Winogrand Interview (continued)

 

<a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006OcH>

<b>In a thread below</b></a>

, I stated that in photography<br>

"...the interest is created by the interplay of visual elements in the

image itself (which interplay can be analysed, understood and taught.

It's like studying counterpoint or other principles in music - they

allow transfer of knowledge and post-factum analysis, but not

mechanical composition of masterpieces, although on the other hand

creation without study is almost always futile, i.e. primitive or

re-inventing wheels)."<br>

and that "..photography simply reflected their (Winogrand and

Friedlander) provincialism and lack of good form and/or visual

techniques. Winogrand photographed what stroke his provincial eye, and

his results are forever untidy. His perennial popularity is among

those who have little experience of photographing people, as it

justifies their conviction that pretty much anything goes - poorly

framed, poorly composed. They feel they understand his photography -

while for the more advanced photographer shots like the ones below are

obvious and pretty much trite"

<br>

Then I gave several examples of Winogrand's triteness (that now

pollutes books and museums).<p>

Responses were several, predictably indignant - but no one pointed the

<b>elements in the photos</b> that would elevate them to the level of

artistic. "Either you see it or you don't" was one of the arguments.

<p>

Well, let's now <b>see some positive examples</b>.<br>

<a href=http://home.pacbell.net/vedmed/forum/ronis/Carrefour.jpg>

<b>Ronis 1</b></a> This marvellous picture is created by the interplay

of black silhouettos superimposed on a perspective of a street,

strengthened by haze. I won't describe the effect/thoughts it creates,

but the aesthetic impact is fully determined by the interplay of the

visual elements I mentioned. Note also that the shape of the woman

echoes in some way the shape of the awning.

<br>

<a href=http://home.pacbell.net/vedmed/forum/ronis/ppescal.gif>

<b>Ronis 2</b></a> This one - besides great geometric subdivisions by

the stairs - is based upon the idea of "two worlds" (or, "here and

there" as I call it myself). Children's world is wonderfully isolated

while being part of the "big" world around. Two worlds shots are

well-known and numerous, but this one is a perennial classic.

<br>

<a href=http://home.pacbell.net/vedmed/forum/ronis/ronisvincent.jpg>

<b>Ronis 3</b></a> Ronis made his son fly the plane it in spite of his

objections that it will be damaged if he threw it in that direction.

The plane was damaged - but photography got another classic. The shot

is based on (a) extreme light accent on the white paper plane and (b)

"here and there" element because it was shot from a darker room, the

window frames the action. The viewer therefore is removed from it and

is a remote observer of something that looks more like a symbol than a

concrete action. As a result the image is not about a boy flying a

plane, but something bigger. But whatever one can think of (I think of

it as a symbol of a happy childhood and dreams of a future life), the

mood/reflection is created by the interplay of some elements on the

image.

<br>

<a href=http://home.pacbell.net/vedmed/forum/ronis/Bolivar.jpg>

<b>Ronis 4</b></a> This one is an example of orderly artistic

comlexity - a marvellous collection of lines and objects I cannot tire

of marvelling, although I've seen this one probably a hundred or so

times. This and similar images (not Winogrand's mess) really is a

precursor of modern photographers' studies of complexity, such as Alex

Webb's - which became fully possible only when wide angle lenses

became commonplace.I can analyze the interplay of elements further if

needed.

<br>

<a href=http://home.pacbell.net/vedmed/forums/girls-2.jpg>

<b>Boubat 1</b></a> The fuzzy perspective of the street adds the

"dreamy" quality and, secondly, throws the girls into focus. The

deceivingly simple shot works on the human level because of the

contrast between the left girl and very adult hard look through the

observer by the second one. Their poses support and strengthen the

impression. The second girl seems to cynically calculate something in

her head while looking at - or rather through - the photographer.

<p>

 

All these photos' action upon the viewer is determined by some

interplay of elements on the image, on different levels - from

geometric/silhouettos to interpretation of human expression. Emotions

and various stories around the photos may be created by the viewers -

but what is important is that some identifiable elements are present

in the picture and come into play. They can be systematized and

studied (what I actually did).<p>

And here I again invite you to point the elements creating the "cool"

in the Winogrand shots (see the topmost link, then search for "photo

1") - because I fail to do it. His are unstructured shots, and in my

eyes that makes them quite trite.<p>

 

No one has claimed that Winogrand's work fits your idea of what

constitutes art, Bender. You can't quite seem to grasp that the

rest of us don't accept your personal views as <i>the</i>

definition of art. Insisting that we explain how Winogrand's

photographs fit into your definition totally misses the point of the

previous thread.

Like you and some in the other thread, I ask the same. What's so great about the work you linked here? And if I don't get them, does it make me inferior to anyone? WHy does it matter?

 

Same for GW's work.

..whether you get it or not, the framing device, chiaroscuro, and light accent on the plane (see Ronis 3 image) are THERE OBJECTIVELY. It's not my ideas - it's the built-in mechanisms into our brains' visual processing, and while emotions, words, stories may differ, the built-in machine will identify those and they will be acknowledged - whether consciously or subconsciously - by signalling to your brain that the image is "beautiful", special, interesting, regular etc. (well, probably not to your brain, but to 99% of others at least)

<p>

Because those elements are objectively there and they are universally recognized, that's how brains work. You may like or dislike some particular poem or lyrics, but you cannot fail to react to rhymes in it, even if you do not know what a rhyme or poetry is.

Michael: I'm just curious, but have you ever read "Camera Lucida," by Barthes? If you want to understand what many of us see in Winogrand's work, it helps to think about what a photograph actually is, fundamentally, and why photographs have value (especially as opposed to other visual media). There are reasons why some people use cameras instead of oil paints--and if you say "convenience," then you've completely missed the point.

 

I'm not sure that you're interested in understanding why so many of us like Winogrand, but if you are, "Camera Lucida" is a good place to start.

I will add that while the viewer is presented with a cut-out of reality, an image, where those things are distilled already, and so his perception is helped by the fact that artistic for is already there - so even if he is dumb a bit, it still may work. It's been distilled, concentrated on the picture for his easier digestion.<br>

For someone who wants to CREATE, it's unforgivable not to learn and study those regularities, techniques, parallels, contrasts etc. - because one has to have a very toned-up ability to discern those in life - to unite and resolve them on the images one is creating.<br>

No knowledge (from study of other photographers' and artists' decisions, for example) - equals provincialism and either constant reinvention of wheels, or permanent production of the most crude and strong patterns. Well, think of sitcom humour, which needs to be helped with canned laughter, or complex inventive music versus rap

I have read Camera Lucida, it's an production of someone who posed questions, but did not get satisfying answers. I would like to challenge you to take one Winogrand photo and try apply whatever you got from Barthes to it - well, as he provides nothing concrete, my prediction is you'll fail.

I'm not talking about looking at a photograph of Winogrand's and saying "this has value because Barthes says clearly in paragraph five that. . . " and so forth. I'm talking about looking at why ANY photograph has value. Camera Lucida is a starting point, nothing more, one which you've evidently neglected to pursue.

 

If the images above had been oil paintings instead of photographs, would they have less value?

bender,

It would have been more convincing if you would have done some basic readings in

philosophy before you speak in such a bombastic manner. Start by Kant, (you can

look at Strawson?s ?Bounds of Sense? for a good account of the concept of objectivity

and the structure of the mental in Kant), Gotlob Frege?s Grundlagen Der Arithmetic

would not do you any harm, some Wittgenstein would not be bad. More recent you

can look at McDowell, Evans, Davidson, Dummett and many others. Or you can stick

to the members of your department of Physics (did I get it right from previous posts?)

that measure your I.Q. (as you stated). apparently there are some other things to

measure before one should start talking about things he doesn?t know about. Oh, and

I know I do not ?refute? what you say. To tell you the truth, I have some better things

to do in my free time (as I am sure many others have, including the members of my

people ?the Hollywood Jews?, if I am quoting right a previous expression that you

used). Anyway, as we say in America, ?have a nice day? and since I am not going to

look at your reply take whatever you say as a training rather than an exchange of

opinions.

<i>Because those elements are objectively there and they are

universally recognized, that's how brains work.</i><P>

 

No, it's not. This isn't the first time I've heard biological

arguments trotted out to support a particular view of "art," but I've

never seen any kind of experimental evidence to back the kind of

claims you're making. I have seen research (cross-cultural

studies and neurophysiological experiemntation) which

contradicts your assertions.

Good lord, man.

 

Seemingly, in your estimation, nothing has value unless it fits your 'intellectualized'

criteria and categorizations. While i may like some of the examples you've chosen as

"positive," and find little of interest in Winogrand's work, i will still assert that your

pontifications and arguments are ridiculous.

 

The argument loses all validity when you automatically declare your choices as

"marvelous." Then, you go on to use every freshman-year descriptive: "interplay,"

"superimposition," "echoes," "interplay," "interplay...." blah, blah, blah. Whatever. I

guess any successful image must certainly require interplay of some sort. Another

'whatever.'

 

Then, further, you go on to tell us that your choices "work" (for everyone) because of

our 'wiring' and predisposition to themes. And, "ontogeny recapitulates

phylogeny." Whatever.

 

I'm always wondering about the justifications necessary when someone needs to tear

someone down in order to build himself up. Like what you want to like, and forget

about telling everyone else why they're wrong for having/not having significant and

valid emotional responses to the stuff you favour. Is this how you speak to real

people?

As I said in one of my earlier replies, you don't get it. You think that in order for one

thing to be good everything else has to be bad. How many copycats of Boubat,

Bresson & Ronis do you want running around? probably more than I want winogrand

clones running around. Photography evolves and moves on. It has many traditions to

follow. You only want one to exist -- which would make Photography as an art form a

deadend. Any one who sees the world differeently you characterize as "dumb" , a

"dumb animal", as a "polluter".

 

You search for specific elements in an image that "elevate it to the artistic." This is art

by the numbers Michael. Art just doesn't work that way.

 

Having looked at your "positive examples"what I see is that what you like is a warm

fuzzy nostalgic romanticism with a definute tendency towards bourgois european

values of the 1950s. You don't like looking at images which challenge your

perception of your place in the world.

 

No one can deny that the examples you cite are examples of great photography. But

saying these are the standards which photography must meet to be considered great

is like saying the Don is the only true river in the world and that therefore the

Mississippi is no kind of river at all.

Derek, your words are wise, but if there is anything I've learned practicing law for 17 years it's that talking to sociopaths is a wate of time.

Michael Bond redux. aka Bondarenkski. The name morphs but you can spot the vituperation a mile away.

 

I'm going to duck now...maybe try capture the tracers against the night sky...

I still don't like them. Whatever exist objectively in those pics means nothing to me if I don't like the pics. Does that answer you?

 

It's like having a porche for free but don't like speeding. Get it?

.... is irrelevant to the question if it is art or not. You, Travis, may like a picture of a pink baby, but that does not make it artistic. A huge number of people like Thomas Kinkade - but that is not art, by any measure.<br>

Let's see:<br><pre>

The only thing that vexeth me is, that I cannot speak the

Lanternatory language. I shall, answered Panurge, speak

for you all. I understand it every whit as well as I do

mine own maternal tongue; I have been no less used to it

than to the vulgar French.

 

Briszmarg dalgotbrick nubstzne zos.

Isquebsz prusq: albok crinqs zacbac.

Mizbe dilbarskz morp nipp stancz bos,

Strombtz, Panurge, walmap quost gruszbac.

</pre>

Why I am citing this? - as an example of what I said, <i>You may like or dislike some particular poem or lyrics, but you cannot fail to react to rhymes in it, even if you do not know what a rhyme or poetry is.</i>

<br>Such mechanisms are part of our brain's built-in processing. And the definition of art, in most general sense, is: <b>Art is play with human perception.</b> One has to engage such mechanisms of similarity, contrast, light and lack of it (shadow or silhouetto), geometry, perspective, time and motion etc.etc. in the still visual what is photography.<br>

So, whether the devices of such play are present determines if something can be called art. It has nothing to do with liking, or with the kind of general impression or feeling it produces - whether it is gentle or violent, nice or disgusting.

<p>Winogrand's output is trite, it only rarely comes to playing with forms, colours and tones, elements, objects, meanings of those objects. The best proof is that, once again, so far no one could intelligently point to this in Winogrand's images I referenced in the first half of the thread (see the link at the top). In spite of my so many times repeated requests.<p>

P.S. Andrew Pitman: " I'm talking about looking at why ANY photograph has value. Camera Lucida is a starting point, nothing more, one which you..." Re-read it and find to your great surprise that it's impossible to claim - according to what Barth said - that ANY photo has value. He actually spends quite some time trying to find our why only few work - and formulates his two types of punktum idea -- Please note not to make yourself ridiculous by pointing opportunities for my intellectual advacement that I so sorely missed.<br>

(As usual, here and my in future postings previous non sequitur responses will be ignored.)

You actually believed there's a thing called the Unified Theory of Photography.(I was guilty of asking that in fact)...everything must fall into your category of definitions.

 

Where's Harvey when we needed him..

Where's Allen?

 

Did England sink?

Somebody owes me about 45minutes of my life back! I read all this crap and still haven't figured out a bit of it. I like the photo's that Bender posted as examples I didn't think much of the WG photos. But then I think most of what this groups considers as Leica photos a silly waste of film. Snap shots of people you don't know and only use as something to waste film on (unless it's some poor girls butt of course) I'm not on Benders side nor am I on anyone elses side in this. I'm just a dumbass truck driver with about 45 cameras two of which happen to be very nice screw mount Leicas so I read the crap here and look at these photos and wonder why?

 

I'm pretty sure I could have used the 45 minutes much better trying out my Canon III along with the 9cm f4.0 Elmar that has just come back from a CLA. Then trying to find one tiny bit of useable knowledge to help my photography in all of this waste of space and time.

Ifyoo reedin thiz thred u maebecum loopdeeloo.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Bender can't recognize the artistic nature of a Winogrand photo. Big deal. He's defined what constitutes 'art', he's cited his sources of like minded 'thinkers�, he�s compiled his check list. And consequently when he views a Winogrand photo the inevitable outcome is reached. The re-educational process for the "epistemologically challenged" would be a daunting task and certainly out of the scope of this simple PN thread. There are greater travesties in this world then Michael�s conclusions on �de-constructing Winogrand�. Let's move on.

>Somebody owes me about 45minutes of my life back!

 

OK. I have giveth. If you die 45 minutes earlier please let me know and I'll refund your money.

what a shocker...

not everyone likes strawberries

what do you think of Willian Klein? *opens can of worms*...

 

 

B