Sometimes It’s Just a Photograph (and That’s Why It’s Beautiful)

Hmm.

I don’t think I’d be so quick to say that my perspective on photography has changed, or that I enjoyed finding deeper meaning in Winogrand’s photographs, as some of you seem to be saying. I understand that, but I don’t think I’d say the same.

I feel that Winogrand’s photographs are beautiful- he captures natural, everyday scenes without much preparation. Like Josh said in his post- it’s just nice to have an actual portrayal of life, rather than something posed. To me, a photograph can be beautiful if it is captured with the photographer’s perspective in a cool way. As I walked around the exhibit, I noticed so many beautiful shots- and yes, some do have deeper understandings that aren’t so obvious- but they were beautiful simply because. It frustrates me a bit that I can’t really explain what makes photography beautiful- but I know that, to me, it is not because of any deeper meanings. The photograph of the woman laughing (that is used as the exhibit’s default photograph) is beautiful simply because it is natural, true laughter, rather because of any deeper representation or analysis that you can think of.

There was a quote by Winogrand on one of the walls of the exhibit: “I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.” This quote is just so on point. Photography isn’t the same as a painting- a photographer doesn’t photograph in order to convey a deep message. Photography is a form of art of its own. It is possible that the photo may inevitably convey a message itself, but it is important to view the photo without the message as well, as it was when it was first captured. At least, that’s what I think this quote implies. [I think this may specifically apply to photographers of natural poses.. Although I haven’t thought about it too much.]

I don’t think it is fundamental to photography to analyze the photograph like we do with works of art. The difference here is that the artist (are photographers artist? I don’t know) isn’t purposely manipulating each aspect of the photograph. True, they do choose how much of the scene they want to capture, but it is not the same as an artist who physically paints each pinpoint of a painting. [Again, natural poses. Probably not as true for photographers whose subjects are posed to represent something else.]

Does this make sense? I don’t even know if my thoughts were coherent… I enjoyed looking through the photographs and appreciating Winogrand’s perspective that was portrayed in each picture.