to be. She also adds in that the art can lay in producing an art work of another person's art work. IT just becomes a whole tangled mess. I liked the Andy Warhol and Marilyn Monroe example. With two identical pictures, she asks, is it andy warhol that makes you cry or marilyn monroe? Who is affecting you? Is it marilyn since she is who is in the photograph? Or is it andy warhol since he took and created the photograph or painting?  Or is it Louise Lawler, for placing them and getting you to think about it?Like the issue we spoke about in class with Sherry levine and that picture of some guy's son. Is the son the artist? Or is the guy that took the picture? Or is it her for placing emphasis on it? I love this credibility and authenticity issue and would definitely like to explore it further.