Garry Winogrand 1977 interview now on line

[Hsg]

WG keeps saying that Walker Evans is a great artist and yet look at any of Walker Evans photos and you immediately think - 1930s, the great depressions, some poor farmers (by western standards) and after that you wonder "so what"?

Walker Evan's work is nothing but a 'period piece', an archaic collection of photos that might have some meaning to an American viewer who's perhaps descended from the same displaced farmers, other than that its nothing special, it has no universality and it has no resonance with those who don't know the history of those photos or more importantly care.


Garry Winogrand was a man lost in his own mind, his like someone who's more interested in a puzzle than solving it. so he keeps complicating and intellectualizing about photography and yet in the end of it all what he says is meaningless theories. His right about Davidson, his right about RF and SLR but other than that all of his other theories are nothing but personal opinions.


Winogrand was a self-indulgent and egoistic photographer who could never get over his own fixations and obsessions and therefore, his work will always be a sort of window to his own psychology, which is mainly all about women...

Any photographer who has not risked his life for photos that are not about him, is not a great photographer. That is my simple parameter for someone to become a great photographer.

Winogrand was the biggest mouth in photography before Burce Gilden took that title.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Any photographer who has not risked his life for photos that are not about him, is not a photographer.

OK. That officially qualifies as the strangest posting I've seen on RFF to date. What exactly does it mean or don't I want to know?

 

[anjoca76]

WG keeps saying that Walker Evans is a great artist and yet look at any of Walker Evans photos and you immediately think - 1930s, the great depressions, some poor farmers (by western standards) and after that you wonder "so what"?

Walker Evan's work is nothing but a 'period piece', an archaic collection of photos that might have some meaning to an American viewer who's perhaps descended from the same displaced farmers, other than that its nothing special, it has no universality and it has no resonance with those who don't know the history of those photos or more importantly care.


Garry Winogrand was a man lost in his own mind, his like someone who's more interested in a puzzle than solving it. so he keeps complicating and intellectualizing about photography and yet in the end of it all what he says is meaningless theories. His right about Davidson, his right about RF and SLR but other than that all of his other theories are nothing but personal opinions.


Winogrand was a self-indulgent and egoistic photographer who could never get over his own fixations and obsessions and therefore, his work will always be a sort of window to his own psychology, which is mainly all about women...

Any photographer who has not risked his life for photos that are not about him, is not a great photographer. That is my simple parameter for someone to become a great photographer.

Winogrand was the biggest mouth in photography before Burce Gilden took that title.

I guess I don't even know what to make of this post.

As for the interview itself, I coincidentally watched the whole thing a couple weeks ago. GW is always amusing to watch work and listen to speak. He oozed New Yawk and it came through in everything from his theories to his images. I would've never wanted to interview him--he tends to dismiss every question as stupid--but he would've be a blast to hang with on the street and watch him do his thing.

 

[Colin Corneau]

OK. That officially qualifies as the strangest posting I've seen on RFF to date. What exactly does it mean or don't I want to know?

Kinda wondering that myself.

To each their own I guess, but Winogrand being a driven individual does not lessen his work or his professional accomplishments.

 

[Hsg]

OK. That officially qualifies as the strangest posting I've seen on RFF to date. What exactly does it mean or don't I want to know?

Its a question of conscience. A photographer without a conscience can never become great.

GW pounced on women with his camera in the streets corners, other photographers went to war and risked life and limb to tell the story of those who could not tell their own story.

Some photos change history, some change visual aesthetics, others like Garry's become inconsequential cliched street photographs. The proof is in the pudding, and GW has nothing to serve other than his theories.

 

[Hsg]

GW is always amusing to watch work and listen to speak.

That is the only value of GW, a funny photographer with cool stories -- but someone that one should not take seriously.

 

[_goodtimez]

He's cool in this interview, real cool. I'll pull out my beaten M4 and a 28 🙂

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thank you for the links.
Rice-U is not loading, so I jumped at long version on youtube.

Never seen him in life, the video is great for it. I paused it at one hour mark now. Enjoying most of it, even with my ESL.

He did talked about RF vs SLR, very good points he made.
Also, he was checking light on the street once it was changing according to another article, but he is absolutely right how B/W film is very forgiving in terms of the negatives and prints.

Also some fundamental, philosophical and practical by same time views at photography which are very educational to me.

 

[jsrockit]

That is the only value of GW, a funny photographer with cool stories -- but someone that one should not take seriously.

I couldn't disagree more. To me, he talks about photography without all the fluff and BS. I appreciate that.

 

[Damaso]

Thanks so much for sharing!

 

[rivercityrocker]

I don't see how making vs seeing an image has anything to do with film vs digital, but anyway, the reason I raise it is that it allows more leverage when it comes to deep DOF and fast shutter in less light. Also, with the number of times he presses the shutter, stopping to reload has got to be a chore.

He also mentioned somewhere in one of the videos, something about "if I could afford an assistant..." so I can only assume funds had a lot to do with the sheer quantity of unprocessed film he left behind.

I didn't say "making vs. seeing", I said, "making vs. looking at". The point I was making was that Garry wasn't very interested in looking at his own pictures. A digital camera wouldn't really hold much interest to him because I doubt he would chimp to check exposure or composition. It would be a useless feature to him just like the flapping mirror of an SLR.

Maybe the convenience of not having to swap out film cartridges would be great for him, but I also think that the fact that the was electronic would mean it had extraneous BS that wasn't necessary and would put him off.

In any case I never set out to make a debate on what camera a dead guy would use. I just made a statement to the effect that it would be funny to listen to him talk about camera tech today.

edit: The statement about not being able to afford an assistant was likely a joke. Garry says in the lecture "I'll say just about anything for a laugh". Obviously he had people working for him, he also talks about them. "the guy who picks my photos and the guy who crops my photos" is what he calls them. I can't recall their names off-hand.

 

[Ranchu]

pic

pic

http://pleasurephoto.files.wordpres...8los-angeles-california_-1969-la-sidewalk.jpg

 

[gns]

I didn't say "making vs. seeing", I said, "making vs. looking at". The point I was making was that Garry wasn't very interested in looking at his own pictures.

I don't really buy that and wonder if it isn't more of an internet myth than reality. It stems from all the film and contacts he left behind and then someone jumps to the conclusion that since he didn't look at a lot of that, he therefore wasn't interested at all in looking at his photos. He was developing film and making contacts while in LA, so he didn't just stop all together. He did let a huge amount get backed up, but he always worked that way. It could be (as has been suggested by others) that he was just putting it off figuring he would deal with it when he returned to New York. Just get it in the can, if you will, since he wouldn't be in LA for ever.

I do believe that he wasn't very interested in looking at them repeatedly. As he said, he didn't treat them like masterpieces. He looked at them, learned from them and moved on to make more.

This whole issue is blown way out of proportion if you ask me. Repeated over and over in every article or internet post. It doesn't mean anything. Look at the pictures.

Gary

 

[Ranchu]

I agree, those negatives are more about that museum douche picking over Winogrand's corpse than anything else. Me and Winogrand can't be the only ones who have exposed rolls around we have no idea what's on them? The guy had a lot to do.

 

[rivercityrocker]

I don't really buy that and wonder if it isn't more of an internet myth than reality. It stems from all the film and contacts he left behind and then someone jumps to the conclusion that since he didn't look at a lot of that, he therefore wasn't interested at all in looking at his photos. He was developing film and making contacts while in LA, so he didn't just stop all together. He did let a huge amount get backed up, but he always worked that way. It could be (as has been suggested by others) that he was just putting it off figuring he would deal with it when he returned to New York. Just get it in the can, if you will, since he wouldn't be in LA for ever.

I do believe that he wasn't very interested in looking at them repeatedly. As he said, he didn't treat them like masterpieces. He looked at them, learned from them and moved on to make more.

This whole issue is blown way out of proportion if you ask me. Repeated over and over in every article or internet post. It doesn't mean anything. Look at the pictures.

Gary

I don't know if it's an "internet myth", but that is just what I was told by the photographer I first interned for who took classes from Garry at UT in the 70's. I suppose you know better than he would though.

 

[hepcat]

I couldn't disagree more. To me, he talks about photography without all the fluff and BS. I appreciate that.

On one hand I really don't like most of his work, or the way he went about getting it.

On the other hand, he's refreshing and original (especially 'round these parts) because he doesn't obsess about the insignificant minutiae of photography that some folks seem to think is what photography is.

So, how do I reconcile not necessarily liking a guy's images, but liking the guy because he's mostly about his images? How can you NOT like a guy who is confident and yet self-effacing about his images? How can you NOT like a guy who remains unimpressed with much of his own work. How can you NOT be impressed with a guy who always believes that he can improve, and the next shot he's going to take is the best one.

I'm conflicted. I see him as a genuine article... I just don't like (or understand) most of his work very much.

 

[gns]

I don't know if it's an "internet myth", but that is just what I was told by the photographer I first interned for who took classes from Garry at UT in the 70's. I suppose you know better than he would though.

Winogrand seemed to me to be pretty familiar with his own pictures as well as willing & able to discuss them. How could that be if he wasn't interested in looking at them in the first place? It's just nonsense to say he didn't look at his own pictures.

 

[Colin Corneau]

...
GW pounced on women with his camera in the streets corners...

What an insulting dismissal of a creative original. And unacceptably ignorant, given the volumes of information available on the man and his works.

I'm tempted to say such a statement says more about the issuer than the subject. But hey, what do guys like Meyerowitz and countless others know, anyway.

 

[Hsg]

What an insulting dismissal of a creative original.

http://youtu.be/3RM9KcYEYXs?t=1m4s

I'm not talking out of my -- darkroom.

 

[willie_901]

WG keeps saying that Walker Evans is a great artist and yet look at any of Walker Evans photos and you immediately think - 1930s, the great depressions, some poor farmers (by western standards) and after that you wonder "so what"?

Walker Evan's work is nothing but a 'period piece', an archaic collection of photos that might have some meaning to an American viewer who's perhaps descended from the same displaced farmers, other than that its nothing special, it has no universality and it has no resonance with those who don't know the history of those photos or more importantly care.


Garry Winogrand was a man lost in his own mind, his like someone who's more interested in a puzzle than solving it. so he keeps complicating and intellectualizing about photography and yet in the end of it all what he says is meaningless theories. His right about Davidson, his right about RF and SLR but other than that all of his other theories are nothing but personal opinions.


Winogrand was a self-indulgent and egoistic photographer who could never get over his own fixations and obsessions and therefore, his work will always be a sort of window to his own psychology, which is mainly all about women...

Any photographer who has not risked his life for photos that are not about him, is not a great photographer. That is my simple parameter for someone to become a great photographer.

Winogrand was the biggest mouth in photography before Burce Gilden took that title.

Of course you're entitled to this opinion.

When you win two Guggenheim Foundation grants, are curated by MOMA, are appointed to the faculty at a major universities, have gallery representation in San Francisco and have your work shown in the National Gallery of Art, I will not laugh at what you wrote.