Winogrand's undeveloped film exhibited - is it art?

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The question is not, for me, whether it's any less art. It's simply what I want. If I feel something more for an Arbus shot that was printed by Arbus than an Arbus shot that was printed by someone else, it wouldn't occur to me to say that one was more and one was less art. It would just be about what I bring to the experience and what my preferences are.</p>

<p>I think there is a very understandable sense of personhood associated with art, though I do very much appreciate art where the artist can't be identified or the art is the result of a process involving several people at different stages. Art is a very human expression and wanting to identify and empathize with the feelings and expression of an individual or singular artist seems a very reasonable thing to want, though it's obviously not always available.</p>

<p>The flip side of that is that there are some very superficial societal tendencies to want to worship people and to make the personality more important than the work itself. Culture loves creating heroes and then idolizing them. We don't only pay more for a print done by Arbus herself, we pay for her signatures on letters, for the fur coat she wore, for the utensils she may have used. Is that art? Meaningless question, of course.</p>

<p>If I had to generalize (which isn't always helpful!), I'd probably prefer to have the print made by the photographer over the one made by someone else. I do appreciate the uniquely personal aspects of photography and art. I know there would be exceptions where I might feel I'd got more out of the print someone else made. It would depend on the photo, the print, the photographer, and the particular circumstances. I could see myself going either way.</p>

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>Is a print that strikes your fancy any less art because someone beside the shooter printed it? Is the background story more important than the image?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No. Sometimes the printer, especially a master printer, can enhance either a "straight print" or one made by the shooter, who may or may not be proficient in the darkroom or lightroom art. Allan, the question receiving some discussion here is whether the <em>choice</em> of negative (and as yet to be developed) is art. It may or may not be, as Fred has also mentioned in regard to one aspect of this in his last post.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Good points, Arthur. I'd like to add that the choice of which negatives to print is not always up to the person who took the photos. Often a documentarian or photojournalist will submit contact sheets to an editor or someone else and the selection of which ones to use will not be up to the person who did the shooting.</p>

<p>Many exhibits and books we see, although the photographer would have originally chosen which photos to work up into prints, are culled by curators and publishers, often actually with very different choices of what will form an exhibit or comprise a book than what the photographer might have chosen himself.</p>

<p>Editing (determining which shots to print or use) is a skill in itself. I'd grapple with whether a case can be made that Winogrand's and Vivian Maier's not choosing among so many of their own photos actually is evidence of a shortsightedness or at least an inability to focus and create a coherent expressive body of work. For Maier, it encompassed her entire photographic career. For Winogrand, it seemed more to be his practice later in life. For either photographer, if it was a conscious decision to simply keep photography to the performance aspect of taking the picture, that would be one thing and I'd have no question with that. But I'm not sure that was the case, especially for Winogrand. As a matter of fact, Winogrand's famous line was about wanting to see what something looked like photographed. If that's genuine, then presumably he'd want to see the photograph, which would require its going beyond the stage of the negative. His opting out of that part of the process at a certain point could easily be taken as being somewhat derelict. I take this to be at least part of what Szarkowski was getting at when he said about the multitude of unprocessed Winogrand film, <em>“To expose film is not quite to photograph.”</em></p>

[Brad_]

>>> I'd grapple with whether a case can be made that Winogrand's and Vivian Maier's not choosing among so many of

their own photos actually is evidence of a shortsightedness or at least an inability to focus and create a coherent

expressive body of work.

 

For many who regularly shoot on the street, including myself, usually that's not very important. It's the "being out there"

soaking in the energy/rhythm/dynamics of the street, and seeing and then snagging a great moment that is the thrill. Photographic gems are rare, most are broken glass - though a second or third look years later might yield something decent. Yes, there are times when

working on a project or a series where there is a much more directed effort and long-term goal, but that is not most of the time. Having

thousands of unprinted frames is not unusual or surprising at all. I do think GW would chuckle having his shooting characterized as a

performance, though.

 

I wouldn't get too hung up on quotes from Winogrand trying to hold him accountable to what he said. Many of his quotes

are flip responses, possibly trying to get a rise out of people interviewing him.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Thanks, Brad. That's a good reminder that we all work so differently and are looking for different things out of photography. I tend to be more focused on putting together a body of work and on the actual photos themselves and what can be expressed via the photos. While I get a lot out of the experiences I have photographing others, I'm in it more for the photos and what I get out of making them and what they can offer to those who look at them . . . seeing the photos and sharing them with others. But I have to remember to leave room for other photographers working very differently and prioritizing different things. As I said, I am grappling with my take on Winogrand. Much is unresolved for me and I'm simply working it out, which is why these discussions and hearing what others such as yourself have to say can be so helpful. I'm not terribly sure yet of my reactions to Wonogrand and many other photographers.</p>

<p>I've learned both to respect Szarkowski and also to question some of his takes on things and I was skeptical about some of his claims and I appreciate your providing some insight that gives me more to think about in terms of what he said about Winogrand's unprocessed film.</p>

<p>I'm not going to get into projecting whether Winogrand would chuckle at someone characterizing how he worked in an attempt to genuinely consider why he made certain choices.</p>

<p>As to Winogrand's famous quote, good point. Like you, I'm often skeptical of quotes by famous people. They can as often be purposefully misleading or flip as they can be insightful. If it were an isolated quote, I might be more skeptical. But it seems to fit in not only with a lot else that he said but also with the way he shot, as I perceive it, so I'm not too prepared to see it as a means to get a rise out of people and generally lean toward taking it more at face value, though there could easily be a bit of both at play.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Brad, 'performance' just means 'doing' as apart from what, if anything, is made or gotten (from the 'performance'). When a dog pees on a tree, he's performing. No tuto or toe shoes required.</p>

<p>There are chess books that diagram the performance of great matches or series of moves. For example (picking a page at random in <em>Lasker's Manual of Chess</em>), the board mid-game is shown with the caption, <em>Position after Black's ninth move in Steinitzs' variation</em>. That's analogous to what I enjoy considering 'as performance' in Winogrand's work, good or bad. I'm thinking: Here's the layout; why did he move to this configuration; why are the pieces thus arranged? Why is he 'here' in the wider time/place sense and in the very local moment/position sense.</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>It's the "being out there" soaking in the energy/rhythm/dynamics of the street, and seeing and then snagging a great moment that is the thrill. Photographic gems are rare, most are broken glass - though a second or third look years later might yield something decent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes! And thanks Brad for your post, which as usual, brings clarity in an other wise murky discussion. And from my reading particularly of interviews with those that photographed with him, thinking of someone like Joel Meyerowitz, that the "jazz" was a very important element in what Winogrand was doing. Kind of like a drug:) But also I believe that the conscious recognition of that was a seminal moment in the development of modern "street" photography, that was forged by that group, and its, at least to me, important to realize how GW was a seminal figure in the development of what such work has become today. To those that dismiss his work because they may not be moved by it, they may be missing his import in development of what is commonly for want of a better word, called "street" photography.<br>

I for one, would love to be able to see his undeveloped work. There will be a lot of duds, but there will undoubtedly be several gems as well. It seems it would be a rich archival work, not only because of it being his, but just for what it shows about those times but also because it is his.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>nm</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>"I'm thinking: Here's the layout; why did he move to this configuration; why ... "</p>

<p>Julie. Rather common line of pondering based on curiosity IMO. I wander whether you've got to some ansvers that way. Perhaps you will share few discoveries on this thread.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Ilia, you wrote, "Rather common line of pondering ... " Actually, not common for me. Or rather, I only do it for one kind of photography: genuine street. Most of the cause, the source of an Ansel Adams, or Minor White, or pretty much any other "kind" of photographer is so entangled with the intentions and strainings of the photographer (and that is not a criticism) that I have no way of reverse-engineering the 'play' that's going on. It is the rare case that is "all there" in the picture; where the picture demanded itself, so to speak.</p>

<p>Winogrand, to my mind, is such a rare case. In theory, street photographers let the street tell them what to shoot; their job is to have the instinct, to "be there," to get out of the way of their instinctive reception, to be ready for -- and <em>honest</em> enough to hear -- <em>whatever</em> 'wants' to be shot. I think (believe) that Winogrand was incredibly receptive to what the street had to offer, but/and more importantly to me, that he was honest to the bone. He did not, would not, and probably could not, imitate what street photography was supposed to be or expected to be or had been done by others or even by himself. He was raw, open, every day.</p>

<p>To those who say his pictures, especially the later work, aren't very good pictures, you may be surprised to hear, I would agree. I don't think Winogrand gave a s*** if they were good or bad (except in the entirely separate world of getting enough out of them to live on ... later). He took what demanded to be taken, what the street made him do, instinctively. They aren't about good or bad, they're about 'hearing' the street. In my opinion, if/when Winogrand took a picture, it was because it something <em>was there</em>. I believe, trust that he was <em>always</em> honest to his instinctive response. That's unusual, and, to my mind, makes his pictures incredibly interesting. I don't have to sort out whether I'm being bulls******; I can get into trying to figure out what it is that he's showing me.</p>

<p>**********************</p>

<p>Now, what I think I see in the later work probably won't be what you think you see in the later work. I think that's fine. The important issue, to my mind, is getting to where I believe that there *is* something there; that this guy is/was honest, that when(ever) he pressed the shutter release it was because there was something there. Given that, given an establishment of that kind of trust, I am willing (eager!) to work to find whatever gifts he may have to offer. And it will <em>be</em> work, because he's not giving me what I expect (already know).</p>

<p>What do I see ... (LOL). How to explain it ... Have you ever, as an old grown-up adult, been back to your elementary school? Walked the halls, looked at the kids and the teachers? And wondered at how different that space is than when you were in the midst of all its dramas? Not worse, or with "despair" (which is how some critics try to take Winogrand's late work), but certainly with a kind of interested dismay or astonishment at how, from a distance of time, the building, the spaces are charged with entirely different meanings? To my eye, that kind of change happens in Winogrand's work; he's seeing/feeling/receiving the 'space' of the street, not as worse or better or in any way less alive; just differently. Where before, like you as a kid at that school, he was utterly immersed in the drama of ... just being ... in the daily experience of school, now, he's the old guy, feeling the slower flavor of that place ... and maybe, to my eye, loving it even more or at least not less.</p>

<p>Yes, the street has the drama that I see (over and over and over again) in typical street photography. But that doesn't mean that that's "the street" any more than Ansel Adams's photographs of nature are "the nature." There is nature that is not thunderously dramatic, and there is street photography that is deeply and truly motivated purely by the street that is different and beyond what we have so far seen as 'the street.' I think Winogrand was finding/showing that. Therefore, for me, his work, from start (which is necessary for him to 'prove' to me that this is an honest photographer; that when/if he shoots, there's something there asking to be taken) to the less 'good,' but more interesting/original last work.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>One last comment: re Winogrand quotes. IMO, he was not good with words. Most of what he said is, IMO, at best misleading. Many great photographers are not good with words. If you want to get Friedlander's panties in a massive bunch, just try asking him to say/write about his photography ...</p>

<p>That doesn't mean that words and discussions such as ours are irrelevant. It means that words are an accessory issue. Here's what Mark Wigley (love that name!) has to say on this (because he says it beautifully, and because I know how much you people love my quotes):</p>

<p>"Writing about photographs is a risk. The first sign of a good photograph is that it makes you want to say something about it. The second sign is that it makes whatever you say seem inadequate. The best photographs entice commentary only to extinguish it. The image actively silences the viewer."</p>

<p>" ... This is not to say that photographs operate beyond words, or that they are worth so many thousands of them that any formulation would be insufficient. On the contrary, they operate within words, within our endless conversation with each other and our own thoughts, but do so as a silencing gesture. Photographs have their effect in the very moment of silencing us, the instant in which the words are extinguished, while we still have the, as it were, afterimage of the thought that has just been cut off. As the thought hangs in the air, fading quickly, the image, equally quickly, arrives. New thoughts arise in response to this sudden intensity, only to be extinguished again. A strong image arrives many times. It flickers."</p>