Not sure of the motor drive, but I've always liked Joel Meyerowitz's from a car photos...
One can be seen here:
http://theredlist.fr/wiki-2-16-601-806-view-street-1-profile-meyerowitz-joel.html
willie_901
Veteran
Pages 35-41 of "Winogrand Figments From The Real World" gives John Szarkowski's views on ths time period.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I'll read that again before the new one arrives - thanks.
semi-ambivalent
Little to say
I received my copy a while ago (I work at a bookstore) and like it very much although, at first blush, I'm not entirely blown away by it. At the least the production quality is superb.
John Szarkowski was pretty harsh about Winogrand's late work, comparing him to a car engine that wouldn't stop running after it's turned off. (You that remember carburators will know what he means), but I also think Szarkowski was guilty of that particular New York-centrism common in the art world.
Of course, Winogrand's work would have stayed at its peak forever if he had stayed in The Center of the Universe, right?
But one must remember that at the time America was changing, irreversibly and on a vast scale, and much of that change was the growing importance of the West; most notably California. While I wouldn't consider the boardwalk at Santa Monica to be the new revolution I'm sure it could have appealed to a Winogrand grown tired of the clouds and grimy streets and steaming manhole covers of that 'old' city. Perhaps he just out-grew them. Sorry John.
One will never know if Winogrand's artistic arc took the path it did because he left the East, or if he just ran out of creativity about then, or if the world he portrayed best was simply disappearing. All the book can do is surmise. Mr. Szarkowski and the others just surmise as well, and it's wise to keep that in mind. I like Winogrand's work and I intend one day to own a print (don't ask which one), and I think this book (and the show, if I ever get to see it) in my estimation does a great job of trying to encapsulate one of the more enigmatic photographers of the twentieth century; one who is, at the very least, huge.
Good book, well worth the not insubstantial price.
s-a
John Szarkowski was pretty harsh about Winogrand's late work, comparing him to a car engine that wouldn't stop running after it's turned off. (You that remember carburators will know what he means), but I also think Szarkowski was guilty of that particular New York-centrism common in the art world.
Of course, Winogrand's work would have stayed at its peak forever if he had stayed in The Center of the Universe, right?
But one must remember that at the time America was changing, irreversibly and on a vast scale, and much of that change was the growing importance of the West; most notably California. While I wouldn't consider the boardwalk at Santa Monica to be the new revolution I'm sure it could have appealed to a Winogrand grown tired of the clouds and grimy streets and steaming manhole covers of that 'old' city. Perhaps he just out-grew them. Sorry John.One will never know if Winogrand's artistic arc took the path it did because he left the East, or if he just ran out of creativity about then, or if the world he portrayed best was simply disappearing. All the book can do is surmise. Mr. Szarkowski and the others just surmise as well, and it's wise to keep that in mind. I like Winogrand's work and I intend one day to own a print (don't ask which one), and I think this book (and the show, if I ever get to see it) in my estimation does a great job of trying to encapsulate one of the more enigmatic photographers of the twentieth century; one who is, at the very least, huge.
Good book, well worth the not insubstantial price.
s-a
Highway 61
Revisited
I received my copy a while ago (I work at a bookstore) and like it very much although, at first blush, I'm not entirely blown away by it. At the least the production quality is superb.
John Szarkowski was pretty harsh about Winogrand's late work, comparing him to a car engine that wouldn't stop running after it's turned off. (You that remember carburators will know what he means), but I also think Szarkowski was guilty of that particular New York-centrism common in the art world.
Of course, Winogrand's work would have stayed at its peak forever if he had stayed in The Center of the Universe, right?
One will never know if Winogrand's artistic arc took the path it did because he left the East, or if he just ran out of creativity about then, or if the world he portrayed best was simply disappearing. All the book can do is surmise. Mr. Szarkowski and the others just surmise as well, and it's wise to keep that in mind. I like Winogrand's work and I intend one day to own a print (don't ask which one), and I think this book (and the show, if I ever get to see it) in my estimation does a great job of trying to encapsulate one of the more enigmatic photographers of the twentieth century; one who is, at the very least, huge.
Good book, well worth the not insubstantial price.
s-a
This is a remarkable post, the kind of those which make me like this forum - thank you very much for it.
I too received my copy of the book two days ago and could not write anything else.
telenous
Well-known
I received the book as well, gift from a friend who made sure I had my copy fresh from the press I am still reading the essays and digesting the many new photographs. Clearly though this is going to be a complementary volume to Szarkowski's earlier one, what with the revisionist view offered with regard to Winogrand's later years.
It seems to me too all three strands you are presenting worked jointly for the change of imagery in Winogrand's last phase. It's well documented that America in the early 80's was changing gear, at least to many people who were young in the 60's and the 70's it looked and felt that way. Maybe their youth was gone, and with it their dreams and aspirations were commodified as they also turned pedestrian and uninspired. Winogrand himself changed physically, in 1975 he quit smoking and gained a lot of weight. If sveltness and agility were required, they were no longer there. In 1978 he had that accident where an entire football team landed on his knee as he was taking pictures from the sideline. That couldn't have helped either. Last, Los Angeles is a completely different city than New York. You don't go anywhere without car. There's not really any centre and you can't just walk and shoot left and right as if you were in a human garden. Not fluidly anyway. There are a few Winogrand videos on the web - e.g. the one recently translated from German - that show this change of pace. It really all comes together I think when you look at his photos from the time.
I think he went to LA with a Guggenheim fellowship (1979 - his third one) to document the area.
.
I am still reading the essays and digesting the many new photographs. Clearly though this is going to be a complementary volume to Szarkowski's earlier one, what with the revisionist view offered with regard to Winogrand's later years. ...
John Szarkowski was pretty harsh about Winogrand's late work, comparing him to a car engine that wouldn't stop running after it's turned off. (You that remember carburators will know what he means), but I also think Szarkowski was guilty of that particular New York-centrism common in the art world.
Of course, Winogrand's work would have stayed at its peak forever if he had stayed in The Center of the Universe, right?
One will never know if Winogrand's artistic arc took the path it did because he left the East, or if he just ran out of creativity about then, or if the world he portrayed best was simply disappearing. All the book can do is surmise. Mr. Szarkowski and the others just surmise as well, and it's wise to keep that in mind. I like Winogrand's work and I intend one day to own a print (don't ask which one), and I think this book (and the show, if I ever get to see it) in my estimation does a great job of trying to encapsulate one of the more enigmatic photographers of the twentieth century; one who is, at the very least, huge.
Good book, well worth the not insubstantial price.
s-a
It seems to me too all three strands you are presenting worked jointly for the change of imagery in Winogrand's last phase. It's well documented that America in the early 80's was changing gear, at least to many people who were young in the 60's and the 70's it looked and felt that way. Maybe their youth was gone, and with it their dreams and aspirations were commodified as they also turned pedestrian and uninspired. Winogrand himself changed physically, in 1975 he quit smoking and gained a lot of weight. If sveltness and agility were required, they were no longer there. In 1978 he had that accident where an entire football team landed on his knee as he was taking pictures from the sideline. That couldn't have helped either. Last, Los Angeles is a completely different city than New York. You don't go anywhere without car. There's not really any centre and you can't just walk and shoot left and right as if you were in a human garden. Not fluidly anyway. There are a few Winogrand videos on the web - e.g. the one recently translated from German - that show this change of pace. It really all comes together I think when you look at his photos from the time.
I think he went to LA with a Guggenheim fellowship (1979 - his third one) to document the area.
.
willie_901
Veteran
I am thinking the same thoughts as Alkis.
Besides the football game injury, GW also had thyroid issues that led to surgery. His physical problems could have been relevant.
Also the necessity for autombile transportation in LA is rather different than NYC.
Besides the football game injury, GW also had thyroid issues that led to surgery. His physical problems could have been relevant.
Also the necessity for autombile transportation in LA is rather different than NYC.
Well, he did die young, so there's probably some truth to his health having a role.
tstermitz
Well-known
The new Garry Winogrand book is great. Very much worth buying.
I agree with the commentary in the book about about how Winogrand's later photos declined in quality: loss of whimsy, loss of energy, more isolated subjects, just plain boring. I also note that the frame is tilted more than usual, but that the energy of the tilt doesn't correspond to or work with the energy of the subject.
More than half of the latter photographs are pretty unremarkable, which serves to make the point that GW's quality declined. But, I guess it also proves that all the great photos from the first 3/4 did not come from spray and pray and select the good ones. Entropy always wins over the thousand monks (hah!) hoping to type Hamlet.
Master of Composition
Looking through the first 3/4 of the book, I notice one after another, masterfully composed photographs that play with perspective and utilize the sharp angles of architecture or cars to organize the image. The frame is tilted to build energy and to make the leading lines point to the focus of attention. GW has positioned himself exactly where the subjects of the image all come together. Hollywood and Vine is spectacular in this regard. The office worker (banker?) at the desk (#217 Kalamazoo) picking up a piece of paper whose head exactly meets the lines of the window and shade. These are brilliant, precise compositions, very much in the style of Henry Cartier Bresson.
Theatre of Life
The commentary in the book describes GW as someone who loved the "theater of life". His pictures are so often little stories of gesture or juxtaposition. The legless veteran at the VFW convention. The guy in the wheelchair (#257 Los Angeles) on Hollywood and Vine with the stylish women casting shadows that cross exactly where his downcast eyes don't quite reach. The White and Black couple carrying chimpanzee babies (#150) dressed like little kids is over-loaded with racial implications in 1967 USA. Or the man with a wolfish shadow across his face (#98 Central Park Zoo) looking at the woman with him, while a real wolf stalks in the background. Decisive moments like HCB, but with an edge.
Social Context
Mostly GW is whimsical and seeking the dramas of street life. But, he doesn't just catch private stumbles, candid emotions or expressions. Nor is he excessively voyeuristic stealing pictures of foibles or embarrassments. The Hollywood and Vine or the W&B Couple with Chimpanzee photos are powerful social commentaries. HCB was art and whimsy and didn't really "go there".
My Favorite new Photo?
There is a JFK waiting area (#279) shot with a wide angle that makes all the curves distort. It's almost like Salvador Dali.
I agree with the commentary in the book about about how Winogrand's later photos declined in quality: loss of whimsy, loss of energy, more isolated subjects, just plain boring. I also note that the frame is tilted more than usual, but that the energy of the tilt doesn't correspond to or work with the energy of the subject.
More than half of the latter photographs are pretty unremarkable, which serves to make the point that GW's quality declined. But, I guess it also proves that all the great photos from the first 3/4 did not come from spray and pray and select the good ones. Entropy always wins over the thousand monks (hah!) hoping to type Hamlet.
Master of Composition
Looking through the first 3/4 of the book, I notice one after another, masterfully composed photographs that play with perspective and utilize the sharp angles of architecture or cars to organize the image. The frame is tilted to build energy and to make the leading lines point to the focus of attention. GW has positioned himself exactly where the subjects of the image all come together. Hollywood and Vine is spectacular in this regard. The office worker (banker?) at the desk (#217 Kalamazoo) picking up a piece of paper whose head exactly meets the lines of the window and shade. These are brilliant, precise compositions, very much in the style of Henry Cartier Bresson.
Theatre of Life
The commentary in the book describes GW as someone who loved the "theater of life". His pictures are so often little stories of gesture or juxtaposition. The legless veteran at the VFW convention. The guy in the wheelchair (#257 Los Angeles) on Hollywood and Vine with the stylish women casting shadows that cross exactly where his downcast eyes don't quite reach. The White and Black couple carrying chimpanzee babies (#150) dressed like little kids is over-loaded with racial implications in 1967 USA. Or the man with a wolfish shadow across his face (#98 Central Park Zoo) looking at the woman with him, while a real wolf stalks in the background. Decisive moments like HCB, but with an edge.
Social Context
Mostly GW is whimsical and seeking the dramas of street life. But, he doesn't just catch private stumbles, candid emotions or expressions. Nor is he excessively voyeuristic stealing pictures of foibles or embarrassments. The Hollywood and Vine or the W&B Couple with Chimpanzee photos are powerful social commentaries. HCB was art and whimsy and didn't really "go there".
My Favorite new Photo?
There is a JFK waiting area (#279) shot with a wide angle that makes all the curves distort. It's almost like Salvador Dali.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
My copy arrived a few days ago wrapped in a huge burlap sack. I have just started looking at it...overwhelmed and also puzzled.
Tijmendal
Young photog
I'm debating getting this book. It's quite a lot of money for a student, but I love Winogrands work and the fact there's a lot of new photo's is really appealing to me!