Jump to content

Winogrand's undeveloped film exhibited - is it art?


Recommended Posts

<p>See article http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/arts/design/when-images-come-to-life-after-death.html?WT.mc_id=D-NYT-MKTG-MOD-55741-07-08-PH&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_c=${CAMPAIGN_ID}</p>

<p>The Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC is having a special retrospective of Winogrand through Sept 21, 2014 including pictures from the 2500 rolls of film Winogrand never developed before his untimely death. The article deals with what constitutes art in photography when the photographer not only didn't print certain images, but didn't even develop the film or select which images are even acceptable to him. </p>

<p>Please read the article and then post your thoughts and opinions. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Winogrand would have scoffed at the notion that any of his photos were art.</p>

<p>Regarding his later photographs, my theory is that the conventional process of selecting and printing is wrong. Toward the end Winogrand was described as seeming to photograph randomly, indiscriminately. I suspect he was photographing desperately but deliberately, using still photography as a form of cinema. The most interesting way to present his final frames might be as a rapid sequence slideshow. It may reveal method to his madness that would be missed by the conventional process.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm not so sure that any of Winogrands pictures can be considered art; the same holds true for street photography in general. I saw this exhibit in San Francisco and I bought the accompanying book. I've always been a bit iffy about Winogrand, but like I mentioned above, I'm a bit ambivalent about street photography being an art to begin with. I enjoyed the exhibit and I liked some of the "new" pictures that were exhibited for the first time. For me though, the best part of the exhibit was the scathing letter written to Garry from one (maybe his first?) ex-wives in which she doesn't pull any punches as she describes his general irresponsibility. Someday, I'd like to spend some time in Tucson AZ at the Center for Creative Photography where Winogrands archives are kept. I'm sure I would walk away with quite a different take on what Winogrand was all about after looking over his contact sheets over a few days. As an added bonus, the archives for W. Eugene Smith is also kept there so I would devote time to that as well. With the generous assistance given by the Center for this exhibit, I do hope that they will start digitizing more work and uploading it.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yes, I consider it art.</p>

<p>(Lex may well be right that Winogrand would scoff at labeling his photos art. That's fine. I still would consider them art. As I understand it, though, it's not a straight question of "Is is art?" It's "Is it art if Winogrand didn't complete the process?" Would Winogrand have to have seen it all the way through in order for it to even have the chance of being art?)</p>

<p>The article is about differing approaches to and methods of doing photography. The contrast is stark between Stieglitz and Winogrand, and IMO the photos that eventually result from each of them pressing the shutter can both be art, despite the differences in methodology. The process is different and authorship concerns are different. It may just be harder to attribute sole authorship to Winogrand because others are so involved in the making of the photos. (How good the photos are is a different question.)</p>

<p>Plays are written by someone who then lets the play come alive, most often interpreted by a director and actors, often substantially changing what the playwright may have originally had in mind.</p>

<p>Is a Beethoven Piano Sonata only a work of art if Beethoven performs it but not when someone else does? I'd have to answer, "No." It's art no matter who performs it.</p>

<p>The article gives me a chance to recognize the various methods employed by different photographers in achieving a photo. Winogrand cared most about getting the shot and was not as involved in finishing it up. Weston, for example, had a much more hands-on approach all the way through to the final print. For me, it's not whether one is more of an artist. It's recognizing that photos get formed in all sorts of ways, and are often the product of a collaboration, even in cases where only one person becomes famous for the work but is supported by gaggles of people who may have helped realize the dream.</p>

<p>This is also a good reminder of how important curators are and how much of an art is the culling and editing, the presentation, and the exhibition itself. Most of us view photos/art that is exhibited and the means of exhibition has a big effect on our viewing experience. The curator and the museum designers are part of that collaborative effort and extremely important to the process.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would generaly agree with Mark R. OP - fine article but question of identification/deffinition [of it] as art dissonate IMO. Offcourse it is art but so what? Perhaps we here on PNs PoP can put our minds together to work out a modern/current concept of [photographic] art or make a new bench mark to it. It still queers me to see how folks attempt to understand and define the personality of artist/photographer behind the picture instead of admiring the virtues of pictures. This might be understandable in general public but here we are: a) photographers b) phylosophers so why wear cheap paper hats on our own carnavalle?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Interesting article. Whether these photos (or any other photo for that sake) can be called art or not is not an interesting aspect of the photos for me in that such a tag will add nothing to the photos themselves or to the interpretation of them.<br>

I would just add that there are even blind photographers that takes interesting photos, interesting in the sense that they tell me something about the photographer, but also about the world he "sees" and the world in general.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Frode Langset<br>

(and excuse my English, it is not my native language)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ilia, I'm not sure it's necessarily about the personality of the photographer <em>instead of</em> admiring the pictures themselves. It's usually about both.</p>

<p>Art is such a very human endeavor that it makes sense to me part of a discussion would be about the expression of the person who made it. The virtues of a photo are often tied to what vision of the world it is giving me. It's this vision and it's not that vision. That's because I know there's a person with a perspective, personality, feeling, a mind and heart behind that camera.</p>

<p>If I were looking at photos made from a camera on auto-pilot set up in the town square to take pictures at such-and-such an interval, I might only be interested in the picture without reference to who made it and why, though even then it would be interesting to connect the tone of the photos with how they were being made. But when there is a human face behind that camera, all sorts of things are going to occur to me beyond literally what is pictured or what is in the picture.</p>

<p>A camera is as much an expressive tool as it is a recording device. This is one reason why I don't fully buy what I find to be some coldness in Winogrand's famous statement about taking pictures to see what things look like photographed. I mean, I do buy it in that it's a significant way to understand photos and a revelation about his own approach. But you will never find me limiting photos to just that, even Winogrand's.</p>

<p>Artists say things, and they're worth listening to and sometimes profound. But they rarely if ever delimit what they're doing. For me, they're words are just a start in understanding and relating.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shakespeare's plays in folio form were not edited and published until after his death, athough the plays themselves were

staged when he was alive and writing.

 

Emily Dickinson's poems were not discovered or published until after her death. An editor chose the best and published

them.

 

Vivaldi's scores were lost to the world until Ezra Pound discovered them and had them transcribed.

 

More recently there is the case of Vivian Meier. Unknown until some bright spark bought her negatives at an auction of

abandoned property in a storage unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The first time I saw a Winogrand display it included enlarged images of contact sheets from rolls he'd exposed but not developed or developed but not inspected before he died. I told my wife then I did not think there was anything that would make me so uncomfortable as to have others view and edit my work when I had not had the chance to do so. It still makes my skin crawl.<br>

<br />Is it art? I don't really care but I do think holding Winogrand's work up to Jeff Koons' work I am entirely certain I know what is NOT art. Sorry Jeff.<br>

Henry Posner<br /><em>personal opinion</em></p>

Henry Posner

B&H Photo-Video

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Three points:</p>

<p>One: Contrary to what the NYT article says about photographers being uncomfortable that the machine is somehow doing it for us, I think that's a non-photographer, painting-paradigm concern. What the NYT article doesn't "get" is how much of photography is a performance art; how the photographer has to be there, exactly, precisely with his/her eye at that particular to-the-inch place/time ... and know he/she is there. Performance.</p>

<p>Two: I will go to see a performance by a known master of sports or dance or music, just to see that known master perform. Good, bad or indifferent, I enjoy seeing how they do it. It's not the having-done-it that's interesting; it's the peculiar genius of how they do even a crummy performance even on an off night.</p>

<p>Three: Winogrand loved the performance of shooting. He hated all the rest. See this anecdote told by James Enyeart of the Center for Creative Photography:</p>

<p>"A little over a year before Winogrand died, at the suggestion of Lee Friedlander, he called me on the telephone at the Center for Creative Photography to discuss whether or not the Center would be interested in his life's work then located in his apartment in New York. We had met a couple of occasions over prior years, so the discussion was informal and between friends. He said that his lease was up and he could not afford to renew at the price that his landlord was asking for a new lease. He said he wanted the Center to have everything in the apartment from all of his years in New York. He wanted to simply walk away and get on with his life and make photographs.</p>

<p>"I suggested that he should consider placing everything on loan, since a gift of what turned out to be 16,000 photographs would not be to his financial advantage. ... He became agitated and said if the Center didn't want everything, then just say so. When I asked what would he do if I said no, he said, 'I will just get rid of it.' I said yes.</p>

<p>"After his archive arrived and I had a chance to survey the prints, I called Winogrand to ask if he had a criterion or a working mark on the prints to identify master or finished prints from work or study prints. He responded, 'You know the difference.' I answered that, yes, I do, but that I would rather fly him out to identify one from the other. He responded, with just a touch of the famous Winogrand wry wit, that it was in my hands now and my problem. I accepted his admonishment as an expression of trust and at the same time could sense in his voice a certain desperation."</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'll suggest that Winogrand was doing art but it wasn't the art of photography. Rather I think of his last efforts as performance art with camera. The pictures made from his exposed but undeveloped rolls are merely certificates that the performance art actually happened.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If someone were to go through all my shots sometime in the future, that would be fine with me. Unless they used them to hurt someone, I'd have no problem. If they chose things I didn't care for or didn't think much of, I'd be happy they were getting something out of them. Sometimes, it's not about me. </p>

<p>People I photograph will often choose photos of themselves that I don't like much. And they're ones I wouldn't necessarily show on PN or hang in my gallery. But I'm happy to have them display them at home or on their Facebook pages and share them with their friends. If something I had a hand in makes someone else happy or fulfills some desire or need in them, it's great. If these photos became popular and famous, even though I didn't like them, I'd accept it as something beyond what I'd want to control.</p>

<p>Alan has mentioned giving away many of his prints and getting pleasure from that. I really admire that practice.</p>

<p>I can't and wouldn't speak for Winogrand or anyone else, because I wouldn't project my own needs and wishes onto what either of them may think or may have wanted. But I don't think, by default, either Winogrand or Vivian Maier can be said to be diminished or abused in any way by what's been done with their work. They've had a net positive effect on the world and that's pretty good for any human being, in my opinion. We simply don't get to control everything from beyond the grave, and I wouldn't expend a lot of time and energy trying to do so while I'm alive.</p>

<p>Que sera sera.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Eh. Ars longa // vita brevis. So to say and some things just are beyond anyones personal control so much so when the person is no more, which is probably why publishers prefer to have it that way.</p>

<p>Just came to think that there's one curious angle in this, namely authentication. I mean like if you got a box of unprocessed film rolls and you say it's Garrys and get it all developed and printed to hang out in the gallery and stuff - whos art is it? Yours or Garrys or Boths Cooperational? Collective? Commisioned? Nobodys? Everybodys? The ones who currently owns copyrights? Is it possible to a thing be art object without singular personal attribution?</p>

<p>Sure big YES to that - most of the classic art, sculptures, paintings, architecture, music was produced by more than one individual working on it. Much of it is unattributed or possibly missatributed and it does not distruct us from admiration of say classic sculpture of Rome.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When a orchestra performs a Mozart piece, or a someone prints a Winogrand negative, the finished work is really more of an interpretation. That's not to say it compromises the work, it just means that what you are listening to or looking at is one of many possible interpretations. Now, I've always given more weight to photographs that are printed by the photographer. That's the only true way to know what the person who took the picture wants it to look. However, this does not mean I don't recognize that photographers will often print the same negative in different ways throughout their career. I saw two prints of Adams "Moonrise Over Hernandez" side by side that were printed years apart by Adams himself. One was a much softer grade and the other was much more contrasty.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Marc, I understand what you're saying and it makes sense. It's also true that many photographers are not terribly good printers and wouldn't be able to realize their own vision by printing themselves. Many are better off working with an expert printer to whom they can communicate what they want the photo to look like. The master printer may well better realize the vision of the photographer.</p>

<p>Ilia and I seem to agree that what's being discussed in this thread, to a great extent, boils down to attribution and authorship, and it's not a question of what's art and what's not art. There is often an investment in determining one individual who is responsible for the work of art. I don't question that and think it's a significant question. At the same time, not being able to pin the work on one individual doesn't lighten my experience of it, if it's a moving or effective work of art.</p>

<p>Winogrand's not completing the process doesn't make his photos less art or less effective as art. It does make it more difficult to tie it to an individual vision, though I think his vision, no matter how it's been brought to us, comes through pretty clearly, as does Shakespeare's and as does Mozart's. Even though Mozart has to come to us through the interpretation of others, I experience a pretty singular and recognizable musical vision when listening to his music.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Art exists because a connection exists between the work of the practitioner and a viewer. When the latter is induced to think about an image, to perceive what it is about and how it affects him, it likely is art. This doesn't require a stamp of approval of a recognised museum director or critique, or adherence to established rules of composition. Accordingly, Winogrand's lack of involvement in the development and choice of his last images is not really important to that question. If a viewer sees art in the image it is there for him. I have been disappointed by the exhibitions I have seen of Winogrand's work, and I have seen only a limited part of it, but that is related to my own notions of what is good art or simply of what constitutes for me interesting images. Neither he or I can, or could, speak for another viewer. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As Arthur says, art is in the eye of the viewer. The artist cannot declare his work art. That's up to the viewers. </p>

<p>In addition, how many pieces of art have we seen that we don't know who created it? The art stands on its own. Just like our photos. When the viewer looks at it, they have a mental, spiritual, or aesthetic experience and declare, "That's art." Calling the person who created it an "artist" is a job description of the person, ego driven. In itself, it has no artistic or aesthetic value. If he was a plumber, would you think less of him? Well maybe; unless you had a leak in the basement.</p>

<p>What's nice about all of this, is that we don't have to be presumptuous and call ourselves artists. Winogrand only called himself a photographer. So are we. If someone hangs our picture on the wall because of its aesthetic value to them, that makes our work art. We can continue to call ourselves plumbers. And photographers. Now that's nice.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Alan, just like a plumber can call himself a plumber and no one has a fit over it, an artist ought to be able to call himself an artist without being labeled presumptuous. Could there be presumptuousness sometimes coming from the other direction? From those who look down on artists referring to themselves as artists.</p>

<p>Having said that, referring to oneself as an artist doesn't make one an artist any more than referring to oneself as a plumber makes one a plumber. You have to have the chops and get the results. (Which doesn't mean being a "success".) But there's nothing wrong with knowing what you're about, going for it, and saying it. I know plenty of artists who refer to themselves as artists. It's a significant bit of information about who they are and how they see themselves just like any other bit of information we give about ourselves.</p>

<p>Garry Winogrand didn't want to call himself an artist. Good for him. I respect him for it. It doesn't make his work that much more interesting to me but I'm happy to hear what he thinks of himself and how he looks at himself, and no one needs to think of themselves as an artist. I'm also OK with others thinking of him as an artist even though he doesn't. We're not always the best experts about ourselves.</p>

<p>But Garry Winogrand is only one guy. And he doesn't represent for me a way to be. He's just who he is. Just because he thinks he's not an artist doesn't mean I have any problem with others who think they are. I honestly think Garry Winogrand had some perceptive things to say and some interesting things to show us (though his photos go only so far for me). But I think he can be quoted way too often and he can be mythologized way too much.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Stieglitz may be a good example to toss in the ring here. He thought photography was art and went out of his way to make that known and accepted. Interestingly, he started out trying to show this in making and appreciating photos that mimicked painting. Later on, he rejected that and felt that photography could be accepted as an art not because of what it seemed or was forced to share with painting but because of its own unique aesthetic characteristics. Winogrand thinks photography is unique and it's better to call it photography. Stieglitz thought that despite (and in some ways because of) photography's being unique, it could still be considered art.</p>

<p>Frankly, I'm glad we have both, as photographers and thinkers. Glad I don't have to choose one to be my hero.</p>

<p> </p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I always thought Winograd was far more interesting than his photography, most of which (of that I've seen) I do consider art. </p>

<p>But I'm like everyone else, what I consider to be art or not doesn't really matter. People will either buy it or not if it's for sale.<br>

Conni</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>> I always thought Winograd was far more interesting than his photography, most of which (of that

I've seen) I do consider art.

 

 

Not unlike many photographers, some of Winnogrand’s photographs do not move me that much. There

are a lot that do, though. GW was a master of capturing standout human gesture in his compositions;

something I find greatly lacking in a lot of other street photos where instead there is little going on.

 

For me, not surprisingly, that ability nicely dovetails with his gregarious/animated persona he projects in

his filmed interviews, and his shooting style seen in his on-the street videos of him at work. What comes through

loud and clear is he’s a photographer who has a kid-like sense of humor and doesn’t take himself too

seriously, not giving a flip about what others think and especially not elevating himself up as an artist.

He's more into the joy of being out there soaking in life on the street solving his picture-making problems

while having a good time (Avedon had similar endearing traits in a much different context). It’s that

unpretentious keeping it real attitude I admire a lot with that joy coming through strongly in many of his

photographs.

 

As an aside, and as one who enjoys the camaraderie of fellow urban shooters, there are a lot of other photographers who I would not like having a beer with because they have no sense

of humor, are stiff/pretentious, and, take themselves so seriously, more so than their photography. GW is the

polar opposite and would have been one where I would not want to have missed such an opportunity at

the local bar.

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...