Careful Visual Observations Of Photography

After viewing these six pictures, I consider that it is almost impossible to feel sad or depressed when looking at Elliott Erwitt work. Finally, the essay will be finished by mentioning a quote of him that I believe perfectly represents what photography is about and how it reaches out to most people: "It's about reacting to what you see, hopefully without preconception. You can find pictures anywhere. It's simply a matter of noticing things and organizing them. You just have to care about what's around you and have a concern with humanity and the human comedy.

Winogrand took photos of everything he saw; he always carried a camera or two, loaded and prepared to go. He sought after to make his photographs more interesting than no matter what he photographed. Contrasting many well-known photographers, he never knew what his photographs would be like he photographed in order to see what the things that interested him looked like as photographs. His photographs resemble snapshots; street scenes, parties, the zoo. A critical artistic difference between Winogrand's work and snapshots has been described this way, the snapshooter thought he knew what the subject was in advance, and for Winogrand, photography was the process of discovering it. If we recall tourist photographic practice, the difference becomes clear: tourists know in advance what photographs of the Kodak Hula Show will look like. In comparison, Winogrand fashioned photographs of subjects that no one had thought of photographing. Again and again his subjects were unconscious of his camera or indifferent to it. Winogrand was a foremost figure in post-war photography, yet his pictures often appear as if they are captured by chance. To him and other photographers in the 1950s, the previous pictures seemed planned, designed, visualized, understood in advance; they were little more than pictures, in actual fact less, because they claimed to be somewhat else the examination of real life. In this sense, the work of Garry Winogrand makes a motivating comparison to Ziller's

A reoccurring topic of the essays, concerning photography, discussed during the course is the future of professional photographers/photojournalists. Some believe that the easily accessible spread of amateur photography can and has put a strain on the works of professionals. However, with magazines such as National Geographic still in print after over a century, it raises some questions. Though the spread of information, and thus photography, has increased the platforms and need for professional photographers and photojournalists still exists.

My MYP project topic is Photography. I am researching photography because it is a subject that really interests me and that I enjoy. Photography falls under the global context of Personal and Cultural Expression because it is a form of art and a way for people to express their creativity. Throughout this MYP journey I hope to become a better photographer and explore more of Washington D.C. Some questions i’m trying to answer for this project are, What are some restaurants in D.C that are highly favored? What are some cool places I should visit in D.C? How can I become a better photographer?

Marcel Duchamp stated that "It was his achievement to treat the camera as he treated the paintbrush, as a mere instrument at the service of the mind” (Biography.com, 2017). In addition, the photogram might seem expressive and abstract, yet on the contrary, it is the precise medium to document the everyday objects in an unrepeatable and somehow uncontrollable way. The artist cannot predict how the selected objects will be recorded under the light sources that were tampered with. From the first glance, the image completely dissociated from its original subject, allowing one’s memory to fill the gap. Yet below its surface, the image is an accurate documentation that captured a moment of psychical intensity. It revealed a new visual experience, using objects in the simplest way. One can say that the use of this medium disclosed reality more preciously due to its invisibility and mysterious representation (The Museum of Modern Art, 2017).

Uelsmann’s work was not well received in the photography community. His creations were not considered photography; however, he was well received in the art community. John Szarkowski hosted a solo exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art in 1967. Uelsmann was considered “iconoclastic” and “set out to convince critics that photography offered alternatives to the conventional “purist” sensibility…” Uelsmann debated that photos could “evoke elusive states of feeling and thinking triggered by irrational and imaginative juxtaposition” (Kay). Uelsmann has succeeded in finding a following among photographers and artist alike. In the past forty years, Uelsmann’s work has been exhibited in over 100 solo shows throughout the US and overseas. He has permanent instillations in museums worldwide (Taylor). Uelsmann’s photos are now revered for their original technical form as well as their surreal matter (Johnson).

The essay will make use of the works of photographic artists who engage in one of the two schools of photography, Pictorialism and Modernism. The artists that will be used for this essay are Paul Strand who has been selected for the Modernist development together with a Russian artistic photographer Alexander Rodchenko and As White remained rooted to Pictorialism, his stance on his methodology and set up in the 1920s and 1930s led to occurrence of the stirring up of quite a number of understudies to handle his visualization style which was fresh and innovative (White, Clarence H., Jr. and Peter C. Bunnell 1965). In the process of talking about the two schools of photography, Pictorialism and Modernism rather than focus on the clash and disagreements that occurred from Pictorialism and Modernism it is more suitable to examine the merits in both the method and styles used in the two schools of

Each one brings something a little different to the table, keeping creativity alive. There is something to be said about an artist who has the ability to strip someone of all things superficial, and capture the root of their spirit. To me, there is nothing more beautiful than a photograph that speaks truth. Photography is one of the best forms of story-telling and the works of Leibovitz, Avedon, and Mark never cease to do just that. The daring traits that all three of these masterminds possess is what gives them the power to create shameless and provocative pieces that are both world-renowned and highly-respected. Without artists like these, the art world would not survive. Among the plethora of repetitive and monotonous works created daily, you need a Leibovitz, an Avedon, and a

Thorough research of the works and techniques of Tina Barney and Elliott Erwitt led me to a simple conclusion: their art is simple and meaningful but, meaning is what an observer makes of it. What does this indicate one might ask? It means that although they both have very distinct ways of taking a photograph their common goal is to evoke emotion in their observers. Elliott Erwitt put it in the simplest terms when he said, “I think you should just look at the stuff and if it enriches you in some way or knocks you out, that’s all you need” (Danziger 89).

In David’s painting there is a clarity and crispness that is similar to a photograph, yet his figures maintain a baby like softness. Gerard’s implied texture of the clothes and environment are softer than David’s giving the painting a more realistic appearance. David and Gerard both show in these paintings that they have a very good understanding of human anatomy and form. The figures in both painting have a good sense of underlying structure and weight.

A painterly quality with an otherworldly aesthetic is what set pictorialism apart from other photographic practices at the time. This notion of perfection is what really captures my attention. What I find quite interesting is that looking into this aesthetic every man

One of the reasons I enjoyed this exhibit so much is because several pieces involved the viewer. There were two artworks of similar style that I was immediately drawn to, which I later noticed were by the same artist. Adam Fuss is the creator of these colorless photographs and though they share similar physical characteristics they have different meanings. “Untitled” (2002) was an image of a skull and “Home and the World” (2010) showed an image of a mattress. From a distance, I saw what looked like shiny aluminum surrounded by a picture frame. As I got closer I could see an image almost jumping out towards me, but only when the light was hitting it at a certain angle. I could also see my reflection in this mirror-like creation. This type of art is called a daguerreotype and is one of the earliest forms

Last week I visited the George Caleb Bingham Gallery to see an artist’s work. Her name was Mary Margaret Sandbothe and her collection of art was at the MFA Thesis Exhibition. Now, I am not one for looking at art and being able to interpret it easily, but when I arrived to see her work I was pleasantly surprised. I was in awe of artwork at first glance.

Art critic Robert Hughes once said, “People inscribe their histories, beliefs, attitudes, desires and dreams in the images they make.” When discussing the mediums of photography and cinema, this belief of Hughes is not very hard to process and understand. Images, whether they be still or moving, can transform their audiences to places they have either never been before or which they long to return to. Images have been transporting audiences for centuries thanks to both the mediums of photography and cinema and together they gone through many changes and developments. When careful consideration is given to these two mediums, it is acceptable to say that they will forever be intertwined, and that they have been interrelated forms of

The art world has been host to a vast menagerie of talent, intellect, and creativity for about as long as human culture has existed. It has grown, developed, and changed just as humanity has. Naturally, with such an impressively expansive history, various avenues of art are visited time and time again by new artists. Artists seek not only to bring their own personal flavor and meaning to timeless concepts, but to find new ways to approach them. While not every single creator and craftsman can make such a great impact on art or the world, their efforts have given birth to some truly magnificent and unique works. In an effort to create a more meaningful understanding, as well a deeper appreciation, of the nuances, techniques, and design choices employed in these attempts, a comparison will be made between Edouard Vuillard’s Interior With a Screen (1909-1910) and Henri Matisse’s Blue Nude (Souvenir of Biskra) (1907). In this essay, each artist’s approach to the subject of the female nude will be closely analyzed, compared, and contrasted, as will their styles of painting, handling of visual elements, and their use of the principles of design. An interpretation of each work and what the artist intended when creating it will also be provided.