Winogrand Interview (continued)

[travis1]

Photography is about opening up to new facts, creating new existence onto photographs. If we all stuck to one rigid rule, then we'd all be taking the same kinds of pictures. Most times, it's not about shadows, sillouttes ,fogs, figures in play and hidden meanings. It's probably also not about perfect compositions and timings, but of life as it is. The less one thing of the rules, the more one is liberated.

 

Bender, be open about it. Everyone is looking at the world differently, why not you? I have bo doubt GW was capable and still be capable if he's alive today taking pictures you have linked above. Perhaps that wasn't what he wanted captured. Obviously he took it differently and was happy about it. Isn't that most important? Be happy about what you create and about new facts made onto photographs?

 

He's probably still taking the same kinds of pics now in heaven, ignoring all rules, the Garry we all knew. If you've learned nothing from his interview, then perhaps take his advice that :

 

Anthing is photographable, in anyway.<div></div>

[lee_shively]

I fail to see any point in berating one photographer's work in order to praise another's. It's really petty.

 

I believe Winogrand, Ronis, Boubat, HCB and dozens (hundreds...thousands...?) of others have created many photographs of merit and also large numbers of lesser photographs. Does the fact that one prefers one style, method or concept over another mean other styles, methods or concepts are inferior? Only if they result in failure and, obviously, both Winogrand's and Friedlander's work have met with success.

[d._p.1]

Michael, <br><br>Art is nothing more, nothing less than what is labelled as art by those who matter in the right positions (curators, collectors etc). It can be anything. They (the people that are in the position to grant the label 'art') may or may not apply theories on why they think this is, and that isnt art. It's, basically, up to the fashion of the day. <br><br>There is NO SUCH THING as "real" art. Wake up.

[Allen Herbert]

See, i knew there was a reason why i like my mate Jeff, he loves and misses me....bucket loads.

 

I suppose i better read Mr Benders posts, there might be an exam at the end of it. I going to to need a few hours though, and i need to take notes. See you latter.

[Allen Herbert]

See, i knew there was a reason why i liked my mate Jeff, he loves and misses me...bucket loads.

 

I suppose i better read Mr Benders post, there might be an exam on it, don't won't to fail. See you all in a few hours, better take notes.

 

PS i hope M Dixon does'nt get some sort of condition..he seems awfully annoyed.

[d._p.1]

Michael, to make my point more clear: it's not even up to artists to decide what is art. As long as what they make is not recognised as such, they are not artists. Get it? So just enjoy what you like and leave others to enjoy what they like. Totalitarian thought-systems are a thing of the past. <br><br>On this forum, the 'art'-question is only relevant for a guy like Ethan Prague who makes pictures (btw beautiful pictures!) that should - and most likely will - find a welcome market in some or other art scene.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Michael,

It boils down to this: the world and its possibilities are larger than your

comprehension. just because you don't one branch of photography only means you

don't see it. Demeaning what you don't comprehend for whatever psychological or

reasons you have with doesn't make that work "trite", the work of a "dumb animal", or

"polluting". It only means you are incapable of looking at things in a different way. I

believe that there is an old Russian proverb that translates into English as: "Forget the

past and lose one eye. See only the past and you go blind in both eyes"

[ellis_vener_photography]

from the rewrite desk:<P>

 

Michael, It boils down to this: the world and its possibilities are larger than your

comprehension. just because you don't like one branch of photography only means

that you don't like it. Demeaning what you don't comprehend for whatever

psychological or reasons you have doesn't make that work "trite", the work of a

"dumb animal", or "polluting". It only means you are incapable of looking at things in

a different way and see value there. I believe that there is an old Russian proverb that

translates into English as: "Forget the past and lose one eye. See only the past and

you go blind in both eyes" My source for that proverb is Aleksandr Isaevich

Solzhenitsyn's <U>The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary

Investigation. </U>

[zora_suleman]

D.P. saying 'it's not even up to artists to decide what is art. As

long as what they make is not recognised as such, they are not

artists', reminds me of Tracy Emin's answer to a question from

David Frost, who asked why we should recognise her work as

art? She replied 'Because I say it is'. He just made that stuttering

noise which he is known for, and which I can't replicate in written

form. Way to go, girl.

 

Z

[cw_wright]

Mr. Bender,

If you feel this way about Winogrand, how does Eggleston strike you?

If that is not appreciable for you then there is always Friedlander. They must give you fits and starts.

[harry_akiyoshi]

This man is infuriating! Michael, I give up. If studium/punctum is all you got out of Barthes, there's no point in having this discussion with you. He's deveoping some ideas in Camera Lucida that are potentially incredibly rich -- the beginnings of a postmodern understanding of photography.

 

What you seem to value in your examples are formal elements, not content. Series of repeating lines, a particular geometry. We could make drawings of many of these elements as nothing but lines and shapes. In fact, a lot of abstract art does exactly that. The primary reason that postmodernism came to be is that this is a dead end, artistically. If art need only have aesthetic value, it need not have meaning. And if it means nothing, why the hell look at it? On an instinctive level, we want art to do something. Only very recently in history has it been argued that art should exist for it's own sake, only to be beautiful, or aesthetically cohesive, or whatever the hell you suppose art to be. Winogrand's work predates postmodernism (more or less, at least postmodern criticism), but nevertheless is often more about the interplay of signifiers than it is about shapes and lighting. Eggleston is even more so. If you don't get it, I think it's because you're evaluating it with criteria forty years out of date. It's impossible to argue with you because neither of us accepts any of the same basic values for what a photograph should be. This discussion is pointless, and I'm through with it.

[Brad_]

MB's gotta be loving this - all the attention...

[bobtodrick]

Gee Bender...it's so nice that you are out there deciding what we all should be thinking. Ranks you right up there with the Pope (who also makes pronouncements on things he has no actual experience with). Problem is...I don't buy his meanderings...I sure as hell don't buy yours.

[nesrani]

Not just Camera Lucida, of course, Mythologies is rich soil for reflection on the way images (in the widest sense) permeate and dominate our thinking. "Le Guide Bleu" is one of my favourites, and "Le Tour Eiffel" is also highly suggestive. I'd also suggest that Kafka (the final chapter of Der Verschollene) has much to offer an understanding of Winogrand in particular, along with Benjamin's essay on the Storyteller. Just some of my favourites.

[michael_bender]

True, this thread is a study material (and exam questions must be issued at the end of it) - in psychological defences. The whole freudian bunch of them is here.<br>

Apart from opinion on Winogrand, the understanding of form as creator of art is pretty much commonplace, uncontroversial, self-consistent, and can be found in practically every textbook around<br>

However, there are 2 taboos in this thread: (a) never concede G.W. is anything but a Great Artist and (b) never ever agree with M.B., whatever he says.<br>

Naturally, the multiple mouth-farters neither demonstrated G.W.'s worth either in terms of the explained understanding - nor anyone could offer any coherent alternative reasoning. In a similar way, no one could offer reasoning, REASONING, not a display of Freudian defences, against "art is play with perception" thesis.<p>

So good luck in your murky world, spend your time happily yapping at obvious. Rule number one: whatever M.B. says is wrong. Let's conduct a little experiment<br>

<b> Earth is not flat - says M.B. in Leica forum</b> Any responses?

[d._p.1]

Zora, nice to hear that Tracey Enim had that answer ready. It has been one of the topoi, or stock topics, among artists since time immemorial, including, interestingly, the reaction of the 'connoisseur' interviewer. Artists have often had a tough fight with the market, making the buyers believe they should change their taste instead of the other way round. Rembrandt is quoted as saying "it's finished when I say it's finished" - about a 'rough' painting where the bare canvas is still visible in large parts (and actually plays a beautiful role in the picture) much to the dismay of most less-educated viewers at the time. I wouldnt be surprised if it's originally a Greek anecdote (I once did a paper on the stock artist stories, mostly about the Greek painter Apelles, centuries before Chr, and the way these stories had seeped through into the renaissance - Tracey Enim was beyond the scope of the paper). All in all, artists are expected to play the role of innovator, to amaze or shock their patrons, act <b>as if</b> they're independent, and Tracey Enim's story of course makes that point very well. I like her work very much. darn... i hate long responses... sorry... it's late...

[bobtodrick]

Sure, I'll respond Michael (M.B. proclaims earth flat)...this in fact proves my earlier post about the Pope. This (flat earth analogy) is about as stupid as the Popes' (Vatican) recent statement that condoms are useless fighting AIDS in third world countries, so don't use them. You and he should get together...could probably put us right back in the dark ages.

[d._p.1]

well, my dear Michael, that you're wrong IS obvious! LOL!

[ramig]

Oh, My God, this i***t really thinks that he is getting attention because of what he

says, rather than because of his patronizing, childlish and often racist comments that

use sophisticated words out of any meaningful context: "art is a reflection of brain

structures that we but passive subjects of. success is the ability to be an obedient

soldier of such structures". that is great philosophy. Mr. Blender, calm down,

everything is going to be ok. we all love you. (did I mention that Hitler was a

vegeterian?)

[ellis_vener_photography]

Having A.) never said anything like Winogrand was always anything but a great

photographer & B.) agreed with you about the quality of the Ronis & Boubat images

you posted. makes me wonder if you are capable of reading. Or is it that you are one

of those people who must always cast yourself as a victim in order to justify your

bullying, hectoring, & name calling.

 

All anybody has said (at the core of the numerous posts in this thread thatactually

address aesthetic & intellectual issues) is that

we disagree without your crude, dehumanizing & demeaning assessments of

Winogrand (friedlander, Arbus, et. al.) and with your simplistic aesthetic criteria.

Instead of engaging in discussion in the issues you raise you choose to continually

insult everyone who dares to disagree with you on these grounds.

 

I think Mr. Bender that you have built quite a monument to yourself with this two

threaded discussion. I think anyone who reads it will get a very clear idea of the type

of person you are and of what your beliefs are.

[ramig]

Dear Elllis,

I hope you realize that at least for some, it is not extremely interesting to get into a

substantial theoretical debate with someone who have claimed in previous posts that

any criticism of Riefenstahl?s work results of the refusal of "Hollywood Jews" to accept

her success, and when pointed out that it is a stupid statement (as many other

similar statements he made) replied by citing his I.Q. results that he got in the

Physics department that he claims to be working at. I read your insightful comments

above and really enjoyed them. I did not hear you mentioning your title, profession

etc. in order to convince anybody in what you say, neither I heard you telling anybody

what is your I.Q. or referring to yourself as E.V, quoting yourself, and referring to

your words as if they have a significant place in the history. According to any

academic standards I ever encountered, even in cases that someone has something to

say it is extremely embarrassing to refer to oneself in such a manner. But I hope you

don't mean to criticize anybody who refuses to participate in an aesthetical debate

with the annoying guy and just call him to keep his mouth shut. To answer the guy is

like to answer questions of college kids in class (and definitely not the best of them).

it is something at least some of us do to earn our living, not in our pleasure time.

[vic_.]

How about them Knicks?

[akochanowski]

I've seen Bender use this crude, bullying attack on many other occasions. No amount of reasoning will get through, nor will you find an acknowledgment of respect for anyone who he considers "dumber" than he, i.e., everyone here. Why? The man is a sociopath. Why anyone engages him is a mystery.

[travis1]

"mouth-farters"?.

 

You know, Bender, you obviously know your arty intellectual stuff and all but the way you treat forumers by using such terms as above has totally negated whatever you want to bring across. Is that how you communicate in real life? Calling people names when they don't agre with you? Who said GW was a GREAT ARTIST anyway?

 

Likewise, F you! and have a nice day.

[michael_bender]

There are certain principles of correct argument.<br>

Supposing prof. A states that dalgotbricks are similar to dilbarskz when they crinq zacbac.<br>

Prof B. acknowledges the internal consistency of it (no logical self-contradictions), and then can dispute or test the proposition in many ways. For example, in what respects they are similar? Is there a (refuting) example of a dalgotbrick dissimilar to ..... when....? He can further study when do dilbarksz crinq zacbac - and so on.<br>

All these (and many others) are sane, legitimate responses.<p>

Let's look at our symposium so far. To the statement about dalgotbricks professor Dixon snorts that he does not accept the preconceived and preposterous idea that dilbarskz crinq at all. For it to continue to be a legitimate discussion, he must have followed with (a) refutation of prof A.'s evidence - that supports dilbarskz do crinq or (b) offer another consistent view. Nope, in our little group they just stop at yelling - you are wrong, and that is that.<br>

Professor Pitman takes the floor. "If you've read Strombtz and Isquebsz, you'd see the wrong of your ways" - "I've read it, and it happens they have a chapter on dilbarskz crinqing" - answers A - "Oh, no, I meant not that concrete chapter, just a starting point - then you'd understand how stupid you are." -- "And philosophers Nipp, Morp,not even mentioning Prusq. Then you'd just start understanding" - adds another one with a flowery name<br>

Something wrong here? First, it's obvious they avoid being precise, second, the list is kind of arbitrary, having nothing to do with the discipline in question - and of course, those pompous pronouncements do not guarantee our learned opponents leafed through 5 yards of shelf footage themselves. But everything goes in our "discussions", doesn't it?<br>

"You overintellectualize relations between dalgotbricks and dilbarskz" - muses another one. It's not about dissecting those mechanical similarities, the less rules there are, the more one feels liberated. Come on, be open about it!"<P>

There's no need to continue. There's no need to reply to each non sequitur, bluff, attempt to stand above (you should learn that...) without a shred of reasoning behind, regression (i.e. going childish), avoidance, ot outright crude smear. <br>

Actually, the public out to curse and smear - because as the most stupid and incoherent of them admitted, they are here for a different agenda - is an interesting gang. They are here "to get him", personally, irrespective of the question discussed - as a kind of revenge or follow-up after a previous thread.

So, my responses to "Rami G.", "Kochanowski", and - unfortunately for him - Vener are not to follow. Anyone who decides to see "antisemitism" in this thread is junk and not to be talked to.<p>

So this is about it. For discussion some reason, logic - or even common sense - are necessary. Just barking "no", or turning upon the author disqualify.<br>

P.S. The idea that art, speech, music exploits built-in perceptual mechanisms is a platitude and represents <i>cognitive</i> approach, one of approaches developing fastest now.