Garry Winogrand Interview (pdf)

Interestng interview, but it leaves me puzzled.

What really drove GW to do what he did? Get better at his game (that's what he says)? But then what game is he playing?

Maybe it simply illustrates how others might fail - like he did - at answering this question.

I know I'd fail, because when I experience the flow of taking photos, I wouldn't be able to answer that question either.

The best thing I could say that to me photographing on the street it is a process that happens subconsciously (I mean the decision which subject and what moment to choose). To drag that out into the light of consciousness would be to destroy what drives me to do it.

OTOH, what he said about Walker Evans was interesting: It was important for him to see and learn from WE's pictures. Like watching those pictures, analyzing why they work for him, and then memorizing them for later reference.

Unfortunately, GW didn't say anything about how he used that reference...
 
Arjay said:
Interestng interview, but it leaves me puzzled.

What really drove GW to do what he did? Get better at his game (that's what he says)? But then what game is he playing?

Maybe it simply illustrates how others might fail - like he did - at answering this question.

I know I'd fail, because when I experience the flow of taking photos, I wouldn't be able to answer that question either.

The best thing I could say that to me photographing on the street it is a process that happens subconsciously (I mean the decision which subject and what moment to choose). To drag that out into the light of consciousness would be to destroy what drives me to do it.

OTOH, what he said about Walker Evans was interesting: It was important for him to see and learn from WE's pictures. Like watching those pictures, analyzing why they work for him, and then memorizing them for later reference.

Unfortunately, GW didn't say anything about how he used that reference...
Click to expand...

In the interview GW makes a distinction between the subject and the photograph. The woman in the photograph is not the actual woman, its the photograph of that woman.

Once that stage is reached according to him, then its only the start of playing the game.
 
He has a few good interviews in video form, too, if you search around the Internet. He seemed to be a straight shooter (no pun intended), one who often didn't want to go into cliched areas of what it means to be an photographer and an artist. It also seems he could click off shots at a prodigious pace and in a covert manner.
 
I'm always interested in these interviews because GW seemed, at times, to be so aloof, almost combative, with his audience, like they had to ask the same question over and over in different ways in order to illicit an answer to their liking.

He must have been an interesting teacher of photography which, I recall from reading an article written by an ex-student of his, really only got interesting outside of the classroom, on field assignments.

I like his quote about obsession in photography being a good thing.

Thanks for the links.

~Joe
 
RollingBall said:
"I photograph to find out what something looks like photographed"

I get it.
Click to expand...

I always loved that line and I follow that philosophy. It has really opened up possibilities and makes me realize everything is photograph-able. The fact that an object in the photo isn't necessarily the subject, but the whole photo is the subject.
 
Last edited:
I like Winogrands honesty. From what he has said, sometimes over and over again, he took photographs to challenge himself. He didn't have some all-encompassing answer as to why he did what he did, and that seems to have frustrated people, despite him being so open and available to discuss his photography.

I can see how people only really understood what he was trying to say, once they shot with him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom