critique of winogrand's eye

[jsrockit]

...focusing only on negative aspects of the relationship between the genders...

Well, her feelings are nothing new... when Women are Beautiful came out, it was kind of right after the "Women's Movement" and got a similar reaction from some women supposedly. I think both sides have points.

 

[agi]

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?

Haha Mike you nailed it. 🙂

 

[Exdsc]

Personally if I come upon some creep creeping women on the street and spoiling it for the rest of us, I'll 'talk' to him nicely, but if he didn't listen, I'll make sure he never photographs in that location again... I'll simply follow him around with my camera in video mode.

That'll teach him the 'I can photograph anything I want' mantra.

 

[shadowfox]

I always wonder how can a person get paid to write a personal opinion about another person's personal visions.

 

[DougFord]

Well at least she didn't accuse him of wearing mirrors on his shoes. Though that could just be the oversight of the editor, considering the source.

 

[back alley]

Personally if I come upon some creep creeping women on the street and spoiling it for the rest of us, I'll 'talk' to him nicely, but if he didn't listen, I'll make sure he never photographs in that location again... I'll simply follow him around with my camera in video mode.

That'll teach him the 'I can photograph anything I want' mantra.

and what would you do to yourself if the women tell you that you're creeping them out?

 

[Rick Waldroup]

The article is a load of crap.

 

[willie_901]

And why would anyone care if you made a video of them taking photographs of people in the street? I wouldn't care and I might even give you my card and ask for a copy.

Personally if I come upon some creep creeping women on the street and spoiling it for the rest of us, I'll 'talk' to him nicely, but if he didn't listen, I'll make sure he never photographs in that location again... I'll simply follow him around with my camera in video mode.

That'll teach him the 'I can photograph anything I want' mantra.

 

[Pablito]

fascinating, all-male responses.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

...Not asking the wolf or bear or walrus for photo release is like shooting them in the gut with a buffalo rifle.

POTD

(8910)

 

[Brian Legge]

And why would anyone care if you made a video of them taking photographs of people in the street? I wouldn't care and I might even give you my card and ask for a copy.

I've come across a few photographers whose shots seemed rather... questionable. One was at hiding a camera under his arm, exclusively photographing girls who appeared in the 14-16 year old range. He was machinegunning shots off as the walked by. Another was photographing womens posteriors at a parade.

I pointed a camera there way and took a shot or two as they were taking their photos. Both photographers looked extremely uncomfortable as soon as they realized they were being photographed themselves and immediately left.

Now, I have no idea what their intent was. I've taken shots that I'm sure others could have perceived as inappropriate though that was not my intent. Heck, I've been chastised by my wife and by female friends for skipping shots that could have been interesting but I felt were questionable. It does seem like a decent litmus test though.

 

[noisycheese]

i

the writer is over-educated, naive, steeped in post-modern feminism. deadly combination. and hey, i am NOT a winogrand fan ...

I am not a subscriber so I cannot access the article. However - from the first couple of scentences that I can see, the reviewer makes it plain that she has an axe to grind.

I recall reading a review of Winogrand's images written by an academic who castigated Winogrand's work as "deeply flawed." I found that claim to be unfounded and bewildering.

Winogrand marched to the cadence of a different drummer rather than playing it safe and catering to the approved dogma of the academic world. In doing so, he created a body of work that was at once intense, unsettling, dynamic, tension filled, raw, ragged, beautiful, curious, disjointed, ordered, jarring, placid and at times a bit mundane - just like real life is.

I have come to realize that not every critic "gets" Winogrand. I have also come to realize that not every "expert" knows what they are talikng about.

The phrase, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize" comes to mind.

 

[Murchu]

fascinating, all-male responses.

Not sure what's so fascinating, most of the posters here are male, at least from what I see from the threads I read..

 

[L Collins]

The viewer gives the photograph meaning. I think that's what GW meant when he said photos don't "mean" anything. This reviewer is just discussing her own issues, and isn't alert enough to understand that GWs work elicited this from her, which of course is the consequence of output we consider "art."

 

[cz23]

The Art Institute of Chicago is now displaying over 100 prints from Women are Beautiful. It does seem rather exploitive of women -- many photos with a papparazzi-like feel. So I understand the author's viewpoint.

The more practical question the author raises for us street photographers, I think, is should we pursue and publish photographs of people, without permission, that might be perceived by a subject as compromising his/her dignity. Sure, we have a legal right to do so on the streets, but SHOULD we? We probably all have a line we'd rather not cross, and it's likely different for everyone. Obviously, GW gave himself much latitude -- certainly wider than the author's. And mine.

John

 

[kbg32]

Winogrand creepy?? Take a look at Charles Traub's photographs of female teenagers on the beach in Italy.

 

[JoeV]

I think the issue that Winogrand's feminist critics skip over is why his photographs of women in public are deemed as being somehow offensive when (feminists might argue) it is because of a male-dominated society that women have to go out in public with skirts and heels and nylons in the first place, playing "dress up" for their male "superiors."

Which gets back to Winogrand's insistence that photographs are neutral, and that therefore his photos could just as easily be interpreted as documenting the struggle of feminists in a male-dominated society as they could be found exploiting the feminine image in public.

I have the latest Winogrand book, and as many images present that might be interpreted as being exploitive of the female image, there are an equal number that appear to depict the struggle of women in the public place, like women stepping out of taxi cabs struggling to keep their skirts down and legs together, or women on the sidewalks who appear to be purposefully avoiding the gaze of males around them, conscious of having to "dress up" in public but obviously not enjoying it, it's something they had (have?) to do to have a job, etc.

Which is not to say that Winogrand didn't approach the subject from the perspective of a divorced male in post-WWII America, he was who he was, but I think his work transcends who he was as a person.

~Joe

 

[Nigel Meaby]

Visitors to the Winogrand Opening..

Credit: Catherine Bigelow

I have no idea who these three are in the photo....... but it's clear to see from the photo......... that they are all perverted misogynist's 😀

 

[Nigel Meaby]

Are you comparing women to animals?

We can't escape the fact that all of the human species are animals 😀

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

No one seems to recognize that Winogrand's beliefs are shared most seriously by the kinds of men who haunt Reddit subforums like "Creepshots." On those forums, the chorus is "Rape her." Thanks to his superior sense of aesthetics, Winogrand's moments of lechery show up at SFMOMA, where the chorus is that he's a visionary.

That Winogrand's sensibility is no better than your average Internet misogynist becomes clear as you continue through the show. I can't think of another street photographer who identifies so clearly with men who leer at women on the street. (At least two photographs in the exhibit show this exact situation, and Winogrand's sympathies are obvious.)

Yikes. Michelangelo liked to slap genitalia in the viewers' faces, Botticelli denigrated redheaded women's decency, Monet couldn't for the life of him paint anything in sharp detail, and Bacon was a psycho.

What a bunch of rubbish.

I may not like Winogrand, but I respect his approach and contributions to photography. The writer of that article is either a troll or really needs to pick up a few books.