Winogrand was mad ? what about you?

Jim,

 

You seem so obsessed with the the moment, the here & now ethos of writing and

shooting and publishing, that you don`t have any time for reading what I wrote, nor even

reading and editing your own response before you published it. Did I ever talk about

"photos never printed, words never published nor a life never lived" etc.?

Then you attack Winogrand for being a "prima donna who favored the performance over

the product."

Ok. Winogrand favored performance, right? But after another sentence, attacking

Winogrands nasty work habits, you say "Photography, like poetry, is a performance art."

 

A performance art? Like what Winogrand did, or?

 

Garry Winogrand actually published a few books of photography, and as I mentioned

above, I have published a couple of books (not to compare myself with Winogrand). None

of us have been opposed to the idea of printing pictures or publishing words.

Have you published anything, or are you just airing an opinion, just for the moment?

Who are you blaming for what reasons?

To me it looks like you are a petty noise producer, and this will not result in any

dialogue, even if you use capital letters spelling the word YOU at the end of your post.

 

Cheers

Paul, I own several of Winogrand's books (and many others, for that matter. I exhibit

regularly (have a 50 image exhibit coming up in a local gallery in January). But we're not

talking about me. My opinion of Winogrand isn't unique. It has aways seemed to me that

Winogrand ended up with a body of work simply because he shot so many images it was

inevitable he got some interesting photos.

<p>Winogrand's "performance" was the act of creation. But that's the same as talking to

yourself. He really seemed to have little patience with the more important, in my opinion,

part of the process, which was printing the images so that others could see his vision. He

acknowledged that it was walking the streets, clicking the shutter that was his real

passion.

<p>Thus my question. If he had not had to print images for books and teach university

classes to make a living, would he have ever actually produced any body of work?

<p>And, my degree is in English Literture and History. I know how to write. I add

emphasis in various ways (like all caps) when I write on the web because it is easy to be

misunderstood without it.

Mike, Winogrand's "impact" is limited to those of us who are interested in street

photography. His photography is certainly not mainstream, which seems somehow

unconnected with unedited amateur photography on the web. His influence on those

creating the millions of unedited images that flood into Flickr each year is insignificant. I

simply do not think, as the OP seemed to posit, that professionals and serious

photographic artists are being somehow compromised by any relentless pressure to

publish.

<p>I do agree with the OP that trying to democratize talent is BS. All men and women are

not created equal in intelligence or photographic talent, and on line services like Flickr

clearly prove the point.

<p>And, I don't think the web is the best place to present fine art of any kind. Without the

physical thing in front of the viewer, the image becames disposable. Which perhaps is the

OP's point in all of this.

Even though our styles of photography are far apart, my approach to photography is similar to Winogrand's, in that getting out into the world is my primary motivation for carrying a camera. Most of my slides and negs sit in a fire safe; I do entertain the notion of someday choosing my favorites and getting them printed. But the world won't miss them if I never do. Luckily I am not famous like Winogrand, so they are not in danger of being considered historically or artistically significant. I think his approach to let his work sit for a while before choosing what he prints is a good practice. I become emotionally attached to mediocre photos I put much work into, and I even resent the great shots that required little work at all.

 

The photos I do post on the internet I try to edit ruthlessly. Every time I see a photo, it becomes etched in my brain a little more and it becomes harder to look at it objectively. Sometimes it's good to watch other people look at your photos, it helps promote cynicism and discrimination. I still have too much garbage on my website that I can't let go of.

 

There is a related discussion on Alec Soth's blog about flickr involving another famous photographer Stephen Shore that is worth reading starting on August 8, 2007

 

http://alecsoth.com/blog/page/2/

Jim,

thanks for your answer. It is a pity though that this ends up as a discussion pro et contra

Garry Winogrand. But perhaps I am the one to blame, since I mentioned him in the title of

the thread, and then later. The topic was the old problem of judging and selecting your own

work, a problem that has become critical in the new technological circumstances.

Seems to me he printed what he wanted to print, or what the Fates or his Muse directed or allowed.

 

Maybe the rest of his film deserves ceremonial flames...honoring his own process, which culminated in his decisions.

 

I've always had mixed feelings about publication of "lost manuscripts," collections of "personal letters" etc. They laid down what they wanted laid down, or were driven to lay down, and maybe we'd be better off not second-guessing.

 

Second-guessing the dead has a parasitic implication.

 

That's one way of thinking about it, your mileage may vary.

Jim, Like you My B.A. degree is also in English. And I (in a mild way) knew him when he taught at the University of Texas.

 

Garry's passion was people, and seeing how he could frame his impressions of life the way a camera does , and yes sharing that vision. his was an approach that was bound to yield a lot more misses than hits but that doesn't mean he was sloppy, it means he didn't settle for "almost". The pictures that were misses don't really count: it's the ones that work that do. You are criticizing him for trying. Well its better to try and fail, then not try hard enough.

 

He was actually a pretty good and critical printer. You should read up on him, what he said, what his peers - not critics -thought of him when he was alive and about the work he was doing. Most of the work he is famous for was done before he started teaching. Garry really worked hard at pushing the envelope of what people thought a photograph could be or should look like. He had a pretty good career as an advertising and editorial photographer in the 1950s.

Just because a person doesn't like a certain photographer doesn't mean that the photographer wasn't a great photographer. Seems simple doesn't it. We all like who we like and contra. Jim Powers, you are waisting your time trying to convert people into disliking Winogrand. The verdict, world opinion, has already been rendered. Lots of people don't like Winogrand; his photographs are challenging, some are not easy to read, require thought and reflection. They are not calendar shots. His photography does remain extremely important in the history of photography. Many of my comments also apply to Lee Friedlander, also a difficult photographer to read, at least at first. Whether you like Winogrand or not is not important. What you should work on is trying to find our why accepted world opinion vastly differs from your own opinion.

"We shoot ten times as much as in the film days."

 

I dont't. Then again, I'm still shooting film.