Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/11/28[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
This divide between documentary and fine art photography does not hold up (except within individual minds). Steichen and MOMA mounted the "Family of Man" Exhibit in 1955. As a young photographer (circa '67 or '68) I took a documentary portfolio titled "Light on poverty in Appalachia" to the Milwaukee Art Museum and was told by the photo curator, "This is not Art fit for the home." I felt devastated. Danny Lyon and many other documentary photographers exhibited in museums and galleries back then Since that time MAM has shown many documentary exhibits. Many of the museums and galleries simply don't get it until your "Name" has grown some "significance" around it. Often it's the subject matter in relationship to the place, times and trends. Poverty (in Appalachia) was off the table in 1967 in Milwaukee. Without doubt a difference exists between 'news, editorial, documentary and art photography. Determining whether a documentary photograph (or photographer) has crossed into the realm of "Art" requires a sure footed intelligence on the part of the curator, director or editor. Most curators and directors simply follow the waves and trends. Steichen, Stieglitz, Szarkowski and their ilk strike out and set trends rather than follow them; they're rare. Fond regards, George email@example.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Nov 28, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Alan Magayne-Roshak wrote: > Once I was rejected for a photo show at a Racine, Wis. museum, > and when I attended the opening and was talking to the director, he > indicated with his hands > that art photography was "up here", and journalistic pictures were > "down there". I was not > impressed with a lot of the photos that ended up on the walls.