critique of winogrand's eye
- Thread starter porktaco
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 86
- Views 7K
anjoca76
Well-known
Sounds like it is an interesting article. Unfortunately you have to be a digital subscriber to read it!
cosmonaut
Well-known
I have to have a paid subscription to read it all. What does it say?
gns
Well-known
I think this is it...
http://www.sfchronicle.com/art/article/Garry-Winogrand-s-uneasy-eye-4377685.php?t=c1d0bb2acd
Pretty horrible article and she was taken to task by many of the comments.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/art/article/Garry-Winogrand-s-uneasy-eye-4377685.php?t=c1d0bb2acd
Pretty horrible article and she was taken to task by many of the comments.
redisburning
Well-known
she really just compared Winogrand to an ironic subreddit?
well, she did think it was serious trololol.
I wonder how much she (would) hates Araki...
well, she did think it was serious trololol.
I wonder how much she (would) hates Araki...
anjoca76
Well-known
I happen not to share her view, but she's not entirely wrong--if that's the angle she is going for. But in order to make such a point one needs to cherry pick from hundred of thousands of images the ones that help argue her stance. Winogrand admitted he loved women and had a weakness for their beauty, and was not shy about photographing beautiful women that passed before his camera. But that's just it--they passed in front of his camera. He shot what he saw. The world still is a misogynist place, but even more so back in Winogrand's days, so it wouldn't be hard to find evidence of this in his images.
Bottom line, I really don't care what this critic thinks. It's her opinion and she's entitled to it. It's her art--just as Winogrand's art was capturing the world that happened around him. I, for one, am happy he shot whatever it was he chose to shoot. It's just one man's interpretation, after all.
Bottom line, I really don't care what this critic thinks. It's her opinion and she's entitled to it. It's her art--just as Winogrand's art was capturing the world that happened around him. I, for one, am happy he shot whatever it was he chose to shoot. It's just one man's interpretation, after all.
Murchu
Well-known
Don't anyone tell her about Bruce Gilden..
Exdsc
Well-known
icebear
Veteran
Obviously she's not enjoying her life, focusing only on negative aspects of the relationship between the genders. At least her article has gotten attention.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I guess she didn't get the glimpse into the world in the 60s and 70s and the fact Winograd not only capture the moments but also used the language of photography extremely well and in fact help redefine some of it. He plays with the edges of the frame and challenged his viewers.
anjoca76
Well-known
I am sure it's a popular exhibit, and GW has a lot of fans, so to write a complimentary review would be boring. I am sure their website gets far more hits with a negative review--I probably never would have known about it had it been glowing. That's not to say I am doubting the author's sincerity. But the cynic in me can't help but presume she knew her article would ruffle feathers--much like GW's photographs did and continue to do, coincidentally.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, you know how they say that Wagner's music is much better than it sounds...?
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
paulfish4570
Veteran
the writer is over-educated, naive, steeped in post-modern feminism. deadly combination. and hey, i am NOT a winogrand fan ...
porktaco
Well-known
i can see a response: "oh no. i wrote it because i'm exposing the truth. and if the truth ruffles feathers, well then fine."
fwiw, i get issues surrounding the male gaze, but comparing these photos to rape? really? in anything more than an academic exercise? seriously? in any case, the author does - in my opinion - her cause no benefit with this article, unless her cause is generating journalistic attention.
animalhairs
Member
I've always loved Winogrand's work, but one would have to be blind to avoid seeing he was a bit of a pervert.
Chris101
summicronia
I've gotta agree with this. Trolling big media like the SFChron is a tough assignment. She met it well.
Pioneer
Veteran
It was refreshing to see an alternate view, whether agreeable or not. Google Winogrand and you don't see much but praise.
Rodchenko
Olympian
I think Winogrand is overrated, particularly compared to the many other greats of street photography. OK, I'm being picky - he's clearly better than me, but no Hardy or Brandt, no Killip or Koittonen.
But a pervert? That's pretty strong. He's a bit misogynist, and his style is very macho. In fact, he does celebrate machismo. It makes for striking photos. But that's not unusual for a male artist of hos period working in a contested environment.
The article seems to be designed to stir up controversy. And it's done that.
But a pervert? That's pretty strong. He's a bit misogynist, and his style is very macho. In fact, he does celebrate machismo. It makes for striking photos. But that's not unusual for a male artist of hos period working in a contested environment.
The article seems to be designed to stir up controversy. And it's done that.
Exdsc
Well-known
He was not a voyeur, he was more of a visual predator.
In this video watch him photograph women almost uncontrollably, even if it means staring down the man who's with them. In one instance he literally goes out of control when a young mother with her child in a stroller comes along.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RM9KcYEYXs
MikeL
Go Fish
She misses his greater crime, his exploitation of zoo animals. Not asking the wolf or bear or walrus for photo release is like shooting them in the gut with a buffalo rifle.
Where's PETA when you need them?
Where's PETA when you need them?
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
