Winogrand's undeveloped film exhibited - is it art?

<p>I like having beers with folks, too. But I'd have to say that having a beer with an admired or famous photographer, painter, sculptor, film director, or any other . . . dare I say it . . . artist is probably out of my reach for the most part. I tend to have other priorities when it comes to what I want from fellow artists. I'm also not the kind of guy who gives much more attention to photos that I'd want to hang on my wall. As a matter of fact, when I don't want a photo hanging on my wall, it may very well be because it has a certain effect on me that's more significant than my desire for companionship. For beers and companionship and camaraderie I have dear friends, fun acquaintances, and I can even still find a stranger or two on Castro Street for that.</p>

<p>Here's a precious little blurb about Michelangelo. Now maybe he would refuse to have a beer with me and maybe it would be difficult to spend time with him. Maybe he'd come across as a complete jerk. It's pretty universally known that Hitchcock could be a jerk as well. But I'd still go out of my way to be in their company. I'd devour their artwork and spend time studying their work habits and their personalities, and take any chance I could get to spend time with them, whether they were joyous in soaking up life or as depressed and narcissistic and even as nasty as hell.</p>

<p>Thankfully, art is an equal opportunity employer, and not just friendly personalities and uplifting souls participate.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Michelangelo</strong> by all accounts was an arrogant, unfriendly, generally anti-social person who incorrigibly fought with clients, popes and fellow artists alike. He had ongoing rivalries with Raphael and Leonardo Di Vinci and had such a low opinion of painting that he’d probably punch me for calling him a “painter” before “sculptor.” But he is universally seen as one of the most important figures in all of Western art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Go figure!</p>

Interesting...

 

In my post directly above, simply as an afterthought aside I mention that I enjoy hanging out with my

photographer buds over a beer - many who I've known for a long time, talking about ongoing projects,

stories, books, experiences on the street, upcoming exhibitions, subjects, etc - a wide variety of

photographic stuff.

 

In what way is this weird? Seems like a nerve was touched, eliciting a bizarre response.

 

Go figure!

<p>What I found interesting, not really weird, and what led me to respond, was that you talked specifically about the photographers you would <em>not</em> like to have a beer with, the pretentious ones who are stiff and have no sense of humor, to use your words, the ones who take themselves so seriously. Just felt like providing an alternative view, especially since I live in the same city and haven't met many photographers I wouldn't want to have a beer with. Just thought I'd offer a different experience and different take on the matter. Nothing bizarre intended and no particular nerves touched.</p>

<p>Having been raised in a family immersed in the arts, my experience time and time again is that if you have to call yourself an artist, then chances are you are not. I have found that those that do suffer a disconnect between their ego and the actual quality of their work. Often times these folks get testy and jealous when confronted with work superior to their own. They put their work up for sale, they print blurb or vanity press books, they offer workshops, etc.</p>

<p>I think a lot has to do with the fact that the word "art" has been pretty much diluted and dumbed down. Because of social media (see the other thread regarding this topic) and the fact that there has always been and always will be far more bad art then good, true art that the bar is set so low that many people simply don't know anymore.</p>

<p>I know a lady photographer who is a very nice lady, very sweet but her photographs are for the most part mediocre and cliched. Yet, she has an account set up on some website where one can order prints, and even such items as coffee mugs and calendars with her pictures on them. She also enters a lot of contests including one local one that I also enter. The winners are announced and the awards are given during a ceremony along with a slide show of the winning photographs. I recall very well how one time she didn't win anything and the look of disappointment was so apparent that it made me cringe. I really felt bad for her because I could see that winning something was so important to her. She also enters online contests on sites like (I think) veiwbug. She will enter pictures and then she will turn to her contacts on social media and ask that they go to the site (link provided of course) and vote for her pictures to win. This also makes me cringe.</p>

<p>At the end of the day though, does any of it really matter? Not to me it doesn't. There are an awful lot of photographers out there and if they want to step into the lime light in some way, then so be it.</p>

<p>Marc Todd, your post tells me a great deal about Marc Todd and absolutely nothing about whether or not the "lady photographer" is or is not an artist.</p>

<p>Well we all want <em>"our place in the sun." </em>Our<em> "15 minutes of fame." </em>That's normal. Interestingly, Winogrand, at least by what you read about him, seems to have not cared so much. Hence his lack of printing (although he did produce books-he had to eat), or even develop so much of his work. It's like he had an obsessive compulsion to just take pictures.</p>

<p>Alan, I'm not sure that we all want our 15 minutes of fame. I think many people print their photo because they like looking at them or want to share them with others. It's just generally been the thing to do with photos. Seeing them through to the print is a good way to share them with others. Sharing is not necessarily about wanting fame. It can be a simple act of kindness. As I mentioned above, I've always admired your giving prints away. I never thought you made prints or gave them away out of a desire for fame. It seemed authentically generous. I imagine many others are motivated by just as much generosity of spirit and couldn't care less about fame.</p>

<p>Fred: My comment about wanting "15 minutes of fame" was in response to Marc's post. Myself? Well at my age, I'll take 10 minutes.</p>

<p>I'll try to simplify my ramblings Julie. Do I think my friends photographs are art? No, I do not. Do other people think of her photos as art? I'm sure there are some. When she asks people to vote in her favor in a contest, if she wins does she really think she won solely based on the merits of her photograph? I cannot answer this. Does she want people to think of her as an artist. Yes, I think she does. Once again, does any of this matter? Not in the least.</p>

<p>I've mentioned before that my own approach to photography is deeply rooted in personal reasons. This is why I generally don't bother with trying to promote myself or get my work "out there." It's just not what I do photography for. That's not to say I don't participate in exhibits and such when the offer comes my way. I also have given lots of pictures away both to charitable organizations as well as close friends. Most recently a friend who moved to the east coast really liked a photo of mine that I uploaded to Facebook. She hinted at buying it. I told her that my work was not for sale, but feeling generous, I told her I would make a print for her and mail it to her. Then, upon receiving the print she was to determine what the maximum amount she would have paid me for it and she was then to take that amount and donate it to a local charity. She agreed to these terms. I was happy, she was happy, and a charity in a small way benefited. </p>

<p><em>"Does she want people to think of her as an artist. Yes, I think she does. Once again, does any of this matter? Not in the least."</em></p>

<p>The question arises, though, that if none of it matters, why would anyone go on about her for three paragraphs above? The only way I could try to determine if she were an artist, if I wanted to, would be to see her photos. If I were offered a link to her photos rather than given projections of how she thinks of herself, I could probably get more insight into her work.</p>

<p>The words used here to explain why someone might want to consider themselves an artist or have others consider her to be one seem to center around presumptuousness which, as I said, is pretty presumptuous in itself. I could name a bunch of reasons why someone might want others to think of them as artists. One reason is that it could suggest to others that photography may be more than a hobby and not necessarily a paying gig or profession, that it has a particular kind of expressive import to the person taking and showing the photos. That may not make the photos good or better, and it may not be an attempt to do so, but it could give friends and acquaintances an understanding of intent and purpose. There are many other reasons why people would refer to themselves as artists, as a means of providing context for and info about what they're doing.</p>

<p>The funny thing is, the claim here has been made that some may refer to themselves as artists in order somehow to elevate themselves. Ironically, it's been shown in this and other threads on PN that one's claiming to be an artist pretty much guarantees one will be seen as "less than" in many eyes for having done so.</p>

<p>IMO, at least the Dadaists, in being anti-art, had a well-considered philosophy and their work actually conveyed this sentiment well, so it was organic, meaningful, and felt quite genuine. The tendencies in these threads for people to malign those who refer to themselves as artists often just come across to me as cheap shots, and taking those shots does seem to matter.</p>

<p>I suppose there are as may different reasons why one would call themselves an artist as there are people that fit this description. Who knows? We are who we are, and then we are how others see us. We like to think of ourselves as being one way while others may not see it as such. I've always been of the mind that "art" and artists are out of the control of the maker. We make an object, be it a photograph, painting, sculpture, or even the perfect chocolate chip cookie. Once that object is finished, it has to stand on it's own. Others will decide if the work is art (and by association, its maker an artist). Why waste mental energy worrying about this? I just don't see it. Myself, there are some people who have described me as an artist and I'm sure there are some who would not. I simply don't have the time or the inclination to wonder about how the world outside my darkroom perceives me and my work. I'm to busy working on my work. Furthermore, I certainly don't look down on those that do call themselves artists. As I've mentioned, I think artists are very rare and gifted individuals. To describe oneself as such I find takes a huge amount of confidence; a trait I greatly admire in anyone.</p>

<p>Now when I went to see the Winogrand exhibit at SFMOMA, me and my older sister whom I was visiting in Sacramento made a day trip out of it. My sister is not into art by any stretch and all she knows about street photography she knows from my pictures which she has long ago taken a keen interest in; even going so far as to show some of my work to her neighbors and fellow soccer moms. Anyway, as we were leaving the museum, she told me "Your photographs are better." My humble nature tends to think she really meant that she liked my photographs better. Yet, so what if she thinks my pictures are better then Winogrands? What would it change? Nothing. I've visited other street photography exhibits and was told the same thing by my peers, other photographers. I take it as it was intended - a nice compliment. Isn't that enough?</p>

>>> Just thought I'd offer a different experience and different take on the matter.

 

Agree, that was the one element that didn't strike me as bizarre at all. I was speaking to the totality of the

response to my 4:21pm post.

Anyone who creates art could call himself an artist

if we assume the word art means something

of aesthetic rather than utilitarian value. The

question is it good art or bad. I think that's better

left up to the viewers not the artist.

 

 

Unlike a doctor who graduates from medical school

and interns, there's no"test" for artist other than

experience translated into work that the public then

considers worthy as art. Rather than

embarrassing myself by calling myself

an artist, I'd let others make the determination.

All I am is photographer (amateur).

 

Curious. Did Picasso call himself an artist or painter? Michelangelo? Others?

<p>Alan, from what I've read, Michelangelo did think of himself as and refer to himself as an artist. This is a fairly well-known quote of his, which I guess doesn't come out and directly refer to himself as an artist but certainly suggests he's including himself among the artists he's talking about. He even has the audacity to speak about "the greatest artist!"</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"</em><em>The marble not yet carved can hold the form of every thought the greatest artist has."</em> —Michelangelo</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Other people as diverse as Einstein, John Lennon, and Robert Frost have directly referred to themselves as artists.<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination."</em> —Einstein<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"My role in society, or any artist's or poet's role, is to try and express what we all feel. Not to tell people how to feel. Not as a preacher, not as a leader, but as a reflection of us all."</em> —Lennon<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The artist in me cries out for design."</em> —Frost<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Picasso famously said <em>"Good artists copy, great artists steal."</em> I doubt very much he would have made that statement meaning to exclude himself. He also referred to himself often as a painter. How he spoke about himself to his friends and in casual conversation, I don't know.<br>

<br>

Among quotes of famous artists, I find a lot of them openly discussing what they think art is and what qualities they think artists have. I generally get the sense they're talking from an insider perspective and including themselves.<br>

<br>

To get back to the original question, though, it was not asking whether I thought Winogrand thought of himself as an artist or referred to himself as one, it was asking whether I thought Winogrand's work was art. And I do. And it was, I thought, more specifically asking if it could be art even if he hadn't seen it through by choosing among his own negatives and printing them. And my answer is "yes" to that, too.<br /><br>

</p>

<p>The question is rather analogous to the situation of any creative activity in which the thinker, the artist or the engineer (just three examples of professions of creativity) has produced a partial, preliminary or unfinished work. I have just sweated a number of days over the research and writing of two short articles (each constrained to 600 words) in which I was asked to give my impression of a specific type of architecture and whether and how it has evolved over time (nearly four centuries). The first two centuries I have completed and the sweating wasn't just the considerable research (like many demanding projects in the other field of visual arts) but how I could render the essential of my perception in so few words. The second article is currently like the many undeveloped negatives of Winogrand, yet to be culled, produced as a positive image (although this is not essential for a person used to going between negatives and positives) and then chosen by the artist as what he really felt, perceived or intended, with the rest joining many that would end up in the wastepile. Sometimes whole rolls are so treated.</p>

<p>My analogy goes a bit further. A knowledgeable researcher/historian/architect might take my place and finish my fragmentary phrases and written thoughts of part 2 and combine them into something akin to what I might produce, but the chances are he wouldn't know which bits of information, like negatives, I might accept rather than reject and combine into the final short text. Undoubtedly Winogrand contributed to his exhibitions in a very positive sense and the exhibitions likely represented him and his view of what to show. Although he was carefree about what would happen to his negatives I doubt that he would look upon someone else's choice as being his own art or communication (I use the latter word as he apparently did not refer to his work as art). An exhibition usually has a thread going through it and the chosen images represent that continuity or theme. Without choosing the images, I wonder if he would have considered the art fully as his.</p>

<p>We will never know, but while I can accept that some of his work - the exhibitions of which he was conscious of - is good art to the viewers, I think, however, that it really ends there. We are not talking about a completed sonata of Beethoven found in an attic, or a Van Gogh painting lately discovered, but fragments some of which may be art only when they have been sorted and proposed as some form of communication by the artist himself, or photographer.</p>

 

<p>I agree that art is art regardless who worked on it. It stands on its own. The only thing open for discussion would be who gets credit for being its artist. That's where people seem to have differing opinions.</p>

<p>Arthur, thanks for those observations. The issue with the Beethoven Sonata is that, though it is found "complete" as written, I could never <em>hear</em> it if it weren't performed by someone other than Beethoven. So, am I hearing the "Beethoven" Sonata or am I hearing a collaboration of Beethoven and the performer interpreting it? Like you, I have no trouble referring to it as a Beethoven sonata. That includes my understanding that each interpretation of it is different and is something brought to me by the musician playing it. I also have no trouble referring to these as Winogrand's photos, though that also comes with the understanding that someone else chose from among his negatives and printed them. How Beethoven would have played them and how Winogrand would have printed them will always remain a mystery, but won't change the fact that this is Beethoven's piece of music someone is playing and Winogrand's photos someone is printing. We could always say, "But we can trace back in history and get reports on how Beethoven, himself, played his sonatas." But we can't do that with his symphonies, since Beethoven didn't comprise a complete orchestra.</p>

<p>We might ask if a piece of music is analogous to a photo in that both are processes that go beyond the original act of writing the composition or taking the photo. And even though performing the music and printing the photos have a great impact on the experience, I don't think they change who's responsible for the most significant part of the process. I've never heard a classical performer try to claim possession or ownership of the piece of music though they do and should take credit for interpreting it. I don't know of any master printers who've taken other than secondary credit for printing the photos other people took.</p>

<p>It is interesting to think of our taking the shots as comparable to composing a piece of music and our developing, processing, and printing (even framing and displaying) as the performance. This wouldn't be an original take on the matter but would coordinate with what Adams said about the negative being the score and the print being the performance.</p>

<p>No matter who chooses and prints the Winogrand photos, I have a sense of Winogrand's eye and vision just as I do Beethoven's, which remains evident even through the filter of the various very differing performances of his scores.</p>

<p>Arthur, I was just thinking about some Mozart compositions and compositions of other composers that were completed by other composers after they died. Most people still refer to those as Mozart's but there's a kind of asterisk next to them that we understand to mean they weren't fully realized by Mozart. I'd refer to them as Mozart's while still understanding the importance of the issues surrounding the completion of the pieces. If someone else wants not to credit Mozart with them, I wouldn't get exercised about that either. It would just be different ways of describing the same phenomenon, which we probably both well understand.</p>

<p>I wonder if there are cases of famous musicians who purposely saw to it that their compositions were never performed. That would be interesting to know. It's always fascinated me that Beethoven wrote a bunch of stuff late in his life hat he could never hear because he was deaf (though he probably could hear them internally if not with the help of his ears).</p>

<p>Well Fred, there is the infamous composition 4'43" by John Cage which I hear is just silence. <br>

I learned a few years back that the famous J.S. Bach opus Toccata and Fugue in D Minor may actually not be by Bach; there seems to be a long standing debate among some historians and scholars as to if this is actually composed by Bach.<br>

I also visited the Getty Center several times this past spring just to see the awesome "Mural" by Jackson Pollock. This enormous painting has undergone several restorations over the years since it's creation in 1943. It's most recent restoration was carried out by the conservatory team at the Getty. It was quite facilitating to see the countless hours of painstaking hard work that went into getting this painting back to the way it was when it was first completed. The fact that this work was re-worked so many times by so many different hands over the years was irrelevant. It was still an amazing experience to be in the same room as it.</p>

<p>Marc, John Cage's 4'33" is a fascinating case. Thanks for bringing it up. Interestingly, it was created purposefully to be performed. So a musician will ascend to the piano or other instrument(s) and sit there and not play. Also intended is that ambient sounds will fill the space that the music otherwise would. He based 4'33" on the white canvases Rauschenburg had produced, which are really not blank because they are painted white just as Cage's piece is not silent. The white canvases play with light and shadow and how the light and shadow changes just as Cage's piece relies in part on ambient sounds casting their light and shadows, as it were, on the silence.</p>

<p>I agree with you that the experience itself of works of art that are completed, enhanced, reconstructed, or performed by other folks is the most important thing and often very moving to experience. I wouldn't say their being aided by other hands is irrelevant. It's important in an art historical context and in understanding that it often takes a whole lot of cooperation to bring us the art experience.</p>

<p>This is why I also consider and give credit to the curators and museum and lighting designers who bring us art, as they coordinate the exhibit, decide what to hang next to what, and create the display for us. It's a crucial piece of that all-important experience of art.</p>

<p>Thanks for the background on 4'33" Fred. Interesting concept and probably a good thing that it's not a full length three movement composition. People unaware of it's purpose might first fall asleep and then get up to get a refund on their ticket at the box office.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I just stumbled onto another article regarding Winogrands posthumous prints:</p>

<p>http://hyperallergic.com/137286/garry-winogrand-and-the-perils-of-posthumous-prints/</p>

<p>I'm reminded of one of my teachers who was telling me how much better the prints for the Diane Arbus Revelations exhibit looked which were printed by Neil Selkirk compared to prints Arbus made herself. Yet, I also seem to recall that in the auction catalogs (which I read for fun and to see what works are going for) Arbus photographs that state they were printed by Selkirk sold for much less then those that did not state this and therefore presumably were printed by Arbus herself. This would lead one to believe that in the art market prints made by the photographer command higher prices then those printed by others, even if some feel (as in the case of my teacher) the prints made by the photographer don't quite measure up to generally accepted standards of excellence.</p>

 

<p>I would like to offer a histriographic remark to the matter of attribution in cases such as above mentioned ones with Bach, Mozart, Pollock.</p>

<p>Almost whole boby of classic music, literature, phylosophy and science produced in Europe since XVI century, as we know it today, has been owned, distributed and, in the first place, basically produced for corresponding incorporated publishers to whome artists were exclusivelly assigned under various rules, laws and arrangements. Their relations were ranging from coarse economical and/or personal slavery like to more or less cordial and reasonable relatons.</p>

<p>Say, Mozart had never been in position to sell his written scores or publish them independently, actually much of his later life economical woes had happend because of his aloofness to the corporate framework. This technically means that the publisher house owned all his stuff and were free to edit accordingly to their wishes. This does not necesserily mean they have done something bad or demonically wrong regarding the integrity of original source and creative character of authorship, often contrary to that, had edited more or less formless mass into useful comprehensible material and made it available for others. In most cases they probably had original material carefully preserved too.</p>

<p>Relativelly few amongst well known authors have had a gene for producing clear and "ready to use" material, Mozart was practically the only composer known for writing whole scores straight on clear and ready for musicians to play. In literally fields were Stendahl, Tolstoy, David Hume to match. The rest of great cohort so to say were basically pretty nuts type of individuals in compare to common folks and this naturally had to be dealed with.</p>

<p>Galileo for instance was not actually tormented by Inquisition for stating that Earth is round and rotating around the Sol but for publishibg progressive mathematical model of calculation for navigation without corporate aproval which was under the Church at the time. Say he sold it to "indie" publisher instead of submiting to acting authority thus enabling Magelan to embark on the first circumnavigation of the World some sixty years late on. Both were more or less acts of disobidience to authority BTW.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I like Fred's mention of unfinished musical works. In a sense, Winogrand is far from being alone. One of Weston's sons (Brett or Cole, I forget) burned all his own negatives, albeit developed and formerly printed ones, not feeling he wanted anyone else to print them. That seems to me to be a better solution than that which befell Winogrand (although he did apparently say that he had no interest in the undeveloped films and that the museum curator could either take them or he would dispose of them himself). The music domain has a lot of unfinished works. We often think of Schubert's 8th, which he didn't return again to during his last 6 years of life, but his number 7 was also unfinished, as was Mahler's 10th (the deadly 9 symphonies limit for a number of composers of the time!) and Mozart's Requiem.</p>

<p>At least we have the full works of many of these, even if they are not fully in the hand of the originators. They often lose artistic creative momentum in the post-humous parts. Perhaps the Winogrand images are similar. We also know that many photographers never printed their own works (Cartier-Bresson being one) and didn't realize the performance of the print as Adams referred to it. Does that make them less art? But we have to accept the fact that at least the originators (sometimes the magazine art or news director) chose the negatives to print.</p>

<p>Ilia's reference to the literary art and science is also of interest. In our own field of interest, I wonder which photographers purposely or inadvertently left a theme or series of images incomplete? What sort of power or intrigue does that create? Maybe a good theme to discuss in P of P someday, as I often think that the questions are more important than the (photographs as) answers, which can often be too glib or summary and not fully address the questions.</p>

<p>Is a print that strikes your fancy any less art because someone beside the shooter printed it? Is the background story more important than the image?</p>