Tuna
Fotoğrafçı
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/a...s-come-to-life-after-death.html?ref=arts&_r=0
I hope my title doesn't injure any sensibilities this time...
I hope my title doesn't injure any sensibilities this time...
Winogrand, Maier, Is Photography Art?
- Thread starter Tuna
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 29
- Views 6K
zauhar
Veteran
Tuna, sensibilities on RFF are a little too fragile sometimes.
Thanks for the link, reminds me that I need to get to that show!
Randy
Thanks for the link, reminds me that I need to get to that show!
Randy
Kwesi
Well-known
Tuna, thanks for the link. I saw the Winogrand show yesterday and there is no doubt that to see it is to immerse yourself in the mind and actions of a great artist.
The crux of the article has actually very little to do with Winogrand or Maier. They are merely convenient points of reference.
The article can be summed up in this excerpt. "Is the clicking of the camera shutter only a first step, after which — if an artistic photograph is to be distinguished from the deluge of thoughtless shots — the proofing, editing and printing of the image must follow? Or can a photographer who exposes the film but goes no further nonetheless be an artist?"
The question of wether or not photography is an art form never comes up.
The crux of the article has actually very little to do with Winogrand or Maier. They are merely convenient points of reference.
The article can be summed up in this excerpt. "Is the clicking of the camera shutter only a first step, after which — if an artistic photograph is to be distinguished from the deluge of thoughtless shots — the proofing, editing and printing of the image must follow? Or can a photographer who exposes the film but goes no further nonetheless be an artist?"
The question of wether or not photography is an art form never comes up.
NY_Dan
Well-known
1) You can't believe everything you read in the NYT.
2) The author of the article clearly has multiple agendas.
3) The photo taken by Lee Friedlander of John Szarkowski in front of the church on Fifth Avenue undermines his credibility 🙂
4) Only a non-photographer would port forth the ridiculous proposition that Winogrand needed to develop and see all the photos he shot, as any photographer with years of experience, let alone one of Winogrand's caliber can see the photo in his/her mind and hold it up, examine it, and caress it as though it were as tangible and real an item as a booger in his nose.
5) NYT -- this article is the work of a chef with multiple personality disorder cooking goulash. One ridiculous point is "Because she photographed in so many styles, her sensibility is indistinct and a signature viewpoint is absent." Hornswaggle! So if a chef can cook a variety of dishes in a variety of styles they have no voice? You don't eat every dish at once. And you don't need a curated meal to appreciate a chef -- or a photographer. I know critics would never swallow the suggestion that they could only write about one topic -- or one limited subsection of one topic.
6) If photographs didn't count because a camera was used, then music shouldn't count because an instrument was used, same for every art except dance, singing, love-making, martial arts, well you get the idea -- the writer used a keyboard so where do they get off? 🙂
On RRF I hereby challenge the NYT, John Szarkowski (with divine intervention), and every critic and gallery owner on planet earth to cameras at dawn. We meet of a place of their choosing, with the camera of their choice, we shoot to dusk and the one with the best photos is declared victor. I nominate Calzone as my second as he's handy with a huge hunk of brass and glass and will insure a fair photo-fight. These pompous, narcissistic, blowhards can take a swig of my can of Dust-Off!
It's time for photographers to frame the conversation. Pompous taste testers are not the equal of say a chocolate confectioner at Godiva. If I want to know about fine chocolates I'll ask the maker not the taster. And I'm done! 🙂
2) The author of the article clearly has multiple agendas.
3) The photo taken by Lee Friedlander of John Szarkowski in front of the church on Fifth Avenue undermines his credibility 🙂
4) Only a non-photographer would port forth the ridiculous proposition that Winogrand needed to develop and see all the photos he shot, as any photographer with years of experience, let alone one of Winogrand's caliber can see the photo in his/her mind and hold it up, examine it, and caress it as though it were as tangible and real an item as a booger in his nose.
5) NYT -- this article is the work of a chef with multiple personality disorder cooking goulash. One ridiculous point is "Because she photographed in so many styles, her sensibility is indistinct and a signature viewpoint is absent." Hornswaggle! So if a chef can cook a variety of dishes in a variety of styles they have no voice? You don't eat every dish at once. And you don't need a curated meal to appreciate a chef -- or a photographer. I know critics would never swallow the suggestion that they could only write about one topic -- or one limited subsection of one topic.
6) If photographs didn't count because a camera was used, then music shouldn't count because an instrument was used, same for every art except dance, singing, love-making, martial arts, well you get the idea -- the writer used a keyboard so where do they get off? 🙂
On RRF I hereby challenge the NYT, John Szarkowski (with divine intervention), and every critic and gallery owner on planet earth to cameras at dawn. We meet of a place of their choosing, with the camera of their choice, we shoot to dusk and the one with the best photos is declared victor. I nominate Calzone as my second as he's handy with a huge hunk of brass and glass and will insure a fair photo-fight. These pompous, narcissistic, blowhards can take a swig of my can of Dust-Off!
It's time for photographers to frame the conversation. Pompous taste testers are not the equal of say a chocolate confectioner at Godiva. If I want to know about fine chocolates I'll ask the maker not the taster. And I'm done! 🙂
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
The Art is in the "seeing." Everything else is art world BS, and has more to do with power and money than what artists do.
Ansel
Well-known
Actually Winogrand himself would disagree with this - he often took photos of things to see what they looked like photographed. Not the other way round. he would later scan through his negatives to see what the results were and pick the ones he liked.
On the subject of the article I would say that everyting is art.
Winogrand is one of my favourite photographers because he debunked so may of the myths around photography.
Particular
Disassembler, occasional reassembler
Dan, to quote the man:
1) "Yes"
2) "Yes"
3) "Yes"
4) "Yes"
5) "Yes"
6) "Yes"
7) "Yes"....Eh o wait.
1) "Yes"
2) "Yes"
3) "Yes"
4) "Yes"
5) "Yes"
6) "Yes"
7) "Yes"....Eh o wait.
MrFujicaman
Well-known
Ever notice that art critics can't paint, photograph or make any other kind of art ? And the only thing I might believe in the NYT is the weather.
gb hill
Veteran
It probably will, but who gives a rip...thanks for sharing.
If I was in NYC I'd go see the show. I'd love to see even the photos that didn't make the cut. Why only show 56 photos out of the 400+ photo's.
Also, how come everytime they do an article on Winogrand they post the same photo's we've all seen thousand of times? Are only 5 or 6 photographs his top work? I certainly think not!
aizan
Veteran
if going to a hardware store and buying a urinal, bottle rack, or coat hanger can be art, so can pointing a camera and pushing the shutter button.
i must be sensitive because i still find it exasperating when people don't move beyond the same, tired "answers" to age-old questions, not just with photography, but with all artforms.
i must be sensitive because i still find it exasperating when people don't move beyond the same, tired "answers" to age-old questions, not just with photography, but with all artforms.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
About the thread title, and not so much about the link:
Every time the question "can photography be art?" comes, we can be sure, totally sure, about one thing only: we should talk first about what art is.
That, in case what we want is communication.
And then proceed to talk about photography.
If forum members wrote "to me, art means x..." and "then, as photography can / can't be x, because of its..." threads on this subject would be as interesting as we deserve.
Cheers,
Juan
Every time the question "can photography be art?" comes, we can be sure, totally sure, about one thing only: we should talk first about what art is.
That, in case what we want is communication.
And then proceed to talk about photography.
If forum members wrote "to me, art means x..." and "then, as photography can / can't be x, because of its..." threads on this subject would be as interesting as we deserve.
Cheers,
Juan
jwc57
Well-known
At last year's town art show, I overheard part of a conversation between two judges. One was in charge of judging photography, the other painting, sculptor etc. The latter was saying that she appreciated this show having a separate judge for photography because she hasn't considered photography a "true" art since it became primarily digital. I had to help with a group of school kids touring the gallery, so I missed her explanation. I plan on asking her about her feelings toward digital photography at this year's show since it doesn't fit her of idea "true art".
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Weird article. Couldn't finish it.
I say, this dude doesn't seems to know about uncoated, less contrast lenses available in 30s.
I say, this dude doesn't seems to know about uncoated, less contrast lenses available in 30s.
Kwesi
Well-known
I agree, except in this case i think Tuna was just looking for a provocative title for his thread.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
is photography art? is tuna a fish? how about a piano tuna?
Monochrom
Well-known
...Photography can be art...such an old already answered question...
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Hell, I'm as good as Winogrand
Hell, I'm as good as Winogrand
And proud of it too! Yes, yes, yes.....
Photography is NOT art, at best it's a craft and good editing. Above all it's just luck of the draw and being in the right place at the right time.
Winogrand didn't shoot this. I did. When is sperm of the moment art?
M6, Summitar, Fuji
Hell, I'm as good as Winogrand
And proud of it too! Yes, yes, yes.....
Photography is NOT art, at best it's a craft and good editing. Above all it's just luck of the draw and being in the right place at the right time.
Winogrand didn't shoot this. I did. When is sperm of the moment art?
M6, Summitar, Fuji
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Thinking along the same lines, I'd personally say that photographs can be art, but I'm quite glad they don't have to be. Mine are just photographs, and you can make of them what you will. Some of them I quite like, some not so much. We might agree about the "like" thing, or not. That's OK by me.
...Mike
kbg32
neo-romanticist
As history has shown, great art in the end, though they do change through the years, always lay claim to the "tasters".
Highway 61
Revisited
I say, you haven't read well what he was writing, and, had you been at the HCB retrospective show recently, you would have understood what he was meaning. This doesn't regard lenses at all but how some prints of the same negatives were enlarged very differently at thirty years of distance, to match contemporary people's taste.
The article is very interesting, in that it talks about art works sometimes surviving their creators, what's "weird" with it ?
Similar threads
