In 1967, the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York opened a photography exhibition that would leave an indelible mark on the medium. Titled “New Documents” it was not just another display of photographs but a bold declaration of what documentary photography could be. Curated by John Szarkowski, the exhibition brought together three photographers – Diane Arbus, Lee Friedlander, and Garry Winogrand – each with a unique visual voice. Their images challenged viewers to engage with everyday life in new and profound ways, signaling a shift in the purpose and perception of documentary photography[^1].
Introduction to New Documents
Background and Significance
Before New Documents, documentary photography was commonly associated with social reform and journalistic missions. Photographers of the 1930s and ’40s (like Dorothea Lange and Walker Evans) used the camera as a tool to expose problems and advocate for change. By contrast, the New Documents exhibition repositioned documentary photography as a form of personal expression. Szarkowski noted that a new generation of photographers had “redirected the technique and aesthetic of documentary photography to more personal ends,” aiming “not to reform life but to know it”[^2]. This represented a seismic shift: photographs could be introspective as well as informative. The focus moved from objective reportage to the photographer’s subjective perspective, profoundly changing how both the art world and the public viewed documentary images. The significance of New Documents lies in this redefinition of the medium’s role, as it demonstrated that documenting reality could also mean interpreting it. In doing so, the exhibition set the stage for a more personal, questioning approach to photography that would influence artists for decades to come.
Overview of the Exhibition
Opening on February 28, 1967, New Documents featured nearly one hundred photographs[^2] that collectively painted a candid portrait of American life in the 1960s. Rather than present a unified style, the exhibition celebrated diversity of vision. Arbus, Friedlander, and Winogrand each offered a distinct way of seeing: Arbus turned her lens on society’s fringes, Friedlander explored the layered “social landscape” of urban America, and Winogrand roamed the streets capturing spontaneous moments. This range of approaches was at times unsettling, at times captivating – but always eye-opening. Szarkowski did not bind them to a single narrative or ideology; instead, he emphasized individual gaze over any collective message. Visitors to New Documents encountered images of the mundane and the extraordinary side by side, presented with a directness that invited reflection rather than judgement. In its scope and curation, the exhibition provided a comprehensive look at contemporary American life through three very different sets of eyes, revealing how rich and varied “documentary” photography could be.
The Pioneers of a New Documentary Vision
At the heart of New Documents were the three photographers whose work embodied this new direction in documentary photography. Each artist challenged traditional narratives and encouraged viewers to question their perceptions of the world:
Diane Arbus: Unveiling the Extraordinary in the Ordinary
Diane Arbus was known for her penetrating portraits of people living on the fringes of society. The photographs she presented in New Documents featured individuals and groups seldom seen in mainstream media – from circus performers to transgender people. Arbus’s work compels viewers to confront their own preconceptions, finding dignity and even beauty in subjects they might otherwise overlook. Her approach was revolutionary for its blend of empathy and stark realism. By capturing her subjects with unflinching honesty and genuine respect, Arbus opened a window into lives that museum audiences had rarely been asked to see. The result was deeply humanizing: viewers found themselves engaging with Arbus’s subjects on an intimate level rather than as distant curiosities.
Lee Friedlander: The Social Landscape Through a New Lens
Lee Friedlander’s contribution to New Documents offered a stark contrast to Arbus’s intimate portraiture. Friedlander focused on the “social landscape” of America – the chaotic vibrancy of city streets, reflections in plate-glass windows, jumble of signs and structures – often with the photographer’s own shadow or reflection appearing in the frame. His complex compositions emphasize the presence of the observer in the scene, blurring the line between photographer and subject. This innovative approach challenges viewers to become aware of their own role in looking. By incorporating layers of reflections and unexpected framing, Friedlander’s images suggest that reality is multifaceted and that our perception of it is inherently subjective. In the context of the exhibition, his photographs invited people to reconsider the environments they inhabit every day, discovering unintended patterns and meanings in urban life.
Garry Winogrand: Capturing Ephemeral Moments of American Life
Garry Winogrand’s work epitomized the energy of street photography. His New Documents images are like a whirlwind tour through 1960s America – by turns humorous, touching, and surreal. Winogrand had an uncanny ability to seize the decisive moment amid chaos. With a wide-angle lens and a quick trigger finger, he caught unguarded instants: pedestrians mid-stride, spontaneous interactions, fleeting expressions that hint at larger stories. These photographs present a candid (and sometimes critical) look at American life, finding moments of absurdity and grace in equal measure. Winogrand’s style was dynamic and unscripted, giving his images a feeling of immediacy. In the exhibition, his work added a sense of motion and spontaneity, demonstrating how a skilled photographer could distill order – or insight – from the seemingly random flow of everyday events.
Exploring the Exhibition
Szarkowski’s Curatorial Vision
John Szarkowski, then Director of Photography at MoMA, was the visionary mind behind New Documents. His curatorial approach treated photography not merely as a means of social documentation or news, but as a mode of artistic expression. Szarkowski highlighted the photographer as a selective observer – someone who chooses what to show and how to show it. In practice, this meant framing documentary photographs as works shaped by personal vision. Szarkowski’s introduction to the show made it clear that these images were not about delivering an objective report; they were about the photographers’ own insights into reality[^2]. This perspective was transformative: it shifted the conversation from what the photographs depicted to why and how the photographer chose to depict it. Under Szarkowski’s curation, New Documents asserted that a photograph could carry a subjective truth, and that such subjectivity was not a weakness but a strength. This curatorial stance helped elevate documentary photographs to the realm of art, inviting museum-goers to consider the creativity and intent behind the images on display.
Key Themes and Subjects
What united the photographs in New Documents was not a shared style but a shared ethos. The exhibition presented an unsentimental, at times raw, view of American society in the late 1960s. Its subjects were everyday people and everyday moments – often the very scenes and individuals traditional documentary photographers might have passed over. Running through the exhibit were themes of alienation and identity, and the collision of ordinary life with the bizarre or unexpected. Viewers saw the loneliness of strangers in the city, the individuality of those living on society’s margins, and the beauty and strangeness of the mundane. Set against the backdrop of the tumultuous 1960s, with its social upheavals and cultural shifts, these images resonated strongly. They prompted conversations about what truth a photograph can convey, and whether showing reality “as it is” might sometimes be more powerful than using images to push an explicit agenda. By focusing on overlooked corners of American life, New Documents broadened the notion of worthy documentary subjects and asked the audience to find meaning in scenes that might once have been dismissed as insignificant.
Notable Works on Display
Several photographs in the show became touchstones for its themes and impact. Among the nearly 100 images, a few stood out as emblematic of the exhibition’s spirit:
- Diane Arbus – “Identical Twins, Roselle, New Jersey, 1967” – Often cited as the exhibition’s most iconic image, this portrait of twin girls in matching dresses is both eerie and captivating. Arbus’s photograph highlights the tension between sameness and difference, prompting viewers to ponder questions of identity and individuality. The twins’ seemingly identical appearance is belied by subtle differences in expression, inviting a deep look at how unique personality asserts itself even in uniformity. It’s a picture at once straightforward and uncanny, encapsulating Arbus’s talent for finding the extraordinary within the ordinary.
- Lee Friedlander – “New York City, 1963” – This photograph offers a fragmented urban scene that layers reflections and reality. In the image, a tangle of reflections in a shop window merges with the street action beyond the glass. The result is a complex tapestry of overlapping figures, signs, and buildings. Friedlander’s New York City, 1963 speaks to the chaos and energy of city life, capturing the feel of being on a bustling street corner. By composing the frame with such intricate detail, Friedlander forces the viewer to navigate multiple planes of reality at once. The photo became a standout example of his “social landscape” approach – revealing how much of the modern city is a collage of images and reflections.
- Garry Winogrand – “World’s Fair, New York City, 1964” – Taken at the 1964 World’s Fair, Winogrand’s photograph teems with life. It depicts a crowd of fairgoers amid the attractions, but rather than focusing on the fair’s spectacle, Winogrand zeroes in on the human interactions and emotions in the crowd. The image juxtaposes the event’s optimistic, idealized vision of the future with the ordinary experiences of its attendees – excitement, boredom, wonder, fatigue – all visible in the throng. World’s Fair, NYC, 1964 crackles with the energy of a public gathering, showcasing Winogrand’s gift for distilling a scene to its telling moments. In the context of New Documents, this photo underscored how even celebratory public events could be documented with an eye for honesty and irony, rather than mere celebration.
Impact and Legacy
Influence on Future Generations
The immediate impact of New Documents on the photographic community was profound. By foregrounding the personal visions of Arbus, Friedlander, and Winogrand, the exhibition showed younger photographers that documentary work could transcend its traditional boundaries. Here was proof that photography didn’t have to campaign for social change or illustrate news to be meaningful – it could also reflect the photographer’s own curiosity and perspective. This revelation inspired many emerging photographers in the late 1960s and 1970s to approach their cameras with a more introspective eye. In the wake of New Documents, documentary photography became visibly more diverse. Artists felt freer to experiment with form and content: some adopted unconventional compositions or new techniques, others chose subject matter that previously might have been deemed too trivial or too personal for documentary work. In short, Szarkowski’s exhibition empowered photographers to explore their world on their own terms. This liberation of approach helped usher in a wave of innovative work, from street photography’s heyday to later autobiographical and conceptual documentary projects. The influence of New Documents on the next generation wasn’t just in the images they took, but in the very mindset with which they approached the medium.
Shifting the Documentary Paradigm
Prior to 1967, the dominant notion of documentary photography was tied to causes and factual storytelling – using images to inform or persuade. New Documents broadened that notion dramatically. The exhibition made a case that how a photographer sees is just as important as what is seen. By emphasizing the photographer’s role in selecting and framing content, New Documents suggested that any subject might yield meaning if approached thoughtfully. This shift encouraged photographers to take a more active, creative role in crafting their work. Instead of feeling bound to shoot only “important” social issues, photographers after 1967 increasingly felt they could turn their lens on everyday life or on subjects that intrigued them personally, trusting that their viewpoint could imbue those images with significance. Over time, this led to a richer and more nuanced documentary field – one that values subjectivity alongside objectivity. We see the effects even in the technical aspects: after New Documents, photographers became bolder in using new techniques (flash, unusual angles, color film, etc.) to express a personal take on reality. In essence, Szarkowski’s paradigm shift opened up documentary photography to interpretation, not just observation, and that changed the course of the genre.
Enduring Legacy in Modern Photography
The legacy of New Documents is still strongly felt in the world of photography today. Many exhibitions and photo projects in the decades since have drawn inspiration from its approach. By cementing the idea of photography as an art form equivalent to painting or sculpture in expressive potential, New Documents helped secure a place for photographs in galleries and museums as serious artistic works. The themes and techniques introduced by Arbus, Friedlander, and Winogrand – from photographing society’s outsiders, to layering reflections, to catching candid instants – continue to resonate. Contemporary documentary photographers, whether consciously or not, often follow the trail blazed in 1967: they push the limits of the medium in search of a personal truth. We see this in the great variety of documentary work today, where projects range from introspective autobiographical series to studies of mundane environments, all under the broad umbrella of “documentary.” New Documents also provoked critical discussions that endure: debates about the ethics of photographing strangers, questions about the line between documentation and art, and introspection about the photographer’s responsibility to their subjects. These ongoing conversations underscore the exhibition’s deep impact not just on how photographs look, but on how we think about photography’s role in understanding the world. In sum, the exhibition’s emphasis on individual perspective has led to a more vibrant and inclusive photographic landscape, one where myriad voices and visions thrive[^3][^4].
Behind the Scenes of the Exhibition
Beyond the photographs themselves, New Documents was groundbreaking in how it was conceived and executed. Understanding the behind-the-scenes decisions – Szarkowski’s curation process, the choice of photographers, and MoMA’s support – reveals the meticulous planning and forward thinking that made the exhibition such a success.
The Curation Process
John Szarkowski approached New Documents as an opportunity to redefine what documentary photography could showcase. His process was nothing short of visionary. Szarkowski sought out work that expressed the subjective viewpoint of the photographer, moving past the idea that documentary images must be impartial records. This meant he evaluated photographs not just for technical excellence or informative value, but for the voice behind them. In preparing the exhibition, Szarkowski conducted extensive research: visiting galleries, poring over photographers’ portfolios, and engaging in deep conversations to grasp each photographer’s intent and style. He was effectively looking for storytellers who used reality as their canvas. This careful and deliberate curation ensured that every image in New Documents contributed to a broader narrative about seeing the world personally. Szarkowski’s approach set a new standard for photography exhibitions – one where the curator’s role is to highlight artistic vision and provoke thought, rather than to simply assemble examples of a genre.
Selecting Arbus, Friedlander, and Winogrand
Choosing Diane Arbus, Lee Friedlander, and Garry Winogrand as the trio for New Documents was no accident – it was a calculated decision that proved inspired. Each of these photographers brought something singular to the table. Arbus offered intimate, often unsettling portraits that gave a face to those on society’s margins. Friedlander contributed his innovative urban compositions that questioned the act of seeing. Winogrand injected the mix with his frenetic street scenes and uncanny timing. Szarkowski recognized that, collectively, these three could demonstrate the breadth of the new documentary approach. Importantly, they didn’t overlap in style or subject; instead, their differences themselves became part of the exhibition’s message. By presenting Arbus’s empathy, Friedlander’s formal complexity, and Winogrand’s spontaneity side by side, New Documents painted a diverse yet cohesive picture of contemporary life. The common thread was not how their photographs looked, but how deeply they each engaged with the world in their own way. Szarkowski selected them for their distinct voices and their shared ability to reveal the unseen or overlooked aspects of everyday life. This curatorial choice was vindicated by the exhibition’s impact – it effectively introduced three new stars of photography and showed that documentary work could take radically different forms while pursuing a similar truth.
MoMA’s Crucial Role
The Museum of Modern Art itself played a crucial supporting role in making New Documents possible. In the 1960s, MoMA was one of the few major art institutions that championed photography as an art form, thanks in large part to Szarkowski’s department. This commitment provided the platform and resources needed for such an ambitious exhibition. MoMA’s reputation and reach meant that New Documents attracted a wide audience and significant media attention from the start. That visibility helped the exhibition’s ideas disseminate far beyond the museum’s walls. Moreover, MoMA’s backing signaled to the broader art world that this new kind of documentary photography deserved serious consideration. By hosting New Documents, the museum was essentially elevating work that some might have dismissed as mere “street snapshots” to the status of art worthy of curation and critique. The success of the show reinforced MoMA’s position as a leader in contemporary photography exhibitions. It also set a precedent: after 1967, museums and galleries increasingly featured challenging photography exhibits that might not have been imaginable before. In retrospect, MoMA’s support of New Documents was a turning point that underscored the institution’s forward-thinking vision and helped shift the perception of photography in the art world.
Photographic Techniques and Styles Showcased
Aside from its thematic innovations, New Documents also highlighted a range of photographic techniques and styles, many of which were unconventional for documentary work at the time. Arbus, Friedlander, and Winogrand each employed different methods to achieve their artistic ends, collectively demonstrating new ways of seeing through the camera.
Distinct Approaches of Arbus, Friedlander, and Winogrand
- Diane Arbus: Arbus was renowned for a direct, confrontational style in her portraiture. She often used a medium-format Rolleiflex camera, which produced square photographs with rich detail. This format, combined with her use of flash even in daylight, gave her images a formal clarity and starkness. Technically, Arbus’s approach involved engaging deeply with her subjects — she photographed people in their own environments (living rooms, parks, sidewalks) and spent time building a rapport. This intimacy is evident in the resulting images: her portraits are simultaneously revealing and compassionate. The daylight flash, one of her hallmarks, added an eerie illumination that isolated the subject from the background and highlighted features that might otherwise go unnoticed. It was a deliberate technique to ensure nothing stayed hidden in shadows, metaphorically underscoring her intent to bring society’s hidden characters into clear view.
- Lee Friedlander: Friedlander’s technique was almost opposite to Arbus’s controlled intimacy. He treated the city itself as his subject, roaming the streets with a 35mm camera to capture serendipitous compositions. Friedlander was a master of incorporating reflections, shadows, and off-kilter framing into his photographs. A shop window might serve as a mirror superimposing one scene onto another, or his own silhouette might appear at the edge of the frame – a witty signature acknowledging the photographer’s presence. His images often have multiple layers of content packed into one frame, requiring the viewer’s eye to wander and piece together the scene. This playful complexity was a fresh approach to documentary photography, which traditionally aimed for clear, unobstructed views. Friedlander’s style suggested that reality is inherently layered and that photographs can embrace complexity instead of simplifying it. By blurring the boundary between the observer and the observed, he gave his documentary images a self-aware, almost conceptual quality.
- Garry Winogrand: Winogrand’s style was defined by its spontaneity and kinetic energy. He typically used a 35mm rangefinder camera with a wide-angle lens, which allowed him to capture broad scenes quickly. Famously, Winogrand would shoot “from the hip” – without bringing the camera fully to his eye – to snap moments without alerting his subjects. This technique produced candid, unposed photographs brimming with motion and life. The wide-angle perspective pulled in context from all around the subject, so that every corner of the frame might contain an interesting detail or mini-drama. Winogrand embraced the grainy, high-contrast look of fast 35mm film shot on the street; it gave his images grit and authenticity. Technically less formal than Arbus or Friedlander, he often accepted blur or odd cropping if it meant he captured the essence of a fleeting moment. The result was a body of work that feels alive and unrehearsed, placing the viewer in the middle of the hustle and bustle. Winogrand’s approach expanded the technical toolkit of documentary photography by showing that sharpness and perfection could take a backseat to timing and feeling.
Evolving the Documentary Aesthetic
By showcasing these differing techniques, New Documents played a crucial role in the evolution of documentary photography’s aesthetic. The exhibition made it clear that there was no single “correct” way to make a documentary image – what mattered was that the technique served the photographer’s vision. Arbus’s intimate flash portraits, Friedlander’s layered reflections, and Winogrand’s tilted, hurried frames all broke from earlier documentary conventions. Collectively, they demonstrated that personal expression could guide choices in equipment, composition, and lighting in the documentary realm. This liberated future photographers to experiment boldly. In the years after, one can see more documentary work that uses unusual angles, embraces color (a path opened by successors like William Eggleston), or otherwise strays from the sober, straightforward look of pre-1960s reportage. New Documents essentially expanded the visual vocabulary of documentary photography. The lesson was that a photograph could be honest without being literal, and that style and substance were deeply intertwined. This paved the way for storytelling through photographs to become as much about how something is shown as what is shown, allowing deeper emotional and social truths to emerge through creative means.
Public and Critical Reception
When New Documents debuted in 1967, it did not land quietly. The exhibition sparked a wide spectrum of reactions from museum visitors and art critics alike. Some immediately grasped its importance, while others were taken aback by its unconventional approach. Over time, initial controversies gave way to recognition of the show’s pivotal place in photography.
Initial Reactions
For the general public visiting MoMA, New Documents was a provocative experience. Many viewers found themselves fascinated by the raw and unfiltered portrayal of American life, seeing subjects and scenes rarely given space in a museum. It was eye-opening for these visitors to realize that photography could be so personal and unapologetic. They encountered images that were not overtly beautified or overtly didactic, but instead candid and sometimes uncomfortable. Reactions varied: some people left the exhibit feeling inspired, with a new understanding of photography’s power as a form of expression and social commentary. Others felt unsettled or even disturbed by certain images – for example, Arbus’s portraits of marginalized individuals were powerful but could also prompt viewers to question whether looking at them was voyeuristic. This mix of fascination and discomfort was perhaps exactly what Szarkowski intended; it meant the show was challenging audiences. The very question “Is this art or intrusion?” lingered in the air, starting conversations in the galleries about where the line lies between documenting reality and exploiting it.
Critical Reviews
Photography critics and art writers in 1967 were as divided as the public. Some critics praised New Documents enthusiastically, recognizing it as a groundbreaking moment for photography as a fine art. These reviewers lauded Szarkowski’s vision in elevating the medium and noted how the three photographers captured the complexity of the human condition with depth and sincerity. The show was commended for breaking away from the old formulas and demonstrating that photography could hold its own next to painting and sculpture in an art museum. However, not all critical voices were positive. A number of critics took issue especially with Diane Arbus’s work, questioning the ethics of her approach. They wondered if her intimate portraits of people on society’s margins were empathetic or exploitative. Was Arbus offering these individuals dignity, or was she using their otherness to shock gallery-goers? Such debates played out in print, with some accusing New Documents of veering into voyeurism. Similarly, a few critics weren’t sure what to make of Friedlander’s and Winogrand’s seemingly haphazard compositions – were these brilliant new insights or just sloppy snapshots? In sum, the critical reception was polarized, but this very polarization underscored that New Documents was pushing boundaries and forcing the art world to contend with new ideas.
Reception Over Time
As the years passed, the verdict on New Documents became much clearer. What might have been controversial in 1967 steadily gained recognition as visionary. In retrospect, the exhibition is now celebrated as a landmark that fundamentally reshaped photography. The once-controversial elements (Arbus’s subject matter, Friedlander’s complexity, Winogrand’s spontaneity) are now often viewed as prescient and bold. Critics and historians have since reevaluated the work of the three photographers in light of the influence they had. Arbus, Friedlander, and Winogrand are each acknowledged as masters who expanded the narrative and aesthetic possibilities of the medium. The exhibition itself is frequently cited in histories of photography as a seminal moment – a point at which the trajectory of documentary photography changed course[^3]. The ideas that were new in 1967 (personal vision, everyday subjects, ambiguous messages) have become integral to how we understand photographic art today. New Documents challenged both photographers and viewers to reconsider their relationship with the world through images, and over time it succeeded. The public’s perception of what photography can do broadened, and that more expansive view is part of the exhibition’s enduring legacy.
Comparative Analysis: Documentary Photography Before and After New Documents
To truly appreciate how transformative New Documents was, it helps to compare the landscape of documentary photography before the exhibition and after it. The changes in themes, techniques, and even the societal role of photography become evident when we look at the shift that occurred around 1967.
Before New Documents
In the decades before the mid-1960s, documentary photography was strongly tethered to social causes and factual storytelling. Classic documentary projects – think of the Depression-era work of Dorothea Lange or Walker Evans – were created with the hope of sparking social reform. Photographers in those earlier eras often collaborated with government programs or publishers to expose hardship and injustice (for example, Lange’s photographs of Dust Bowl migrants intended to elicit public empathy and aid). Stylistically, the goal was an objective clarity. These photographers used straightforward compositions and sharp focus to present facts: their images needed to be easily legible and undeniably real to have the desired impact. The assumption was that a photograph’s power lay in its evidence – its ability to show what is wrong in the world and thereby motivate change. By the 1950s and early 60s, photojournalism and humanist documentary photography continued in this vein, whether in magazines, newspapers, or museum shows. The prevailing ethos valued objectivity, clarity, and social relevance. In short, before New Documents, documentary photographs were primarily judged by how truthfully they represented external reality and how usefully they addressed societal issues.
The New Documents Breakthrough
New Documents shattered these conventions by introducing a radically different approach. Szarkowski’s selection of Arbus, Friedlander, and Winogrand showcased a mode of documentary photography where the photographer’s individual vision was as important as the subject matter being photographed. This was a turning point: it was now acceptable – even encouraged – for documentary photographers to inject their personal point of view, curiosity, and even skepticism into their work. The exhibition emphasized that documenting the world did not require adhering to a social or political agenda; one could document for its own sake, to know the world rather than to change it[^2]. This idea was revolutionary. It meant that a photograph of a random city street or an unconventional portrait could be as significant as a photograph of a migrant mother or a war protest, depending on the insight it offered. New Documents essentially expanded the definition of documentary photography to include the personal documentary. The impact of this shift was felt immediately within the art – photographers who saw the show or heard of it realized that they had permission to explore more introspective or idiosyncratic projects. The exhibition became a catalyst, demonstrating a new path forward for the genre.
After New Documents
In the years and decades following 1967, one can trace numerous developments in photography back to the influence of New Documents. Photographers increasingly embraced introspection. During the 1970s, for example, figures like William Eggleston and Stephen Shore took documentary photography into new territories by introducing color and focusing on mundane aspects of American culture – subjects like suburbia, diners, and back roads that earlier documentarians might have ignored. Their work, often described as finding beauty in banality, directly reflects the New Documents ethos that everyday life is worth photographing and that the photographer’s eye can make the ordinary compelling. Similarly, other photographers began blending documentary practices with conceptual art in the 1970s and ’80s. They created projects that questioned the nature of images or staged certain elements while still commenting on real social conditions. This blurring of boundaries – between document and art, between candid and constructed – was made possible because New Documents had opened the door to thinking about photographs in a more nuanced way.
By the end of the 20th century, the influence of New Documents was also evident in how widely accepted documentary photography had become in art institutions. Exhibitions of personal documentary projects, retrospectives of the New Documents photographers, and countless gallery shows by artists following in their footsteps became common. Importantly, the post-New Documents era also saw documentary photography gain greater acceptance and respect in museums, which began to treat photo exhibitions with the same seriousness as painting or sculpture shows[^4]. This was a significant change from the earlier days when photography struggled for recognition as fine art. In essence, the period after New Documents was marked by tremendous growth in the diversity of documentary photography – in subject matter, technique, and presentation – and much of that can be traced back to the shockwaves of Szarkowski’s 1967 exhibition.
FAQs about New Documents
What was the “New Documents” exhibition?
“New Documents” was a groundbreaking photography exhibition held at the Museum of Modern Art in New York from February to May 1967. Curated by John Szarkowski, the show featured the work of three photographers: Diane Arbus, Lee Friedlander, and Garry Winogrand. The exhibition presented nearly 90–100 photographs (about thirty by each photographer) that pointed to a new direction in documentary photography. Instead of using images primarily as tools of social critique or reportage, New Documents emphasized the photographer’s role in interpreting reality rather than merely presenting it. This made the exhibition a pivotal moment in showcasing photography as an art of personal expression.
Why was “New Documents” significant in the history of photography?
The significance of New Documents lies in its bold departure from traditional documentary photography. Before this exhibition, documentary images were often created for purposes of social reform or journalistic reporting. New Documents broke from that mold by highlighting personal, subjective perspectives on everyday life. It showed that photographs of seemingly ordinary or marginalized subjects could carry profound meaning without an explicit social agenda. In doing so, the exhibition redefined documentary photography as a form of artistic expression. This redefinition had a lasting influence: it inspired generations of photographers to pursue their own visions, and it helped the medium gain acceptance as a legitimate art form in museums and galleries.
Who were the photographers featured in “New Documents”?
The exhibition featured three photographers, each of whom brought a distinctive approach: Diane Arbus, Lee Friedlander, and Garry Winogrand. Diane Arbus was (at that time) a New York-based photographer known for her intimate and often disquieting portraits of individuals on the fringes of society – including carnival performers, people with disabilities, and others usually ignored by mainstream media. Lee Friedlander, also an American photographer, focused on what he called the “social landscape,” using reflections and complex compositions to capture the urban environment and everyday scenes in innovative ways. Garry Winogrand, based in New York and later Los Angeles, was famous for his candid street photography, freezing spontaneous moments of American life with humor and insight. Together, these three were relatively young and not widely famous in 1967, but New Documents helped establish them as leading voices in photography’s new wave.
How did “New Documents” change the public’s perception of photography?
New Documents challenged many viewers to see photography in a new light. Prior to the exhibition, a lot of people (even museum-goers) viewed photography in a utilitarian or journalistic context – as something found in newspapers, magazines, or history books, mainly valued for the information it provided. The MoMA show presented photography as a medium capable of artistic expression and personal narrative. Visitors saw that a photo of a stranger on the street or a quirky bit of signage could be as thought-provoking as a painting or a novel. By demonstrating that photographs could explore deeper aspects of human experience – emotion, identity, irony, empathy – New Documents prompted viewers to appreciate the medium’s storytelling power. It effectively expanded the public’s understanding: people began to recognize that a photographer’s creative choices (what to include in the frame, when to click the shutter, whom to photograph) were akin to an artist’s brushstrokes, shaping meaning and not just recording fact.
What themes were explored in “New Documents”?
The exhibition delved into several interrelated themes, all revolving around the human condition in mid-20th-century America. Alienation and identity were central themes – many images portrayed individuals who were isolated, different, or seeking their place in the world (for example, Arbus’s portraits of outsiders or Winogrand’s snapshots of lone figures in crowds). There was also a theme of finding the extraordinary within the ordinary: everyday scenes and mundane moments were imbued with significance, whether it was a reflection in a storefront (Friedlander) or a gesture between two people on a sidewalk (Winogrand). Additionally, New Documents juxtaposed the ordinary with the bizarre. The presence of unusual subjects (like Arbus’s circus performers) alongside very common ones (like Winogrand’s suburban fairgoers) forced viewers to consider where the line lies between normal and abnormal – or if such a line exists at all. Underpinning all these themes was a broader exploration of reality unvarnished: the exhibition embraced authenticity and truthfulness to experience, even when that truth was uncomfortable or strange. In summary, New Documents explored what American life looked like when seen with fresh eyes – eyes that did not turn away from awkwardness, imperfection, or mystery.
How did the featured photographers approach their subjects?
Each photographer in New Documents had a unique approach to engaging with their subjects:
- Diane Arbus approached her subjects with empathy, curiosity, and directness. She often spent time talking with and getting to know the people she photographed, which enabled her to capture them in a way that feels collaborative. Arbus’s portraits typically involve the subject looking straight at the camera, creating an intense connection with the viewer. Her style was to invite her subjects to present themselves, resulting in images that are frank and revealing without mocking or diminishing the person.
- Lee Friedlander tended to approach his “subjects” (often not people but scenes) in an observational, almost sly manner. He would wander city streets and environments, finding compositions where the environment itself becomes a character. When people do appear in Friedlander’s frames, they are often caught as part of the larger tapestry of the scene – perhaps seen in a mirror or passing through the frame. Friedlander’s method was to remain an observer who also acknowledges his own presence, as if saying: “This is the world and the act of me looking at the world, together in one image.”
- Garry Winogrand approached his subjects – usually strangers in public – with a great deal of spontaneity and instinct. He was known for taking a huge volume of photographs, often without deeply interacting with his subjects at all (to keep things candid). Winogrand’s philosophy was to take the picture first and figure out its meaning later; he trusted that within the chaos of everyday life, there were poignant moments worth capturing. By moving quickly and photographing prolifically, he managed to catch fleeting expressions and interactions that a more deliberate approach might miss. His subjects often didn’t know they were being photographed at the moment, which gives his images an authentic, unselfconscious quality.
What impact did “New Documents” have on future photography exhibitions?
New Documents set a new paradigm for photography exhibitions in major art institutions. First, it demonstrated that a photography show could be centered on ideas and vision rather than just on a historical survey or a single famous photographer. Szarkowski curated the exhibit around a concept – a new approach in documentary photography – and used three photographers to exemplify it. This approach (focusing on a theme or movement) was somewhat akin to how painting or sculpture exhibitions were often curated, and it showed that photography deserved the same curatorial complexity. Future curators took note and began to craft more exhibitions that explored thematic or conceptual threads in photography.
Secondly, New Documents emphasized the importance of the photographer’s personal vision in assembling a coherent exhibition. This meant that future shows often gave more space to photographers who had a distinct style or perspective, even if they were not widely known names. In essence, New Documents encouraged curators to be bold in their choices and to push the boundaries of the medium when deciding what to exhibit. Many subsequent photography exhibitions — from retrospectives of other 1960s photographers to surveys of emerging documentary work around the world — have drawn inspiration from Szarkowski’s model. Lastly, the success and notoriety of New Documents helped ensure that museums continued to invest in photography departments and exhibitions. It proved that with thoughtful curation, a photography exhibit could engage audiences and spark meaningful dialogue, paving the way for many more such exhibitions in the decades that followed.
Is the legacy of “New Documents” still felt in contemporary photography?
Absolutely yes. The legacy of New Documents continues to resonate throughout contemporary photography. One can draw a direct line from the exhibition to the diversity of photographic work being done today. The emphasis on personal perspective championed by Arbus, Friedlander, and Winogrand has inspired countless photographers to pursue their own unique visions of the world. We see this legacy in modern documentary photography’s vast range: from projects that intimately chronicle the photographer’s own family or community, to long-term studies of seemingly ordinary subjects (a single street corner, for example, or the culture of a small town), all of which owe a debt to the path New Documents opened.
Moreover, the acceptance of varied approaches – mixing art and document, blending observation with personal commentary – is now almost taken for granted. Contemporary photography is comfortable with ambiguity and subjectivity; this attitude can be traced back to the influence of the 1967 exhibition. Photographers feel free to experiment, knowing that the value of their work lies in the authenticity of their vision, not just in adhering to any traditional style or topic. The enduring influence of New Documents is also evident in educational contexts: photography students are often taught about Arbus, Friedlander, and Winogrand early on, and the idea that one’s “point of view” is crucial to making a compelling photograph is a cornerstone of photographic education today. In summary, the spirit of New Documents – its insistence on looking at the world with fresh, unflinching eyes and a personal voice – very much lives on in the work of contemporary photographers around the globe.
Conclusion: The Enduring Influence of New Documents
The New Documents exhibition at MoMA in 1967 stands as a watershed moment in the history of photography. By showcasing the unconventional work of Diane Arbus, Lee Friedlander, and Garry Winogrand, the exhibition challenged and expanded the boundaries of what documentary photography could encompass, altering its trajectory forever. Szarkowski’s visionary curation put forth a new approach that emphasized the subjective eye of the photographer, effectively transforming documentary photography into a form of personal artistic expression.
The legacy of New Documents continues to echo through the photography world and beyond. The exhibition laid the groundwork for future generations of photographers to explore and express their unique visions. It encouraged deeper engagement with the everyday world, teaching that no facet of life is too mundane or too uncomfortable to merit attention if seen with a discerning eye. Today, we understand photography not just as a tool for recording facts, but as a powerful medium for storytelling and commentary – a shift in mindset that New Documents was instrumental in bringing about.
Looking back, it’s clear that New Documents was more than just an exhibition of photographs; it was a challenge to viewers to see the world anew. It asked people to find significance in the everyday, to recognize the humanity in strangers, and to appreciate the complex mix of truth and interpretation that a photograph can hold. This perspective has deeply influenced how we consume images in modern culture, from photojournalism to Instagram. The enduring power of New Documents lies in its testament to what photography can do: provoke thought, evoke empathy, and connect us to aspects of life we might otherwise overlook.
Nearly six decades later, New Documents remains a touchstone for photographers, curators, and viewers alike. Its influence is a reminder of the transformative potential of art. As we move forward, the spirit of New Documents — the idea that how we choose to see and document the world can fundamentally change our understanding of it — continues to inspire. This landmark exhibition will forever serve as a reminder that through a camera lens, we can find new meaning in the familiar and shine light on the unseen corners of our world.
Footnotes:
- MoMA, New Documents exhibition page (Feb 28–May 7, 1967). This MoMA summary notes the show’s lasting influence and how it featured three young, relatively unknown photographers who “redirected the technique and aesthetic of documentary photography to more personal ends. Their aim has been not to reform life but to know it.”[^1]
- John Szarkowski, introduction to New Documents exhibition press release (Museum of Modern Art, 1967). Szarkowski’s opening text famously stated: “In the past decade a new generation of photographers has redirected the technique and aesthetic of documentary photography to more personal ends. Their aim has been not to reform life but to know it, not to persuade but to understand.”[^2] He contrasted this with the 1930s documentary tradition where photographers hoped their pictures would show what was wrong with the world and spur change.
- A. D. Coleman, “Diane Arbus, Lee Friedlander, and Garry Winogrand at Century’s End,” MoCA Catalog Essay (circa 2000) (Microsoft Word – MoCA essay.rtf). Coleman reflects on New Documents as a “watershed moment in the evolution of contemporary photography,” highlighting how the 1967 exhibition was a turning point that established these three photographers and their approach as something fundamentally new.
- Philip Gefter, “The Exhibit That Transformed Photography,” The New Yorker (March 23, 2017). This article (written on the 50th anniversary of New Documents) discusses the exhibition’s immense influence on photography, noting that it’s “hard to overestimate the influence” of New Documents on subsequent generations of photographers and on the acceptance of photography as an art form in its own right.
https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3487
http://www.moma.org/docs/press_archives/3860/releases/MOMA_1967_Jan-June_0034_21.pdf
http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/cspeed/essays/Coleman_MoCA.pdf
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/the-exhibit-that-transformed-photography