Trying to understand Winogrand.

I'll repeat a story i've posted previously.

I used to work for a man who was one of the real 'Mad Men' in NYC advertising in NYC in the 50s-70s. He was a friend of guys like Winogrand and Elliott Erwitt. His story, briefly:
So, Garry comes in to my office, looking for an assignment. I told him, "I can't hire you, because the film will come in with snot all over it."

And, when i see his images and interviews with him, it seems likely that that story isn't so much of an exaggeration. He seems like a good-natured, affable, perhaps clumsy and sloppy man. And, he shoots that way. Meaning it's probably not such a valid exercise to analyze what he did too much. He shot a ton of film, and was in environments where interesting stuff could be caught. And, now that we look at his work after the passage of time, everything has a historical appeal. The world doesn't look like that and that novelty/foreign-ness/remembrance characteristic makes the images more interesting now. Does anyone remember viewing his work when it was current? How was it received? Sorta like Eggleston, i would imagine.
 
Ned Bojic said:
Winogrand's America was easy to photograph.

People were literally jumping in front of a camera to be photographed. His main challenge was to be discreet so people wouldn't start smiling at the camera.

In today's America, the challenge is to be discreet in order not to get beat-up or shot by the police or armed civilians.

His America was joyful. Our America is one of doubt and untrust.

He who wants to be a Winogrand today doesn't understand that the whole game has changed. It was very easy back then. Photography was as is plumbering today: it was a skill for he who wanted to learn the whole process. Photographs were a LUXURY. People thought they were stars as soon as you pointed a camera at them. They asked you in what newspapers they would appear, in hopes!!
Click to expand...

While the latter was somewhat true, Winogrand was anything but discreet. Not like today where being anything more could get you beat up or arrested. Back in the 1970s and early 1980s, walking around the streets of NYC with a camera was a sure way to get mugged.
 
kbg32 said:
While the latter was true, Winogrand was anything but discreet. Not like today where being anything more could get you beat up or arrested.
Click to expand...

Keith I had a lot more issues 30 years ago. I got in a couple of very shaky situations that without some serious thinking right on my part could have ended very badly. Nothing like that now. Today most folks pay little to no attention. Not like back then.
 
A lot of people don't know that Winogrand studied art and photograph in college and actually taught it at the School of Design IIT and the University of Texas, Austin.
 
Street photogs in America now photograph people on their mobile devices, usually they don't seem to mind because they are figuratively somewhere else. Its boring and a little depressing. If you want to experience the streets like it once was here, go back in time via the cities in the developing world, SE Asia (actually mostly developed), Eastern Europe, or South America. That's where humanity is still engaging.
 
I'm with Dan Daniel on the methodology of capturing good "live" photos. The most important piece of equipment is your feet, driven by the accessory of your experience stored for instant retrieval in your brain. Both those put you where you need to be at the right time to get an interesting shot. It sounds like Winogrand was driven to do photos because he couldn't not do them.
 
funny you mention it, twopointeight. I get that feeling when wandering around Melbourne after being in Indonesia (quite a frequent occurence)
Seeing everyone glued to their phones; there's no life, no interaction. I don't feel drawn to shoot it because it's boring to look at.

Winogrand shot in a more "exciting" time in New York. So much noticable change, and people had to engage more with each other (and not with technology).
 
Thanks to all of you who posted here, it helps me to understand Winogrand better. I'm watching video with him, but my ESL doesn't allow me to get it.

I asked permission to translate to Russian one of the articles written by one of the participants of Winogrand's class in New York. It helps to learn about his gear and how he was taking pictures. I watched video of him on the streets as well.
My struggle is to understand his motivations and how he was explaining it.


I was walking in Peterborough (ON) and Toronto recently. More people are on the streets after winter. Most interesting was unveiling in few meters or closer.
I never liked wide lenses, but it is growing on me now...
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Thanks to all of you who posted here, it helps me to understand Winogrand better. I'm watching video with him, but my ESL doesn't allow me to get it.

My struggle is to understand his motivations and how he was explaining it.
Click to expand...

Remember that Winogrand was from Brooklyn, I believe, and was a photojournalist in the '50s into the '60s. That means- an accent. A level of slang and a weird combination of direct and indirect phrasing. And a culture of irony and subterfuge. A lot of what he says simply can't be translated and be expected to make sense. Maybe you can get a Russian translation of Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest to get a feel for some common threads of the time?
 
kosta_g said:
funny you mention it, twopointeight. I get that feeling when wandering around Melbourne after being in Indonesia (quite a frequent occurence)
Seeing everyone glued to their phones; there's no life, no interaction. I don't feel drawn to shoot it because it's boring to look at.

Winogrand shot in a more "exciting" time in New York. So much noticable change, and people had to engage more with each other (and not with technology).
Click to expand...

My girlfriends shops for clothes like this, she wishes there was this and that and is disappointed when there isnt and comes home with nothing unless I point something out. There are street photographers that complain about whole cities this way and then I find a street photograph from those places that makes me wish I was there.

All my street photography is in Melbourne. I've got stuff that has never been seen and my territory is smaller than a carpark and Indonesia.

Winogrand did something that I understand. He tried to tell us but we just thought he was being a fool. His quote that he just wanted to see what things look like as a photograph wasn't the answer but everyone quotes it so often that it has become the only one. He gave another answer once but I suspect the lack of his own understanding was why he never repeated it and because it was intraspective he was determined not to turn it into a conversation.

His weaknesses are what appeal to me, his photographs too.
 
Ned Bojic said:
His late work was utter s**t. The ones who analyzed his late negatives were very clear about it.
Click to expand...

I wish there was some way I could see them. I think there are some answers in them. I dont have a lot of confidence in those that qualified them as crap? I think those photographs explain something that they didn't understand what he was doing when he took a photograph ...no one has ever said what it is so how can they they regard them. If they are so bad then I think they also include the explanation why.

...maybe one day.
 
Ned Bojic said:
Besides, his best work is about happy america.
Click to expand...

Everyone's work changes. Those who went through Winogrand's late archive describe it negatively largely because they expect it to be like his early work. it isn't.

Ned Bojic said:
His late work was utter s**t. The ones who analyzed his late negatives were very clear about it.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that this is because of expectation rather than the quality of the work. The hit rate is probably about the same as for his early work.

oneANT said:
I wish there was some way I could see them.
Click to expand...

They are in curated archives, at ICP and other places. If you are a student or have a legitimate avenue of study you _can_ see them. I did when I was studying photography.

oneANT said:
I think there are some answers in them. I dont have a lot of confidence in those that qualified them as crap?
Click to expand...

This is a good observation, in my opinion, and it was very similar thoughts that led to me getting interested in Winogrand and his archive.

oneANT said:
I think those photographs explain something that they didn't understand what he was doing when he took a photograph ...no one has ever said what it is so how can they they regard them. If they are so bad then I think they also include the explanation why.

...maybe one day.
Click to expand...

Gallbladder cancer, which Winogrand died of, is usually present for months or years prior to diagnosis. A lot of people with cancer get depressed due to the physiological effects of the tumor even before they know they are sick. His photos from his last few years are very bleak, and in a lot of interviews and recorded conversations Winogrand seemed unhappy. My analysis was that he was a guy who was upset that he wasn't as lauded as he felt and thought he deserved, and then on top of that he got sick. His photos, which were becoming darker, got very dark, then he died.

Most of the analyses of this late work that describe it negatively compare it with earlier work. The viewers had expectations, which were not met, and Winogrand wasn't around to explain what he was trying to do.

I like it, based onlooking carefully at about 10% of those oft-quoted 300,000 frames.

Marty
 
I honestly haven't seen a "really good" photograph in all of Winogrand's work. Neat pictures yes, but nothing really good. I feel like if he were around and shooting today he would not be held in such high esteem as he was in his own time. But that could be said for many photographers.

I think Winogrand's thoughts about photography were much more interesting than his actual photographs.
 
An interesting read on the late work-
http://www.theawl.com/2013/06/shutter-madness

"...And even John Szarkowski, Winogrand’s close friend and chief patron, while editing the late work for a posthumous exhibit, found himself feeling first impatient, then angry, and finally convinced that he was the butt of a cruel joke, “designed by the photographer to humiliate him.”..."

And a more positive consideration of his working style, along with referecnes to articles, books, etc.
http://erickimphotography.com/blog/...grand-can-teach-you-about-street-photography/
 
Ned Bojic said:
Winogrand's America was easy to photograph.

People were literally jumping in front of a camera to be photographed. Hismain challenge was to be discreet so people wouldn't start smiling at the camera.

In today's America, the challenge is to be discreet in order not to get beat-up or shot by the police or armed civilians.

His America was joyful. Our America is one of doubt and untrust.
Click to expand...

I'd personally agree completely that Winogrand's 'time' was easier to photograph in, America itself I wouldn't know about. I'd agree with this appraisal simply due to the sheer level of mistrust around photography and images these days. Whilst more images are made now than ever before, making images then did not have the same, often negative, connotations as they may now. I was reading only yesterday of the Aussie father who wanted to take a 'daggy' (Google will define it) selfie infront of a large Star Wars cut-out figure to send to his son who was accused of being a pedophile by a mother who had her children nearby. Obviously, all of this was done by social media and just as obviously the death threats he received have now been directed toward her once he explained, via SM, his intentions. This combination of fear, suspicion, a reactionary lack of thought and the technology to spread any 'shout' across the planet wasn't at the back of any photographers mind in the 60s'-70s'. Today it rules, almost supreme, perversely despite there being more images and the devices and people to make them.

With regard to violence, the threat of or act itself, I believe comes down to your manner and behaviour more than any other. Clearly, there will always be areas and/or situations that will be more likely to carry higher risk but I dispute the notion that merely taking someones picture puts you at risk. Of course, with the recent spate of police shootings, riots etc in the US I may simply be showing I haven't visited for a while and have no gauge of current public feeling within America specifically.

Each of us, as photographers or simply as people generally, can only be judged on the times in which we lived and I personally feel this needs to be in mind when viewing a photographers work. Its kind of why I hate the phrase 'timeless,' it just means I'm/we're/you're not capturing anything that resembles the time in which we live...or worse, lying via camera to promote an idealised creation of a time/place I may prefer to have lived in.

As twopointeight says, photos of mobile phones are often boring (as is the, everyday, sight of people failing to connect with those around them due to their electronic connection half a world away) BUT to utterly avoid, ignore and tune out such things is, IMO, as good as a lie. So, if America is no longer (or at least not currently) the joyful and optimistic place it was in Winogrand's time. Now a more suspicious country, optimism replaced with a mistrust and openness to a more negative reaction then isn't this something that should be reflected in much of the photography we see today? Avoiding things like this are like me trying not to photograph hats if I was a photographer in the 50s', I may dislike hats and loathe the fact every bugger was wearing one but they were of the time and should be accepted and included within the document of that period. That's no to say the same old same old shot of 'bloke in hat' is any less boring or pointless than the same old same old of bloke on mobile - find the extra ordinary within the ordinary.

That final comment would be how I would look, not only at, Winogrand's pictures, but anyone's pictures. Accept that they are 'of their time' and look at what they've done to make the mundane become noteworthy. Also, accept that some will not share your understanding. I really don't get Friedlander, Tunalegs (as mentioned above) doesn't get Winogrand. Brilliant, and just as it should be.:angel:
 
Simon I can tell you first hand 30 years ago was tougher. People are so desensitized to people with cameras today. Like I said earlier you really stuck out when you were taking pictures on the street and I would constantly get approached and asked what are you taking pictures of? Why are you here in this neighborhood? Don't take my picture etc. Usually several times a day and sometimes things would get a bit scary. Now I'm just background noise. I rarely get asked anything. Like I said earlier I could shoot all day and not see another photographer. I can't go 2 blocks now and not see one. People are busy and jsut don't pay attention they way they did unless you go hang out in a park where there's a lot kids with a 300mm lens and a 1DsMkIII then you might have a problem especially if you don't have a kid there or on a beach with the same set up but in the city on the streets my experience is it is a lot easier today.

I agree with para 4 and 5.
 
to the OP again look at his work. Spend time with it. Figure out if you see any value in what he did. There are going ot be people that love his work hate his work and everything in between. What you need to do is figure out what his work means to you and ya can't do that without looking and tuning out the noise.
 
airfrogusmc said:
Keith I had a lot more issues 30 years ago. I got in a couple of very shaky situations that without some serious thinking right on my part could have ended very badly. Nothing like that now. Today most folks pay little to no attention. Not like back then.
Click to expand...

Everyone's experiences were different back then Allen. I had many a friend get beat up for their cameras. Today, people might be used to seeing cameras around peoples' necks, but the situation of having one pointed at themselves has changed a great deal. Today it has become more contentious, litigious, and down right religious :)D). Look at all the cities passing laws about photographing people and places without consent.

Allen, I found the city to be a lot more interesting 30 years ago. The people too. I wish then, I was a bit more "mature" and dedicated like I am now. Who knows, maybe I was. Time does strange things. All those images from then are in storage. It would be interesting to see them again....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom