Maggie Taylor

I just looked at a Maggie Taylor exhibit in a local gallery. My question is: is it photography? A lot of artist are using photography as part of the process of creating art and calling it photography. This is far different than what I think of as traditional photo taking.

Art is not what you expected it to be.

 

and calling it photography

 

 

Are they? Do you have quotes?

The definition of traditional photography has become squishy, Sanford. I thought I knew. So did you. Ok, getting down to cases. When I look at the POTW chosen last week I have nothing to discuss because there is nothing I can see. It is not offensive nor enticing. It is nothing. Nothing that I, a traditional person, can relate to. If someone else relates, then it becomes what they choose to see.... If someone sees something and likes it, go ahead and call it art. Call it photo art if that suits. I got no problem with that. To offer a sublime example: If I sat bare buttocks on an office copier, that is photography and might be classed in some category too--like what don't ask... If it gets into a gallery in some neck of the woods, for sure it qualifies. Who am I to object. Or argue with definitions. Edited April 25, 2017 by GerrySiegel

You can manipulate a photo and call it art, and it can be great art. But let's not pretend that it's photography proper. Photography is about discovery, not creation. Painting and sculpture (and mosaics, etc.) are about creation. I suppose the word 'metaphotography' would apply to Maggie Taylor's work. That is not to say that it is unworthy, but merely to properly classify it.

Here's a LINK to Maggie Taylor's website for those who want to look at what's being discussed here.

 

Classification can sometimes be a distraction. I generally leave that to curators, academics, pedants, and historians.

 

I'm generally not a purist and don't mind expanding notions of photography. It's been expanding since the beginning and I suspect that will continue.

 

At the same time, there may be some good reasons (both theoretical and practical) to maintain certain distinctions for clarity. Generally, though, I don't feel the need to get too involved in those sorts of determinations.

I just looked at a Maggie Taylor exhibit in a local gallery. My question is: is it photography? A lot of artist are using photography as part of the process of creating art and calling it photography. This is far different than what I think of as traditional photo taking.

 

Maggie's husband, Jerry Uelsmann, has been doing essentially the same thing since the 1960s, except using film, and I suspect many would consider that photography.

Photography is about discovery

 

 

Oh, don't I wish!! But hope springs eternal. We need to require that only certified index fingers be allowed to push the button.

Jerry Uelsmann doesn't get the respect he deserves in the 21st century. Many people look at his work and assume "Photoshoped" with no clue as to the time, effort and many steps required for EACH of his photo creations.

Maggie Taylor's work is, like much art, a composite of multiple media, only one of which is photography. Is a painting with embedded artifacts still a "painting"? Is a sculpture that has surface color/patterns applied also a painting? I don't know that it really matters what label one applies. What is more important is how effective the artwork is at communicating the artist's intentions, and how we feel when we experience it.

Photography is about discovery

 

One can discover things in their own head.

One can discover things in their own head.

 

He thinks he can brag because he has a spear in his head.

 

The hard part is getting it out your ear or nose. Thus the need for an expert index finger.