l, Alabama Tenant Farmer Wife (1936)and After Walker Evans: 4 (1981)In 1935, St. Louis-born photographer Walker Evans was hired by the U.S.federal government's Resettlement Administration (RA) and Farm SecurityAdministration (FSA) to document the effects of the Great Depression inAmerica. Along with writer |ames Agee, Evans stayed with three familiesin rural Alabama, including a family of sharecroppers, the Burroughs, cap-turing images of them, their living conditions and their day-to-day lives. Anumber of the photographs Evans took were published in Evans' and Agee's1941 book, Let Us Now Praise Fømous Men, swiftly renowned for its journal-istic innovation. Largely because of these photos, Evans went on to becomeone of the most praised American photographers of the twentieth centur¡Iater becoming professor of photography at Yale University. His RA/FSA pho-tographs have become iconic images of rural America between the World

Wars. |ohn Szarkowski, curator of photography for the Museum of ModernArt, writes:

It is difficult to know now wìth certainty whether Evans recorded the America ofhis youth, or invented it. Beyond doubt, the accepted myth of our recent pasts is

in some measure the creation of this photographeç whose work has persuaded us

of the validity of a new set of clues and symbols bearing on the question of whowe are. Whether that work and its judgment was fact or artifice, or half of each,it is now part of our history.l

In 1978' First andLast, acatalogue of2r9 ofEvans'20,000 photographs, waspublished. It was not the first such collection of Evans'work, nor would it bethe last. There seems little question that if you turn to page 73 of First andLast,you will see a copy of Alabama Tenant Fqrmer wifu,just as you can seeEvans' work in the book currently in your hands. But things get a little morecomplicated from here.

In i981, sherrie Levine re-photographed a number of the images in Firstand Last, including Evans' Aløbøma Tenant Farmer wife-aportrait of Allie

Mae Burroughs-titling her 're-photograph' of Evans' íconic image AfterWalker Evans; 4. This, along with a series of other images photographed fromFirst and Last, were displayed the same year in Levine's exhibition, 'Sherrie

Levine AfterWalker Evans'. Levine is what is called an'appropriation artist'-her works are primarily photographs of others' works. As Abigail Solomon-Godeau puts it, Levine 'does not make photographs; she takes photographs'.2After Wøtker Evans: 4 is grain-for-grain indistinguishable from AlabamøTenant Farmer Wife. But is it, as such, the same photograph-the very same

work? Stppose, in placing the images for this book, the layout designer hadinadvertently swapped the photographs. if they are, in fact, just two copies ofthe very same thing, it should make no difference. But is the reverse also true?If swapping the photos would make no difference, would that make them thevery same work?

In 2001, Michael Mandiberg scanned the same photographs from First andLast, andposted them to his website, AfterSherrielevine.com. If you visit thesite, you can print out a high-resolution copy of the image originally takenby Evans-now titled t lntitled (AfterSherrieLevine.com/2.jpg)-along with a

certificate ofauthenticity. According to the certificate, ifyou follow the print-ing and framing directions, you will have in your hands an authentic copy ofMandiberg's work. But is it also Evans'work? Is it Levine's work? Have eitherLevine or Mandiberg created a new work?

Walker Evans, Alabama Tenant Farmer Wife (1936)

Sherrle Levine, After Walker Evans: 4 (1981)

48 lntroducing Aesthetics and the philosophy of Art

Mae Burroughs-titling her 're-photograph' of Evans' iconic image Afterwølker Evans; 4. This, along with a series of other images photographed fromFirst and Last, were displayed the same year in Levine's exhibition, 'sherrieLevine After walker Evans'. Levine is what is called an'appropriation artist'-her works are primarily photographs of others' works. As Abigail Solomon-Godeau puts it, Levine 'does not make photographs; she takesphotographs'.2After walker Evøns:4 is grain-for-grain indistinguishable from Alabama

If swapping the photos would make no difference, would that make them thevery same work?

In 2001, Michael Mandiberg scanned the same photographs rromFirst andLast, and posted them to his website, Aftersherrielevine.com. If you visit thesite, you can print out a high-resolution copy of the image originally takenby Evan s-now titled IJ ntitl e d (Af t er sh er r i eL ev in e. c o m / 2.j p g ) - along with acertificate ofauthenticity. According to the certificate, ifyou follow the print-ing and framing directions, you will have in your hands an authentic copy ofMandiberg's work. But is it also Evans'work? Is it Levine's work? Have eitherLeyine or Mandiberg created a new work?

¡ ¡. fl n ontologyPut roughl¡ ontology is the study of what there is, and of the features andrelations of those things taken to exist. ontology considers such questions as,Are material objects all that there is in the universe?' and 'If there were nored things in the world, would there still be the colour red?' ontology in artbegins with a seemingly innocuous question: what makes thisthingthe sameas thøt thing, but different than that other thing? These are issues of identityand identity conditions.

when it comes to art, we might ash are Alabøma Tenønt Førmer wiftand After wqlker Evans:4 the same work of art, or different works? And isthere anything that makes Duchamp's Fountøin different than the |. L. MottsBedfordshire-model urinal Duchamp made it from? certainly, Evans'photo-graph and Levine's photograph look the same, but is this enough to say theyare the same photograph, the same artwork? And certai nly Fountain is made

The Ontology of Art 49

from the Motts urinal, but is this enough to say it just ls the urinal? Questionsof ontology are often posed as questions of essences, but should not thus be

confused with the central question being asked last chapter. Although thedefinition of art and the ontology of art could both fall under the headingof 'What is art?', the project of the definition of art seeks simply to distin-guish art from non-art. Questions of ontology seek to uncoYer somethingmore about The nøture of art. Rather than attempting to answer, 'What makesarf art?', we ask, what is essential to this work of arf, or this kind of att? Somephilosophers argue that all art operates according to the same ontologicalmodel-that each work of art and each kind of art have the same kind ofnature-and others argue that they can differ substantially. Most, however,do not assume that art operates according to some ontological model differ-ent than that ofall non-art.

That being said, when it comes to ontolog¡ there does seem to be animportant difference between art in general and some kinds of non-art, andthis is wrapped up in how we go about determining something's nature. Wemight ask, what is it that makes gold different from lead? They are both heav¡and they are both fairly malleable metals, so this is of little help. It might be

pointed out that lead is bluish or grey in colour, while gold is yellowish, so

that's something. Of course, iron is also grey in colour, and the metal cesiumis often yellowish, and if we want to distinguish gold from lead, we'll alsowant to distinguish these from the other metals. So we keep looking. As itturns out, what makes gold essentially different from lead is fairly straight-forward. An atom of gold has 79 protons in its nucleus, while lead has 82. Onesimply cannot have an atom of gold or lead with fewer or gteatet protons thanthese, and the same model applies to all of the elements. Chemical elementsare considered paradigm'natural kinds'-what distinguishes olte such kindfrom another is an issue of their natural make-up. We distinguish elementsby discovering Their essential natures-the same natures they would have

regardless of whether people were around to discover them. The ontologicalmodel of natural kinds seems to work extremely well for chemical elements,and some have attempted to use the same model to differentiate biologicalspecies, sexes, races and so on, all to considerable debate. What seems fairþcertain, however, is that artworks do not operate like natural kinds.

If we want to find the essential difference between gold and lead, we dosoby looking at gold and lead. We look at them with our eyes. We look at

them with microscopes. And if you are Ernest Rutherford, you finally look at

them while firing alpha particles at them to see the effect. This methodolog¡

ii

ì

Il¡Ii

:

lifilr¡

tiiil'LI:

IL

Ij.

iII

:

I

L Alabama Tenant Farmer Wife (1936)and After Walker Evans: 4 (1981)In 1935, St. Louis-born photographer Walker Evans was hired by the U.S.federal government's Resettlement Administration (RA) and Farm SecurityAdministration (FSA) to document the effects of the Great Depression inAmerica. Along with writer |ames Agee, Evans stayed with three familiesin rural Alabama, including a family of sharecroppers, the Burroughs, cap-turing images of them, their living conditions and their day-to-day lives. Anumber of the photographs Evans took were published in Evans' and Agee's1941 book, Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, swiftly renowned for its journal-istic innovation. Largely because of these photos, Evans went on to becomeone of the most praised American photographers of the twentieth century,Iater becoming professor of photography at Yale University. His RAi FSA pho-tographs have become iconic images of rural America between the World

Wars. |ohn Szarkowski, curator of photography for the Museum of ModernArt, writes:

It is difficult to know now with certainty whether Evans recorded the America ofhis youth, or invented it Beyond doubt, the accepted myth of our recent pasts is

in some measure the creation of this photographeç whose work has persuaded usof the validity of a new set of clues and symbols bearing on the question of whowe are. Whether that work and its judgment was fact or artifice, or half of each,it is now part of our history.l

In 1978, First and Last, acatalogue or2r9 ofEvans'20,000 photographs, waspublished. It was not the first such collection of Evans,worh nor would it bethe last. There seems little question of First øndLøst,yoa will see a copy of Alabama you can seeEvans' work in the book currently in a hftle morecomplicated from here.

In 1981, sherrie Levine re-photographed a number of the images in Firstand Løst, including Evans' Alabama Tenqnt Farmer wife-aportrait of Allie

Walker Evans, Alabama Tenant Farmer Wife (1936)

Sherrie Levine, After Walker Evans: 4 (1981)

Mae Burroughs-titling her 're-photograph' of Evans' iconic image AfterWalker Evans; 4. This, along with a series of other images photographed fromFirst and Last, were displayed the same year in Levine's exhibition, 'SherrieLevine After Walker Evans'. Levine is what is called an'appropriation artist'-her works are primarily photographs of others' works. As Abigail Solomon-Godeau puts it, Levine 'does not make photographs; she takes photographs'.2After Walker Evøns: 4 is grain-for-grain indistinguishable from AlabamøTenant Farmer Wift. But is it, as such, the same photograph-the very samework? Suppose, in placing the images for this book, the layout designer hadinadvertently swapped the photographs. If they are, in fact, just two copies ofthe very same thing, it should make no difference. But is the reverse also true?If swapping the photos would make no difference, would that make them thevery same work?

In 2001, Michael Mandiberg scanned the same photographs from First andLast, and posted them to his website, AfterSherrielevine.com. If you visit thesite, you can print out a high-resolution copy of the image originally takenby Evans -now titled U nt itl e d (Aft er Sh err i eL ev ín e. c o m / 2.j p g) - along with a

certificate of authenticity. According to the certificate, if you follow the print-ing and framing directions, you will have in your hands an authentic copy ofMandiberg's work. But is it also Evans'work? Is it Levine's work? Have eitherLevine or Mandiberg created a new work?