Alfred Stieglitz was an important figure in the history of modern photography because he is one of the main figures who made photographs works of art. Many people of that time only saw photographs as a way to document events, places, and people, but he made it much more than that. Some of his photos had a composition more like that of a painting and less like that of a documenting image.
(http://online.sfsu.edu/cherny/cultlexp/photo.htm)
Alfred Stieglitz, "The Street--Design for a Poster," from Camera Work (1903)
I personally enjoy this photograph because of the composition. Black and white is ideally what I would like to work with, and the high contrast and slight grainy-ness of the picture make it interesting to look at. The horse in the front grabs my eye, as well as the tree off to the right of the frame.
(http://yalebooks.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/stieglitz2c_georgia_o27keeffe2c_1918.jpg?w=640)
I personally, can not take anything too positive from this picture because I'm not a big fan of portraits. I feel that, done creatively, humans can be an interesting topic to photograph, but I don't believe that this particular picture is more like a work of art than a documentation. This is one of his more famous pieces, a picture of Georgia O'Keeffe, and I can see why it is so famous, it just doesn't have the appeal to me.
I am happy that you can appreciate the importance of a work of art although you personally don't like it, or it doesn't appeal to you. Many people who dislike a particular work of art extend that dislike to say that it isn't art. A work of art can still be a work of art even if you personally dislike it. And even if that dislike is intense. Congrats that you understand the distinction.
ReplyDelete