Some Winogrand

Interesting essay. I've never been a fan of Winogrand, though. If you shoot a million exposures, the odds are that some are going to be extraordinary photos, despite yourself. Winogrand was obsessed with the act of photographing. Without the need to make a living, I'm not sure he would have cared if any of what he shot was ever printed.
 
Lots of essays on Winogrand (and on many others) have been complied on the americansuburbx site...
http://www.americansuburbx.com/

Pickett Wilson said:
If you shoot a million exposures, the odds are that some are going to be extraordinary photos, despite yourself.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter how many bad pictures or failures he made in order to get the great ones? When you read a book, does it matter how many times the author rewrote a paragraph to get it just right? When you are at a concert, are you concerned with how many hours the musicians spent in rehearsals? Or how many songs they threw away in the process of getting the dozen that made that great album?

Winogrand's own answer to this..."Art is not judged in terms of industrial efficiency".


Cheers,
Gary
 
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson said:
Interesting essay. I've never been a fan of Winogrand, though. If you shoot a million exposures, the odds are that some are going to be extraordinary photos, despite yourself. Winogrand was obsessed with the act of photographing. Without the need to make a living, I'm not sure he would have cared if any of what he shot was ever printed.
Click to expand...

The man shot obsessively for more than 30 years. I don't think he would have done that out of sheer neurosis.
 
Lot's of great quotes in that taped lecture, including the tiresome and overused "I photograph to see what things look like ...."

His opinion of Ralph Gibson is pretty funny as is the contrast between Winogrand and the ultra-serious students who hang on his every word.

I've seen other interviews with GW and it can be frustrating, because he doesn't want to be pinned down and can be a knee-jerk contrarian, spending more time questioning the questioner. However, it's refreshing that he doesn't bore on and on about his "art". He is obviously someone who has put a good deal of thought into his craft. Between the battling, he offers up some interesting bits of insight.

/
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Interesting essay. I've never been a fan of Winogrand, though. If you shoot a million exposures, the odds are that some are going to be extraordinary photos, despite yourself. Winogrand was obsessed with the act of photographing. Without the need to make a living, I'm not sure he would have cared if any of what he shot was ever printed.
Click to expand...

I always love a good irrational statement.
 
Harry Lime said:
I think they ran out of tape...
Click to expand...

Its fitting....unfortunately. Winogrand has been one of my favs ever since my college professor first showed his work. He was a smart and witty guy that had no fear whatsoever. A brilliant photographer really a one of a kind person as well.

Marko
 
filmfan, street shooting is a percentage game. The more you snap on the street, the better the odds of something turning up interesting. Winogrand shot everything that moved. To shoot as much film as he did, you simply have to be shooting constantly, obsessively.
 
Life is a percentage game. Some get a higher percentage than others. Lots of people shoot as much as Winogrand, especially now w/digital, & haven't done as well.

Pickett Wilson said:
filmfan, street shooting is a percentage game. The more you snap on the street, the better the odds of something turning up interesting. Winogrand shot everything that moved. To shoot as much film as he did, you simply have to be shooting constantly, obsessively.
Click to expand...
 
Note: The other picture of the couple with the monkeys is not by Winogrand, but Tod Papageorge. The man in that photo at the left of the frame with the smoke and the camera IS Winogrand.
 
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson said:
filmfan, street shooting is a percentage game. The more you snap on the street, the better the odds of something turning up interesting. Winogrand shot everything that moved. To shoot as much film as he did, you simply have to be shooting constantly, obsessively.
Click to expand...

And I could respond similarly to this (as irrational), but I won't-- for the sake of preserving this thread's interest level to others.
Hopefully, you do not feel the same way about people who work hard in other aspects of life. Usually, the harder you work, the more you succeed. This, at least to me, is a respectable trait worthy of admiration, not condemnation.
I have the same last name as you.
Regards,

-Sam Wilson

furcafe said:
Life is a percentage game. Some get a higher percentage than others. Lots of people shoot as much as Winogrand, especially now w/digital, & haven't done as well.
Click to expand...

Excellent point furcafe!
 
Last edited:
Interesting links, i much enjoyed the MIT link. As for the conversation in this thread regarding shooting either judiciously vs prolifically, I see no reason to consider one method any greater than the other. I do believe that you need to shoot with a rangefinder at a certain threshold or greater to be proficient. The mechanical side needs to be subordinate to the actual act of seeing the moment and composing the picture. Unless we are speaking of static objects of course. Beyond that, one may do as their whim dictates.

Obsessive is a strong word that is speaking about the motive behind the act. I do not know what his motive was beyond capturing life on film. What I would say is that if we only saw a collection of his finest photos, and we never knew about the number of photos taken outside of them. Would we even think to bring this question up? Probably not. I think we either like or dislike his photos on their own merit, after the editing process.

Kindest Regards,
 
When I was studying traditional character animation we used to have life drawing classes several days a week. My drawing teacher always used to say that you had 100,000 bad drawings in you and you had to get them out, before you have a clue about what you are doing.

When I started to shoot on the street I shot about 1500 rolls over the course of the first 4 years. 99.99% of it was crap, but I learned a lot and one day it all clicked. I'm still shooting and learning, but at least now I sort of have an inkling of what I am doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bill Pierce
This is....
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
jsrockit
jsrockit
laptoprob
dead Agfa Optima-Parat provides donor Solinar for Fujifilm
Replies
6
Views
241
petronius
petronius
L
Leica Lens List - a new tool to view and compare Leica LTM / M lenses
Replies
0
Views
368
LeicaLensList
L
p.giannakis
Internet is dead (and a couple of HCB pictures)
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Archiver
A
Velorum
Zeiss Ikon Tengor 54/2 - over 80 years old and still in the game!
Replies
5
Views
389
Velorum
Velorum
Back
Top Bottom