Winogrand's idea

Getting in late here, but I'm a bit wary of any bright-line boundaries between art and not-art, and to the extent it's a legitimate differentiation, not to default to the gallery and media world -- or even to artists in their theorizing mode -- to make the determination. The idea of photography as fine art, worth a thread in itself, is both laudable as well as problematic. In addition to the perennial issue (applicable to fine arts in general) of the art-commerce relationship, photography as art/not-art is complicated by its place in the lineage of imaging as well as by the inherently more accessible nature of its technology. Not every person with a camera is a potential artist, but it's also the case that a lot of stuff showing in art galleries or published as art books is craft or decorative stuff, which exist to make livelihoods for people. That's fine, but not necessarily art. At the extremes, some of it is, arguably, pretty ephemeral and bogus. A hobbyist, and amateur ("for the love of it") can make works that never earn recognition, but provide genuine moving experiences, big or small. Back to the original question this thread began with, which to me was: why do we make photographs, and then how do we do it, as a question of mindflow? Now that's a question about art (not technique). Winogrand gave his answer, others have their own. Jamie, see what an interesting can of worms you've opened.
 
To Matt, Kevin, and Peter... and to all the rest

To Matt, Kevin, and Peter... and to all the rest

I really want to thank you all for taking up so much of your time sharing your ideas/opinions. I've really enjoyed reading them and thinking about your ideas.

Something one or more of you said brought a thought to me. It seems perfectly plausible that the Bill Jay idea of photographers needing a pre-defined project in mind before shooting could be a professional photographer needing to make the $$ speaking. I mean, it seems to me that if I was out there trying to make a buck with this medium... I DEFINITELY would have a defined project in mind. Either a project spelled out by the client, or a project defined by me that I knew would sell to the largest number of customers (pictures of little kids holding cats... or pictures with dogs in the frame 😀).

On the other hand, Winogrand didn't strike me as a professional trying to make a living with his street photos (even though maybe he was). I'm sure he had "clients" from time to time, but I think he normally made his living teaching. So for him, going out on the street to look for pictures could obviously be a much more spontaneous thing.

Anyway, yes Peter... I do live in a 'can of worms' called life. 🙂 See you at Rayko.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
snip...
On the other hand, Winogrand didn't strike me as a professional trying to make a living with his street photos (even though maybe he was). I'm sure he had "clients" from time to time, but I think he normally made his living teaching. So for him, going out on the street to look for pictures could obviously be a much more spontaneous thing.

Anyway, yes Peter... I do live in a 'can of worms' called life. 🙂 See you at Rayko.
Click to expand...

Garry did make a living with his street photos through books, exhibits, and shows but also taught, sold prints (wonder what they are worth now?), secured Guggenhiem grants after pretty successful but unsatisfying stints as a pj and studio photographer.
 
There's a small (~15 prints) show of Garry's photos from the 1960s at the Fraenkel gallery in downtown SF -- I think the prices are $8000-20,000 there. Gorgeous prints 🙂

victoriapio said:
Garry did make a living with his street photos through books, exhibits, and shows but also taught, sold prints (wonder what they are worth now?), secured Guggenhiem grants after pretty successful but unsatisfying stints as a pj and studio photographer.
Click to expand...
 
Papercut said:
There's a small (~15 prints) show of Garry's photos from the 1960s at the Fraenkel gallery in downtown SF -- I think the prices are $8000-20,000 there. Gorgeous prints 🙂
Click to expand...

Hey Papercut, I saw them a week ago. Great stuff. I was less impressed (than expected) with the three ladies and shadows print, but the one of the man yelling into the mic at the protest made me consider whether they would have enough time to call the guard in the lobby before I got out the door with it.
 
I've been watching the "Contacts" series of documentaries via Netflix; these videos present a series of rostrum shots of various photogs' contact sheets, as well as actual prints, accompanied by voice-over of either the artists' written words or actual speech describing the work and shooting process.

HCB definitely shot multiple versions of most every image, varying composition or zooming with his feet; in that respect he's no different than any of the other photogs shown. Interesting is that you can, in many instances, discern the type of film being used from the contact sheets. In the case of HBC it seems he used lots of Agfa and Ilford FP3 in the 1950's, while later it seemed to be more Tri-X.

Similarly with Winogrand, the contact sheets were often replete with multiple attempts at the same subject, with subtle differences in composition or distance to subject; I was surprised to see how similar the contact sheets looked like from these various photogs, and how few shots on each sheet were circled in red pencil indicating a "keeper." Of course, most of their shots were keepers by my standards!

After seeing this series, I've come to believe that it's mostly about capitalising on opportunity by preparation, and not being timid. Get the shot on film. Be prepared. Follow your instinct. Film is (or electrons are) cheap; shoot lots of images. Then be merciless at editing. Challenge yourself, learn from each outing. Have a vision, both in the field and in the studio.

Photography is, in essence, about where to place the border; what to disinclude, so it's essentially a process of removal, of editing, of simplifying and clarifying.

~Joe
 
JoeV said:
Snip...
Photography is, in essence, about where to place the border; what to disinclude, so it's essentially a process of removal, of editing, of simplifying and clarifying.

~Joe
Click to expand...

This is exactly (well, almost exactly) what Winogrand said in his classes. You (the phographer) control where you put the frame of the camera in the real world. Winogrand also added that when you learn to "see" where to put the frame, you can take great im ages.
 
I wonder if Winogrand ever had periods of his shooting life where he just didnt have "it" or just didnt feel like shooting. DId he ever have a rut?
 
pesphoto said:
I wonder if Winogrand ever had periods of his shooting life where he just didnt have "it" or just didnt feel like shooting. DId he ever have a rut?
Click to expand...

there were no images when he was in a rut....er, maybe that was when he was loading film 😉

Todd
 
Pes,

The way he has generally been described is that he never seemed able to get enough. Working constantly. "Sustained effort" is a phrase I think he may have used himself. If not, it certainly would apply.

Todd,

I think he said something like, "There are no photos when I'm reloading".
There is proof to the contrary.

There has been speculation about how well he did or did not deal with the subject of Los Angeles in his last years. See Szarkowski's essay in the big retrospective book.
Evaluating that work would be difficult being that it was left largely unedited (even unprocessed) by Winogrand. Editing the work is half the job. Without his editing, who could say what he was up to, really.

Cheers,
Gary
 
When they asked George Mallory why he wanted to climb Everest, he said, "... because its there".

When they asked Winogrand why he took pictures, he said, "... to see how the world looks photographed".

When they asked Louis Armstrong whats Jazz, he said, "... man, if you gotta ask you'll never know".



Language is limited and incapable of describing the whole range of human experience. We've had eyes and ears and emotions long before we developed the ability to use language; therefore, rely on your senses and emotions and forget about words.

The language of photography is silence.


/Ignore the last sentence, photography has nothing to do with language... see, words can be tricky. :bang:
 
gns said:
Pes,

The way he has generally been described is that he never seemed able to get enough. Working constantly. "Sustained effort" is a phrase I think he may have used himself. If not, it certainly would apply.

Todd,

I think he said something like, "There are no photos when I'm reloading".
There is proof to the contrary.

There has been speculation about how well he did or did not deal with the subject of Los Angeles in his last years. See Szarkowski's essay in the big retrospective book.
Evaluating that work would be difficult being that it was left largely unedited (even unprocessed) by Winogrand. Editing the work is half the job. Without his editing, who could say what he was up to, really.

Cheers,
Gary
Click to expand...

Which I find fascinating. Szarkowski's essay in "Mean Streets" implies that after Winogrand got a winder for his Leica combined with his practice of letting even years go by before he processed ANY film, that Winogrand was for lack of any better words, "loosing it." Which brings up a great point, it helps to looks at your work every now and then to be sure you haven't "lost it". 😀
 
OC,

I think you mean "Figments". That is the book I was referring to. I think Szarkowski struggled with trying to edit Winogrand's photographs, even though he knew photography and winogrand's work as well as anyone.

If you were walking down the same street with Winogrand, you would not see (or notice) just what he sees nor make the same shots, right? Similarly, If you were given the same 500 contact sheets, you wouldn't recognize what he does in them nor select the same few pictures. That is half the process right there, to recognize them on the page and say, "Those are the ones I find interesting, the ones I will put out there as my work". So possibly, given Winogrand's own editing, something more would become apparent. Perhaps he didn't lose it, but was just moving on to something else.

I wonder if the motor drive had much effect on his work? I saw him work with it once and I didn't see him blasting off several frames in a row. There are a few contact sheets reproduced in the book. I'd like to look at them again with that in mind.

Cheers,
Gary
 
Last edited:
gns said:
I wonder if the motor drive had much effect on his work? I saw him work with it once and I didn't see him blasting off several frames in a row. There are a few contact sheets reproduced in the book. I'd like to look at them again with that in mind.

Cheers,
Gary
Click to expand...

You saw him workinig with it? In the flesh? How so? When? Or we talkin in a video........
 
Well, I only saw him work once. I ran into him at Venice beach in L.A.
I had met him a few times before that (at a couple of those art school lecture/slide show events and at his gallery in San Francisco) so I said hi and we talked for a while. He was very friendly.

Cheers,
Gary
 
gns said:
Well, I only saw him work once. I ran into him at Venice beach in L.A.
I had met him a few times before that (at a couple of those art school lecture/slide show events and at his gallery in San Francisco) so I said hi and we talked for a while. He was very friendly.

Cheers,
Gary
Click to expand...

very cool. Youre a lucky man to have met him.
 
Yes, lucky.

We always want to meet the people behind the work we admire. The Holden Caulfield criteria, isn't it? Sometimes it is rewarding and sometimes not so much. Either way, I think you are usually reminded that their best lessons are right there in the work.

Cheers,
Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom