critique of winogrand's eye

[hepcat]

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.

While you're at the mercy of random events happening in front ot you, it's your choice which of them to photograph which is not, of course, random. However, shooting as he was filmed shooting there often is no attempt to change from his eye-view height, or move for better framing to include or exclude elements. I've seen him move to chase a subject, but not to re-frame or give or remove context. So what you get is what he saw from where he stood with his eye level angle, distractions and all.

If, however, the only thing you choose to photograph on the street is attractive young women (and there's nothing inherently wrong with that) then your body of work begins to take on a completely different appearance and meaning. To tie this back into the OP's post and the opinion piece it references, I think it's hard, in the totality of the sheer volume and array of Winogrand's body of work, to pigeonhole him or try to suggest that there's anything unifying like that. If anything, it was the exhibit's curator who chose specific images out of thousands who chose to make a statement about what he or she thought was important.

Again, I'm not a fan of his style, but I admire the legacy of his body of work and what it represents.

 

[charjohncarter]

I don't have anything against feminists; except when their feminism cause them to lose their femininity. She should loosen up: there are many women photographers that do the same type of photographs.

 

[eric rose]

I put Winogrand in the same category as a million monkeys equipped with typewriters all locked in an aircraft hanger. Eventually they will produce something. Winogrand took 10's of thousands of images. Many have still not even been developed! As has been mentioned above he was a shooting machine, obsessed with recording what happened in front of him. If you look at the keepers vs images made ratio he was not very successful. Sure he has some stunning images, but I dare say anyone of us given the same opportunities and bricks and bricks of film could have done just as well. He might as well have used a movie camera and just snipped out the odd frame that was worth printing. IMHO Winogrand was the original version of Google Street View.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

I put Winogrand in the same category as a million monkeys equipped with typewriters all locked in an aircraft hanger. Eventually they will produce something. Winogrand took 10's of thousands of images. Many have still not even been developed! As has been mentioned above he was a shooting machine, obsessed with recording what happened in front of him. If you look at the keepers vs images made ratio he was not very successful. Sure he has some stunning images, but I dare say anyone of us given the same opportunities and bricks and bricks of film could have done just as well. He might as well have used a movie camera and just snipped out the odd frame that was worth printing. IMHO Winogrand was the original version of Google Street View.

This assessment is laughable, at best.

 

[zauhar]

I put Winogrand in the same category as a million monkeys equipped with typewriters all locked in an aircraft hanger. Eventually they will produce something. Winogrand took 10's of thousands of images. Many have still not even been developed! As has been mentioned above he was a shooting machine, obsessed with recording what happened in front of him. If you look at the keepers vs images made ratio he was not very successful. Sure he has some stunning images, but I dare say anyone of us given the same opportunities and bricks and bricks of film could have done just as well. He might as well have used a movie camera and just snipped out the odd frame that was worth printing. IMHO Winogrand was the original version of Google Street View.

Yes, but the monkey doesn't know that it's typed Macbeth. Winogrand knew when he had a great image.

I have respect for someone like HCB who had a (reputed) high keeper rate, but I also have respect for anyone who puts in the time, sweat and blood to further their craft, even if it involves apparently wasted effort.

Randy

 

[icebear]

This assessment is laughable, at best.

+1.
The number of "keepers" is the only thing that counts, not the "keeper rate".
And who ultimately decides what is a keeper? The editor who picks the selection for a book or an exhibition?

Some days you will produce 10 great shots in one hour and you will have a week where everything seems to suck.

Street photography is about being at the right place at the right time because you can't predict what will happen.
You will increase the amount of interesting shots by the time you spent on the street.
Just using a film/video camera indiscriminately instead of being selective of the scene is utter BS.

 

[anjoca76]

Even if given bricks of film, I would come up with the images he made if for no other reason than I would never have the nerve to immerse myself in my surroundings as he did. He wasn't just a bystander, clicking away. He was right there in the thick of it. Obviously the more frames you shoot, the greater your chances of getting "keepers." But I don't think quantity accounts for his talent.