Ranchu
Veteran
Actually, that is a logical fallacy. You're implying that because there were few masterpieces in Winogrand's million rolls, they can only be there because of luck.
I guess that's how you got your few *masterpieces* too? Luck, right?
🙄
Trying to understand Winogrand.
- Thread starter Ko.Fe.
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 160
- Views 19K
Actually, that is a logical fallacy. You're implying that because there were few masterpieces in Winogrand's million rolls, they can only be there because of luck.
I guess that's how you got your few *masterpieces* too? Luck, right?
🙄
Sparrow
Veteran
... I always think that, you have to know how to do the other stuff ... but one needs a bit of luck too
daveleo
what?
Very well said. This is very much how I also feel on the topic.
I believe Winogrand loved putting stuff on film (literally, just putting it on film) and that his fame was created by people who can make people famous.
There's even the possibility that he knew how many rolls of "throw-aways" he had, and never even processed them (again, he literally just loved putting stuff on film). People rummaged through his rolls, looking for "keepers", after he became a legend.
Speculation, yeh, but it kind of fits what I see in his results.
Some of the postings above more or less explain his life and troubles. That ads a complexity, but I am commenting only on his pictures, ignoring his personal story.
daveleo
what?
willie_901
Veteran
phtotmoof posted facts.
One may despise his art, but he works as an artist. His views/philosophies about photography are clear. Likewise it's fine to dismiss these, but GW's work planed and a purposefel.
It turns out decades later much of his work can be categorized as socio-economic documentary art as well.
One may despise his art, but he works as an artist. His views/philosophies about photography are clear. Likewise it's fine to dismiss these, but GW's work planed and a purposefel.
It turns out decades later much of his work can be categorized as socio-economic documentary art as well.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Love or hate his work one thing that is true we are still taking about it. Fred could probably discuss this far more eloquently and factually than I but if I'm not mistaken he and other east coast school guys (maybe even a direct rebellion against the more formal west coast school folks) were more about following the gut totally when shooting and leaving the selection process in the post part of the deal. Post visualization maybe? Is that a word? LoL well anyway, he was and will be important and whether you like his work or not or just in the middle he is still being talked about right now. I like his work but I get why a lot don't like it. I think many photographers like the fact that not everyone likes their work. And thats OK. I do think to understand him you need to also realize that he and some of the other New York street guys were all challenging the status quo for good or bad.
daveleo
what?
That could be a very big factor in how his work is being interpreted and discussed. It may well be that the post-editing has never really happened (diligently), and a lot (a LOT) of what has been shown around is just stuff that is shown because it's from Winogrand. Maybe his attitude was "If they want to show it, let them show it". This is neither right nor wrong, but it could explain why so many people (like me) see so much of his stuff as somewhere between "meh" to "WTF?".
Again, 100% speculation on my part.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Dave I do know that Szarkowski was big in what Winogrand showed and really had a big hand editing his work. IIRC I read that he Winogrand would wait a very long time to process his film as to give him some time between when he shot it and when he looked at it again to se if it still had the same impact on him as it did he shot it. I think I also read (someone correct me if this is wrong) that for him the art was in actually being out on the street shooting. Everything else was just icing on the cake. I do believe he and some of the others were trying to push the boundaries of the status quo. I think they were a direct reaction to a more formal structure. I think n his case as many other you need to look at the work as it was intended. He put together books and worked in bodies of work and images that relate in some way around a common theme. So instead of each piece of the puzzle making sense it's the entire picture made up of all the little pieces that make sense. I think in some cases he succeeded. But again I tend to like his work so my words and thinking are from perspective. Many folks agree with you Dave.
Dan Daniel
Well-known
Minor White used just that phrase, post-visualization, in an article he wrote in one of the first Aperture magazines. 1952. I remember it being in the first one, but it's been a long time since I read it. A simple inversion of the Weston/Adams visualization approach. White advocated for relaxing, not over-thinking, then figuring out what you had achieved once you had the contact prints to look at. I seem to remember 35mm contact strips illustrating the article?
As to your East/West coast thing- White was the editor of Aperture, founded by him and Ansel Adams and others. In San Francisco, published in San Francisco. In 1952. I don't know where White stood on his 'mystical' path at this point in time, but there was a lot going on in the photo world. Adams was one of Edwin Land's testers for his original Polaroid film- a pre-visualizing tool, or a precursor to Instagram?? Heck, the Leica M3 with lever wind wasn't even in production, so I doubt they could even imagine where someone like Winogrand could take this 'post-visualizing' idea.
Anyway, yes, 'post-visualizing' is a concept. I have a hard time believing that anyone who has ever shot roll film on the streets, at events, etc., hasn't done it, consciously or not.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Thanks Dan..
gns
Well-known
Post-visualization?...To Winogrand, that's all there was. I'm sure if presented with the term, he would have responded with one of his common refrains, "you don't see photographs until you have photographs in front of you".
Re: Minor White... When asked what he thought of his work, he replied with a bit of a dig at White's mystical approach to art, "We don't go to the same church". Winogrand was often a bit curt regarding work he didn't care for.
Re: Minor White... When asked what he thought of his work, he replied with a bit of a dig at White's mystical approach to art, "We don't go to the same church". Winogrand was often a bit curt regarding work he didn't care for.
gns
Well-known
Well, I'm paraphrasing, of course. And working from memory. If you search, you will find (if not those words) the idea.
For example..."I try to frame in terms of what I want to include. I don't think about pictures. When I'm photographing I see life. That's all there is in my viewfinder. There's not a picture there. You're not a picture".
Or his famous statement,"I photograph to see what things look like in photographs" (again paraphrasing), is certainly consistent.
For example..."I try to frame in terms of what I want to include. I don't think about pictures. When I'm photographing I see life. That's all there is in my viewfinder. There's not a picture there. You're not a picture".
Or his famous statement,"I photograph to see what things look like in photographs" (again paraphrasing), is certainly consistent.
Ranchu
Veteran
Oh. I thought you said Winogrand had a common refrain, 'you don't see photographs until you have photographs in front of you' to back up your theory that 'post visualization was all there was' with Winogrand.
gns
Well-known
Yes, sir. That is what I said.
edit: Although for the more literal-minded, I could have said... Winogrand often emphasized that the photograph is not the thing photographed, that he didn't see photographs while shooting, and that he never knew if he had a good one until he saw it (except maybe once).
edit: Although for the more literal-minded, I could have said... Winogrand often emphasized that the photograph is not the thing photographed, that he didn't see photographs while shooting, and that he never knew if he had a good one until he saw it (except maybe once).
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
What's helped my understanding of Winogrand's intentions is to presume he's using the term "photograph" literally, as in writing with light, such that a photograph doesn't exist until a print's in hand. Everything else prior to that is preparatory; so that as he views through his Leica, for example, he's not "seeing" a photograph, but rather what it appears to look like when viewing a scene through a Leica.
~Joe
~Joe
steve kessel
steve kessel
Great thread with many interesting opinions and contributions.
An interesting aside: in the film where he's giving a class in Texas, Winogrand describes how he discovered that he and Robert Frank had taken a picture of the same statue of St Francis in LA and how Frank's take had just blown him away.
Both pictures are printed in Winogrand: Fragments from the Real World. However Frank's picture in this publication has the sky almost whitened out whereas in The Americans the sky has a depth of tone that makes the smog palpable and allows the glow of the sun to appear directly in line with the cross that St Francis holds out in front of himself
An interesting aside: in the film where he's giving a class in Texas, Winogrand describes how he discovered that he and Robert Frank had taken a picture of the same statue of St Francis in LA and how Frank's take had just blown him away.
Both pictures are printed in Winogrand: Fragments from the Real World. However Frank's picture in this publication has the sky almost whitened out whereas in The Americans the sky has a depth of tone that makes the smog palpable and allows the glow of the sun to appear directly in line with the cross that St Francis holds out in front of himself
uhoh7
Veteran
It's the mark of insecurity to rush to judgment. Goes double for photographers.
Winogrand was there, brought home the goods, and has left an impression of an era which will last a long time.
Are their better shooters today? Probably very many, but few or none can replace this guy when it comes to America a a certain time. Some who were there add their take, but they aren't going to "beat" Garry.
Too bad photography can't be better measured, so the competitive could have more stats to compare themselves LOL
A guy I know briefly held the world speed skiing record in the 60s. Today the average ski team kid could do better, and the crazy things done on skis we could not have imagined. But that old guy is in the hall of fame.
You could say: "oh he sucked at skiing, really", or "jeez, he did it".
Winogrand was there, brought home the goods, and has left an impression of an era which will last a long time.
Are their better shooters today? Probably very many, but few or none can replace this guy when it comes to America a a certain time. Some who were there add their take, but they aren't going to "beat" Garry.
Too bad photography can't be better measured, so the competitive could have more stats to compare themselves LOL
A guy I know briefly held the world speed skiing record in the 60s. Today the average ski team kid could do better, and the crazy things done on skis we could not have imagined. But that old guy is in the hall of fame.
You could say: "oh he sucked at skiing, really", or "jeez, he did it".
Bob Michaels
nobody special
What do you think Garry Winogrand's response would have been when someone told him direct to his face that they did not understand him?
I strongly suspect he would have put less effort into a response than many here have done. Can we learn something from him?
I strongly suspect he would have put less effort into a response than many here have done. Can we learn something from him?
gns
Well-known
Bob,
We don't have to wonder about it so much since all of those artist talk/lectures which are now on the internet were very much the situation you describe. He did a lot of those talks during the seventies of which I attended 2 or 3. The questions were often the same... What are you trying to say in that photo? Why do you tilt the camera? Etc. That had to be a bit tiresome for him, but he usually seemed happy to answer as best he could unless someone was especially persistent with a silly question.
I think he was more willing than many artists to talk about his work. Very many will simply take the position that they've said it as best they can in the work and how can you argue with that one, really?
We don't have to wonder about it so much since all of those artist talk/lectures which are now on the internet were very much the situation you describe. He did a lot of those talks during the seventies of which I attended 2 or 3. The questions were often the same... What are you trying to say in that photo? Why do you tilt the camera? Etc. That had to be a bit tiresome for him, but he usually seemed happy to answer as best he could unless someone was especially persistent with a silly question.
I think he was more willing than many artists to talk about his work. Very many will simply take the position that they've said it as best they can in the work and how can you argue with that one, really?
lukitas
second hand noob
Not sure. He does say his job as a teacher is to explain what he understands, and the students job is to ask what they don't understand...
I think Winogrand's philosophy is a version of Chauncey Gardiners tautological existentialism, or Gertrude Stein's 'A rose is rose is a rose...'
His quotes have a zen vibe. He said he liked photos where the photographer disappears, implying that only what happens between viewer to print count, not the photographer. He points out that the narrative content is in the eye of the beholder, photos just describe light on a surface. He says he only shoots what he finds interesting, and that the photograph has to be more interesting than what was there in front of the lens. He says the best photographs are fight between form and content, that is almost a failure. I dig that. Form alone makes for nice postcards, content alone can be very moving, but when content and form fight till you cannot see one for the other, the print becomes more interesting than what happened when you shot it. My father used to say a photograph has to touch the heart as well as the brain.
Shoot what grabs your eye, and later, when the emotions around the taking of the photograph have been forgotten, print what grabs your eye.
(Another saying of my father : you have to learn to kill your babies.)
This is what I understood from Winogrand. I may be entirely wrong, of course.
Cheers
Similar threads
