Bille
Well-known
redisburning
Well-known
good read.
Ive always been more attracted to Winogrand as a photographer than his photographs themselves.
in the end, he may very well have been trying to push things further than they could really go. and combined with being ill, you can get caught in that realm and never get back to your safe spaces of consistency.
that list image in the article, though, is a real stunner.
Ive always been more attracted to Winogrand as a photographer than his photographs themselves.
in the end, he may very well have been trying to push things further than they could really go. and combined with being ill, you can get caught in that realm and never get back to your safe spaces of consistency.
that list image in the article, though, is a real stunner.
twopointeight
Well-known
Thanks for posting. Winogrand is a deep subject that goes beyond the man. Perhaps his so-called decline has more to do with how mainstream America, including the art viewing public and curator experts define success? He was obsessive compulsive, eccentric and non-linear. Why must we deconstruct our heros?
Mr. Fizzlesticks
Member
No clothes on the emperor.
When historians look back on Winogrand in the future they will question why he was considered "great". He left behind a mountain of garbage.
When historians look back on Winogrand in the future they will question why he was considered "great". He left behind a mountain of garbage.
MikeAUS
Well-known
Reading the article, there is no doubt that it was a decline on an Epic scale.
clayne
shoot film or die
"Szarkowski thought it was caused in part by new equipment. In 1982, Winogrand bought a motor-driven Leica, which made it even easier to take multiple photos without hesitation or thought."
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I'm sure if one looked they could probably find a bunch of good photos. They'd just have to want to actually look for them, and they might not resemble the sort of photos that made Winogrand famous.
That's not to say that there isn't a lot of crap, in his case a mountain of it.
That's not to say that there isn't a lot of crap, in his case a mountain of it.
twopointeight
Well-known
Why the fixation on his decline and "the mountain of crap"? Look at his best work. That's a much more important mountain. Of course, its not for everyone.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Why fault the man for doing what most people do today with digital capture?
Winogrand's photos which he is known for are some of my favorites. At the same time, there are some photographers out there who are near-worshiped yet most of their stuff doesn't appeal to me. That's my opinion but every photographer shoots some garbage and that's a fact. The ones who tell you they don't are full of crap. Winogrand happened to capture images on a numerical scale that probably approaches the mean time before failure count on most pro cameras these days. Something most photographers using digital slr's already do now. He happened to do it with his thumb, and in the case of a winder, with his forefinger.
Regardless, when he got the shot, he GOT the shot.
Phil Forrest
Winogrand's photos which he is known for are some of my favorites. At the same time, there are some photographers out there who are near-worshiped yet most of their stuff doesn't appeal to me. That's my opinion but every photographer shoots some garbage and that's a fact. The ones who tell you they don't are full of crap. Winogrand happened to capture images on a numerical scale that probably approaches the mean time before failure count on most pro cameras these days. Something most photographers using digital slr's already do now. He happened to do it with his thumb, and in the case of a winder, with his forefinger.
Regardless, when he got the shot, he GOT the shot.
Phil Forrest
Dan Daniel
Well-known
He rode a wave, rode it well, and the wave ended. Happens all the time.
The truly dismaying thing in the exhibit for me is what the curators appear to be doing. By selecting late work never even seen as a photograph by Winogrand, they are on very shaky ground in my opinion. They are going back into earlier periods, like the early '60s negatives, and printing/exhibiting work that Winogrand never selected, never indicated was of interest to him ('unmarked on contact sheet' is the phrase they used? can't remember the exact working). So they are now inflecting his past work in line with their editing of his undeveloped work. Well, remixing of an artist's work happens all the time, but I hope people recognize this process and the next generation undoes it and rebuilds in line for themselves.
If anyone has taught photography, they have seen hundreds of accidental 'great' photographs. If nayone has ever goine crazy with 35mm or digital on the street, they have found themselves with a random 'great shot.' This is a territory that Winogrand helped open up and certainly was one of the pioneers in colonizing it. Its long term significance? Even he knew it- the camera makes it happen, it means nothing except that the camera can make things look this way.
The truly dismaying thing in the exhibit for me is what the curators appear to be doing. By selecting late work never even seen as a photograph by Winogrand, they are on very shaky ground in my opinion. They are going back into earlier periods, like the early '60s negatives, and printing/exhibiting work that Winogrand never selected, never indicated was of interest to him ('unmarked on contact sheet' is the phrase they used? can't remember the exact working). So they are now inflecting his past work in line with their editing of his undeveloped work. Well, remixing of an artist's work happens all the time, but I hope people recognize this process and the next generation undoes it and rebuilds in line for themselves.
If anyone has taught photography, they have seen hundreds of accidental 'great' photographs. If nayone has ever goine crazy with 35mm or digital on the street, they have found themselves with a random 'great shot.' This is a territory that Winogrand helped open up and certainly was one of the pioneers in colonizing it. Its long term significance? Even he knew it- the camera makes it happen, it means nothing except that the camera can make things look this way.
semi-ambivalent
Little to say
No kidding. Cartier Bresson took only 42 photgraphs in his entire career and they're all fabulous. Why didn't Winogrand do that too? What a knucklehead.
s-a
Ranchu
Veteran
Critics don't shoot, article is just click bait, exactly like that Imbroglio guy trying to explain why our photos suck, or that petapixel sh!t. The idea that great photographs such as those that Winogrand made get made by accident/attrition like a million monkeys typing is laughable. People are just jealous of Winogrand, because they can't compete with him at what he did. Hurts their little feelings and they pout about him. Booyah.
furbs
Well-known
I saw the exhibition at SFMOMA, and the later pieces really weren't up to his past standards. Some artists end well - Winogrand definitely wasn't one of them. But there was a haunting, detached quality to his later work that I appreciated.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
You should be so lucky as to leave this life with five photographs that are as good as any in Winogrand's best 500.
Pioneer
Veteran
I suspect there was a reason why Winogrand never got around to editing, or in most cases even developing, his later stuff. He took it, he knew what he did, and didn't, have on film. He may also have been thinking that later in life, when he wasn't physically up to running around taking pictures, he would have more time to look back over what he had done. Instead his mortality caught up with him.
I chuckled a bit over the article's description of John Swarkoski's frustration in reviewing Winogrand's images. That may have been exactly how Winogrand himself felt.
I chuckled a bit over the article's description of John Swarkoski's frustration in reviewing Winogrand's images. That may have been exactly how Winogrand himself felt.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
L Collins
Well-known
Very well said.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
This is one of the things that bothers me about the use of Vivian Maier's work. On the other hand didn't Winogrand know that his films would get developed after he died?
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
I am not a big fan of Winogrand but when I read threads such as this I always find that art/craft critics is a waste of time and that people should spend more time living their life than criticizing other's. He got pictures, got enough so good in the eyes of so many people to gain respect and fame, one look at them if so please, otherwise moves on, don't see the need for the demigod attributes of fans nor for the offensive "mountain of crap" of heaters. For me I don't see much which I would like to replicate nor much I would like to learn from him but I like some of his pictures (usually more for the situations and atmosphere than for the technical part), in any case I have always the deepest respect for someone who give so much to the art he loves, we should all do that and not care for what people say. (Oh yeah, we need to care for what the client say but that's another story.)
GLF
GLF
