All Art is Work.

[owen_flood]

Over the last couple of years my photography has gone through the roof; largely in regards

to the amount I shoot. Approx 10 rolls a week, however, reading the bios of several

photographers Gary Winograd, Robert Frank and Trent Parke, my output is miniscule. To site

examples, Robert Frank shot 28,000 images from which only 83 were selected for "The

Americans", Trent Parke, the only Australian selected for Magnum is said to shoot 15 to 20

rolls a day, and Winograd died leaving thousands of photos undeveloped.

 

I suppose my question is this, with this sort of output how can anyone be described as a

genius, or is the term genius a myth, and those artists labeled genius, are really hard working

obsessives.

[billfoster]

Are you suggesting that it's just luck? That since he shot so many, some were bound to be good? If so, I can't agree; maybe it is just a question of percentages. He shot 28,000 to get 83 that were perfect. But, I would probably have to shoot 280,000 and probably wouldn't be successful even then. Perfection is hard work. Out of those 28,000 83 were in the book, but probably at least half were good enough for some sort of use. Lots of the rest is exposure bracketing, shooting a burst of 20 to get one of a moment of action, shooting before during and after a sunrise or sunset, etc. Anyway, I think that one common thread is that for most geniuses in any field, whether it's music or writing or art or sport, it's a vocation, not a job. I imagine that Robert Frank was probably happier with a camera in his hand than he was doing any thing else in the world. You can work an amazing amount of hours when you don't really consider it work.

[jeffrey_blake_adams]

Ansel felt that 12 great images in a year was a good crop.

[wigwam jones]

"I suppose my question is this, with this sort of output how can anyone be described as a genius, or is the term genius a myth, and those artists labeled genius, are really hard working obsessives."

 

More = better?

 

No.

 

More = more.

 

Better is irrespective of output. Better is better.

 

Would the characteristics you've noted, if true, be attributes of people who are/were great, or attributes of greatness in people?

 

Best,

 

Wiggy

[wigwam jones]

"Perfection is hard work."

 

Not necessarily. Perfection is perfection. How it got that way is irrelevant. It could have been hard work - or it could have been as easy as falling off a log.

[jamesnjohnson]

For me, high numbers is a reflection of dedication to the craft. It is just natural to pump out so much. I wish I could do 2 rolls in a day. I was once told that in life to make something feel natural you must do it atleast 1,000 times non-stop.

[Brian]

What we don't know is how many unknown photographers also had a huge output. There may be people around with hundreds of thousands of images on file, none of which are any good. So one may be a hard working obsessive and not a genius, and vice versa.

[michael_bach2]

I think that the genius in art or photography is in, the working method, the

selection proces, and how you put you work in to a diolog with the audience.

 

www.micbach.dk............"Art photography workshops in Spain"

[beeman458]

I didn't know that photography was about how many times one can trip the shutter in a year.

 

Just an aside, Winogrand didn't "leave" thousands of rolls undeveloped as he went out and made the captures with no intent of processing the rolls.

 

It behoves one to not worry about how much film or digits are burned up in a year for it's about what you want, not what others do.

 

Myself? My 2005 portfolio consists of nine pics. If I were to add the ones that I don't want to add to the folio, the total might reach thirtteen, maybe fifteen, for the year. The portfolio is about representing personal photographic (artistic) thought for the year, it's not about representing how many times I tripped the shutter or how many times in a year I can trip the shutter.

 

"I suppose my question is this, with this sort of output how can anyone be described as a genius, or is the term genius a myth, and those artists labeled genius, are really hard working obsessives."

 

Your question exposes how little you understand about the artists efforts which you mention as the "genius" is in their uniqueness of view and in the case of Garry, there was a purposefull effort and it wasn't a fluke creation of ten thousand shutter trips cause in ten thousand shutter trips, I doubt one would create the purposeful intent of Garry Winogrand's images. It could happen, but I doubt it.

 

One of my favs.

 

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/W/winogrand/winogrand_new_york_zoo_full.html

 

More of his efforts here.

 

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/W/winogrand/winogrand_flip.html

 

A bit by John Szarkowski below. I disagree with the luck part he wrote about at the end as when one becomes more demanding of themselves, the rate of return diminishes accordingly.

 

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/W/winogrand/winogrand_articles3.html

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Just an aside, Winogrand didn't "leave" thousands of rolls undeveloped as he went out

and made the captures with no intent of processing the rolls.</I><P> Can you cite a

source for that? Garry knew he was sick with cancer but he fought it till the end.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Owen

 

I don't know of any "geniuses" in any field who were or are not also "hard working

obsessives." It is one reason they rise to the top of their choosen field.

[beeman458]

"Just an aside, Winogrand didn't "leave" thousands of rolls undeveloped as he went out and made the captures with no intent of processing the rolls."

 

Can you cite a source for that? Garry knew he was sick with cancer but he fought it till the end.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa102300d.htm

 

Part 4, 3rd paragraph from the bottom.

 

Photography is not about taking pictures. As Winogrand said 'It's a way of living.' In his last years in California he was still taking pictures but had - except for rare moments - stopped being a photographer. Having spent his life pushing photography to the edge of chaos, perhaps he had gone down over the other side, or perhaps he could just see no way further to take it. Photography had become a habit; he went to the same places over and over again at the same times and took more or less the same photographs - including 150 at the Ivar strip theatre. At his death there were over 2,500 undeveloped 36 exposure cassettes, 6,500 films developed but not contact printed and over 300 contact sheets without any sign of editing - a total of around 400,000 pictures Winogrand had taken but not bothered to look at. From 'photographing to see what things look like photographed' he had moved to just pressing the button.

 

------------------------------------

 

There's no disrespect in my original comment which you asked about in regard to Garry's final photographic behavior as sadly, the spark of life was gone.

[beeman458]

Sorry. Fourth paragraph from the bottom.

 

Doh!

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Photography had become a habit; he went to the same places over and over again at

the same times and took more or less the same photographs - including 150 at the Ivar

strip theatre.</I><P>I knew Garry -- in a very limited way-- when he was living in Austin

and teaching at the University of Texas in the late 1970s and often saw in the same spots

on "the Drag" usually just west of the old Varsity theatre, over and over again, for months.

I was just beginning to get seriously interested in photography then, didn't know who the

hell he was, or why he was always there, but I'd watch what he was doing from time to

time. He looked like he was either hunting for something or maybe just hanging out: it

was hard to say. <P>

Many years later and for several years I was in a very serious relationship a woman -- a

truly great painter of genius--who turned out to have been one of Garry's favorite

students during those years. We occasionally talked about Garry, his work habits and

why he would revisit the same spots over and over again. The gist of it was that he would

find a background that he thought had promise and wait around and and then revisit for

all of the external "formal" elements -- light, framing, composition, faces, gestures -- to

come together to make the image he thought expressed something fundamental. He also

just liked hanging around and looking at the girls.

<P>Doing photography at that serious a level of dedication. is akin to what songwriter

Richard Thompson calls "The Madness of Love." And no matter what you think of Garry's

photography or what his motivations might have been, you have to understand that Garry

was very serious about photography and that he loved to "see what things look like when

photographed." as he once put it. That kind of dedication can burn you out for awhile but

with Garry the flame of photography flickered but never guttered. Garry famously once

said: And that is fundamental and true about a photograph the way things, places or

people look when photographed is never the way they look to the eye. It is the difference

between glancing and examining. There is the time factor: how the instant is sliced or

stretched out in front of the camera and the time the viewer spends looking --once again

glancing or really looking at (and thinking about) the image. In between the times of

making and viewing is the time of the editing process and the transformation of a latent

private image to a public image that will be shared with others. <P>Owen got it simple

and eloquently right in

the title of this thread : All Art is Work.

[steve_swinehart]

"From 'photographing to see what things look like photographed' he had moved to just pressing the button."

 

"There's no disrespect in my original comment which you asked about in regard to Garry's final photographic behavior as sadly, the spark of life was gone."

 

I don't understand how anyone can extrapolate these comments only from the fact he left a lot of work. I have thousands of rolls of film developed and filed that I've never looked at or proofed; or some which I've only looked at briefly. I guess my "photographic behavior" must prove that "the spark of life was gone."

 

OR, maybe I knew I made the photo I wanted when I pressed the shutter and everything after that was anticlimatctic - I'd rather be out MAKING photographs than futzing in a darkroom or looking at contact sheets or working on a lightbox.

 

I've even continued taking photos after running out film just because it really didn't matter about fixing the image but SEEING the photograph.

 

Maybe he just enjoyed being out with his camera and working on seeing the photograph and figured that if people were interested in his work after his death, they'd do something with the film and unedited work he left.

[ellis_vener_photography]

it is too bad that Thomas quotes the about.com "expert" , Peter Marshall's opinion without

the context ofthe last two paragraphs in that link he provided.<P><I>"The sheer volume

of Winogrand's late work - and the emptiness of much of it, with sheet after sheet taken

apparently aimlessly from the passenger seat of a car - may in part be due to him buying

a motor winder for the Leica in 1982. On the same day he also bought an 8x10 camera.

Both purchases were perhaps a sign that he felt he had come to the end of his particular

road.<P>

 

The 8x10 was in readiness for a mythical time when he would pack up the Leica, retire to

the backwoods and edit his mountain of work, and take the occasional large format

portrait or still life while he did so. Cancer cruelly ended his life when he was only 56. His

relatively short career had created a revolution in photography that has still not been fully

appreciated. "</I><P>If you also want more insight into the way Garry Winogrand worked

an why many people consider him to be a photographic genius of sorts, try going to :

http://tinyurl.com/95ynj <P>That article is written by someone who actually knew him

and took a two week workshop with him.

[beeman458]

"Doing photography at that serious a level of dedication. is akin to what songwriter Richard Thompson calls "The Madness of Love." And no matter what you think of Garry's photography or what his motivations might have been, you have to understand that Garry was very serious about photography and that he loved to "see what things look like when photographed." as he once put it."

 

I'm not quite sure of the point of your above as I submit that although, for the most part unknown, we're all serious about our efforts.

 

Myself? I don't believe in "cranking out the images" but believe in preconceiving the image, one image at a time. The last image I created, like it or not, came from it's introduction to me, back in February of this year. Finally I had the time to take a day off and go back to the location in question and get the image in November; nine months later. The point, the seriousness of one does not invalidate the seriousness of another.

 

Each of the last three images, of import to me, which I've made, came about in this same said fashion as do most images of personal import. And while making this capture, I was introduced to my next image. Sometime this winter it will become a reality. To me, the idea preceeds the action and and the way I read your response is that it's not necessary to finish the process since it sounds like all one needs to do is trip the artistic shutter?

 

I will, in my nobody's opinion, state in disagreement in that I do feel getting an image to print is part of the artistic photographic process which "must" be completed, otherwise you're just burning up film.

[beeman458]

"it is too bad that Thomas quotes the about.com "expert" , Peter Marshall's opinion without the context ofthe last two paragraphs in that link he provided."

 

Wasn't trying to take anything written, out of context. You asked to cite a source, which I did. I cited paragraph and link for contextural purposes.

 

You need to lighten up a bit.

 

I made my comment based upon what I've read, I stand by my comments and you're welcome to stand by your's. Forgive me for not agreeing with your opinion as I find quite interesting your differing take on mine.

[beeman458]

Ellis

 

Try rereading the paragraphs which you cite as they cooberate my comment about the spark having gone out and the point I made as to Garry having no intent of processing the captures.

 

What Garry did in health, teaching class has nothing to do with his behavior in the last couple of years unless you're trying to romanticize.

 

I don't understand your grief.

[shadetree407]

>>> Garry was very serious about photography and that he loved to "see what things look like when photographed." <<<

 

 

that is such an INCREDIBLE motivation to photograph.... to see what things look like when projected onto a piece of photographic paper or film.

[ben conover]

Not sure that all art is work, depends. If you are welthy you can afford the time to just do art, however good or bad you are. If you are very poor, you will have to work to pay the bills, and then maybe your art will pay, maybe not.

 

Also depends on how you value yourself and what market you aim at.

In China people make works of art for peanuts, and they work hard. In the west people sell art for vast sums, and work very little

 

When I do something arty, I don't think I am working, and so it is fortunate that my job is arty. It depends on how much you enjoy it.

Of course it also depends what you call art. I think work is easier to define.

 

Cheers

[beeman458]

I could be wrong on this but I think "work" is being put forth to denote "effort" and the word effort in this case is synonymous with work as in "artistic effort/work."

[wigwam jones]

If I give three examples of photographers who are considered geniuses who are also left-handed, does that imply that all genius photographers are left-handed?

 

We constantly seek attributes that belong to the great which we can emulate - believing that if we ACT like the great, then we will be great as well. I guess it is the basis for buying the tennis shoes that famous people wear, eh? Let's all be 'like Mike'.

 

The fallacy is that if a person possesses an identifiable attribute, then that must be the REASON they are famous, a genius, a great artist, etc.

 

So, three famous photographers who are frequently considered to have been geniuses also had a very high photographic output. What does this imply.

 

It implies nothing except that which it explicitly states.

 

Are there genius photographers who do NOT have high output? Yes.

Are there terrible photographers who DO have high output? Yes.

Are there terrible photographers who do NOT have high output? Yes.

 

"I suppose my question is this, with this sort of output how can anyone be described as a genius, or is the term genius a myth, and those artists labeled genius, are really hard working obsessives."

 

Unproven. Three artists you named, (and perhaps more,) are hard-working obsessives. That does not mean it was what made them great, and there are many examples of great photographers who were not "hard working obsessives."

 

Some is not all, the conjecture is unproven and must be rejected as an axiom.

 

Logic, people. Use your brains.

 

Best,

 

Wiggy

[wigwam jones]

"lost coyote , nov 17, 2005; 12:05 p.m.

>>> Garry was very serious about photography and that he loved to "see what things look like when photographed." <<<

that is such an INCREDIBLE motivation to photograph.... to see what things look like when projected onto a piece of photographic paper or film."

 

On the contrary, it is one of the stupidest things he ever uttered, obviously intended to dazzle the rubes.

 

And Jim Morrison said it first, and got arrested for it.

[beeman458]

Wigwam

 

I think you might have missed the sarcasm of the comment. :)