Exdsc
Well-known
Are you comparing women to animals?
critique of winogrand's eye
- Thread starter porktaco
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 86
- Views 7K
Are you comparing women to animals?
animalhairs
Member
Well I think perverts probably appreciate women more than misogynists. And he definitely seems to have appreciated women. So I'll stick with pervert, slightly perverted. I don't sense he hated women, at all.
Highway 61
Revisited
Well at least did Garry really behave like most of us would only dream to be able to when we come accross beautiful women in the cities streets, so, he deserves the Croix-de-Guerre for this. 😀
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Lechery? Macho? Like anyone, we are all a product of our times, upbringing, etc.. I always see Winogrand's images of women as a celebration of their femininity. A voyeur as he might be able to "have" them in his photographs, but that's as far as it goes. His images are obviously the view of a heterosexual male. As he said, "My only interest in photography is to see what something looks like as a photograph."
- "A photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how the camera 'saw' a piece of time and space."
- "Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed."
- "I photograph to see what the world looks like in photographs."
- "I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both."
"I don't know if all the women in the photographs are beautiful, but I do know that the women are beautiful in the photographs." (In reference to his book, "Women Are Beautiful.")
- "All things are photographable."
- "A photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how the camera 'saw' a piece of time and space."
- "Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed."
- "I photograph to see what the world looks like in photographs."
- "I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both."
"I don't know if all the women in the photographs are beautiful, but I do know that the women are beautiful in the photographs." (In reference to his book, "Women Are Beautiful.")
- "All things are photographable."
Vics
Veteran
Highway 61
Revisited
The same with photographs, you just depress the shutter, sometimes they're good enough and can stay for decades, sometimes they aren't. 😉
kingqueenknave
Well-known
I once asked a beautiful woman to hold her yarn like an ice cream cone as a tribute to Winogrand. Yeah, they're fun to photograph, and they're fun to talk to!
Portland, OR by kingqueenknave, on Flickr
Portland, OR by kingqueenknave, on Flickr
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Success for Mr. Winogrand, a reaction from his viewer.
aizan
Veteran
while the column lacks credibility and contains numerous fallacies, i can't help but sympathize with the common lechery that women are subjected to.
was winogrand a misogynist?
was winogrand a misogynist?
Rotarysmp
Established
I liked the critique that was written. Don't really agree with it, but it made me think. I appreaciate the author for that. Sycophantic fan boy "critique" rarely moves me to think 🙂
Honus
carpe diem
Ms. Millner states "That Winogrand's sensibility is no better than your average Internet misogynist".
Her sensibility is that of a misandrist. She treats Winogrand and his work with the same brutal and blunt instrument that she accuses him of using.
She certainly succeeded in calling attention to herself.
Her sensibility is that of a misandrist. She treats Winogrand and his work with the same brutal and blunt instrument that she accuses him of using.
She certainly succeeded in calling attention to herself.
porktaco
Well-known
lol well played.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Paul,
Even as someone who (like me) is not a Winogrand fan, you have to admit that many Winogrand fans are over-educated, naive, steeped in post-modernism...
Cheers,
R.
paulfish4570
Veteran
🙂🙂🙂 ... ^
Exdsc
Well-known
Winogrand is the ultimate post-modern photographer... he feels "responsible to Robert Frank and Walker Evans" and yet attacks housewives on the street with his camera...
Secondly, Winogrand is so post-modern that his work is indistinguishable from the work of his fans...
back alley
IMAGES
i hope she looks at my stuff...i need a good talkin' to!
BlackXList
Well-known
JM Colberg has also written, about the article/subject
http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/extended/archives/the_ethics_of_street_photography/
Personally I agree with neither Colberg or the original article, but that's neither here nor there.
http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/extended/archives/the_ethics_of_street_photography/
Personally I agree with neither Colberg or the original article, but that's neither here nor there.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
At the end in small type he said he has not seen the Winogrand show or seen the book.
The great thing about the world wide web is everyone with a keyboard has a voice. The bad thing about the world wide web is anyone with a key board has a voice . LoL
Lets all remember that Bresson was not getting permission a lot of the time either.
gho
Well-known
Phew, interesting article that is touching quite some points I am thinking about myself with regard to the medium photography, especially when it comes to photographing people.
Let's see, if I can develop a bit more on my thoughts. First I would like to say that I thought quite a bit about Winogrand's statement that a photograph is just a photograph and has nothing to do with reality, or in short that a photograph is a lie. Well, I tend to disagree. First, the photograph would not be there if there wasn't something to be photographed that is a subject matter.
Primarily, the photograph is a visual recording of light in a certain point of time, projecting a three dimensional scene in space-time onto a two dimensional frame. So far so good. Now, in itself, the photograph may be regarded as neutral, but that is certainly not true for the simple reason that the photographer picked a certain slice of space and time to be temporarily eternalized.
In short, the photograph depends on something to be photographed and the photographer who makes the choice. So clearly the photograph is never neutral, it depends on the condition of the subject matter in a certain slice of time and on the photographer due to his or her choice to photograph his or her perception. The photographer may or may not have certain intents on the effect of the photograph on the viewer.
If we toss the viewer in it becomes more complex. Even if the photographer (naively) thinks that a photograph is basically neutral, viewers may project their own preconceptions into the photograph, the subject matter, onto the photographer and what not. Or even if the photographer had certain intents about the effect on the audience it may not work.
To come back to Winograd's mantra that a photograph is just about how something looks photographed this is clearly leaving two thirds out of the equation: the choice of the photographer and the likely response of the audience based on the visual content. Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, it is not as simple as Winogrand stated and rather an easy way out of the photographic dilemma.
I guess I have to think about it more deeply, but these are my intermediate thoughts that are influencing my photographic practice. For example, I have become super reluctant to photograph people without consent, though I know that grabbing certain situations - in case of for example certain styles of street photography - may produce much more spectacular shots. I guess personally I am trying to get the exploitation out of the equation.
It would be interesting to see some Winograd shots of women, just to see, if the critique of the writer is apt. Any suggestions? Link them here, let's discuss.
Let's see, if I can develop a bit more on my thoughts. First I would like to say that I thought quite a bit about Winogrand's statement that a photograph is just a photograph and has nothing to do with reality, or in short that a photograph is a lie. Well, I tend to disagree. First, the photograph would not be there if there wasn't something to be photographed that is a subject matter.
Primarily, the photograph is a visual recording of light in a certain point of time, projecting a three dimensional scene in space-time onto a two dimensional frame. So far so good. Now, in itself, the photograph may be regarded as neutral, but that is certainly not true for the simple reason that the photographer picked a certain slice of space and time to be temporarily eternalized.
In short, the photograph depends on something to be photographed and the photographer who makes the choice. So clearly the photograph is never neutral, it depends on the condition of the subject matter in a certain slice of time and on the photographer due to his or her choice to photograph his or her perception. The photographer may or may not have certain intents on the effect of the photograph on the viewer.
If we toss the viewer in it becomes more complex. Even if the photographer (naively) thinks that a photograph is basically neutral, viewers may project their own preconceptions into the photograph, the subject matter, onto the photographer and what not. Or even if the photographer had certain intents about the effect on the audience it may not work.
To come back to Winograd's mantra that a photograph is just about how something looks photographed this is clearly leaving two thirds out of the equation: the choice of the photographer and the likely response of the audience based on the visual content. Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, it is not as simple as Winogrand stated and rather an easy way out of the photographic dilemma.
I guess I have to think about it more deeply, but these are my intermediate thoughts that are influencing my photographic practice. For example, I have become super reluctant to photograph people without consent, though I know that grabbing certain situations - in case of for example certain styles of street photography - may produce much more spectacular shots. I guess personally I am trying to get the exploitation out of the equation.
It would be interesting to see some Winograd shots of women, just to see, if the critique of the writer is apt. Any suggestions? Link them here, let's discuss.
DougFord
on the good foot
...pages stuck together in my used copy of "figments from the real world", curious.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
