critique of winogrand's eye

I do not support misogyny, but it does exist in this world and it therefore cannot be ignored. Some of my favorite bands, like the Rolling Stones, for example, are constantly exploiting women in the classic rock star sense. I don't condone the behavior, but I support the music. Does that make me a hypocrite? I suppose on some level it does.

Garry Winogrand photographed what he wanted to photograph. It is an extension of his psyche, and while we may not all agree with it, I for one am glad he shot what he did than, say flowers or sunsets. The best art challenges its viewers/listeners. It can be confrontational and put many off. But that's what is so wonderful about art.
 
johnwolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

Women Are Beautiful is from 1975. Times were very different then. Sure one cannot help but bring their own bias or politics to what they look at, but to ignore the context that the work was created in when reviewing it is a bit lame. Lange's Migrant Mother might be equally demeaning to some. Making anything to please only the lowest common denominator is death for society. Then we have all lost.

johnwolf said:
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
Click to expand...

Some of us should and some of us shouldn't. Those among us who are uncomfortable doing this kind of shooting (myself included) likely won't. But this argument always comes back to the sailor kissing the woman in Times Square image for me. An iconic image that nearly everyone accepts as not crossing any line of decency. But, looking at that image today, one could easily imagine several scenarios that would render this picture invasive or demeaning. We each have our levels of comfort as you say - but I worry when people decide that their low level of comfort begins to take over and prevent those who are less prudish or are un-concerned with some movement du jour to follow their ideas.
 
JoeV said:
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.
Click to expand...

don't forget that self-consciousness was a key aspect of winogrand and that whole generation of social documentary photographers. i don't think it's as simple as excusing winogrand as being "typically misogynist," a product of his era.
 
I walked out of the show feeling a little shaken, a little devalued - the same way I feel, say, after I take a blind turn down the wrong corner of the Internet.
Click to expand...

Wait till she sees Goya, Dalí or Otto Dix. A new call to get rid of "deviant art".
 
Here's a thought: Let's consider the possibility that Winogrand just... made photographs.

Could it be that he simply took to the strrets and photographed what he saw without thought to voicing some anti-female agenda?

Could it be that Winogrand just made street photographs for the sake of making street photographs with no political undercurrent intended?

I think so.

Not every photograph ever made was intended to make a political statement. Many times it is the viewer - not the photographer - that imbues a photograph or a body of work with a political undercurrent of their own making.

Just some food for thought...
 
i don't think there's much support for winogrand's suggested neutrality. one pithy quote is all there is.
 
"... if someone clearly does not want to be photographed or if they are for their photo to be deleted after the fact, then I do think those wishes have to be respected."

What nonsense. Colberg speaks of "active and passive privacy" as if a individual's privacy were not codified in law. In the USA, one has no expectation of privacy outside of one's home. If someone (or something) takes my picture or records one's movement in a public place, one has no right to expect that the person (or machine) will delete the image or recording. Opinions like Colberg's, grounded in an self-important sense of pseudo ethics, lead to a loss of personal liberty and subsequent social repression.

BlackXList said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
It makes as little sense as accusing Winogrand of having a narrow petit burgeois views for photographing ordinary people, doing rather mundane things, instead of trying to depict them in their struggle against imperialism. Well, that would have been a typical Stalinist critique targeting anyone choosing to gracefully ignore the ideological obsessions of the critic's group, society etc. Trying to make a picture fit into the categories of a simplistic political worldview tells us little about that work of art. It rather reveals how inadequate the employed ideology is. And here the feminist vulgate is sickening, not only because the article reiterates a few well known slogans, but because it tries to put Winogrand on an ideological Procustean bed. Good art is often very disrespectful with whatever the bien pensants of the age have to say. Unfortunately for all puritanisms - feminist, religiously inspired or otherwise - the disruptive power of human instincts will generate a lot more charming art that will offend them and leave them struggle with their inner conflicts.
 
Hopefully this isn't off-topic, but I just very recently learned about Nan Goldin after seeing one of her books at a bookstore. The images were at times shocking and repulsive. I found the subject matter--violence, drug use, sexual promiscuity, etc--fascinating and challenging, but not offensive. But I have since learned that many find it to be nothing more than the glamorization/glorification of the underbelly of society. For me, like Winogrand's work, there is a place for such art. She photographed (and I presume still does) a population that exists. It's real. It's life. And therefore I feel it is worthy of artistic exploration. I would hate to live in a world where art is not allowed to challenge, if not risk offending, an audience.
 
Apparently the Winogrand's sin is that he doesn't conform to the petty bourgeois values of our times. Good for him I say
 
Sorry if I missed this above, but does anyone have a link to the specific photo that so upset the SF critic? The subject was apparently a woman emerging from a cab.


Randy
 
gdmcclintock said:
"... if someone clearly does not want to be photographed or if they are for their photo to be deleted after the fact, then I do think those wishes have to be respected."

What nonsense.
Click to expand...

Nonsense indeed. Try asking the Minimart to delete your shopping trip or the NYC Transit Authority to delete all those turnstile swipes. What's OK for government or any business MUST MUST MUST be ok for me or you.

I.G.I. said:
Apparently the Winogrand's sin is that he doesn't conform to the petty bourgeois values of our times. Good for him I say
Click to expand...

Exactly. I think the title is somewhat telling, it's Women Are Beautiful it's not Women Get Me Horny or I Wish I Had X-Ray Glasses To Look At Women or Cleavage is My Favorite Thing About Women. I think I could probably come up with a much more offensive body of work pretty easily.
 
gns said:
link here (scroll down to page 15)...
http://www.blakeandrewsphoto.com/winogrand.pdf
Click to expand...

C'mon, seriously? The one sepiareverb pointed out might offend an especially uptight prude or PC maniac, but if this is the one the SF critic wrote that bitter ode to, she needs to get a grip.

Remarkable when I think of the level of raw sex and violence in mainstream media, that anyone could get so bent out of joint over a candid photograph.

Thanks for the links, the full exhibit looks wonderful - wish I could see it.

Randy

P.S. I saw the Carrie Weems exhibit in Portland. What beautiful and challenging work. I wonder what the reaction of the SF critic would be to this:http://carriemaeweems.net/galleries/aint-jokin.html
 
This thread is more interesting than most of Winogrand's work itself. I am constantly in awe of people (like the reviewer mentioned at the beginning of the thread) who can juxtapose their own experiences into anything another photographs. Amazing.

I'm not a Winogrand fan. His work is, well, random at best. I have to say, though, his legacy is perhaps one of the largest bodies of documentary work of what our world looked like in the U.S. during the time he photographed. His style was such that there's not much interpration of any of it. He raised his camera and pushed the shutter release with a wide-angle lens. Not much framing there at all most of the time, and certainly not a lot of interpretation through the viewfinder. His work is raw documentation of whatever caught his eye. For that, it's valuable. As art, not so much, at least in my view.
 
sepiareverb said:
Exactly. I think the title is somewhat telling, it's Women Are Beautiful it's not Women Get Me Horny or I Wish I Had X-Ray Glasses To Look At Women or Cleavage is My Favorite Thing About Women. I think I could probably come up with a much more offensive body of work pretty easily.
Click to expand...

The title Winogrand wanted was, no joke, "Confessions of a Male Chauvinist Pig," but the publisher didn't think that was such a good idea. Most (all?) guys would agree with your alternate titles, though!
 
What happens in the streets is largely random. I don't see how you can make candid photographs without randomness affecting your work.

On the other hand when I watch videos of GW working in NYC, my impression is his photography is focused and purposeful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Photo Of Garry Winogrand In Henry Wessel's Classroom
Replies
5
Views
1K
charjohncarter
charjohncarter
filmtwit
SFMOMA Photography Curator Sandra Phillips to Retire
Replies
0
Views
2K
filmtwit
filmtwit
J
  • Article Article
The Pentax Papers, part 1, 1919 to 1973: From the founding of Asahi Optical Co. to the last screw-mount Pentax
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of the 110 Format By 2009, 110 was kaput. Lomography brought it back! Part 2: A selection of fascinating 110 cameras.
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Timmyjoe
Timmyjoe
P
Zion I robbed of $90,000 camera during West Oakland music video shoot
Replies
14
Views
1K
PKR
P
Back
Top Bottom