Winogrand, Maier, Is Photography Art?

[doubleimage]

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.

in film every film is already like a "small photoshop" since every film has already some "filter"applied
so for me yes , its art even without post-processing or editing, the art is in seeing

 

[hepcat]

is photography art? is tuna a fish? how about a piano tuna?

at the risk of sounding like the smart@ss I am, what IS a "piano tuna?"

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

Juan...

I can explain "is photography, art?" Quickly and succinctly.

The idea for a photo framed in my mind's eye is merely a thought.
The exposed latent image doesn't exist.
The negative, once processed, is merely a negative.
A proof sheet is merely a proof sheet.
A print is only a print, until it's displayed for public consumption and appreciation. THEN it's art because somebody thinks it's art. "Good," "bad," "fine art," or whatever are labels given a print by a viewer depending on his or her own life experience and taste.

 

[semilog]

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.

I admire Winogrand, but not as much as you do (yes, I saw the exhibit at SF MOMA), and I don't agree that everything is art, but your views are well and clearly stated.

For another strong and highly-informed critique, see also: http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/2014/07/13/garry-winogrand-monkeycam-at-the-met/

 

[cosmonaut]

I think he is referring to an REO Speedwagon Album title. I am a big GW fan as well and I do believe there is an art form is seeing the shot before it is taken. Just the act of caputring it is art.
The film wasn't developed for a reason and we all learn. Most people that reach the pinnacle of their field do it with hard wrok and determination and not natural born skills.

at the risk of sounding like the smart@ss I am, what IS a "piano tuna?"



Juan...

I can explain "is photography, art?" Quickly and succinctly.

The idea for a photo framed in my mind's eye is merely a thought.
The exposed latent image doesn't exist.
The negative, once processed, is merely a negative.
A proof sheet is merely a proof sheet.
A print is only a print, until it's displayed for public consumption and appreciation. THEN it's art because somebody thinks it's art. "Good," "bad," "fine art," or whatever are labels given a print by a viewer depending on his or her own life experience and taste.

 

[ELS]

🙂 sounds like a good explanation...

 

[jsrockit]

For another strong and highly-informed critique, see also: http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/2014/07/13/garry-winogrand-monkeycam-at-the-met/

Wow... this was a little harsh: "Garry Winogrand (1928-1984) was nothing more nor less than still photography’s version of “MonkeyCam”: a restless, anxious primate with camera attached, constantly scanning — unaware of, unresponsible for and uninterested in the results."

Yeah, monkey cam...

 

[telenous]

Harsh and rather unfair. A shame really, because Coleman has written more balanced reviews around the subject, without giving in to the temptation of hectoring. For example: http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/cspeed/essays/Coleman_MoCA.pdf , where he succeeds in registering dissent from Szarkowskian orthodoxy (whether Szarkowski's views are presented adequately is another matter) all the while remaining, on some level, appreciative of Winogrand's achievements.

The later piece should be read cautiously. It's not just opinionated (which by itself would be fine) but also one-sided and polemical, for who knows what reason.

.

 

[Kwesi]

I admire Winogrand, but not as much as you do (yes, I saw the exhibit at SF MOMA), and I don't agree that everything is art, but your views are well and clearly stated.

For another strong and highly-informed critique, see also: http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/2014/07/13/garry-winogrand-monkeycam-at-the-met/

I'm afraid that was anything but "highly informed".

To equate the conscious act of making a photograph to watching footage from a monkey who is unaware there is a live video camera strapped to it's forehead as a basis for a critique of a show that the critic proudly admits refusing to see is not only the epitome of laziness but dishonest.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

IMO, photography can be an artistic medium. Some of the output looks like art, to me, but a lot of it is just snapshots intended to be no more than just snapshots.

 

[Darthfeeble]

That poor cow..........