Fried's Conclusion

Walker Evans

Why photography matters as art as never before refers to the predetermined relationship the subject has with the viewer. Fried relates the photographers from the 1970’s to present as not being different from those prior, but that the determined response of the viewer is different. By this I mean that photographers such as Arbus, Avedon, Freelander, etc all created art, but they presented images of those that knew they were to be glanced upon.

This tableau form of art, to be seen, reflects on the sitters’ undesired-ness of needing to be seen. This is a point I feel Fried failed to reflect enough. Is this not a contradictorily essence? Fried, backed by his friend Michael, discusses previous writings about the objecthood of this medium, and the unobjectivity of photography as relevant in art as painting. Towards the end of the conclusion Fried refers to Wall’s interest in Manet being an inspiration in his early work, though not a reference to his images, and in After “Spring Snow” Wall referred to Courbet’s Wheat Sifters as inspiration for posture.

Jeff Wall After "Spring Snow"

Manet

Though I agree with Fried about the relevance of Photography being an Art now more so than before but for slightly different reasons. It is through these readings that I have come to a conclusion that it is not just through the exclusion the subject has for the viewer, but also through the tableau format of the object, the photograph, needing to be viewed. We as viewers are not looking at the subject in the photograph, but rather the photograph itself which holds the subject, paused for eternity, in it.  That now photographers are understanding the complete control over a scene, by staging or reconstructing completely, and using that as a theatrical aspect in their art to exemplify the essence they are trying to portray, just as painters do.