Category — Visual Art

After walking 20 blocks across town from the Macaulay building on Sunday, I finally arrived at the Met. Exhausted and out of breath I was not in the mood to walk up the  steps to the Gary Winograd photography exhibit (no offense). I am not such a photography person, so I wasn’t sure how I was going to react to the photos.

I immediately noticed that Gary does not name his pictures. I  didn’t really like this because I love to connect a title to a painting or picture. While looking at the pictures at the entrance of the exhibit I felt like I was in the movie The Great Gatsby. I loved seeing couples in their elegant evening wear smiling and dancing. It made me want to get dressed up and attend a formal dance.

I was  confused about the picture “Dallas”. I couldn’t figure out if the picture was taken in Dallas, or was titled Dallas because of the cowboy standing in the middle of the picture. But I have to say, I do like that Gary allows the viewer to interpret his pictures and name them. It allows a connection to be made between the photographer, the photograph, and the viewer.

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.

Before visiting the Gary Winogrand exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, I decided to do some research. What I read online was that Winogrand was despised by many other artists and photographers because they did not see his work as art and the reviews that he received were extremely negative and insulting. This heightened my curiosity, but I decided that I was still going to go the exhibit with an open mind. Winogrand photographed images of things that happen in every day life. His photos are trying to say that if the photo wouldn’t have been taken, no one would remember that it happened since it is so natural for these types of events to occur.
My favorite photograph was Winogrand’s “Coney Island” photo, which is a picture of a man carrying a woman in the ocean. The couple in the photo seems so playful and epically cliché but it just caught my eye and I couldn’t stop staring at the picture. Even though the picture is in black in white, to me it seems as if it is the brightest picture in the world because it is so full of life. Everyone in the picture seems like they are just so happy and euphoric, including the people in the background which are an addition to the atmosphere of the photo.
In all, I was extremely impressed by Winogrand’s works of photography. I found his work to be honest, while each photo told a story of its own whether it was true or not. His pictures left a lot to the imagination. As I walked around the museum admiring the art, I would look at the pictures and create an entirely made up story about the people in the picture. Winogrand’s work really made my imagination run wild, while it taught me that everything in life is a picture worth remembering.

Earlier this weekend on a seemingly warm end of summer day I decided to visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art for only the second time in my life. Normally I do not go to art museums but I had to check out the late Garry Winnogrand exhibit there and I was thoroughly impressed and moved.

Personally I absolutely hate when people take staged photos, I feel that they are tacky, bland and way too common. So chances are the reason I absolutely loved the Winnogrand Exhibit is because his art of photos were so real, so lively and so powerful. In art like his when he captures not only true emotion but also the whole surrounding setting is full of life as well. That is what I really love about his pictures, they are full of life even years after Winnogrand is dead, they are lively and full of the very essence of the people captured even after all these years when they are now much older.

This was one of my favorite pictures seen its called “Coney Island” and it perfectly exemplifies what I spoke about above. This photo is full of life and not just the people who are the main fixture of the picture but also everyone around them such as the little boy on the left as well as the water.

Although I love to take pictures and think of some as really “cool”, I don’t usually find photography as art. However, as I walked around the Garry Winograd exhibit (the first photography exhibit I have ever been to) I started to realize that I actually can appreciate the photographs as works of art more than I usually would have. I’m pretty sure it has to do with my change in perspective of art in general. I’ve always appreciated art even though I didn’t know how to analyze artwork. Thanks to the night at the Brooklyn Museum, I am now able to appreciate all different kinds of art much better than I used to because I am confident in myself as I now analyze the art work.

Anyway, as I looked around there were a few photographs that really caught my eye. One was of a man in mid air upside down. At first I immediately thought of “the Falling Man” of 9/11. The position that the man was in reminded me right away of the position the man that was falling from the World Trade Center was in. It wasn’t exactly the same but it still made me think of that. So, naturally, I got closer to the photograph so I could look at it a little longer. That’s when I realized that it must be a stunt, or trick of some sort. There was another man, standing on the side, with a huge smile on his face. He looked very amused. I first got a sense of morbidness from the artwork but than realized that it’s actually a fun and playful scene. (I was also confused at the beginning considering 9/11 happened years later.)

Another photograph that I was intrigued by was one of a big crowd of girls behind street barriers. They were all looking in the same direction and screaming for or because of something. There was a man on the side that was looking in the same direction as all the girls were, but his face looked confused or worried, I’m not really sure. Then I noticed one of the girls was wearing a shirt that said “the Beatles.” That’s when I understood what was happening. It all made sense to me now! I was then laughing to myself as I looked at the photograph again with a new perspective.

I think if Garry Winograd would have put more explanatory titles for his photographs it wouldn’t have been as much of a fun investigation as it was for me. I liked that I had to figure out what was happening in the photographs as oppose to being told by the title. He could have written “Beatlemania” for the photograph of all the girls screaming, but that would have given it away. I thought it was a nice experience for me to see the art in photographs that are not of beautiful, grand landscape scenes.

“Sometimes I feel like the world is a place I bought a ticket to. It’s a big show to me, as if it wouldn’t happen if I wasn’t there with a camera.” After seeing his exhibit, I found brilliance in this statement by Mr. Winogrand.

Before actually visiting the exhibit, I could understand the controversy over the quality of Gary Winogrand’s work. “Does he really deserve to be such a successful photographer if all he does is take everyday pictures of random people in the street?” I’m glad to say that by the end of the exhibit my answer was, “Of course he does!”

There are so many aspects to Gary Winogrand’s work that I love:

1) He titles his photographs with just the location the picture was taken (i.e. “Long Island 1981”). By doing so, he lets us (the viewers) to interpret the photos ourselves and give our own meaning to the moment. He gives us the opportunity to become storytellers.

For example, I personally would title this photo: “A Woman in a Man’s World.” Notice how this woman is surrounded by men and only men. Maybe at this point in history, most women didn’t have careers. But this specific woman seems to be determined and ambitious.

2) The thing about passing somebody by in the street is that the concept of you experiencing that same thing again is practically impossible. Everyday moments are only experienced once. Life passes by quickly and we have to appreciate every moment. By this photographer taking pictures of these moments, it is instantly captured and can always be remembered. Most photographers limit their work to the sole concept of what is beautiful, but Winogrand offers a whole spectrum of everyday life and activities. We would never think to notice a person passing by us on the street, but I’m sure glad he did.

3) Every photo depicts a situation that is relatable to our lives. We can relate more to a photo of 2 average women trying to hail a taxi in New York City, than a photo of a 5’11 airbrushed model advertising a $13,000 watch.

I really loved this exhibit. Gary Winogrand’s work actually reminds me of an Instagram account that I follow. It’s called @humansofNY. The bio of this account states “New York City, one story at a time. Currently on 50 day trips across 10 countries.” Like Winogrand, @humansofNY captures daily life moments all over the world. I strongly recommend checking it out!

So I had originally gone to the Met last week to see Garry Winogrand’s exhibit, but I forgot to post about it. So I’ll just go on about how the day that I went was. Last Friday when I had gone, I arrived to the Met before it had even been opened, so I when i had entered the Met, it was basically completely empty. I had forgot Garry’s name so i just went around the museum looking for the 900’s exhibits because I only remembered his exhibit numbers.

When I entered into his exhibit, I was pleased by how all his photographs were displayed. Nothing in his exhibit popped out at you. I don’t mean that in a bad way, since all of Garry’s black and white pictures should all be equally presented to you. The exhibit made it easy to be able to look at all the pictures one by one without another one catching your eyes too much and making you focus onto it.

I do like Garry’s style of taking pictures. There was a lot of variety to them, nothing was type categorized, such as pictures of zoo animals, beach scenes, riots, and others kinds. Garry had those pictures which differed drastically from one another. I really liked the picture, “Hard Hat Rally”, it showed a lot of violence and chaos, but in a way that makes the picture seem so authentic. Garry didn’t try to hid any of the distress in the people’s faces. He made the picture to represent what was really going on and he didn’t try to hide any of the struggle. I saw one of Garry’s quotes on the wall, “The world isn’t tidy; it’s a mess. I don’t try to make it neat.” and that quote is exactly represented in that picture of the hard hat rally. Since his photos are so authentic I really did enjoy looking at all of his pictures.

I’m not trying to say that I only liked the violent pictures, but that one picture did really stand out since Garry had a quote to back it up with. His photo of the what looked to be a family with human parents and chimp children was also nicely taken. Since it is suppose to show a parent’s love and a child’s trust, that photo was very touching in a way.

I guess to sum up the exhibit, all of Garry’s works were really nice to look at. I honestly liked some more than others, however it was still amazing to be able to take a glimpse at the world from a very honest camera point of view.

Attending the Metropolitan Museum of Art is always a great time.  However, I found myself captured (all puns intended!!) by his work in more ways that I would have thought.  I hadn’t really looked into, or learned much, about the art of photography before going to the collection; which, in my opinion, was nice to experience it purely from a personal lever; as opposed to an academic level.

First off, I have to say I loved his work.  It may have been the simplicity of what was on the outside but it was really moving.  I really loved how he captured everyday people doing just everyday things and making a whole other reality out of it.  My favorites had to be the ones where men and women, old and young, were all at some sort of party, I believe they were all part of the same collection.  Every picture told its own story of each guest at the party and their state of being.  Some shots were of the same people just the next moment after the first one.  It was its own little story picture book.  Like many of his photos, you could easily tell how people were feeling or what they doing.

One thing that really stood out to me was a few of his pictures didn’t have a focus at times.  For example, there would be pictures of a large group of people, but also a very scenic background.  This is very different from a painting which has a focus or a sculpture that usually, again has a main focus.  I would assume that photography works the same, but I saw so many smaller focuses.  It added a certain intimacy to the people and places in the photos.  Another one that I really loved was of a very young, beautiful, (I think blonde) woman lighting a cigarette.  It looked like she noticed she was being photographed but she also looked surprised, as if, she didn’t request to be photographed.  You could see the surprised, yet happy and flattered, look on her face.  It seemed so natural.

After leaving the museum and reflecting on that specific picture, the idea of its natural being resonated with me.  And I feel that photography, or at least Garry Winogrand’s work, is the most natural art form.  Most art, if not all, is imitation; imitation of the world we live in and all aspects of it.  But photography is a still frame in time showing us our reality.  Its literally the world we live in, frozen for us the reflect on.  It does not get any more natural or real than his collection of work.  I simply loved it and recommend it to anyone even slightly interested in art!

Night at the Museum was an experience that I could only imagine having.  I tend to go to different museums such as the MET and MoMA; but never have I gone to Brooklyn Museum of art.  The two other times I have been to museums, it was not as engaging as night at the Museum.  I feel like when you are at a museum during the day, when most people are there, you feel that it is almost inappropriate to speak aloud to others around you.  It reminds me of the same atmosphere a library has during the day.  People go to quietly engage in their own thoughts and silently work out what ever thought process they are having;  but I am  learning otherwise.  That while at a museum, it adds a whole other layer of experience when discussing your thoughts aloud and finding yourself talk about art as almost its own entity or sometimes reality.

I believe that this event really speaks to what art really is.  With little instruction, or education on art history, we are sent on on an adventure to recreate the captured creative minds and times in history using only our minds, and more importantly, each other.  It is a great way to feel a connection to the living culture around us and get us to understand that sometimes the answer is not always the right answer, but the question is the right answer.  The night at the museum allowed me to interpret rather than answer an introduced me to the wonders of a simple, or complex, work of art.  It also helped me learn a little about myself; showing me which works of art I prefer over others and why I feel certain ways about one work of art, and another for others.

I hope everyone that went kept something that they learned with them, it was a very fun night with lots of surprises about myself, the art, and those I had worked with.

The last time I had been to a museum was my sophomore year of high school. We went to the Met and I was bored to death by the constant rambling of my teacher. It’s like she was trying to prove to us that she knew history and that she was cultured. By the end of it, I realized I barely looked at any sculptures. We were only allowed to look at the ones she pointed out and talked about. It was difficult trying to tune her out and keep up with her pace. She constantly told us what she and others thought about them and felt was interesting. Sure, the insights were nice, but it didn’t give us room to think and figure anything out on our own.

The night at the Brooklyn Museum was the exact opposite of my previous experience. We were allowed to roam the exhibits open to us (I wish the middle eastern one was open!) at our own pace and leisure with people we chose to explore with. Not only could we look at any of the works of art we wanted to, but we could also try to figure them out for ourselves. Being pushed to discuss it forced us to view other perspectives and think critically. We also had to look at individual works in great detail, something I’ve never tried or had the time for. It was neat to be able to see everything close up and not have a chaperone pressure us by watching over us like a hawk. I enjoyed having the freedom to do as I please and getting to see and hang out with the other Macaulay students. The overall environment was also fun. Everyone was doing the same thing so we didn’t feel uncomfortable talking to one another or ourselves about art and it was interesting to see which groups veered to which paintings and sculptures. After exploring everything and completing our assignment, we were free to leave whenever and pick up free food on the way out! I also got to meet some new people and stay out of the house past my bedtime. ˆ_ˆ Even though it wasn’t a sleep over, it was a pretty gnarly experience over all. I think I may have even started to like museums.

P.S. That text-in-your-response-to-the-following-question thing in the beginning of the event was hilarious and way rad.