Great Winogrand NYC Exhibition - The Man Who Took A Million Photos
- Thread starter CameraQuest
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 21
- Views 9K
jnalepa
Member
I went to see it while I was down in NYC in early June. It was absolutely amazing.
The entryway to the exhibition has a Kodak Ektagraphic slide projector on a timer going through some of his slides. The main gallery room simulates the old-projector experience, but with digitally rear-projected images in eight different groups (arranged by themes).
The also have a separate section with a short documentary that is just following Garry in a-day-in-the-life of sort of way. I believe excerpts of this were used in the new documentary, All Things Are Photographable (out on iTunes). They also had a selection of some of his most famous B&W prints.
Worth the trip for sure!
The entryway to the exhibition has a Kodak Ektagraphic slide projector on a timer going through some of his slides. The main gallery room simulates the old-projector experience, but with digitally rear-projected images in eight different groups (arranged by themes).
The also have a separate section with a short documentary that is just following Garry in a-day-in-the-life of sort of way. I believe excerpts of this were used in the new documentary, All Things Are Photographable (out on iTunes). They also had a selection of some of his most famous B&W prints.
Worth the trip for sure!
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Wow looks like an amazing exhibit. Wish I could make it to NY to see it to.
victoriapio
Well-known
When Winogrand was teaching his photography classes at UT in Austin, he would spend only one class per semester showing his color work. If you took all four semesters of his "photo sequence," the third was a whole semester of color. STudents were required to turn in 10 slides to get an A for the semester. It was interesting to see his color work, but he didn't show it very often.
Wish I could see this exhibit too.
Wish I could see this exhibit too.
Pentode
Well-known
Wow - I had completely forgotten this was going on! Now I know what I’ll be doing this weekend.
Pentode
Well-known
I went to see this last weekend. The color work was really interesting. Much more static than his B&W work. Due to the slow speed of Kodachrome at that time he was forced to shoot more stationary subjects unless he was in very bright sun. I liked a lot of it.
They also had 25 of his B&W prints from their archives on display and this is where they dropped the ball. The lighting was so poor it was impossible to see the quality of the prints. I guess they were beautiful, but I'll never know. I was pretty bummed out because I really wanted to see his original prints. Oh, well.... I still enjoyed the color exhibit.
They also had 25 of his B&W prints from their archives on display and this is where they dropped the ball. The lighting was so poor it was impossible to see the quality of the prints. I guess they were beautiful, but I'll never know. I was pretty bummed out because I really wanted to see his original prints. Oh, well.... I still enjoyed the color exhibit.
35photo
Well-known
I have a theory as to why the lighting so bad for his B&W work.... It was known that Garry wasn't the great darkroom tech and he didn't properly fix his prints and some of them have started to yellow so keeping the lighting down is helping preserve those prints... sucks but that's just the way it is...
35photo
Well-known
Can you imagine Winogrand shooting digital?? 1 million could have easily turned into 2 million maybe more... haha
olifaunt
Well-known
35photo
Well-known
I remember seeing his prints at an exhibition here in Chicago in the mid 2000's they you could see they were yellowing and they had to have the lights down on the lower side.... I'm sure with time they might have gotten worse... So its definitely true.
benlees
Well-known
The whole point of negative film is reproduction. To show yellowing crappy prints is ridiculous. They're not paintings; reprint them so we can see what Winogrand wanted us to see...
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Old prints can also be re-fixed, and re-washed...
nightfly
Well-known
I don't even know why they included the black and white work frankly. They felt like an afterthought at best.
After seeing these beautiful color projections, I had absolutely zero desire to see his black and white work (which I've seen before).
It was called Gary Winogrand "Color".
After seeing these beautiful color projections, I had absolutely zero desire to see his black and white work (which I've seen before).
It was called Gary Winogrand "Color".
35photo
Well-known
Sure, NOT chance in hell in the museum curator would ever attempt to have that done....
35photo
Well-known
Well they are being treated like paintings...
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
peterm1
Veteran
I think I prefer Winogrand's color work to his B/W, though I have to say this is more due to it having the feel of capturing a place and time than anything else - his 1960s stuff look very like that era as far as I can tell.
But having said this I must also say that I prefer (say) Fred Herzog and Saul Leiter to Winogrand as they seem to have a better knack of making interesting and artistic compositions than he does (in my view). Winogrand's photos seem somehow more "random" than theirs (not helped by holding the camera on a diagonal so often - something that I think gets "old" quickly). Not saying its bad just less desirable to me than the others named. I am sure others disagree though which is perfectly fine.
But having said this I must also say that I prefer (say) Fred Herzog and Saul Leiter to Winogrand as they seem to have a better knack of making interesting and artistic compositions than he does (in my view). Winogrand's photos seem somehow more "random" than theirs (not helped by holding the camera on a diagonal so often - something that I think gets "old" quickly). Not saying its bad just less desirable to me than the others named. I am sure others disagree though which is perfectly fine.
olifaunt
Well-known
I know Winogrand worked differently so I agree, but in the U.S. fine art photography world the prints made by the photographer or, failing that, approved by the photographer carry more weight and value as they are taken as fully representative of the artist's intention. Since there are after all many ways a negative can be printed, it is not so simple as just reprinting negatives. (Although indeed many were printed by others after his death from negatives he didn't get around to processing.)
35photo
Well-known
Yep, prints by the photographer or prints approved by the photographer definitely have more weight.. Than ones just printed by others...
IEDEI
Well-known
need to go see this. apparently at the Brooklyn Museum not far from me!! mega!
Similar threads
