Winogrand 1964

travis1 · November 25, 2002

I'd say he was pretty cool.

eugene_scherba · November 25, 2002

Deconstructing Ron Appleby

(I have not written this in Michael Bender�s defense)

First of all, I would like to point out that Henri Cartier-Bresson�s and Garry Winogrand�s oeuvres epitomize two different approaches to photography, of which the last one is widely considered a postmodernist approach.

�When I think about the history of 35 mm street photography - as far as I am aware of it - it seems to follow a progression from the single point of interest, the decisive moment which is the point of the scene, outwards to a more diffuse overall composition in which several narratives can co-exist in the frame, maybe with no single one dominating� So Winogrand was quite influential in this, at least in my opinion, moving our way of seeing beyond the propositional and didactic (this picture is about this).�

To draw a parallel in 20th century philosophy, consider this: 19th century positivism (an outlook, characterized by a belief in a single meaning of the author, hence authoritarianism, transparent language, scientific progress, and �positive� future) was replaced with structuralism (awareness of language and culture structures that tend to impose themselves on the author�s work, language that is not �spoken by us�, but one that �speaks for us�), and the arrival of Jacques Derrida�s poststructuralism (deeper deconstruction of language and culture, disbelief in grand-narratives, meaning that is deferred, rather than created). With poststructuralism, postmodernism came to the art world. Instead of formalist narrative, an antinarrative (�several narratives can co-exist in the frame, maybe with no single one dominating�) appeared. Modernism (from Impressionism and Cubism in visual art to Imagism in poetry) is now widely criticized, mostly because of its reliance on form, and labeled Formalesque. Western culture (due to its Cartesian basis) is thought to influence the perception of form and meaning (compare with Winogrand�s �content�) in Aristotelian way. A rejection of dualism leads to dismissal of form as a separate language, and to prevalence of mini-narratives in art, which often contradict between themselves.

Now, let us begin translating Ron Appleby into English:

�I think photography is more descriptive nowadays, less bound up with making good one-liners. Take the HCB picture you quoted - it is a masterpiece, certainly, of a genre; but its meaning is soon exhausted. It has a punchline - BOOMBOOM - and on we go. The Winogrand picture has much more happening, is less didactic, and opens up a larger set of concerns about the human condition.�

Under �descriptive�, Ron Appleby obviously means objective, devoid of value judgments, approach, an aspiration of a photojournalist (�Descriptivism, adj. & n., the practice or application of descriptive linguistics, especially in the analysis of grammar�, � American Heritage Dictionary). In our postmodern media-driven world, photojournalism is often seen as a display of power (see Foucault�s deciphering of �knowledge is power�), so it is important for existing power structures (institutions of political and financial influence) to keep the photographer�s power �under control�. Hence, a language of �objectivism� and �political correctness� appears.

In his comparison of Cartier-Bresson to Winogrand, however, Ron Appleby himself falls into a dualistic trap. Referring to Winogrand as a content wizard (see Winogrand�s own comments on �content�), he projects its dialectic opposite � an image of a formalist � onto Cartier-Bresson�s portrait. It is important to remember, that Cartier-Bresson never meant his work to be directly denotative, hence no single meaning is possible. To prove this, it is enough to review Cartier-Bresson�s roots in surrealism (which, by the way, handles poststructuralist critique well), or to compare his work with Eugene Smith�s photographs, where climax stands in the logic center of the picture (climax as opposed to Cartier-Bresson�s hapax legomenon). BOOMBOOM punchline would be a slogan of Eugene Smith, rather than Cartier-Bresson. �Happening� (etymology: Middle English, from �hap�), a word with the same root as �hapax� and �hapex�, is very much what is going on in Cartier-Bresson�s scenes. By using the word �didactic�, Ron Appleby is referring (consciously or not) to explicit antinarrative approach of Winogrand, and burying the more implicit antinarratives of Cartier-Bresson, without even acknowledging them. Finally, the �human condition� sounds like clichéd pun on Jean-François Lyotard�s book �The Postmodern Condition� (1979).

�The important thing to understand about art, though, again in my opinion, is that it is an objective process: and by this I mean that all sides can be supported by argument. So I think it is quite limiting to discard whole bodies of work - it comes down to "I don't like this because it's crap". I think if you can get beyond that, then there's definitely an interesting discussion to be had, because the contrast between Cartier-Bresson and Winogrand is very important, and it is good to draw it out.�

In light of postmodern relativism, any attempt to �process� art �objectively� looks fairly narrative, and filled either with positivistic connotations of pseudoscience and �industry processing lines�, or journalistic power deference (see above).

�Anyway, quite revealing that you think the 20C went down the drain. Certainly the "classical" values that revealed their bankruptcy in Weimar are long gone. And a good thing too. Don't forget that classical music was the product of a social class, with definite social functions (to assert the cultural hegemony of that class) - and interestingly HCB was a member of that very class, the haute-bourgeoisie. His classicism seems outdated now - a fine example of a dead social and artistic language. As I said in my previous post, his work is didactic - but who wants to listen to sermons, even couched in the most beguiling language? Winogrand's work is much more open, explorative - I almost said democratic.�

It is a very deterministic thing to do to describe (yes, describe) a phenomenon as a product of a social class, but Ron Appleby�s opinion is close to mine on the subject of music, and I should appreciate his punning of �classical music� with �cultural hegemony of a class�. Yet deeming Cartier-Bresson a classicist is not justified, not in the least because of his numerous visual puns on classicists (�Martigues�, 1992; �Cremation of Gandhi, Delhi�, 1948, etc.). And mentioning �democratic�, painted in stars and stripes, over the Winogrand�s tomb, does not make justice to Winogrand, �the little postmodernist photographer�, either. Is Ron Appleby aware of grand-narrative and �didactic� undertones of the word �democracy� in American culture? Probably yes, but he nonetheless permits the predatory word to fly high like an eagle in the center of his tribute to Winogrand. What is the structural opposite of democracy? No, Ron Appleby will not put �libertarian anarchy� under Cartier-Bresson�s name, but rather �aristocracy� and �communism� � phenomena that appear sooooo European, and sooooo evil (in Mr. Bush�s language) to an average American.

�Another thing I find quite interesting about your criticism of W [Winogrand] is your appeal to neurological mechanisms. This is a standard dodge of ideology - to refer conventions to natural phenomena - to make our preferences and beliefs (our politics, if you will) _scientific_. This appeal is very characteristic of the world view of the bourgeoisie, the "class which does not want to be named", (capitalism and the social order expressing natural laws, even divinely mandated, of course), as it is of old-fashioned "scientific" Stalinism-Leninism. It is eyewash, of course - classicism is a language, as is winograndism or bi-tonality or cubism. None of them has a unique claim to validity, especially not based on "science".�

Obviously, Michel Bendier has got it wrong this time. Just look at those stars and stripes flags fly against him! It is worth noting, that Cubism was The Climax of Formalesque, and an institution of its own, and it is partially Cubism that surrealists had rebelled against.

With this post, I do not intend to invalidate Mr. Appleby�s arguments, but only want to stress, that postmodernist critique can be easily applied to postmodernism itself, particularly its American incarnations, that are seen in Winogrand�s work, and especially in Ron Appleby�s verbiage.

nesrani · November 25, 2002

Eugene, I just read your "verbiage" and am very impressed that anyone would take so much time to argue with me. But just one thing - my name is Rob, not Ron...

I'll go over your stuff in more detail now and come back to you about it, very interesting.

Spearhead · November 25, 2002

I read Eugene's blast and found it to be pompous pseudo-art-speaking, starting with a comment like the last one [Winogrand] is widely considered a postmodernist approach, which is the first time I have ever heard anyone call Winogrand's approach "post-modernist." Maybe one critic did it somewhere along the line, but Winogrand's approach seems quite opposite to post-modernism.

The HCB photo is, as several people have said, formal in its composition and message, resulting in one of the most static images HCB ever presented. It certainly doesn't draw from the surrealist idiom that he often shows. It reflects the art of another time, not that we should dismiss it for being that, but there is no reason to believe that photography has to stay static forever, which is apparently what Bender wants. The Winogrand images is a tornado of energy, using the loose composition to do something that HCB's image doesn't do at all.

Bender's bias is further revealed by his lack of insight into what happened to classical music in the last half of the 20th century. It does, however, parallel his view of photography, as classical music became frozen during that time, resembling a mummy, something to view and pass on by. It is no surprise that the audience for classical music is tiny and prefers warhorses and romantic twaddle rather than anything innovative. It was the combination of a conservative audience and the financial infrastructure of the record companies that did it in. The result was that innovation moved elsewhere, no better exemplified than by the students of Stockhausen who chose, unlike their mentor, to stop trying to butt heads with the establishment, instead taking their creativity elsewhere, and succeeding.

Unfortunately, the same thing will happen to photography that has happened to classical music if it becomes stuck in the 40s.

nesrani · November 25, 2002

>>>>

To draw a parallel in 20th century philosophy, consider this: 19th century positivism (an outlook, characterized by a belief in a single meaning of the author, hence authoritarianism, transparent language, scientific progress, and �positive� future) was replaced with structuralism (awareness of language and culture structures that tend to impose themselves on the author�s work, language that is not �spoken by us�, but one that �speaks for us�), and the arrival of Jacques Derrida�s poststructuralism (deeper deconstruction of language and culture, disbelief in grand-narratives, meaning that is deferred, rather than created).

>>>>

Eugene, you are as aware as I am, I�m sure, that positivism had other enemies. My own approach is much more influenced by the second Wittgenstein. If we compare the author of the Tractatus with the later Wittgenstein, we see that the objectivity of language in the early work was determined by a mapping of atomistic meanings with a sort of Spinozian atomistic world (never better defined by W himself), whereas the objectivity of language in the later work was the outcome of convention. I think this is a very suggestive point of view when looking at photography � or the arts in general � take the private language argument and extend it to provide an objectivity based on agreement and disagreement in the arts. The objectivity of the language of photography for instance, in all its variety, is assured by the fact that it can be argued for � and this applies to all photographic idioms. So my admonition to Michael to respect the objectivity of the artistic process, was a reference to the point where �justifications come to an end�, rather than any positivistic ground of meaning, as I thought was clear from my phrasing.

>>>>

Now, let us begin translating Ron Appleby into English:

�I think photography is more descriptive nowadays, less bound up with making good one-liners. Take the HCB picture you quoted - it is a masterpiece, certainly, of a genre; but its meaning is soon exhausted. It has a punchline - BOOMBOOM - and on we go. The Winogrand picture has much more happening, is less didactic, and opens up a larger set of concerns about the human condition.�

Under �descriptive�, Ron Appleby obviously means objective, devoid of value judgments, approach, an aspiration of a photojournalist (�Descriptivism, adj. & n., the practice or application of descriptive linguistics, especially in the analysis of grammar�, � American Heritage Dictionary).

>>>>

No, I would never argue that description can be objective in any sense beyond that adumbrated above. There are no facts without an explanation � or a paradigm/theory/ideology, whatever you prefer. �Objectivity� � the term itself � is used by power interests to ensure the dominance of their point of view � and as such, media representations of reality have a hegemonic function in the Gramscian sense.

>>>>

In our postmodern media-driven world, photojournalism is often seen as a display of power (see Foucault�s deciphering of �knowledge is power�), so it is important for existing power structures (institutions of political and financial influence) to keep the photographer�s power �under control�. Hence, a language of �objectivism� and �political correctness� appears. In his comparison of Cartier-Bresson to Winogrand, however, Ron Appleby himself falls into a dualistic trap. Referring to Winogrand as a content wizard (see Winogrand�s own comments on �content�), he projects its dialectic opposite � an image of a formalist � onto Cartier-Bresson�s portrait. It is important to remember, that Cartier-Bresson never meant his work to be directly denotative, hence no single meaning is possible.

>>>>

Well, this may be so, but I contend that Michael Bender�s �Cartier-Bresson� (and let�s not forget that there are only ever such models or interpretations of any artist�s work) is very much dedicated to explicating his work as one-dimensional, univocal and didactic. I am aware of HCB�s surrealist allegiance, which would seem to promise a wider range of meanings � although surrealism�s psychoanlytic roots are pretty bourgeois and �scientific� in themselves � but we are discussing Bender�s HCB here. Point taken, however.

>>>>

To prove this, it is enough to review Cartier-Bresson�s roots in surrealism (which, by the way, handles poststructuralist critique well), or to compare his work with Eugene Smith�s photographs, where climax stands in the logic center of the picture (climax as opposed to Cartier-Bresson�s hapax legomenon). BOOMBOOM punchline would be a slogan of Eugene Smith, rather than Cartier-Bresson.

>>>>

Well, I think HCB is pretty much wed to the single narrative, but let�s not argue. Certainly I�ve seen later pictures of his, from Mexico, which would support your thesis. I agree about Eugene Smith.

>>>>

�Happening� (etymology: Middle English, from �hap�), a word with the same root as �hapax� and �hapex�, is very much what is going on in Cartier-Bresson�s scenes. By using the word �didactic�, Ron Appleby is referring (consciously or not) to explicit antinarrative approach of Winogrand, and burying the more implicit antinarratives of Cartier-Bresson, without even acknowledging them.

>>>>

No, I don�t see Winogrand as being anti-narrative � but poly-narrative, if you will.

>>>>

Finally, the �human condition� sounds like clichéd pun on Jean-François Lyotard�s book �The Postmodern Condition� (1979).

>>>>

Arendt, more likely. We all eat the same bread, although it has a different taste for all of us.

>>>>

In light of postmodern relativism, any attempt to �process� art �objectively� looks fairly narrative, and filled either with positivistic connotations of pseudoscience and �industry processing lines�, or journalistic power deference (see above).

>>>>

See my point above about objectivity as being based on the arguability of a stance � it�s expressibility, if you like. Objective inasmuch as ideological, in a rather reduced sub-political sense. Wittgenstein seemed to believe that there was a root to our language capability in a universal faculty of judgement � in the Kantian sense � but I�ve never been clear about whether I want to believe that or not. Certainly he had some good arguments to support his position � rule-following and so on.

>>>>

Obviously, Michel Bendier has got it wrong this time. Just look at those stars and stripes flags fly against him! It is worth noting, that Cubism was The Climax of Formalesque, and an institution of its own, and it is partially Cubism that surrealists had rebelled against.

>>>>

I don�t know where the stars and stripes come from here, I�m a British citizen of German origin, living in Italy and married to an Indian� ;-)

>>>>

With this post, I do not intend to invalidate Mr. Appleby�s arguments, but only want to stress, that postmodernist critique can be easily applied to postmodernism itself, particularly its American incarnations, that are seen in Winogrand�s work, and especially in Ron Appleby�s verbiage.

>>>>

Well, this was another big load of that very verbiage, but I find your analysis interesting if a bit out of kilter with my actual intentions.

Bests

eugene_scherba · November 25, 2002

"I read Eugene's blast and found it to be pompous pseudo-art-speaking, starting with a comment like the last one [Winogrand] is widely considered a postmodernist approach, which is the first time I have ever heard anyone call Winogrand's approach "post-modernist." Maybe one critic did it somewhere along the line, but Winogrand's approach seems quite opposite to post-modernism."

Then please be kind enough to describe your view of postmodernism. There is nothing wrong if you concept of "postmodernism" differs from mine. Many critics even refuse to see Cindy Sherman as a postmodernist artist.

michael_bender · November 25, 2002

OK, let's summarize:

1. You offer as a counterargument the view that Winogrand's work is more complex and represents a further development: "progression from the single point of interest, the decisive moment which is the point of the scene, outwards to a more diffuse overall composition in which several narratives can co-exist in the frame.."

2. On the Marxist lines you attribute HCB's work (and my views) to a certain class and period

3. You claim that HCB's sample shot - and probably his work, or by extension the "decisive moment"-based photography is didactic in nature, while that of the W's type is not (kind of one idea - many ideas or exploration distinction)

4.You dismiss my reference to the natural ways we humans process information as "bourgeois", illogical reasoning by association, reiterating Marxist-imbibed leftist views, which we know you hold.

Let's now take them one by one.

1. COMPLEXITY does indeed seem like a natural progression. Having several things happening in the frame is a legitimate development. What it does not need to be is badly - irregularly, randomly - composed. Many elements and moving parts coming together into the perfect whole IS possible and IS HORRIBLY DIFFICULT and requires professionalism. Making sloppy shots is easy, and the justification by the Winogrand shots of the intydiness that is so characteristic of

beginner photographers is probably the source of his popularity among the photo.net public.

So here are 2 examples of good photographic complexity. Study them - they are also GEOMETRICALLY PERFECT, although not in a primitive "golden section" or "thirds" way.

Patrick Zachmann (Magnum Photos):

http://216.205.55.20/c/htm/FramerT.aspx?V=CDocT&E=2TYRYD1A3SGY&Page=1&Total=153&DT=ALB&Pass=

Alex Webb (Magnum Photos):

http://216.205.55.20/c/htm/FramerT.aspx?V=CDocT&E=2K7O3RBIHVQD&Page=1&Total=72&DT=ALB&Pass=

2. If you reiterate Marxist ideas (in their pretty much pure form), you might also remember that Hegelian "logic" borrowed by Marx and incorporated into his theories was based on the "unity and struggle of the opposites" concept. That is A in its development is "dialectically negated" by some B, which in its development is also "dialectically negated" creating on a higher level a kind of synthesis of A and B united however still opposite, present in the same matter. Development is a spiral.

In our case: do not deny value to "old-fashioned" views, trying to be "modern". Time goes - and one finds that his ancestors were not so wrong after all. Take Jazz as an example - "free" jazz attempted to get rid of the idea of harmony of the previous generation. But in fact they were not "new" and "free" - they just invented a new orthodoxy for themselves, trying hard NOT to sound harmonic at any cost. Only when one knows that harmony exists, and for his purposes he can use it or distort one becomes really free of following a convention.

Or another example: white racism in America negated, and black racism coming to its full disgusting force - while a society free of it just does not introduce colour into consideration in many cases AT ALL.

Trying to be "modern" you in fact subject yourself to another form orthodoxy.

3. Didacticism of HCB shots does not exist - they represent VISUAL THINKING. Accusation in didacticism of your reading of the W's veterans shots however can obviously be hurled back at you, cannot it? Moreover - a point you ignored - I maintain you reading of W's sample shot is as arbitrary as photographing a pencil and claiming the image has sexual overtones.

4. Which brings us to discussing the natural sciences. You have no idea how to counter that, and so flatly dismiss it in an illogical claim by saying referring to science is "borgeois" (read: "Bad Thing"). Nope. Art is playing with human perceptual mechanisms. Therefore extending some effort to trying to understand those is well justified.

But the full explanation of why and how FORM creates semantics, or INTERPRETATION would probably require another long post. (so the lack of form leaves the viewer clueless or assigning readings in an arbitrary way, as your reading of the Veterans' shot illustrated)

P.S. By the way, the reference by travis koh to a "how I wend to a Winogrand workshop" story is good. G.W comes across as an inarticulate and unwitty person who basically could do one thing - take students in the streets and shoot ("Do it like me"). He then sorted the produced student results into 2 heaps - good and bad shots - and without explanation urged them to do more. Just confirms my understanding: the man could NOT formulate his ideas - for the lack of them

nesrani · November 25, 2002

"Which brings us to discussing the natural sciences. You have no idea how to counter that, and so flatly dismiss it in an illogical claim by saying referring to science is "borgeois" (read: "Bad Thing"). Nope. Art is playing with human perceptual mechanisms. Therefore extending some effort to trying to understand those is well justified. "

Well, Michael, I wouldn't want this to end up with us comparing our degrees ;-) But the appeal to science is _so_ 19C... time to move on, IMO.

travis1 · November 25, 2002

I still think GW was/is cool.

Let's shoot more pictures instead shall we?

manaboleh · November 25, 2002

Wow! this is heavy reading. Do we have to really have to go so indepth to appreciate a photograph? Let the photograph speaks for itself, it is a visual thing. My impression is that I feel inside the photo for GW whereas HCB puts me as an observer. GW is haphazard disorganised whereas HCB is precise pointsource. It's like music. For GW it's like you are with the band jamming it all in and for HCB you are the audience listening to the jamming. This is what I feel when I look at both the photos. I must look at more pictures from both these photographers. Jazz pianist Cecil Taylor once remarked that he prefers his music to speak for itself which is what I feel is the intention of most artist/photographer.

alfie wang · November 25, 2002

Wow, I'm also a Cecil Taylor fan. Anyone here like Unit Structures CD/album?

bobtodrick · November 25, 2002

.....ooohhh..my head hurts..but I like it!

travis1 · November 25, 2002

WHich reminds me of an episode on "Ripley's Believe it or Not".

This one guy was making art from his own vomit using paint mixtures he half swallowed, on canvas.

They sell for 1000s a piece.

Haphazard you say?

phill kneen · November 25, 2002

I heared he altered all the photographs in Photoshop?

phill kneen · November 25, 2002

Heard, even.

And he sold all his cameras to a pawn-shop in 1965 to fund his addiction to chocolate.......so I was told.

travis1 · November 25, 2002

Andy? the Ripley guy? No.

He just threw everything up onto a canvas board, let it dry, and sells them.

I don't know if he was sloppy when thowing up though.

phill kneen · November 25, 2002

But hey, at least he wasn't a bum-boy.

david_kieltyka1 · November 25, 2002

Good lord, what a load of dogmatically blinkered twaddle.

I'm not a big Winogrand fan myself but I did stop in to see the exhibition last month. To my surprise I quite enjoyed it. There's more humor in this collection than I remember seeing previously in Winogrand's work. I like that. Compositionally there's an off-kilter aspect to his photos that I often find distracting. But I'm afraid I lack the necessary arrogance to comdemn him for not "seeing it my way." Maybe I should spend less time taking pictures and more time reading ideological tracts.

-Dave-

travis1 · November 25, 2002

ah, you weren't talking to me.;)

phill kneen · November 25, 2002

No, Winogrand used Photoshop.

._._z · November 25, 2002

I heared he once shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

phill kneen · November 25, 2002

Did he now?.....mmmmmm.

travis1 · November 25, 2002

ver 1.0?

travis1 · November 25, 2002

"what tilt?"

phill kneen · November 25, 2002

yes and no.

Baby seal, reveal your source.

Sign In

Winogrand 1964

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in