Some Winogrand

[aizan]

he was, but he also relied heavily on outside help to edit his work, either szarkowski or other photographers. he was never one to try to say something with his photos. it's understandable that his being championed by the most influential photography critic would rub some people the wrong way, particularly the ones who had other views on what photography could be, i.e. the ones who use photography as illustration, as discussed in the mp3.

 

[Harry Lime]

Harry Lime,

what do you do now? reason I ask is because I work in the animation industry now, albeit a much more modern and different industry than before (and no longer traditional 2D animation)

I'm a visual effects supervisor for film and TV. Worked in LA for a very long time and now move around to see a little of the world.

 

[Harry Lime]

It's well known that Winogrand shot a lot of film, that he had large backlogs of film to process, print & edit, and that at the end of is life this became more extreme.
The work was left undone because he died (very quickly from cancer).

To suggest that he didn't edit his own work, or care to even look at it, I believe is nonsense.

Peace,
Gary

I agree. Winogrand also did not process his film right away on purpose.

He wanted time to pass between when he took the shot and reviewed it so he had some perspective on things. I think there's a clip somewhere on YOUTUBE or a print interview where he explains this.

I think he was on to something. Every once and a while I will go back to some older neg sheets and take another look. Sometimes I find something that I missed or did not understand and recognize at that moment in time. Sometimes I even realize that I picked the 'wrong take'.

 

[jsrockit]

Wackjob or not, the man did make some great photos.

 

[degruyl]

Personally, being more of a Weegee fan than a Winogrand, I would say that there is no great benefit to taking so many shots other than having a lot of material to work with.

It is something of a hassle to go through at the end of the day, which he clearly let up on... 7 years worth of photos? holy crap. I think he might have had ... issues. Why take pictures if you are not interested in seeing the pictures.

All that being said, there was an exhibit at the MoMA last year (it might still be there) of photographs, and I believe I saw a couple of his prints in there. They were quite good, and very recognizable in style. He had a photographic style. You might not like his editorial work, but you have to admit that he took some good pictures (whether he "made" the picture is another question, as well).

 

[victoriapio]

As in many arguements with opinions on both extremes, the facts usually lie in the middle.

Winogrand was the first to admit he "was a mess" when it came to processing and editing his images for books or exhibitions. I was at his apartment in Austin helping him fix his audio system while he was working on selecting the images for Women are Beautiful. The whole place was filled with stacks of work prints he was reviewing.

I was a student of his when Lee Friedlander came to Austin and lectured to Wingogrand's Art Photography classes. I was told later that Friedlander was really in town to prod Garry to finish the image selection of Public Relations.

Winogrand developed by inspection, a slower, more "interactive" processing method when developing Tri-X in D76. I believe one of his trusted TAs in Austin did develop some film for him, but other than that I think he processed all his own rolls. Given his love of shooting, it is no real surprise he would never have caught up with his processing NO MATTER HOW LONG HE LIVED.

(Not to plug this too much, but I wrote an article years ago about my recollections of taking Winogrand's art classes - much of what I have said above is in that piece. I illustrated the article with some photos of Winogrand that you may not have seen before: Click on "Class Time with Garry Winogrand")

Chris makes a point that is worth really emphasizing and that is frankly at the core of this thread: if you do not edit your work - assuming of course that there is a public demand to see your work after you assume room temperture - then someone else will edit it for you. Wingrand had no real filing system or archives - those were not his talents. He had thousands of rolls and contact sheets he never developed or reviewed. And Winogrand was first in line to blame himself when he couldn't find a negative he needed to print, for bags and bags of Tri-X, for stacks of contact sheets and sleeves full of negatives he would never see. That part of the photographic process did not rate as high on his priority list at shooting more images.

I do a short program on Winogrand for local photograpy clubs and the local college photography classes and the most common question I am asked is what Winogrand book do I like best. In my opinion, any of the books that Winogrand took part in the image selection are more "Winogrand" than those published after his death. The images seem more consistent. Hence, back to Chris's point asked in a different way - would Winogrand agree with the images selected for the books and exhibitions since his passing?

We will never know ...

 

[gns]

Victoripio,

Thanks for chiming in. Good to get some input from someone who has some actual first-hand knowledge.

Gary

 

[semordnilap]

No. I'm saying the refusal to critically evaluate art is a symptom. Winogrand himself isn't that important. The vehement defense of someone that most of the people here obviously know little about is another symptom. Used to be people actually got an education before they tried to argue about things like this. Or at least had done some reading. Not now, its ok to spout off based on your emotional 'feelings', damn the truth.

Um... It seems this 'vehement defense' by several in the thread began as a response to a comment that Winogrand was a worthless photographer because he left x number of rolls undeveloped at his death. You may dislike his method of working–it may not be your process at all. There's nothing wrong with that. But plenty of the commenters here are well aware of, I would daresay educated about, Winogrand's work, and they obviously feel it to be important. A smug dismissal of a photographer's work, repetitive references to x number of undeveloped rolls, and reliance on a single critical perspective, born of one individual, who may have been biased against a whole school of photography (as were those who, as you say, attempted to eradicate Mortensen), is really quite anti-intellectual, in fact, and smacks of "spout[ing] off based on ... emotional feelings, damn the truth."

There's no such thing as objective truth anyway, any idea can be deconstructed and disproved.

That's postmodern deconstructionist philosophy, which is and has been for the last 30 yrs, the rage in American academia....its proponents do have a point; many americans are wiling to engage in rather painful contortions of fact to avoid being proved wrong, even if they don't know what they're talking about. In such case, there is no objective truth that anyone will accept.

Please do some research before spouting off emotionally–you're doing it about critical theory now, too. And as for contortions of fact, I point you to your own post, currently #53 where you quoted the entirety of my argument, only to refute it by saying:

7 years not 3. That was my mistake, I didn't have the book in front of me when I said 3 earlier in the thread. When I dug the book out of my library I read the article again and realized I had been incorrect about the number of years the 9500 rolls represented.

None of the arguments I made rested on the number of years Winogrand left unfinished, and in fact were in direct opposition to it. I would love to have heard some real arguments, because it could frankly make for an interesting debate. Is that what you're claiming is lacking in american culture? What's your better answer, praytell? If you don't have one, then you're simply engaging in the actual practice of what you paint in your straw man argument against "postmodern deconstructionist philosophy."

But clearly beating the x years y rolls of film argument will take you nowhere. Winogrand could have left 100,000 rolls undeveloped... that doesn't undermine the quality of the photographs he made and exhibited in his prime. I'll give you a more clear example–Roman Polanski. No hero–apparently a criminal. Does that mean that no one can ever speak well of Chinatown? Is Macchu Picchu a less beautiful place because its builders sacrificed kids? Humans are full of contradictions, which makes it ever difficult to place a moral compass on Art. I say this because essentially, I see you as claiming that Winogrand broke some moral rule of being an artist in the medium of photography, that of editing one's own work. I invite you to correct any ill assumptions I may have!!!

In the end, I think jsrockit put it best:

Wackjob or not, the man did make some great photos.

 

[filmfan]

This thread has become a great debate and is a good example of why I enjoy this forum-- for here it is possible to have a discussion turn into an argument without any immaturity involved. This is rare on the internet.

Christopher Crawford, although I have no qualms with your opinion (afterall, it's all yours to have), I do have problems with arguments-- specifically their lack of soundness. What you are communicating (and now it is clear that it's not just me who perceives it) is that you have some sort of personal issue with Winogrand's work. I am not sure that this is what you mean to communicate, but it is right there in words. I am quite interested in what you are attempting to argue, but I hope you can salvage some soundness somewhere and reply again here soon to clear it up.
Regards,

-Sam

 

[Florian1234]

I agree. Winogrand also did not process his film right away on purpose.

He wanted time to pass between when he took the shot and reviewed it so he had some perspective on things. I think there's a clip somewhere on YOUTUBE or a print interview where he explains this.

There certainly is a clip, where he puts a plastic bag full of exposed rolls of film from his photographer's bag into a drawer in his office, in it being several other plastic bags like that, maybe a hundred of undeveloped rolls or so. 😀

 

[35photo]

As in many arguements with opinions on both extremes, the facts usually lie in the middle.

Winogrand was the first to admit he "was a mess" when it came to processing and editing his images for books or exhibitions. I was at his apartment in Austin helping him fix his audio system while he was working on selecting the images for Women are Beautiful. The whole place was filled with stacks of work prints he was reviewing.

I was a student of his when Lee Friedlander came to Austin and lectured to Wingogrand's Art Photography classes. I was told later that Friedlander was really in town to prod Garry to finish the image selection of Public Relations.

Winogrand developed by inspection, a slower, more "interactive" processing method when developing Tri-X in D76. I believe one of his trusted TAs in Austin did develop some film for him, but other than that I think he processed all his own rolls. Given his love of shooting, it is no real surprise he would never have caught up with his processing NO MATTER HOW LONG HE LIVED.

(Not to plug this too much, but I wrote an article years ago about my recollections of taking Winogrand's art classes - much of what I have said above is in that piece. I illustrated the article with some photos of Winogrand that you may not have seen before: Click on "Class Time with Garry Winogrand")

Chris makes a point that is worth really emphasizing and that is frankly at the core of this thread: if you do not edit your work - assuming of course that there is a public demand to see your work after you assume room temperture - then someone else will edit it for you. Wingrand had no real filing system or archives - those were not his talents. He had thousands of rolls and contact sheets he never developed or reviewed. And Winogrand was first in line to blame himself when he couldn't find a negative he needed to print, for bags and bags of Tri-X, for stacks of contact sheets and sleeves full of negatives he would never see. That part of the photographic process did not rate as high on his priority list at shooting more images.

I do a short program on Winogrand for local photograpy clubs and the local college photography classes and the most common question I am asked is what Winogrand book do I like best. In my opinion, any of the books that Winogrand took part in the image selection are more "Winogrand" than those published after his death. The images seem more consistent. Hence, back to Chris's point asked in a different way - would Winogrand agree with the images selected for the books and exhibitions since his passing?

We will never know ...

Great information here! As some also said, it always great to have someone who was actually on the scene and saw things first hand. I just downloaded the .pdf you mentioned. I think I might have read it somewhere before, but it seems like there in more than before. Nonetheless, its a must read! Thank you for your insight, shoot we could do a whole thread on it!

Marko

 

[John Rountree]

To think that an "artist" has to edit his own work is pretty shallow. Editors are there for a reason ...they can see things in the photographs, words, etc., that the creator of the work might not see. This is the same reason we don't let doctors operate on their own family members. They are too close the situation to be objective. This was exactly what Winogrand was trying to avoid when he let his film sit, undeveloped for a long period of time. He was very deliberate.

 

[Harry Lime]

To think that an "artist" has to edit his own work is pretty shallow. Editors are there for a reason ...they can see things in the photographs, words, etc., that the creator of the work might not see. This is the same reason we don't let doctors operate on their own family members. They are too close the situation to be objective. This was exactly what Winogrand was trying to avoid when he let his film sit, undeveloped for a long period of time. He was very deliberate.

I agree. I also believe this is why Winogrand allowed for time between when he shot his material and reviewed it.

He said that he did not want to be influenced by the emotions he may have experienced at the moment he took the shot, which may still be fresh in his mind.

If he looked at a shot 4 months later, he may have not even remembered taking it, especially when you consider just how much the man shot. That way he would approach the contact sheet or negs with an open mind, fresh eye and could edit his material more objectively.

In film editing they call this 'ceiling time'. Back in the old days when films were still cut on flatbed Moviolas and you had to wait for prints to arrive from the lab, it could be a very slow process. You would have periods of not being able to do anything, so you would lean back in your chair and stare at a spot on the wall (or ceiling) and either think things over again or simply put them out of your mind. The time that passed would give you some distance from the material and then you could look at it with a fresh eye and would see your mistakes that you missed the day before, because you could no longer see the forest for the trees.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Still, even if he believed he would live to be 100, if you have 9,000 rolls of film you haven't looked at, and you keep shooting at the pace that got you there, you have to realize you are NEVER going to look at this stuff again.

 

[wontonny]

I dug up the articles on this that I had mentioned before. I was mistaken. It wasn't 9000 rolls, it was 9500 rolls and it was the last SEVEN years of his life, not the last three as I had thought. For seven years he shot 9500 rolls of film and didnt develop 2500 rolls of them at all and didnt proof 7000 rolls.

Have these ever been developed? Did anyone ever go through and edit his work? Are they on display anywhere?

 

[Florian1234]

Have these ever been developed? Did anyone ever go through and edit his work? Are they on display anywhere?

They should be at the Center for Creative Photography in Arizona (or where was that again?). In another thread about Winogrand I suggested that they should bring me in and let me and others do editing or at least more on archiv listings etc. 😀

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Have these ever been developed? Did anyone ever go through and edit his work? Are they on display anywhere?

They were developed. The Museum of Modern Art paid someone who used to work with Winogrand to develop the unprocessed rolls and proof all of the rolls. Someone donated the money to do it, but I can't remember who off the top of my head. Some of the photos from the rolls he left behind have been exhibited and published. MOMA did a book called "Figments from the Real World" that is composed entirely of these photos that Winogrand didn't look at before his death. There was a traveling exhibit too.

 

[gns]

They were developed. The Museum of Modern Art paid someone who used to work with Winogrand to develop the unprocessed rolls and proof all of the rolls. Someone donated the money to do it, but I can't remember who off the top of my head. Some of the photos from the rolls he left behind have been exhibited and published. MOMA did a book called "Figments from the Real World" that is composed entirely of these photos that Winogrand didn't look at before his death. There was a traveling exhibit too.

This is not correct. "Figments" has a small section of photos from LA that were edited/chosen posthumously for publication by (I think) Szarkowski.

Winogrand's materials are all archived at the Center for Creative Photography, University of Arizona. I believe they can be viewed by appointment.

Gary

 

[35photo]

Have these ever been developed? Did anyone ever go through and edit his work? Are they on display anywhere?

I believe the now rare Winogrand 1964 book is largely from the rolls let behind. I happen to have this book, some really great stuff, Winogrand's color work is great as well....

Marko

 

[gns]

I believe the now rare Winogrand 1964 book is largely from the rolls let behind. I happen to have this book, some really great stuff, Winogrand's color work is great as well....

Marko

"1964" is from his trip across America in...1964. Not from any late, unfinished work.

Gary