Some Winogrand

35photo,
No problem. It is a great book.
But probably good to point out in the context of this discussion that it was published posthumously, so Winogrand did not do the selection or sequencing of those pictures. This does not mean that Winogrand didn't initially edit those pictures into his general body of work. Many are well known images that have been exhibited and reproduced before.

Gary
 
gns said:
35photo,
No problem. It is a great book.
But probably good to point out in the context of this discussion that it was published posthumously, so Winogrand did not do the selection or sequencing of those pictures. This does not mean that Winogrand didn't initially edit those pictures into his general body of work. Many are well known images that have been exhibited and reproduced before.

Gary
Click to expand...

I'm so glad I got the book before it OOP, now its something $300+ on the market.

Marko
 
This argument I would assert is already answered if we look to some of the other arts. A new discovery of a published artists renderings or a sketch book would certainly be accepted as that artists art. Just as alternative takes or unpublished recordings by a musician. These examples are often released after the artist has passed away. Sometimes we look and listen for academic reasons, and other times for pure artistic pleasure. But, the legitimacy is never questioned regarding is it art. It may not be good art or it may be even incomplete, But, it is accepted as art.

I think it can be said that Winogrand enjoyed the actual act of composition, of capturing the moment the most. If not, he would have spent more time developing and editing. But, it would be remiss to view the photographs that he took, as anything less than his. Are they his best moments, certainly not all of them. But, some may just be Winogrand at his best. I would like to think that his ability to see and capture the moment had grown with him. Therefore, the possibility certainly is there for his finest work.

There is of course merit to the entire process having been completed by the one who began it. This continuity is essential if you wish to convey ones own aesthetics. No one else can do this for you. If we look back to the artistic examples I cited earlier. There may very well have been a reason that the artist did not publish them. They may not be the closest example to the artists creative intent. We all produce less then desirable results. Of course the more severe the flaw. The more obvious to the editor to dismiss if they are attempting to be true to the artist. It is the less obvious, the burdensome choices that require the artist.

So, while the photos of Winogrand may encompass some great moments, the ideal has been broken. Winogrand will not be editing and making the choices. But, they will still be his photographs, and his vision. It just won't be his truest vision of his remaining body of work.

Kindest Regards,
 
biggambi said:
This argument I would assert is already answered if we look to some of the other arts. A new discovery of a published artists renderings or a sketch book would certainly be accepted as that artists art. Just as alternative takes or unpublished recordings by a musician. These examples are often released after the artist has passed away. Sometimes we look and listen for academic reasons, and other times for pure artistic pleasure. But, the legitimacy is never questioned regarding is it art. It may not be good art or it may be even incomplete, But, it is accepted as art.

I think it can be said that Winogrand enjoyed the actual act of composition, of capturing the moment the most. If not, he would have spent more time developing and editing. But, it would be remiss to view the photographs that he took, as anything less than his. Are they his best moments, certainly not all of them. But, some may just be Winogrand at his best. I would like to think that his ability to see and capture the moment had grown with him. Therefore, the possibility certainly is there for his finest work.

There is of course merit to the entire process having been completed by the one who began it. This continuity is essential if you wish to convey ones own aesthetics. No one else can do this for you. If we look back to the artistic examples I cited earlier. There may very well have been a reason that the artist did not publish them. They may not be the closest example to the artists creative intent. We all produce less then desirable results. Of course the more severe the flaw. The more obvious to the editor to dismiss if they are attempting to be true to the artist. It is the less obvious, the burdensome choices that require the artist.

So, while the photos of Winogrand may encompass some great moments, the ideal has been broken. Winogrand will not be editing and making the choices. But, they will still be his photographs, and his vision. It just won't be his truest vision of his remaining body of work.

Kindest Regards,
Click to expand...

Well said! Thank you
 
From a novice point of view, becaue I know nothing about Winogrand aside from what I'm reading here, I don't see that his vast body of unprocessed work has much to do with the artist's overall credibility at all. The man was a photographic enigma made all the more interesting by this obsession to keep shooting while the unprocessed rolls mounted up, to a point where he was probably never going to see the images at the far end of the queue unless the local 'boy scouts' chipped in and mowed his lawn for him so to speak! 😛

Winogrand to me is 'Winogrand the phenomenon' not necessarilly a bunch of photos defined by who took them. His eccentricity has stamped his mark in the world of photography in the same way Warhol's behaviour played a large part of how he succeeded and how he was perceived in the art world.
 
HCB was more interested in 'the hunt' than his actual pictures. I sometimes wonder how far behind he would have been on developing and printing, if he didn't have the Magnum lab at his disposal....
 
Harry Lime said:
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.

Snip...
Click to expand...

Harry you are absolutely correct about this; Gary intentionally did not process his film immediately after shooting because he felt he would be too emotionally attached to a specific images to be objective about their quality.

Here is how he reviewed his work:
Winogrand photographed every day. He did all other aspects of photography very rarely, and typically only when a project was due. He totally separated the act of shooting from processing his film, creating contact sheets, reviewing contact sheets, selecting images to print from the contact sheets, ordering large work prints (11x17 if I remember correctly) and then selecting his images from those work prints.

Winogrand was making money teaching at art schools where he wanted to photograph; New York, Chicago, Austin and LA . By the time he was in Austin, he had printed images for Women are Beautiful and Public Relations.

But even knowing that he could (at that point - in Austin) make good money from his prints was not motivation enough to get him in the darkroom. As someone else has suggested, he might have intentionally not processed any film to put it in the hands of someone who would. However, I would add that he had some very talented TAs who learned developing by inspection and great printing technique from Winogrand (or from studying his work anyway). These people COULD have been trusted to develop, contact sheet and at least do work prints from his selections - and any one of them would have done it for FREE or for class credit. In fact it would be hard to image those resources not being available to him at every school where he lectured. But no go! So despite spending little time in the darkroom compared to shooting time, he must have felt some bond to his unprocessed, unreviewed work rather than turn it over to pretty experienced photographers (IMHO of course.)

Of course I can come up with two alternative reasons he never took his unprocessed rolls to the next stage: first, he didn't have to and second, he didn't want to 😀.

As much as die-hard filmers will hate for me to say this, I think Winogrand would have loved digital Leicas 😀:angel:😱
 
victoriapio said:
Harry you are absolutely correct about this; Gary intentionally did not process his film immediately after shooting because he felt he would be too emotionally attached to a specific images to be objective about their quality.

Here is how he reviewed his work:
Winogrand photographed every day. He did all other aspects of photography very rarely, and typically only when a project was due. He totally separated the act of shooting from processing his film, creating contact sheets, reviewing contact sheets, selecting images to print from the contact sheets, ordering large work prints (11x17 if I remember correctly) and then selecting his images from those work prints.

Winogrand was making money teaching at art schools where he wanted to photograph; New York, Chicago, Austin and LA . By the time he was in Austin, he had printed images for Women are Beautiful and Public Relations.

But even knowing that he could (at that point - in Austin) make good money from his prints was not motivation enough to get him in the darkroom. As someone else has suggested, he might have intentionally not processed any film to put it in the hands of someone who would. However, I would add that he had some very talented TAs who learned developing by inspection and great printing technique from Winogrand (or from studying his work anyway). These people COULD have been trusted to develop, contact sheet and at least do work prints from his selections - and any one of them would have done it for FREE or for class credit. In fact it would be hard to image those resources not being available to him at every school where he lectured. But no go! So despite spending little time in the darkroom compared to shooting time, he must have felt some bond to his unprocessed, unreviewed work rather than turn it over to pretty experienced photographers (IMHO of course.)

Of course I can come up with two alternative reasons he never took his unprocessed rolls to the next stage: first, he didn't have to and second, he didn't want to 😀.

As much as die-hard filmers will hate for me to say this, I think Winogrand would have loved digital Leicas 😀:angel:😱
Click to expand...

Again Great information! I have to agree Winogrand would love the M9, but the camera might not be able to work as fast as he could with his M4.

Marko
 
35photo said:
Again Great information! I have to agree Winogrand would love the M9, but the camera might not be able to work as fast as he could with his M4.

Marko
Click to expand...

Yes, It's easy to imagine that Winogrand would be all over digital.

Digital certainly ups the anti on the 35mm approach of: film is cheap, experiment, shoot a lot and sort it out later.

Winogrand said that he developed his own film just because he didn't want someone else to be responsible for messing it up. Of printing, he said any decent printer could print his work. He was not interested in the "Spiritual" experience of the fine contact print. Once asked what he thought of Minor White's work he said, "We don't belong to the same church".

Cheers,
Gary
 
i don't think winogrand would have liked digital. he would have totally despised chimping. 🙂

what he would have liked is the hexar rf. built-in motorwind, .6x viewfinder.
 
jsrockit said:
I always wonder if great film Leica users would like the M8/M9 or if they'd just keep going with the older Ms.
Click to expand...

I often wonder that as well. If I follow the logic of HCB using the new at the time 35mm small format, I have to conclude that even a cropped digital sensor would have been his preferred method. Who knows? Some with say who cares!? These are things I think about while on the bus or riding my bike. Good time killers 😎
 
aizan said:
i don't think winogrand would have liked digital. he would have totally despised chimping. 🙂
Click to expand...

You may be right, but there is nothing about shooting digital that requires one to chimp. You can do it or not. Totally up to you.

Cheers,
Gary
 
gns said:
Yes, It's easy to imagine that Winogrand would be all over digital.

Digital certainly ups the anti on the 35mm approach of: film is cheap, experiment, shoot a lot and sort it out later.

Winogrand said that he developed his own film just because he didn't want someone else to be responsible for messing it up. Of printing, he said any decent printer could print his work. He was not interested in the "Spiritual" experience of the fine contact print. Once asked what he thought of Minor White's work he said, "We don't belong to the same church".

Cheers,
Gary
Click to expand...

Winogrand would be the type to probably just buy a whole bunch of SD cards fill all let them sit around for awhile, but some more cards and keep filling them. Oh he would not be a fan of chimping that's for sure! I sometimes watch other photographers at work and while they are looking at the screen on the camera they are missing shots. Especially when working on the street got to keep the eyes open for the next subject matter....
 
Harry Lime said:
HCB was more interested in 'the hunt' than his actual pictures. I sometimes wonder how far behind he would have been on developing and printing, if he didn't have the Magnum lab at his disposal....
Click to expand...

But just so no one gets a false impression, isn't it true that HCB, like GW, rarely if ever printed his own work once his stature allowed him to avoid printing?
 
35photo said:
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
Click to expand...
This is a book I'd love to own, but can justify the $$$ for one at the moment.
 
gns said:
This is not correct. "Figments" has a small section of photos from LA that were edited/chosen posthumously for publication by (I think) Szarkowski.
Click to expand...

Gary -- You're right about FIGMENTS. And Szarkowski's essay is worth the price of admission alone -- one of the best things I've ever read about GW.

This has been one of THE most interesting threads on RFF for ages. I was beginning to despair of there ever being any discussion of photography as opposed to 'will this hood complement my 1942 collapsible Doobitron?' and "does anyone know when the firmware for the M9 will address the positive neutron effect sometimes evident when photographing in the fifth dimension...?'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom