Should Photojournalism or Documentary Photography Be Considred Art?

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

As we know, the result of “Art is” is “Art is” which returned in an ephemeral form at the Studio Museum. All forty photographs are on display on the basement level of the galleries, which are supposedly reserved for pieces in their permanent collection. The room just outside, whether coincidentally or not, is filled with photos of students - reflecting personal memories. How the museum decides to play with this, is by missing them with old-timer photos of Harlem from the

For this essay the works of Robert Draper, author of “Why Photos Matter,” and Fred Ritchen, author of “Photography Changes the Way News is Reported,” will be analyzed. Though both deal with the topic of photography, their take on the matter is very different. While Ritchen is a photographer who writes on “what professional photographers will be doing in the future,” Draper is a writer for the National Geographic writing on how the photographers of the magazine share “a hunger for the unknown.” Both writers, however, write on the topic of photographers having a deeper understanding of their subjects, Ritchen due to research and practice, and Draper because the photographers “sit [with] their subjects, just listening to them.” In both essays the need for a deeper understanding of the

While emotions were extremely high in the sense of angst for a better life, photography provided a new sense of reality to Americans and for others around the World. Photography all around the World is unlike anything else of its kind. People are able to tell stories and elicit emotions that bring the audience to that desired response. Throughout the 1930’s, photography from governmental institutions or advancements alone brought a new beginning to the end of a terrible time that Americans all around the nation

While Postman points out the literal meaning of photography is “writing with light”; the two are from completely different universes when it comes to public discourse (p. 71). Unlike typography, photography cannot offer assertions, make propositions and offers no commentary. As long as it is not an altered photograph, it has no choice but to be true (p. 73). Thus, the photograph is only able to capture a moment in time and does not have the ability to comment on that moment. Our author contends, where language presents the world as an idea, the photographs only option is to show the world as an object (p. 72). Whereas in language, the correct context requires consideration of what is said before and after, in photography there is no before and after, only the snapshot of time. Therefore, by its very nature photography is context-free (p. 73). As photography immersed itself in the American culture author, Daniel Boorstin called this “the graphic revolution.” Postman is unequivocal on the point that the traditional forms of information, news, and even reality itself received an impairment by this new focus on images. For examples, he cites billboards, posters and advertisements. He points to magazines Life, Look and several newspapers. The picture was the focal point, and the writing was forced to take a less dominate roll and sometimes done away with altogether (p.

The original thought that photos were far superior to other visual aids have been re-evaluated in consideration of graphic artwork. The invention of photography initially provided the belief that a photo was simply a reproduction of the original. The progression of improved photographic equipment supplied the photographer with the choice of what to include or exclude from a picture. As an example, Jacob Riis transferred his belief of a sturdy, upstanding family with high morals into his photos by taking pictures of families in their apartments. However, his photo labeled “Five Cents A Spot” reflect an alternate picture of men and women packed in one apartment supported his viewpoint of the people’s poverty. Considering the subject matter of his reports it is a small wonder that his photos were not connected with a direct bias for both article and

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).

Before starting this project, I knew very little about photography, photographers, or exactly how much impact photographical images have had on our society. I have never taken a photography class, or researched too in depth about specific pictures or photographers. This project has allowed me to delve deeper into the world of photography in order to understand just how much influence pictures can have over society’s beliefs, emotions, and understandings’. I have have chosen two highly influential photographers, Diane Arbus and Dorothea Lange, who I have found to both resonate with me and perfectly capture human emotions in way that moves others.

The documentary film connected to the writings of Crimp, Wells, and Bates as they showing us how profitable the modern photography became. As the video mentioned, that in this modern day, Gregory Crewdson creates and sold his superb photographs for large amount of money, such as over $200,000. In addition, a single photograph can be priceless or worthless as sold for over $200,000, has amused me because I didn’t know it was cost that much. However, the readings explains how photography developed in the modern day and enlighten that the photographers developed their various photographic methods of making photos, while the film tells us where and how the photographers are making their money from. While watching the film, I realized that the arts

The photograph is a very powerful medium. The French painter Paul Delaroche exclaimed upon seeing an early photograph “from now on, painting is dead!” (Sayre, 2000). Many critics did not take photography seriously as a legitimate art form until the 20th century. With the

As early as mid-nineteenth century, astute observers were anticipating the consequences of the Graphic Revolution. Before the Civil War, a young Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in The Atlantic Monthly that the advent of photography would separate form from reality. He said the “image would become more important than the object itself, and would in fact make the object disposable.”3

Meanwhile, photography as a commodity in the industrial world at that time, its status in galleries and museums is determined by the price it sells, which means the higher the price is, the higher position it stands. This situation increases the gap between this photography and another type of photography, which works simply for exposing abuses caused by jobs, races, sex, social classes and etc. that people are unfamiliar to accept and consume.

On October 2, 1949, one of the most well-known and accomplished women in the photography business, was welcomed to Earth. Eighteen years later, she was enrolled at the San Francisco Art Institute where she planned to study painting, but stumbled upon a new found love for photography. Years later, this leading lady was offered a job as a staff photographer for the budding rock n’ roll magazine, Rolling Stone. Among many techniques, she is known for her use of daring primary colors and shocking poses. Her work is incredibly respected and her presence is extremely important within the art world. She has developed the ability to balance both commercial and museum-worthy photography and blends the two beautifully. Known for her controversiality, she creates images that are both provocative and beautiful. She has all the right skills and abilities to be able to push the envelope, yet keep it attractive. She is inspiring. She is captivating. She is daring. She is unique. She is: Annie Leibovitz.

John Szarkowski, a photographer and director of the Department of Photography of the Museum of Modern Art. Not only that, but based on the reading he’s also critic. Throughout the years Szarkowski had influence many American photographers, a forward thinker person who at that time had control of the art institution change photographer’s point of view. He taught American photographers how to look at photographs, from proving representations of the world, to making a story real, and to unique angles and perspective through photography.

Diane Arbus found participation to be the very best way to take a photograph. Home grown in New York City, she found the obscure to be the front for her masterpieces. Diane Arbus found herself growing up during the depression and getting to spend a lot of time in Central Park. She ended up spending the majority of her adult life with homosexuals, derelicts, transvestites, and freaks. Diane Arbus found this group of misfits to be photogenic because she felt a part of this group her entire life. Her peers and everyone around her were very critical of her work, to the point of bullying.