Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think he's a lot like Warhol ... he was an event in space and time as much he was an artist!
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I think it's important to completely read the entire article referenced by the OP, otherwise it's easy to miss the author's point. Yes, he admits that GW's quality lapsed in the latter years. But he also points out how easy it is to become obsessed as a photographer, pointing out by example W. Eugene Smith (who left his family and obsessed for years on a jazz studio project), or Vivian Meier (whose talent and prolific life of shooting could not overcome her desire to remain private and anonymous).
I like his point at the end, pertaining to GW's latter work:
I've always seen this element in GW's work, even in his heyday, that of pushing the boundaries of the genre, seeing how random imagery could still work photographically. In this context he was obsessed, yes, but I see his work as a grand experiment, where it's not easy to separate the man from his methods.
~Joe
I like his point at the end, pertaining to GW's latter work:
I've always seen this element in GW's work, even in his heyday, that of pushing the boundaries of the genre, seeing how random imagery could still work photographically. In this context he was obsessed, yes, but I see his work as a grand experiment, where it's not easy to separate the man from his methods.
~Joe
icebear
Veteran
I guess art is about the result and not the hit ratio, so you can answer the Q. yourself.
icebear
Veteran
Highlight - that sounds a lot like the random artsy BS that is used to auto generate the "Artist Statements" in another thread.
If something fails or is not up to par, you can always claim this was an on purpose exercise.
It the end it's always: "Art is, what you can get away with" Andy Warhol
gns
Well-known
Do music fans give a crap about this? Nobody goes to a concert and wonders how many bad songs, false starts, etc the musician made before coming up with the good songs in his performance.
Nobody cares how much he practiced or didn't.
Nobody asks how many bad combinations of flavors a chef played with before coming up with a great dish.
Nobody asks how many bad stories a writer created to get the great ones. Or how many times he rewrote a line to get it just right.
Hobbyist photographers seem to be the only ones concerned with this efficiency issue. Why is that?
Making photographs is not like throwing darts at a target. You are not trying to do the identical thing over and over. You are trying to create something. You are trying to say or reveal or share something new...about the subject, the medium, yourself maybe.
ironhorse
Joe DuPont
Whether or not you like Winogrand, the article is thoughtful, preceptive, and well written. Thank you for posting.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
gns said:
Excellent point. Fans do not give a crud. I would go further and say that a properly curated book or exhibit is like a properly edited record or concert programme. Some need more post-production than others.
Was Winogrand trying to create photographs, or just snap them?
I think that, if you realize that whether one thinks of throwing darts a sport or a pastime, the focus and the results are completely different. And one realizes if whether one's doing it with training (as a sportsman would), or merely chance (not as a sportsman would).
And before someone says "bad analogy": yes, bad analogy. All analogies are bad because in the analogy the subjects are not the same. They're only good if you agree with them.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
DominikDUK
Well-known
Clever Editing is 90% of the success a choice that was taken from Winogrands later work others choose for him Curators and such. Saying his later work is lacking is imo simple stupid because Winogrand might have chosen other photographs that would have blown away the art world but he did not for the simple reason that he was dead. Furthermore looking at some of his later work I found a lot of similiarities to his earlier work. He just seemed more driven (dynamic) than in his younger years.
gns
Well-known
I'm not sure I understand your response and that makes me think, maybe I didn't fully understand your initial statements. I thought you were (like many others have as well) making a value judgement comparison of a photographer who takes many photos to get a good one vs. a photographer who takes few photos to get a good one. I just find that entirely not to the point and tiresome as well.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
That premise -- that Winogrand's shooting was essentially stochastic -- is off the mark. At the SFMOMA show there are a bunch of proof sheets on display.
Especially in his prime, he was a very good shooter.
Dan Daniel
Well-known
I think it was in the first 'Aperture' magazine that Minor White had an article on 'post-visualization' as a photographic methodology. Obviously in distinction from 'pre-visualiztion,' along the lines of Adams and Weston et al. The basic concept, as you might guess: you shoot like crazy and figure out what you were doing afterwards. Not shooting randomly, arbitrarily; there should be intention, even the intention of being open to accidents, etc. It is in the editing, the exploration of the images on the contact sheet that what you have done is shaped.
We will never know what Winogrand would have made of his later shooting.
I don't know if White and Winogrand had any commonalities. I don't have White's article around to know how much his 'post-visualization' and Winogrand's approach had in common. But as a simple phrase which should have meaning for many photographers, it's an interesting idea.
We will never know what Winogrand would have made of his later shooting.
I don't know if White and Winogrand had any commonalities. I don't have White's article around to know how much his 'post-visualization' and Winogrand's approach had in common. But as a simple phrase which should have meaning for many photographers, it's an interesting idea.
taskoni
Well-known
I guess art is about the result and not the hit ratio, so you can answer the Q. yourself.
I think the art for some people is more than that even, it is the process. It is the things that make you do it, regardless the quantity and sometimes quality, as the art you are doing reflecting your own self. Sometimes you are beautiful and your photos are beautiful too, as beauty is a subjective thing - this is not necessarily true
It is a statement that everyone can argue about that.The only real thing in photography is the process of image-making, when you depress the shutter, as it exists as real event in the time and space, i.e. physically happens. All the rest is subjective.
Garry Winogrand was experiencing the process of picture taking, registering events as expressing his own self in his own way. I thought it was obvious to fans and haters.
Regards,
Boris
white.elephant
Established
Guys, I'll just say two things here:
1. Being physically unfit can be both mentally as well as physically debilitating. I don't need to tell you this, but I know for myself when I am unwell I don't have the energy to do anything, let alone carefully edit my work. Sometimes in those moments, I shoot just because I'm searching for something to bring me some relief, but even that doesn't always work. So, it strikes me that none of us can really say what was going on in his mind during his later years, and how much pain he might have been in (mentally and physically). You, in my opinion, just have to look at the work as it is, and if he didn't get around to editing or developing the rolls for whatever reason, that doesn't invalidate the right of a curator to examine the work and look for gems in that pile. I am in the creative industry, and I am often surprised when something I have created gives a consumer joy in a way I did not expect; who am I to judge whether they should or should not have gotten that joy?
2. I, too, saw the exhibit in SF, and I will travel to see it again if I can. No, his later work is not as striking as his earlier work, but the images that were culled from those rolls were pretty darn good, and worthy of being seen and exhibited. Great show.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
^-- Totally agreed, Chris. Spot on. I left the SFMOMA show a much bigger admirer of Winogrand than I had been before I entered the building.
At least historians will be looking at him. I feel sad for anyone who truly thinks he has no talent at all.
Museums, magazines, galleries, and newspapers do not keep such stats... because photography is not target shooting.
tstermitz
Well-known
I bought the book, and it is really a treasure.
When Winograd is on, he is really ON, but I must say none of the later photos showed the charm, insight and edge of the earlier ones. For example the use of a slightly skewed horizon adds tension and compositional energy in his good photos, but the angle tends to be bigger on the later ones, but it doesn't add anything.
When Winograd is on, he is really ON, but I must say none of the later photos showed the charm, insight and edge of the earlier ones. For example the use of a slightly skewed horizon adds tension and compositional energy in his good photos, but the angle tends to be bigger on the later ones, but it doesn't add anything.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
"Excuse me, can you tell me how to get to Carnegie Hall?"
Turtle
Veteran
I agree.
It would have been very interesting to see what had happened to W's photography had he vanquished his health problems. I agree that towards the end he was in a mysterious spiral, but where he would have ended up (had be lived) nobody knows.
Editing is hugely important and on the grounds of 'hit rate' there are many here who would regard themselves 'better'. I would argue that he has enough images indicative of real brilliance (positioning, timing, form and content...
) to be dismissed as a machine-gunner. That we are able to see so many of the poor frames is perhaps more of an indictment of the management of his estate (shameless profiteering and spin) than anything else.I feel that W does have those truly brilliant images, which may be lacking in the portfolios of lesser photographers who can produce 'quite good' images routinely. Personally, I am far more interested in the former than the latter.