Garry Winogrand 1977 interview now on line

willie_901 said:
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.
Click to expand...

*drop the mic*...
 
Hsg said:
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.
Click to expand...

You obviously do not know the bulk of the work done by WE or its impact on what came after it.

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.
Click to expand...

Luckily you are not in charge of Photography's history. Seems to me its a very one dimensional view on what photography is.
 
jsrockit said:
The process / final output isn't your thing, but you respect his philosophy.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I think so. His work appears as a random, undisciplined, even amateurish collection in presentation. And yet, he had to have amazing self-discipline to go out and shoot as prodigiously as he did. And to have that size of a body of work to appear in that undisciplined and amateurish presentation so consistently and in such a volume turns it into a signature style. It's not a style I like, but I have to appreciate the guy's sincerity and determination. And he obviously enjoyed doing what he did.

Yes, I respect his philosophy.
 
jsrockit said:
Luckily you are not in charge of Photography's history. Seems to me its a very one dimensional view on what photography is.
Click to expand...

I wonder if all great art (painting, poetry, music, fiction) must also be born on the battlefield, or if that is just a peculiar requirement of photography.


For those who want more. I saw this live. It was long and rambling, but interesting (if you have 2+ hours and the inclination)...
http://www.sfmoma.org/explore/multimedia/videos/554

Gary
 
I don't recall Ansel Adams ever risking his life for photography...I guess he's just a hack, too, according to this expert.

Good lord...quit while you're ahead, buddy. The hole's only getting deeper.
 
Colin Corneau said:
I don't recall Ansel Adams ever risking his life for photography...I guess he's just a hack, too, according to this expert.

Good lord...quit while you're ahead, buddy. The hole's only getting deeper.
Click to expand...

Colin, I've hiked over some of the exact areas that Ansel Adams hiked, only I wasn't carrying the gear he was. He was in some beautiful and rugged places when there wasn't anyone to rescue you if you needed it. Trust me, there is no doubt that on occasion, his risked his life for his photography.
 
Bob Michaels said:
The interview that Garry Winogrand did with a class at Rice University in 1977 has now been posted on line at the National Gallery of Art website. The 16 minutes is a great indication of how Winogrand interpreted his own photography.

Winogrand would not have been able to cut it here at RFF as he never mentioned cameras, lenses, or film and was quite dismissive about exposure. But it is interesting to hear the views of someone who only cared about photographs.
Click to expand...

Excellent interview. One of my favourite photographers and nice to hear him speak also.
 
gns said:
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.
Click to expand...

What is nonsense is you taking my statement to the extreme. I didn't say that he NEVER looked at them. All I said was that he was MORE interested in the taking of the photograph and the experience of photographing than he was looking at the images.
 
arteryal said:
He wasn't a wealthy man by any stretch of the imagination. It was quite sad to read that transcript actually, as it gave me the impression that he was simply being heckled by the audience.
Click to expand...

So you're telling me that he was too POOR to process his film? That's simply ridiculous. At the very least you can process black and white film using two chemicals, developer and fixer. Neither of those are particularly expensive even at this day and age. 40 years ago it was downright cheap. If he was so interested in seeing what he captured he could have easily processed his film inexpensively on his own.
 
I have read that for Winogrand it was the process as much as the end result and he liked to wait to process his work to see if it still had the same impact later as it did when he pushed the shutter. Wasn't Szarkowski the guy that did the final edited most of his work?

And then there are those like Arbus that would cover her walls with her current work to see what would remain strong after repeat viewings. I tend to be more like Arbus than Winogrand. Maybe a bit of both....
 
I wasn't responding to your assertion that he didn't have staff. Did you bother to read your own quote in the reply? My guess is no. Either that or your just changing the argument to fit your agenda because you couldn't possibly be wrong.

Originally Posted by arteryal
He wasn't a wealthy man by any stretch of the imagination. It was quite sad to read that transcript actually, as it gave me the impression that he was simply being heckled by the audience.
Click to expand...

Yes, you provided evidence that he didn't have paid assistants, BUT by your own quote you are asserting that he was just so poor that he couldn't afford to have his film processed. The point I was making is that he definitely wasn't too poor to process his own film. He knew how to process film. He even had access to darkrooms (with FREE chemicals) at the Universities he taught at.

What's ridiculous is your refusal to admit that you might not be 100% correct in your assumptions. Have you ever sat down and had lengthy conversations with someone who was an actual graduate student under Winogrand's tutelage? I have. This person isn't a dedicated fanatic of Winogrand, he honestly could care less about his canon of work. But he knew him well enough from having sat through hours and hours of lectures and one on one conversations.

You are making presumptuous statements based on transcripts you are possibly misinterpreting (ie. the audience "heckling" him, when I see it as joking banter because Garry is a bit clownish, always looking for a laugh). The rest of your info you probably got from Wikipedia which isn't always the most accurate source of information.

In any case there's no point in even discussing this any further with you. You clarified something for me, but anything else you can add is just conjecture on your part and I really don't care for your pompous know-it-all attitude.
 
rivercityrocker said:
What is nonsense is you taking my statement to the extreme. I didn't say that he NEVER looked at them. All I said was that he was MORE interested in the taking of the photograph and the experience of photographing than he was looking at the images.
Click to expand...

What you actually said was, "...Garry wasn't very interested in looking at his own pictures".
I'm sorry if I stretched the meaning of those words a bit. I'll stand by my post (#60), but should probably delete the last sentence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom