Winogrand 1964

[nesrani]

Thanks for bringing us back down to earth, boys ;-)

[mike dixon]

<i>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</i><P>

 

Most of the (admittedly few) quotes of Winogrand which I've read are very witty and very perceptive about the nature of photography. His failure to provide a long, formal explanation of his ideas is consistent with his informal approach to making photos. Informal, however, is quite different than formless or random. If you cannot distinguish Winogrand's work from random snapshots, the failure is not his . . .

[guy bennett]

I find it fascinating that:

 

- it is still possible to believe in a "good" and a "bad" art. (Good and Evil nations and people are another matter, of course ;)

 

- one can find GW's work inferior because it doesn't resemble HCB's/it doesn't function in the same way/it proceeds from fundamentally different (and thus unacceptable) aesthetic and ideological assumptions.

 

- as an aesthetic point of departure, indeterminacy is still quetsionable, and only what is being referred to here as "classicism" is valid from an artistic point of view and all other work must be measured against the "standard" it sets (see first comment above).

 

Whew! And all that after the whole 20th century!

 

Time to clear the cobwebs out of that ol' bomb shelter, I guess, and entone the mantra: "Those who are not with us..."

[jim_britt1]

Wow... what a forum. I must admit that I'm not a complete fan of

GW, but do appreciate a good deal of his work. I also knew his

last printer, who after his death, was working with the

undeveloped film and printing it until his own death. That was

Tom Consilvio. Anyway, Tom opened my eyes to Winogrands

work. Now this who discussion (which would be wonderful in a

philosophy of art class) gets into some things that ignore the

INTENT of the photographer, his skills etc. I saw that aside from

one mention of "hard bop" there was hardly any mention of the

art form of jazz. Jazz is a very serious music and incidentally very

close to photography. So many jazz musicians were very good

photographers. Les McCann for one. Anyway, to the point, jazz

has a dicipline that goes something like this.... woodshed, bring

your ax to the gig, forget what you woodshedded, play it from your

heart and never play the tune the same way again. Well in

regular form this is:

Practice (actually practice all through your life)

Be in the moment totally

Try to avoid the cliche' and go on as if each time was brand new.

Now to tell you the truth, how does a photographer "practice?"

Probably by taking photos... his editing may have more to do with

his vision than his "take." Also what is his intent? Is it Art?

Truth? To use certain "classical music" as the standard to

compare other art forms seems pretty limiting. Not all

photography is art, not all music is art (how about Program

music... film music etc.) But, if a piece of work touches you,

opens up the world a bit more, enriches your life... then it has

fulfilled it's purpose.

[Robin Smith]

This is the best value discussion I have read in years. Priceless. The winner of "Pseuds' corner" for this week is...

 

1. "Ron" Appleby for splendid Marxist twaddle. 2. Michael Bender for marvellously arrogant irrelevance. 3. Eugene Scherba for hilarious deconstruction of our friend Ron and yet managing to hold our attention. Honorable mentions: Jeff Spirer and of course John Fulton for starting the lecture series so memorably with his apparently oh-so-innocent posting.

[steve_hotchkiss]

See there is life after talking about collectible M's. I liiiiike it. I don't understand it but I like it. All of it. Give us more of this.

[mike dixon]

I enjoyed the discussions of the differences between HCB and Winogrand--much of it mirrored my views, but there were several points I hadn't considered. Bender's bullshit just keeps getting more absurd: now we're supposed to accept that his rigid views are the product of fundamental human neuropsychology (rather than his own arrogance) . . .

[lee_shively]

This thread is getting sort of anal. I kinda like both HCB and Winogrand but, of the two photos used in comparison, Garry's kicks shit out of Henri's.

[cd thacker]

Having just read this thread, I can see that I'll need some coffee to quicken the old synapses, before delving into this (or not).

[squareframe]

making as fine an image as 'Winogrand 1964', he could have thrown his cameras away and not had to answer to anyone. especially any us here. what a magnificent image.

[todd frederick]

This forum is truly beginning to stink of hostility.

 

John's contribution is honest and without up-front.

 

Why can't we just accept a genuine opinion without trashing another Leica Forum member (or members)?

 

I think the cover image of "Winogrand 1964" is wonderful.

[cd thacker]

Alright, just a few random thoughts. It's facile to counterpose Winogrand and HCB. But it is interesting. Clearly HCB was a kind of formalist, in contradistinction to Winogrand, whose practice was much more one of pure intuitive lyricism.<P>

 

I think HCB wanted his photograph to be the point where the moment and the mind meet. In other words, he wanted to recognize in the moment - or rather, anticipate - that perfect symmetry of formalist form and of meaning, and of the two together; and to have this symmetry, and his recognition of it, culminate in - or intersect at - his photograph. This is the (in)famous "Decisive Moment" - what is overlooked here by most is the critical role cognition plays in HCB's conception (though it's possible, I confess, that I read too much between the lines).<P>

 

Winogrand, on the other hand, was I think much more intuitive in his approach, and very interested in A) observing the process of shooting, and, B) the outcome of randomness and semi-chance, and of intentionality in differing degrees (the "semi" part). I think that he wanted to subsume his intelligence into the growing ocean of his intuition, in his work, especially in the later years. So, while "poly-narrative" serves to describe some of that work, I don't think that is, necessarily, central to W.'s intention - or that intentionality itself is central to it; rather, it is perhaps a happy outcome - the "accident" - sometimes more, sometimes less - wherein lies the delight. I think his reputation will be greatly advanced by tighter editing. <P>

 

The two Winogrand images under discussion here - "1964" and "VFW" - especially the latter - are, in my view, among the strongest images in photography. It really isn't fair to compare either of them to the HCB image (one of his weakest) - which is both more formalist, and more static - as well as being among his least imaginative.

[eugene_scherba]

<I>"...one of pure intuitive lyricism."</I><BR><BR>

 

I think Doug conveyed it very concisely. I think of Winogrand not as a photographer, but rather a poet with a camera. Not a visual poet, but literally a poet of New York's quivering rhythm.

[nesrani]

Thanks Robin ;-) I just wish though that people would stop calling me a Marxist, which I'm not. I've never even read Marx.

[leslie_cheung]

one of the reason why i admire winogrand is that he could careless about being an "artist." he didn't give a damn what others thought of his photographs or style. if he was alive today, he would still be walking the streets and shooting as oppose to debating what's art and what isn't art. i think some people(perhaps mr. bender?) disregard winogrand because winogrand didn't follow rigid rules. winogrand love shooting any and all things that interested him and that leaves him with many good photos as well as many not so good(random) ones.

 

winogrand's snaps are raw and tough...which may not appeal to many, but in a way, i think they are better than a "good" photograph. does this make sense to you?

[cd thacker]

Rob, I would just point out that Marx, too, didn't want to be called Marxist (though, presumeably he had read himself).<P>

[cd thacker]

Eugene, <P>

 

Glad to see your comments. And, as long as we're scratching each other's backs, let me add that I appreciated in particular your reading of "democracy" - though I think it applies in a broader, Western context (as opposed to the "national", American one).<P>

 

I agree that HCB resists, on the whole, any single, overt reading (or "narrative") - and that this strength is the result of his essential grounding in Surrealism. In this regard, Rob Appleby, reading Marx would be well-advised; without which, it is all too easy to fall into the counter-"Marxist" trap of imposing on things a Stalinist "analysis" - which still runs in many strands throughout the world; and is really nothing more than an authoritarian bourgeois reading with a radical, leftist, false class mask on. Trying to locate within an artist's work the particular class character of its various elements (or, worse, assigning to the work a single class character, especially where it corresponds to the artist's social background), is, to me, formalism of the worst kind, and a losing, philistine proposition.

[michael_bender]

Someone above mentioned that Wingrand sayings - although not many - were quite witty. I'd like to challenge the group to add to my list of 2:

<p>

"I photograph to see how things look photographed"

<br>and "What tilt?" - which are deep. Yes, deep.

<p>

And here is a Winogrand funny story he told his students during a class according to someone who was in that class - just for your entertainment. I have a feeling there will be quite a following to GW's err.. "offbeat" sense of jumour in this forum, what do you think?

<p>

 

<b> Garry Winogrand's Infamous "Honda" Joke</b>

<p>

As told by Garry Winogrand at a photo workshop in New York in August,

1976. Warning: This Joke Is A) Politically Incorrect and B) Gross.

Read responsibly.

<p>

So there was this guy, and he farted a lot. Suddenly, every time he

farted, he went, "HONDA!"

<p>

Well you can just imagine. He'd be in a restaurant, some social

function, at work, and there he'd be saying "Hi, howare ya?

FFFFFFFFFFFFT--HONDA!" without any warning.

<p>

This was embarassing to him and his friends. Days went by and this

would happen all the time, and now his friends didn't want to be seen

with him.

<p>

So he goes to his doctor, "hey doc, every time I fart, I go "HONDA!".

Can you help? So the doctor checks him out, gives him a complete

physical. Can't find anything wrong. He goes to specialist after

specialist, trying to get himself cured, but nobody can figure out

what the problem is.

<p>

A few weeks go by and now he only has one friend left in the whole

world, and even he is getting sick of it. "Hey pal" his friend said,

"I'm your last friend on earth, everybody's deserted you. You've got a

serious problem here, but I may have a solution."

<p>

So he gives him the name of an acupuncturist, an old Chinese guy.

"This guy is brilliant. If he can't cure you, nobody can. Just do

exactly what he tells you, even if it seems a little wierd."

<p>

So our friend says "Gee thanks, I'll give him a FFFFFFFFFFFFT-HONDA!

call today."

<p>

So this guy goes to the acupuncturist, who is really ancient, looks

like he's 200 years old. Very wise. And the acupuncturist checks him

out, gives him a complete physical. He looks at him and says, "Go See

Dentist."

<br>

"Huh?"

<br>

"Go see dentist!"

<p>

So he thinks, well, this guy must know what he's talking about but I

have no idea. He goes to the dentist, who checks him out and sure

enough, finds an abscess tooth. He pulls the tooth and as you could

imagine the guy is real nervous and he's so nervous that, just after

the tooth is yanked, he farts. And then, nothing.

<p>

No HONDA! He couldn't believe it--he's cured!

<p>

He jumps out of the dentist's chair. He farts again--again no more

HONDA!

<p>

So he gets back to the acupuncturist and he's thrilled. "Thank you,

thank you," he said. "But tell me, how did you know that the abscess

tooth is what was making me go HONDA every time I farted?

<p>

The old man looked at him and said, "old Chinese saying...abscess

makes the fart go HONDA!"

[ray .]

Yes, we read that part Michael, another poster already provided the link. Now go sit in the corner and be a good boy. One day daddy will teach you to appreciate a good gutter joke, but as long as you think you're above that sort of thing, we won't force it on you, so everything's fine. Don't worry. Maybe mommy can take you to the store later for a sucker.

[nesrani]

Well, I just told it to my wife and she thought it was pretty funny. Thanks, Michael.

[nesrani]

I'm sorry Doug, but I doubt I'll ever read Marx. Life is just too short.

[ray_moth]

Rob (a.k.a. Ron) said: "Thanks Robin ;-) I just wish though that people would stop calling me a Marxist, which I'm not. I've never even read Marx." Maybe not, but you get full marx for trying.

 

Regarding your reference to psychoanlysis and surrealism, did you know that, before he met Charles Rolls, Henry Royce almost became a business partner of Sigmund Freud? He decided against it, though, because he was afraid that an automotive company named "Freud-Royce" might be mistaken for a Chinese restaurant. (Sorry about this bit of OT nonsense, it's in retaliation to Michael Honda's joke). :-)

[zapata_espinoza]

Guys, street photography is about what you FIND and react to, not what you CONSTRUCT. It is opportunities and awareness, not art theory.

[travis1]

Btw, the GW 1964 poster posted above looks very digital. WHy was that? Did he use a filter of sorts?

[ellis_vener_photography]

Michael BENDER WROTE:<P><I>Moreover, Winogrand did it not out of

conscious experimentation, but out of sloppiness</I>

Michael, you are not only wrong, your two examples are like comparing an

apple and a lime. You also reveal a startling lack of knowlege of photographic

history. These are two different artists of different generations, different very

different sets of life experiences (age -- Garry would be a good twenty years

younger than HC-B were he still alive; HC-B grew up in France in an

arisocratic upper class family, winogrand's parents were poor Russian

Jewish immigrants and he grew up in a working class neighborhood in

Brooklyn, NY) , two different aesthetic and political philosophies and spent

their lives photographing two radically different subjects. <P>If you think

Garry's work is sloppy that of course is your right but I think you are made

uncomfortable by his willingness to push hard and break out of the confines of

the precious box of what by the mid 1960s had come to be thought of "perfect

composition" and make "American" photographs. <P>Both Cartier-Bresson

and Winogrand broke the molds of the previous generation -- as my students

will hopefully break the molds my generation has fashioned.