Winogrand's idea

i keep meaning to order that book, but for some reason i always find something else more alluring ... since i haven't read it, i may be extrapolating without any real basis for doing so, but i do wonder if having a plan or a project in mind really works for street photography.

I do, in fact, have several street projects that I am working on and, naturally, I'm always alert for possibilities that suit those projects, but if I only limited myself to taking images that I knew would fit.... I would miss an awful lot of shots. For two reasons: (a) many interesting scenes on the street don't fit the current parameters of my projects and (b) thinking about whether each scene would fit or not would mean often completely missing it as the scene would dissolve in that frustrating way that ephemeral street scenes do! ;-)
 
Yeah I have to agree with that - as long as it's qualified by the fact that the photographer is working for him/herself or is allowed free reign by the client on a project. You hit on one of the things that allow photography to be considered a fine Art - there are greater, pre-conceived themes, messages and ideas at work behind the photographs. They are about something. Otherwise, you're just taking pictures, however well done. Good fine art photography is not only aesthetic but academic. Not that there's anything wrong with hobby photography, what I'm talking about is Art photography.
 
John Rountree said:
Bill Jay and David Hurn talk extensively about the problems encountered when going out without any kind of idea of what you want to photograph in his book: On Being A Photographer.
Click to expand...

i dont like it when people think they know what is best or not for me and my way of shooting. What problems...bunch of hogwash if you ask me.
 
Leaving aside the issue of whether an artist's conscious intention is even all that important, the question remains, however, of WHEN the artist does his "academic" (more analytical) conceptualizing. I suspect Winogrand, for one, rarely pre-conceived his images before shooting -- that is not to say he didn't pursue more or less defined projects of course. The analytical side of things can be done afterwards, in the editing phase, at least with some genres/projects; i would think it does not have to be done before.

I actually like that there are so many different approaches to photography; there is, quite likely, no set method that works for everyone. In the end, the creative process (whether that is a painting, a piece of music, or a brilliant scientific theory) is an impenetrable mystery of the sublime and different for each person; codifying the "how" is not really possible. The muse speaks to each artist in a different tongue.

williams473 said:
Yeah I have to agree with that - as long as it's qualified by the fact that the photographer is working for him/herself or is allowed free reign by the client on a project. You hit on one of the things that allow photography to be considered a fine Art - there are greater, pre-conceived themes, messages and ideas at work behind the photographs. They are about something. Otherwise, you're just taking pictures, however well done. Good fine art photography is not only aesthetic but academic. Not that there's anything wrong with hobby photography, what I'm talking about is Art photography.
Click to expand...
 
pesphoto said:
i dont like it when people think they know what is best or not for me and my way of shooting. What problems...bunch of hogwash if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Well there aren't any problems as long as you don't expect to show your work, make a book, etc. But once you decide you are shooting Art for public consumption, then a label of "it works" or "it doesn't work" is placed on the photography. As long as you are only fulfilling yourself through photography, then yeah, what's best for you is best for you.
 
Papercut said:
Leaving aside the issue of whether an artist's conscious intention is even all that important, the question remains, however, of WHEN the artist does his "academic" (more analytical) conceptualizing. I suspect Winogrand, for one, rarely pre-conceived his images before shooting -- that is not to say he didn't pursue more or less defined projects of course. The analytical side of things can be done afterwards, in the editing phase, at least with some genres/projects; i would think it does not have to be done before.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that - but I would bet Winogrand had some concept of what he was going to get, even if obviously on the street one is never sure of the subjects, the weather and the events that will unfold. But How he framed things, his whole approach resulted in imagery of a certain style. So he was collecting a grocery list of visual ingrediants, and then getting it all home and deciding what the hell he wanted to cook!
 
The problem with your statements is that they are flatly contradicted by the facts of past artists' work. As just one example, read "Bystander: History of Street Photography" -- many, many "fine art" photographers have worked in ways that directly counter Jay's dictum: photographers that wander, shooting "randomly", etc. It's comforting to believe that there is just "one right way", but really the world and photography and art are too big to be confined to narrow rules.

In any case, if you think that Winogrand fits your idea of pre-conceived, then I suspect we're not that far from agreement. Surely, he had some subjects, topics, themes, even places, etc. that he liked and returned to often. But I do not think that he "planned" his images when he was out wandering around. (No one could plan the sort of prodigious shooting that he did: a roll a day for 30 years?) He shot whatever caught his eye out there and then edited later for specific purposes/projects.

williams473 said:
Well there aren't any problems as long as you don't expect to show your work, make a book, etc. But once you decide you are shooting Art for public consumption, then a label of "it works" or "it doesn't work" is placed on the photography. As long as you are only fulfilling yourself through photography, then yeah, what's best for you is best for you.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Papercut said:
The problem with your statements is that they are flatly contradicted by the facts of past artists' work. As just one example, read "Bystander: History of Street Photography" -- many, many "fine art" photographers have worked in ways that directly counter Jay's dictum: photographers that wander, shooting "randomly", etc. It's comforting to believe that there is just "one right way", but really the world and photography and art are too big to be confined to narrow rules.
Click to expand...

I never said there is "one way" to work, but street work that might look like it was collected radomly to you, probably had a purpose or was part of an idea, or larger portfolio. How one goes about actually obtaining their images if of course, up to them. But again, generally fine art work is generally built around themes and ideas. Take Lewis Hine - whether he saw himself as an artist or not is immaterial, but his famous work of child laborers had the purpose of letting the American public in on what was going on in the factories. Artful, purposeful, and shot around a theme.
 
The question of "how one goes about actually obtaining their images" is precisely what we're discussing. You, following Jay, are arguing that for "fine art" one must always have "greater, pre-conceived themes, messages and ideas at work" -- the question I return to is WHEN is that pre-conception occurring. Is it pre-shooting? Or post-shooting (i.e., in the editing phase)? I think that both approaches are valid (and there are examples of both types in the history of art photography), while you seem to be insisting that it is only pre-shooting.

As a famous example, how much of Robert Frank's famous book was "planned"? Certainly, the entire project (on a Guggenheim fellowship) was a "plan" to "document America" (as if such a plan is even possible!?!?). But before shooting was he already cognizant of the shape such a project would take, of all the themes that he wanted to touch on? I don't know for sure, but I suspect that much of the direction of the project only took shape AFTER shooting, as he was editing his negatives and saw certain repeated themes/subjects (flags, cars, roads, etc.). What level of "pre-conception" is Jay (and yourself) talking about? To my mind, he was most likely moved on a subconscious level during the shooting: taking advantage of chance and serendipity to shoot lots of film of whatever and wherever he happened to be and the real analytical work came afterwards when he was crafting his book.

To invoke the patron-saint of HCB: to what degree did he "preconceive" his images / books? Or did he shoot lots and then find themes, messages, etc. that fit together afterwards?

Did Elliot Erwitt go out looking for shots of dogs? Or did he realize one day that he had a lot of images already of dogs and that he might continue pursuing that subject as chance allowed to make a book? I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the idea occurred to him only after he had made many good photographs of dogs and then he decided to make a coherent project out of it. I'd love to know for sure how that project came about (if anyone knows...).
 
Last edited:
williams473 said:
Well there aren't any problems as long as you don't expect to show your work, make a book, etc. But once you decide you are shooting Art for public consumption, then a label of "it works" or "it doesn't work" is placed on the photography. As long as you are only fulfilling yourself through photography, then yeah, what's best for you is best for you.
Click to expand...

eh...i still dont buy it.
 
I love contact sheets. They're such an orderly way of keeping track of images and looking at them. Often I've covered an event and somebody I might not have known was in a photo, perhaps somebody now famous but unknown at the time. I like looking at how my overall style has pretty much stayed the same over the past four decades. Some might say that's a bad thing, that I haven't grown. I think of it as having found myself as a phographer way back then. So far this month I've sold about twenty B&W prints of things I shot back in the 1960's and 1970's. A few months ago somebody was looking through some of my contacts looking for a particular picture from years ago when they said "Look! There's Janet Reno!" I knew that I'd photographed her on several occasions going back to when she was unknown and in her twenties, but I never would have remembered that she was at that event.

This morning I got an email from somebody who wanted to buy a photo of Bob Dylan he'd seen on line. This weekend I'm going to let him go through the contact sheets from the early 1960's. He might like another shot better, or perhaps buy more than one print.
 
Last edited:
Papercut said:
The question of "how one goes about actually obtaining their images" is precisely what we're discussing. You, following Jay, are arguing that for "fine art" one must always have "greater, pre-conceived themes, messages and ideas at work" -- the question I return to is WHEN is that pre-conception occurring. Is it pre-shooting? Or post-shooting (i.e., in the editing phase)? I think that both approaches are valid (and there are examples of both types in the history of art photography), while you seem to be insisting that it is only pre-shooting.

As a famous example, how much of Robert Frank's famous book was "planned"? Certainly, the entire project (on a Guggenheim fellowship) was a "plan" to "document America" (as if such a plan is even possible!?!?). But before shooting was he already cognizant of the shape such a project would take, of all the themes that he wanted to touch on? I don't know for sure, but I suspect that much of the direction of the project only took shape AFTER shooting, as he was editing his negatives and saw certain repeated themes/subjects (flags, cars, roads, etc.). What level of "pre-conception" is Jay (and yourself) talking about? To my mind, he was most likely moved on a subconscious level during the shooting: taking advantage of chance and serendipity to shoot lots of film of whatever and wherever he happened to be and the real analytical work came afterwards when he was crafting his book.

To invoke the patron-saint of HCB: to what degree did he "preconceive" his images / books? Or did he shoot lots and then find themes, messages, etc. that fit together afterwards?
Click to expand...

So you agree with me - I don't know what we're arguing about. I said I agree that there is not only one way to get to the point where one is conceiving the greater project, but you agree that there IS indeed a conception. There is no single WHEN - the prject develops. Sometimes new directions emerge as you work. Yes, The Americans was preconceived - to Frank the preconception might have been "I want to travel America and find out why people there are so ....." The Americans is a great example since Frank in particualr, is a master of juxtaposing imagess and laying them out. His books themselves are works of art - like, "Black White and Things." The Americans was all about an America of alienation, loss and lonliness. Obviously, not an objective piece - it's a work of Art full of preconceived, designed, opinionated photography.
 
Papercut said:
To invoke the patron-saint of HCB: to what degree did he "preconceive" his images / books? Or did he shoot lots and then find themes, messages, etc. that fit together afterwards?
Click to expand...

Cartier-Bresson's are also about something, but it isn't what's within the frame. His images are about geometry, timing and balance. So when he went out shooting, that's what he was looking for. I am not assuming this - this is what he says about his own work. Of course, this is all very general - as in any discussion of Art there are always exceptions.
 
John Rountree said:
Bill Jay and David Hurn talk extensively about the problems encountered when going out without any kind of idea of what you want to photograph in his book: On Being A Photographer.
Click to expand...

I've read the book, good read.

I guess I've used the pre-visualization idea on occasion for street work. I wanted to shoot some long shadow street scenes, you know the kind that has the subject somewhere at the edge of the frame with their shadow running across it...anyway. I had to pick a wide angle lens and be on certain streets at certain times of the day to get the effect I wanted. Pre-visualization, I guess so sort of, I don't think they would have turned out if I was there with a 75mm at high noon.

Back to Winogrand, I think some people want to dig deep into his quotes and come up with an etheral answer as to what he meant. IMHO, I think he was a pretty cool guy that had a hard time putting into words what he was trying to say, he communicated through his pictures better than words could.

Todd
 
Matt,

Yes, I do think we're close to agreeing. But if the "plan" can be as vague as "document America" (such a thing is not even possible, really), then every "hobbyist" street photog can say the same thing about their work: I'm documenting XYZ place/time. The real conceptualizing CAN come after, when one has a body of images with which to work on. I have no problem with saying that art usually has "concept" in it (which is why most sunsets, flower shots, etc. don't qualify for me): not all pretty pictures are art.

(Actually, my definition of art is more social and functional: something is art when it is treated as such by people and institutions, which is why things like Navajo blankets or African baskets are "art" now under our current market and gallery/museum system even though they were never produced as such originally.)

My quibble is that of the timing of that conception: Jay (and yourself) seemed to be saying that the conception had to occur BEFORE one goes out shooting. Certainly true for many artists, but demonstrably not true for others. Or to put it another way, if the original (pre-shooting) conception can be as vague and massive as "document America", then I see little to separate "art" from "hobby" AT THE PRE-SHOOTING stage. At least, there is nothing that MUST separate them then; the separation comes when the "concept" is added, whether that is pre-shooting or post-shooting (and that is up to each artist).

The reason I keep coming back to this question of timing is that is what the original thread idea was talking about: Winogrand taking pictures "to see what something looked like photographed" and what that meant to some of us in our own photography as a means to stimulate creativity.

Anyway, like you said, I don't think we're that far off, but I do tend to resist anyone saying that they know how the creative process works for everyone else. Creativity is a complete mystery -- we can only know what has worked for us as individuals and there is no guarantee that it will work for anyone else and there is always someone else (equally creative) who has worked in a manner completely at odds with ours.

-- Kevin
 
Last edited:
Papercut said:
Matt,

Yes, I do think we're close to agreeing. But if the "plan" can be as vague as "document America" (such a thing is not even possible, really), then every "hobbyist" street photog can say the same thing about their work: I'm documenting XYZ place/time. The real conceptualizing CAN come after, when one has a body of images with which to work on. I have no problem with saying that art usually has "concept" in it (which is why most sunsets, flower shots, etc. don't qualify for me): not all pretty pictures are art.

(Actually, my definition of art is more functional: something is art when it is treated as such by people and institutions, which is why things like Navajo blankets or African baskets are "art" now under our current market and gallery/museum system even though they were never produced as such originally.)

My quibble is that of the timing of that conception: Jay (and yourself) seemed to be saying that the conception had to occur BEFORE one goes out shooting. Certainly true for many artists, but demonstrably not true for others. Or to put it another way, if the original (pre-shooting) conception can be as vague and massive as "document America", then I see little to separate "art" from "hobby" AT THE PRE-SHOOTING stage. At least, there is nothing that MUST separate them then; the separation comes when the "concept" is added, whether that is pre-shooting or post-shooting (and that is up to each artist).

The reason I keep coming back to this question of timing is that is what the original thread idea was talking about: Winogrand taking pictures "to see what something looked like photographed" and what that meant to some of us in our own photography.

Anyway, like you said, I don't think we're that far off, but I do tend to resist anyone saying that they know how the creative process works for everyone else. Creativity is a complete mystery -- we can only know what has worked for us as individuals and there is no guarantee that it will work for anyone else and there is always someone else (equally creative) who has worked in a manner completely at odds with ours.

-- Kevin
Click to expand...

Fair enough Kevin - I guess I wasn't clear, so just for the record - I agree that art can be assembled after a shoot from images that weren't originally intended to be grouped together - a collection. But that does involved the same type of thinking as shooting with a cohesive project or portfolio in mind .
And I don't know how the creative process works for everyone, but we're sort of focused on established, known fine-art photographers, so I was staying with that group to make my point. I'm sure you know that there were entire movements of Art dedicated to not being categorized into anything, like Dada. Seems like stating an opinion, especially online, always seems a little egotistical 🙂 But I always enhoy the discourse.
 
I enjoy it too -- exchange of ideas is always creatively stimulating for me. Often I find that I don't really know exactly what I think until I start having to formulate my inchoate impressions into a coherent statement in response to someone else. Dialog is fundamentally important -- no one thinks or creates in a vacuum!
 
Todd.Hanz said:
snip...
Back to Winogrand, I think some people want to dig deep into his quotes and come up with an etheral answer as to what he meant. IMHO, I think he was a pretty cool guy that had a hard time putting into words what he was trying to say, he communicated through his pictures better than words could.

Todd
Click to expand...

In a way I agree you Todd. Although I will say that in the classes I took with Winogrand he always separated the photo taking effort from the develop/selection process. And keep in mind that although Winogrand shot EVERYTHING that looked "interesting" to him, all but a few were failures, as is the case with most "street" photographers. So we are all connected to the great photographers through our failures. But when Winogrand took a masterpiece, or was asked to discuss a particular image, his most typical answer was "it works."

Since viewers are the final judge of the quality of an image, I am not so sure that most viewers of photos - including us on this forum - can do a better job of explaining why we photograph and what we think "works" about most specific images. Nor can we pick out photos that universally "work" for every viewer.

Speaking of Winogrand, I finally got a used copy of "Mean Streets", published after he died. While I think some of the previously unpublished images "work", I can't for the life of me understand why others were selected for the book. I have Winogrand's three books published during his life and find them much more consistent. It doesn't mean the photos I don't understand are not good, I guess it means I just don't understand them, or they don't "work" for me. 😀
 
It sure is comforting to know that I share -something- with Winogrand: I am succeeding brilliantly as a street photographer precisely because I fail at it all the time. Finally found something I can excel at! 😉

Actually I much appreciate Winogrand's simple "it works" answer. Although some artists are more articulate about their own work than others, often (always?) the artist is really not the best analyst of his/her work -- the audience (or some subsection of it) can often make more of it than the artist, as the audience brings things to the art and asks it questions that the artist never could have imagined. (Hence, Shakespeare is still relevant to people today: not merely for the meanings The Bard was conscious of or explicitly intended, but because each generation of readers and critics asks new questions of it and sees it anew.)

but I am wandering far from Jamie's original idea in the thread ...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom