Macaulay Seminar One at Brooklyn College

I felt the Gary Winogrand exhibit was one of those things you don’t really think about until someone puts the idea right in front of you. I’ve walked around New York City and have obviously seen a menagerie of people go about their daily lives. I’ve even wondered who this people are and what they;re doing in their day, but theres something different and kind of eerie with capturing that moment on film like Winogrand does. The first photograph I saw as one of a young woman the artist took without her knowing and unexpectedly. I got kind of a peeping-tom/ paparazzi type vibe from the exhibit at first because that’s what it was for me, little private glimpses into an unknowing person’s life, but that is what I think what was trying to be captured in these pictures. I generally liked the exhibit because it wasn’t staged, it was pure human existence which is one of the most complex, beautiful, and ugly things I feel we will ever experience in life.

After looking at some pictures I stated watching the people watching the pictures. Most were really  enthralled and deeply observing the photos and I overheard this one conversation. What looked like a mother and daughter. The mother was explaining one picture to the girl who had to be around 14 or 15 about the “juxtaposition of  the men in the air force and the plain where they are where stationed in with their families watching them go” The woman was clearly very into the gallery and was explaining to her daughter the “creepiness” of the air force and how Winogrand was trying to make a statement about the war in this image. After this very insightful and very passionate explanation of this picture her daughter just looks up at her with a completely teenage look on her face and goes “What’s so creepy about the air force?” Which to me this exchange  shows exactly what the photos themselves were trying to show, the different degrees of human emotion, life,and perspective in one singular place.

I could not have been more excited to see the Garry Winogrand exhibit. It was a long day traveling through the city, the same day as the Brooklyn Museum workshop at the Macaulay building. When I arrived at the Metropolitan Museum, it took my breath away. The building was just so majestic and enormous; it quickly lifted my mood. When I reached the Garry Winogrand exhibit, I realized that my day was going to be an emotional rollercoaster. My first feeling was disappointment. It looked as if Garry Winogrand took pictures of things to see what they would look like in pictures. His photographs had me wondering if I took a random picture of a woman in a crowded city, or a picture of a man in a telephone booth, or maybe a picture of a soldier walking in a street, would it be art? Would it be beautiful? No, perhaps my photos would not be art or beautiful because I wouldn’t know how to capture it. I cannot predict what it would like in a photograph. I think that Garry Winogrand had the talent to picture in his mind what a subject would look like in a photograph. Perhaps he would argue against this, but then how would he know what to shoot and what not to shoot. There was a quote by Garry Winogrand in one of the rooms that read, “I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.” I silently laughed to myself the first time I read this because it was exactly what I thought Garry Winogrand did. But looking back, there was something exciting knowing that Winogrand looked at something, thought “What would this look like photographed?” and just took a photo of it. What’s really funny to me now is that I learned a lot about the photographer, versus the subjects of the photos. I learned that Winogrand was known for street photography, shooting in crowded and dense cities. He also photographed animals in a zoo (don’t ask which one), but the most important thing I learned is that this artist enjoyed taking photographs. He had a passion for shooting pictures. Garry Winogrand’s exhibition taught me to remember the simple things and to find art in the things all around me. I not only learned to appreciate the simple photos, but I also learned to appreciate the love Garry Winogrand had for simply taking pictures.

“If you didn’t take the picture, you weren’t there.”

Garry took photographs like he was in the moment he captured. He didn’t take it as if he wanted to keep it with him for the rest of his life; he took the picture as if he wanted to remember the emotions he experienced. The majority of Garry’s pictures showed this. They weren’t just pictures of random events, they were pictures of everything. All his photos had elements of suspense, clarity, impending doom, serenity and  dishevelment. All of these emotions came together to create each and every photo that he took. The black and white he used also helped. The black and white kept everything simple, You look at one point of the picture, and it is the focal point. That helped his photographs immensely. Had they been color photos, he wouldn’t be able to convey the same emotions.

The exhibit was a good experience. The way Winograd was able to recreate his experiences made you feel like you were there with him. This was probably why he said the quote from the beginning, to reassure us that we weren’t actually there. Some of his images weren’t as emotional as others. I thought that some of the images were stuck in the exhibit just to fill up space, but the photographs that had emotion were truly breathtaking. One of the photographs that I personally enjoyed was the one photo he had of a city. He most likely took the photo from a helicopter, but it was amazing. The black and white of that photo helped bring out the contrast between the ocean and the companies situated along the oceanside. Other than that photo, there were a couple of other ones that I like just as much.

First let me start by saying that I love black and white photographs. I had never actually heard of Gary Winogrand  but i had definitely seen many of his photographs. The exhibit itself was great, it was in chronological order and I feel as though it very accurately portrayed life in America from the 1950’s all the way to the 80’s. My favorite picture depicted a man lying dead on the street. There was police all around and you could only see his legs and a pool of blood. In the background there people walking and going about there business. This photograph really made me think of something my grandma always used to say “El muerto al hoyo el vivo al baile” it translated the dead go in the ground while the living go to parties. Life always goes on for others.

As I walked through Central Park to get to the MET, I couldn’t help but wonder. Have I ever been to the MET on a school trip? What does it look like? Are we even going the right away?
Then, I arrived. As I looked up at this building and I saw what a social scene it was, I was shocked. People were all gathered around just talking and having a good time outside the building. There was a lovely fountain that I enjoyed watching as I looked up a bit. So I realized this museum was actually a place I might return to. Maybe it wouldn’t just be a one-time-experience. Then, as I entered, I saw a poster that said Gary Winograd exhibit.
Well, I had photos of magazines that were being sold at the exhibit and of displays by the exhibit and of a few of my favorite photos, but they won’t upload. (uchhh)

Anyways, there was one photo (that I was supposed to place here) that we saw in class. It was really cool to see it up close and personal and be able to recognize it. I remember seeing that picture in class and thinking, “Anyone could take a picture of that. That shouldn’t make anyone famous.” At the exhibit, however, I realized that I was underestimating photography. There I was, just trying to take a photo of that photo, and it was a real struggle trying to find the right angle with the right lighting. And imagine having to do that in the moment when the real event is occurring? You can’t just have models stand there while you try time after time to get the picture right. There’s no 3 strikes and you’re out. You have one shot to get the right picture. And I’ll give credit where credit is due so props to Gary Winograd.

Another thing I really enjoyed was that he proved how natural these photos were. I don’t know if the photographer was aware of this but I highly think he was- he took two photos of a man and woman sitting on a table with the woman smoking. They were very similar photos, but their positions switched a bit and that’s how you know it wasn’t just posed. They’re not just in one typical position or doing anything special. It’s just a natural moment of a man and a woman and I really like how he was able to capture that.
Even though it was a little confusing for me as to where the exhibit began and ended at first, finding out which photos were Gary Winograd’s wasn’t a difficult task. He had a theme going for him and it comes to show that the little moments are what count most. Having photos of people’s every day lives shows how important every moment is and how people should never let time slip by. I had a great experience visiting this exhibit last Friday. It was a great bonding experience to have with the friend that I brought along with me that day. I realized that just taking selfies with your friends might not be such a difficult task, but finding the right moment to take a picture from the right angle which sends the right message, can be pretty challenging. It opened my eyes to what an art photography really is.

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.