eugene_scherba Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 <I>The apparition of a <B>face in the crowd</B>;<BR> Doh... It's Ezra Pound!</I> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Getting a little deep - time to move on to someone whose work is a little easier to grasp and not so controversial, say, Eggleston... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted November 28, 2002 Share Posted November 28, 2002 We've already done Eggleston. Though perhaps he warrants a return. Or, more to the point, maybe we could do a more thorough job the second time round.<P> Robert Clark, I appreciated your nod to Zarathustra. And your point about other cultures / other models is well taken (I too have felt the storm and stress of uneasiness while amid the unfamiliar; and also the amber calm of ancient community). However, the capitalist mode of production (as I understand it; my level of interest in this area is minimal) is obviously predominant (a point the U.S. is presently making in the most ardent fashion; which, it appears, it plans to continue indefinitely. Bringing the mountain to Muhammed). It was this predominant, western mode I was referring to. But, you may be right.<P> Rob, I think we may be talking in circles. You may be giving out the same advice that Capa was giving to HCB. And for the same reasons. In which case, I agree with you. What I don't wish to have missed, however, is the vitality of the creative impulse, the importance of its care and feeding. To create is to go beyond.<P> Bill Mitchell, I had much the same reaction to the Winogrand book on spending some time with it, some time ago. (See my comment above about tighter editing.) And I've wondered since if that reaction was attributable to the caliber of much of the work; or, as sometimes happens, if it was because I hadn't given myself enough time to grow into it, or really see it well. Because of course it is often the best things that are the least accessible on a first outing (you'll recall hearing this on many dates, I'm sure). I think probably that more of the work would come to light for me on further inspection; while some of it just needs to be pared away. A really fun project - kind of a dream project of mine - would be to spend three years or so going through Winogrand's work with a keen eye and a sharp pencil, editing ruthlessly. I'll bet you could come up with an outstanding volume or two. They might be thin, though. But quantity really is secondary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted November 28, 2002 Share Posted November 28, 2002 I love this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bender Posted November 28, 2002 Share Posted November 28, 2002 err... but only the advice given by Capa to HCB was the direct opposite of what was misquoted in this forum. After the war when it was not obvious what to do, HCB decided to photograph - and Capa told him to find something, some kind of (photographing) activity NOT to be remembered as a little surrealist photographer. So he (they) began to do photojournalism, although HCB claimed he kind of never actually became a photojournalist and was photographing LIFE, his camera just an instrument for making instantaneous artistic sketches of it, like an artist's small sketchpad he carries around all the time. Nicey to see you guys. Byeee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted November 28, 2002 Share Posted November 28, 2002 Stick to the "visual thinking", Michael, logic isn't your strong point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bender Posted November 28, 2002 Share Posted November 28, 2002 1. While scherba's phrasing was correct, D. Th's twisting is what I objected to: 'The reason Capa made this suggestion, as I understand it - the only reason - was so that HCB could be "the little surrealist photographer"' 2. It's not for someone with your school-dropout-level thinking (science = sth outdated peculiar to the bourgeoisie) to actually sound off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted November 28, 2002 Share Posted November 28, 2002 <I>"It's not for someone with your school-dropout-level thinking (science = sth outdated peculiar to the bourgeoisie) to actually sound off."</i> -- Michel Bendier<BR><BR> My recommendation: cool down, or drop out, Mike Bond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted November 29, 2002 Share Posted November 29, 2002 I suggest you improve your reading skills, Michael Bender. Thinking will follow in tow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_clark Posted November 29, 2002 Share Posted November 29, 2002 I love this forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_obturateur Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 Michael, funny how sometimes complex reasonings collapse as soon as they are illustrated with examples. IMO you couldn't have made a worse case for yourself choosing these 2 pix. The GW one is probably one of the best ones he ever took. It's just STIRRING frightening almost surrealist. By comparison the HCB pic is dry & uninspired in composition tasteless. But thats' just my opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_obturateur Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 "So that is my epitaph for the best known slob of photography whose name was included in its history either because of his luck and connections in the curator/"art" world" And that one is simply insulting to the memory of GW. Sure he knew Szarkowski, so what? Szarkowski also supported hundreds of photographers that claimed to be **Artists**. Check the "Windows & Mirrors" catalogue. Most of these "artists" have fallen into the dustbin of photo history while GW's work IS still published. A conclusion to draw here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 <I>"Winogrand...a poet of New York's quivering rhythm."</I> <P> Eugene's lovely turn of phrase deserves to be the epitaph of this oh-so-long-ago thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r._fulton_jr. Posted February 10, 2008 Author Share Posted February 10, 2008 I'd forgotten about starting this <I>discussion</I>. Wonderful read, though (really). Nice catch on that quote, sp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_gumanow Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Michael: Don't confuse genius with YOUR taste in photography! So many people love the decisive moment of HCB. That's cool. But don't go trashing GW as a hack. Can we see your portfolio? Are you published? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now