Reading mode: Light Dark

when you go to photographic museums what kind of work are you drawn too ?

Go to last post
I like to see really excellent prints by Ansel Adams for simple technical reasons if nothing else. It is marvelous to see an image that captures detail from the deep shadows to the highlights--always makes me want to do a better job on my next image.

Then there are some personal favorites like Andre' Kertesz or Edward Weston. Or a historical cross-section of various photographers. Then there was a show last year on war photography that contained a huge variety of famous images shot from the days of Daguerreotypes to modern iPhones. It had incredible impact.

--
photojournalist
 
Last edited:
hotdog321 said:
I like to see really excellent prints by Ansel Adams for simple technical reasons if nothing else. It is marvelous to see an image that captures detail from the deep shadows to the highlights--always makes me want to do a better job on my next image.
Click to expand...
I saw a huge print of Denali (by Adams) at the museum in Monterey. I just stood there in awe in front of it. No way I get anywhere near that.
hotdog321 said:
Then there are some personal favorites like Andre' Kertesz or Edward Weston. Or a historical cross-section of various photographers. Then there was a show last year on war photography that contained a huge variety of famous images shot from the days of Daguerreotypes to modern iPhones. It had incredible impact.
Click to expand...
I saw a Cartier-Bresson exhibit at the San Francisco Museum of modern art. It was very impressive; he really covered a wide range of subjects and did a wonderful job with them. I had not seen him as a photojournalist before.

Then I saw a Gary Winogrand exhibit. I have no idea why he is even considered to be a significant photographer. It looked like random snapping to me.
 
While not my favorite photographer, I quite like Garry Winogrand's work--lots of material that gives me a chuckle and odd slice of life juxtapositions. He was a heck of a good teacher, too. I'm biased, however. He was the guy that got me hooked on photography over 30 years ago!
 
Simple photographs showing what things looked like in the past, 1950's or older, with a preference for mid to late 1800's.
 
hotdog321 said:
While not my favorite photographer, I quite like Garry Winogrand's work--lots of material that gives me a chuckle and odd slice of life juxtapositions. He was a heck of a good teacher, too. I'm biased, however. He was the guy that got me hooked on photography over 30 years ago!
Click to expand...
I'm a big fan of Wonogrand. I do think that there's a bit of a snapshot aesthetic, but I don't believe that it's truly random... just that his compositions tend to be pretty odd a complex, often breaking the traditional rules. It's not wonder that he and his ilk are controversial figures in the world of photography.

I see his work as showing that photography is really a unique medium. many photographers compose their shots and really think about the medium more like painters... and there's nothing wrong with that. Folks like Winogrand were really showing that photography can have it's own aesthetic, which is much less formal and more about speed, juxtaposition and that sort of thing than most of the photography (or at least artistic photography) that came before.

Incidentally, I saw his big retrospective show recently in DC. More photos than I think I've seen in one place by any photographer.... Truly brilliant though, in my opinion.
 
Aaron801 said:
hotdog321 said:
While not my favorite photographer, I quite like Garry Winogrand's work--lots of material that gives me a chuckle and odd slice of life juxtapositions. He was a heck of a good teacher, too. I'm biased, however. He was the guy that got me hooked on photography over 30 years ago!
Click to expand...
I'm a big fan of Wonogrand. I do think that there's a bit of a snapshot aesthetic, but I don't believe that it's truly random... just that his compositions tend to be pretty odd a complex, often breaking the traditional rules. It's not wonder that he and his ilk are controversial figures in the world of photography.

I see his work as showing that photography is really a unique medium. many photographers compose their shots and really think about the medium more like painters... and there's nothing wrong with that. Folks like Winogrand were really showing that photography can have it's own aesthetic, which is much less formal and more about speed, juxtaposition and that sort of thing than most of the photography (or at least artistic photography) that came before.

Incidentally, I saw his big retrospective show recently in DC. More photos than I think I've seen in one place by any photographer.... Truly brilliant though, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Well said! He was an excellent teacher, too. He really knew this stuff down to its roots. I was lucky enough to take a couple of semesters with him at the University of Texas at Austin when I first started out. He would bring in a couple of trays of slides from different photographers and discuss their work and reasoning at length. Then he would evaluate our own photos and point out their strong points and shortcomings.

We even got to go out on a photo shoot with him one time when he was doing a commercial, then later hang out with him as he "souped" his film. What a great guy!
 
TRIODEROB said:
which artists or type of work ?
Click to expand...
There is one good photography museum here in Saint Louis, Missouri, USA, and they feature a variety of photographers and styles of interest. The other museums and galleries in town will occasionally feature photography, some of which is of interest, although rarely do they have work by the famed photographers.

However, I find myself more interested in viewing paintings in real life. I often find myself more inspired by these because they are compositionally freer, since the painters specifically select where to put the paint.

I do view lots of photos on the Internet by a variety of photographers, but low resolution really hurts. I’m always surprised when I see a large prime photograph in real life — even my own!
 
I go see photographic shows at museums when I can, but I'm do a lot of checking out photography books, artists online, galleries, etc. There's a really nice gallery in my town (Portland, OR) that I try to check out regularly which has been around for many years and specializes in photography. It was co-founded by a teacher of mine who does some really great work, Craig Hickman. His stuff is really a combo of photography and graphics, but it's really cleaver, very well made stuff; a very seamless integration of those two disciplines.

I like a lot of the big names like Ansel Adams, Bresson, Weston, etc... but I really like a lot of the lesser known names as well.... like: Ralph Eugene Meatyard, Garry Winogrand, Robert Frank (truly great!), William Eggleston, Robert Adams, Harry Callahan, Ray K Metzger, Lewis Baltz, Cindy Sherman, Diane Arbus, Clarence John Lauglin and a host of others...

I guess what draws me towards the artists that I like most is less about their technique (and some of them have plenty of that) but more the uniqueness of their vision. In photography it seems pretty easy to create technically perfect, but rather generic photos as there isn't really "the hand of the artist" that's more present in other mediums... and with that in mind, it seems maybe even more of an accomplishment to put your own personality... your own stamp in a photograph. That's what I really like to see.

I'm always surprised by how few folks involved with photography really seem very up on artists in that this medium. If you're a musician, it would be pretty unusual if you didn't have a list of musicians that you follow and were huge fans of. Why is photography so different? I guess that I understand that folks are into it for a variety of different reasons and that some mostly take pleasure in the tech part of it and recording various things in their life... and not so much in the "art" part of it. For me though it's the artists... the really good ones anyway that inspire me to go out and shoot.
 
Aaron801 said:
I'm always surprised by how few folks involved with photography really seem very up on artists in that this medium. If you're a musician, it would be pretty unusual if you didn't have a list of musicians that you follow and were huge fans of. Why is photography so different? I guess that I understand that folks are into it for a variety of different reasons and that some mostly take pleasure in the tech part of it and recording various things in their life... and not so much in the "art" part of it. For me though it's the artists... the really good ones anyway that inspire me to go out and shoot.
Click to expand...
Interesting observation, and I think your own explanation is spot on, too. I don't think it would ever occur to most people to go on an outing for the purpose of taking pictures, and most of the few that might are doing it for the technical purpose of determining which camera settings they like best or just to familiarize themselves with its operation. Taking pictures is an adjunct to, as you put it, various things in life, and serves the purpose of creating visual memory-jerkers of people, places, and events that are interesting or important to us. Unless it's illustrating a newspaper or magazine story, travel brochure, sales ad, or the like, I don't think it would occur to most people to take any interest in the photographs of strangers--how could it mean anything to them if they weren't even there when the picture was taken?
 
jrtrent said:
Aaron801 said:
I'm always surprised by how few folks involved with photography really seem very up on artists in that this medium. If you're a musician, it would be pretty unusual if you didn't have a list of musicians that you follow and were huge fans of. Why is photography so different? I guess that I understand that folks are into it for a variety of different reasons and that some mostly take pleasure in the tech part of it and recording various things in their life... and not so much in the "art" part of it. For me though it's the artists... the really good ones anyway that inspire me to go out and shoot.
Click to expand...
Interesting observation, and I think your own explanation is spot on, too. I don't think it would ever occur to most people to go on an outing for the purpose of taking pictures, and most of the few that might are doing it for the technical purpose of determining which camera settings they like best or just to familiarize themselves with its operation. Taking pictures is an adjunct to, as you put it, various things in life, and serves the purpose of creating visual memory-jerkers of people, places, and events that are interesting or important to us. Unless it's illustrating a newspaper or magazine story, travel brochure, sales ad, or the like, I don't think it would occur to most people to take any interest in the photographs of strangers--how could it mean anything to them if they weren't even there when the picture was taken?
Click to expand...
It's true that most folks probably, even among those who do lots of photograhy care much about art photography... Still, I wonder if they realize just how big a phenomena it is? I'd geuss taht there are as many artists that use photography as a medium as there are those who work in other mediums. Fine art unfortunately seems like it's own world... it's own little cult that's pretty well cut off from mainstream popular culture.
 
Aaron801 said:
Fine art unfortunately seems like it's own world... it's own little cult that's pretty well cut off from mainstream popular culture.
Click to expand...
I hear that is especially a problem in some places like New York — and the economy ins’t helping — where ordinary people simply can’t afford hand-made art, and much of it is almost alien in its thinking. Sadly, so many people who can afford art these days seem as if they don’t have much of even a beginners’ art education — I’m thinking of college in particular, where there has been a move away from the liberal arts towards a more specialist technical education. I know degreed people who have no arts education and who are struggling to learn about it relatively late in life. Another issue is the recent commodification of art as part of investment portfolios, and the desire to ‘flip’ art rapidly.

Fortunately, where I live, there is a thriving arts scene which is more accessible yet not kitsch. The artists generally have graduate education in the arts but don’t necessarily slavishly follow the too-narrow art theories that have been fashionable for the past several decades.
 
Mark Scott Abeln said:
Aaron801 said:
Fine art unfortunately seems like it's own world... it's own little cult that's pretty well cut off from mainstream popular culture.
Click to expand...
I hear that is especially a problem in some places like New York — and the economy ins’t helping — where ordinary people simply can’t afford hand-made art, and much of it is almost alien in its thinking. Sadly, so many people who can afford art these days seem as if they don’t have much of even a beginners’ art education — I’m thinking of college in particular, where there has been a move away from the liberal arts towards a more specialist technical education. I know degreed people who have no arts education and who are struggling to learn about it relatively late in life. Another issue is the recent commodification of art as part of investment portfolios, and the desire to ‘flip’ art rapidly.

Fortunately, where I live, there is a thriving arts scene which is more accessible yet not kitsch. The artists generally have graduate education in the arts but don’t necessarily slavishly follow the too-narrow art theories that have been fashionable for the past several decades.
Click to expand...
I never really thought of it that way... that some place like NYC is different, but I don't doubt you when you say that it is. Fine art seems to be less important to people all around than lots of other things. It's very much a niche market. I was interested in all that sort of stuff well before I went to college and got an education. Probably a lot of that had to do with the fact that my mom is an artist though. The idea that appreciating art is only for the rich and that it's really a commodity to be bought and sold certainly doesn't help the average person to warm up to it. I'm a person of pretty modest means and I really like to check out art wherever I can... I'm never thinking that I need to buy it.

I agree that it's sad that schools are putting less emphasis on a liberal art style education. It seems that besides training folks to make money (very important, I realize) they ought to also be helping folks get appreciate the myriad of human experience and expression... That's the sort of thing that makes life that much richer, whether or not you have a lot of money.





I wonder where you are from with such a thriving and such a "democratic" art scene? I live in Portland, Oregon where there is a really large (unusually large, I think) creative community, but yet I still see that fine art is somewhat of a rarified thing. Since there are lots of artists there are lots of galleries and the city really does do a lot to promote the arts scene... and yet among folks that I know, they're not really too keyed into it. I see a fair amount of hype with monthly gallery opening events in a few parts of town and a lot of people go to these things, but I think that's really more for the party and less to really check out the art.... not that I'm saying that there's anything wrong with that.
 
I take whatever opportunity I have. I am not picky. These last weeks I have seen exhibitions of Greg Gorman , Ara Güler, Bettina Rheims, Walker Evans, Will McBride, Magnum Contact Prints, Early Colour Photos (pre WW I and a little into WW I), only to mention those I have not forgotten at the moment. While I liked them all, Walker Evans impressed me the least.
 
Last edited:
hotdog321 said:
While not my favorite photographer, I quite like Garry Winogrand's work--lots of material that gives me a chuckle and odd slice of life juxtapositions. He was a heck of a good teacher, too. I'm biased, however. He was the guy that got me hooked on photography over 30 years ago!
Click to expand...
 
Mark Scott Abeln said:
Aaron801 said:
Fine art unfortunately seems like it's own world... it's own little cult that's pretty well cut off from mainstream popular culture.
Click to expand...
I hear that is especially a problem in some places like New York — and the economy ins’t helping — where ordinary people simply can’t afford hand-made art, and much of it is almost alien in its thinking. Sadly, so many people who can afford art these days seem as if they don’t have much of even a beginners’ art education — I’m thinking of college in particular, where there has been a move away from the liberal arts towards a more specialist technical education. I know degreed people who have no arts education and who are struggling to learn about it relatively late in life. Another issue is the recent commodification of art as part of investment portfolios, and the desire to ‘flip’ art rapidly.

Fortunately, where I live, there is a thriving arts scene which is more accessible yet not kitsch. The artists generally have graduate education in the arts but don’t necessarily slavishly follow the too-narrow art theories that have been fashionable for the past several decades.
Click to expand...
 
I am generally drawn to engaging compositions. Although certain shots can challenge us regarding exposure or focus, composition is really the main event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top