Some Winogrand

Harry Lime · 02-08-2010

Two interesting links over at 2point8.whileseated.org

Reconsidering Winogrand

http://2point8.whileseated.org/2010/...ing-winogrand/

A link to an mp3 of Winogrand giving a lecture at MIT.

http://assets.whileseated.org/mp3/Ga...d-MIT_1974.mp3

sepiareverb · 02-08-2010

Thank you Harry.

dfoo · 02-08-2010

I enjoyed the other image of the monkey couple... I'd love to see some of those contact sheets.

sepiareverb · 02-09-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfoo

I enjoyed the other image of the monkey couple... I'd love to see some of those contact sheets.

Really! After seeing the Robert Frank proofsheets, I bet Winogrands would be quite different. I wouldn't be surprised if he shot 20 frames of everything or just two.

RayPA · 02-08-2010

Cool. Thanks. I had not seen that photo of Winogrand photographing the monkey couple.

/

35photo · 02-08-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Two interesting links over at 2point8.whileseated.org

Reconsidering Winogrand

http://2point8.whileseated.org/2010/...ing-winogrand/

A link to an mp3 of Winogrand giving a lecture at MIT.

http://assets.whileseated.org/mp3/Ga...d-MIT_1974.mp3

This is great! The lecture is hilarious. It seems like the lecture was cut short, know where a full version might be?

Marko

Harry Lime · 02-08-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by 35photo

This is great! The lecture is hilarious. It seems like the lecture was cut short, know where a full version might be?

Marko

I think they ran out of tape...

35photo · 02-09-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I think they ran out of tape...

Its fitting....unfortunately. Winogrand has been one of my favs ever since my college professor first showed his work. He was a smart and witty guy that had no fear whatsoever. A brilliant photographer really a one of a kind person as well.

Marko

Renzsu · 02-09-2010

Thanks for sharing!

Pickett Wilson · 02-09-2010

Interesting essay. I've never been a fan of Winogrand, though. If you shoot a million exposures, the odds are that some are going to be extraordinary photos, despite yourself. Winogrand was obsessed with the act of photographing. Without the need to make a living, I'm not sure he would have cared if any of what he shot was ever printed.

gns · 02-09-2010

Lots of essays on Winogrand (and on many others) have been complied on the americansuburbx site...
http://www.americansuburbx.com/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson

If you shoot a million exposures, the odds are that some are going to be extraordinary photos, despite yourself.

Why does it matter how many bad pictures or failures he made in order to get the great ones? When you read a book, does it matter how many times the author rewrote a paragraph to get it just right? When you are at a concert, are you concerned with how many hours the musicians spent in rehearsals? Or how many songs they threw away in the process of getting the dozen that made that great album?

Winogrand's own answer to this..."Art is not judged in terms of industrial efficiency".

Cheers,
Gary

Harry Lime · 02-09-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson

Interesting essay. I've never been a fan of Winogrand, though. If you shoot a million exposures, the odds are that some are going to be extraordinary photos, despite yourself. Winogrand was obsessed with the act of photographing. Without the need to make a living, I'm not sure he would have cared if any of what he shot was ever printed.

The man shot obsessively for more than 30 years. I don't think he would have done that out of sheer neurosis.

RayPA · 02-09-2010

Lot's of great quotes in that taped lecture, including the tiresome and overused "I photograph to see what things look like ...."

His opinion of Ralph Gibson is pretty funny as is the contrast between Winogrand and the ultra-serious students who hang on his every word.

I've seen other interviews with GW and it can be frustrating, because he doesn't want to be pinned down and can be a knee-jerk contrarian, spending more time questioning the questioner. However, it's refreshing that he doesn't bore on and on about his "art". He is obviously someone who has put a good deal of thought into his craft. Between the battling, he offers up some interesting bits of insight.

/

filmfan · 02-09-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson

Interesting essay. I've never been a fan of Winogrand, though. If you shoot a million exposures, the odds are that some are going to be extraordinary photos, despite yourself. Winogrand was obsessed with the act of photographing. Without the need to make a living, I'm not sure he would have cared if any of what he shot was ever printed.

I always love a good irrational statement.

Pickett Wilson · 02-09-2010

filmfan, street shooting is a percentage game. The more you snap on the street, the better the odds of something turning up interesting. Winogrand shot everything that moved. To shoot as much film as he did, you simply have to be shooting constantly, obsessively.

furcafe · 02-09-2010

Life is a percentage game. Some get a higher percentage than others. Lots of people shoot as much as Winogrand, especially now w/digital, & haven't done as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson

filmfan, street shooting is a percentage game. The more you snap on the street, the better the odds of something turning up interesting. Winogrand shot everything that moved. To shoot as much film as he did, you simply have to be shooting constantly, obsessively.

filmfan · 02-09-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson

filmfan, street shooting is a percentage game. The more you snap on the street, the better the odds of something turning up interesting. Winogrand shot everything that moved. To shoot as much film as he did, you simply have to be shooting constantly, obsessively.

And I could respond similarly to this (as irrational), but I won't-- for the sake of preserving this thread's interest level to others.
Hopefully, you do not feel the same way about people who work hard in other aspects of life. Usually, the harder you work, the more you succeed. This, at least to me, is a respectable trait worthy of admiration, not condemnation.
I have the same last name as you.
Regards,

-Sam Wilson

Quote:

Originally Posted by furcafe

Life is a percentage game. Some get a higher percentage than others. Lots of people shoot as much as Winogrand, especially now w/digital, & haven't done as well.

Excellent point furcafe!

jbf · 02-09-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pickett Wilson

filmfan, street shooting is a percentage game. The more you snap on the street, the better the odds of something turning up interesting. Winogrand shot everything that moved. To shoot as much film as he did, you simply have to be shooting constantly, obsessively.

That is exactly what Winogrand himself said. If you dont photograph everything how do you know what your subconscious will see. If you are only choosing what to photograph consciously, then you are going to be missing the moments that really matter.

To me it is not the thousands of images that he shot that matter, its the images that he was able to edit down that culimnated into what he was thinking/feeling/and what stood out to him as a "body of work".

That is why I honestly believe that when someone else begins to edit his unfinished work, it is no longer truly Winogrands work. It is someone else putting their own feelings/emotions/and pre-conceptions into the work.

I dont think that is necessarily a bad thing, however.

Chriscrawfordphoto · 02-09-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbf

That is exactly what Winogrand himself said. If you dont photograph everything how do you know what your subconscious will see. If you are only choosing what to photograph consciously, then you are going to be missing the moments that really matter.

To me it is not the thousands of images that he shot that matter, its the images that he was able to edit down that culimnated into what he was thinking/feeling/and what stood out to him as a "body of work".

That is why I honestly believe that when someone else begins to edit his unfinished work, it is no longer truly Winogrands work. It is someone else putting their own feelings/emotions/and pre-conceptions into the work.

I dont think that is necessarily a bad thing, however.

The thing is Winogrand DIDN'T create a body of work out of all that. Hell, he left 9000 rolls of unprocessed film when he died, 3 yrs worth of shooting he never bothered to even look at. John Szarkowski is the real author of the Winogrand legacy, he directed the creation of Winogrands books, exhibits, and largely created the image of Winogrand the artist. Without Szarkowski's patronage, Winogrand would have been nothing. A.D. Coleman called Winogrand a monkey with a camera randomly snapping photos of anything, while his handler picked out the 'good stuff'. I agree,

-doomed- · 02-09-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

The thing is Winogrand DIDN'T create a body of work out of all that. Hell, he left 9000 rolls of unprocessed film when he died, 3 yrs worth of shooting he never bothered to even look at. John Szarkowski is the real author of the Winogrand legacy, he directed the creation of Winogrands books, exhibits, and largely created the image of Winogrand the artist. Without Szarkowski's patronage, Winogrand would have been nothing. A.D. Coleman called Winogrand a monkey with a camera randomly snapping photos of anything, while his handler picked out the 'good stuff'. I agree,

I think that your comment goes along with the thread recently about editing . Perhaps Winogrand was better for not ever looking at so much of his work, maybe he subconciously knew he'd be a terrible editor of his own work. I'm just guessing here as I can agree that its almost all someone else that crafted his image , with that said i still enjoy Winogrand's work and enjoy the stuff I've read and seen of him here and elsewhere.

Chriscrawfordphoto · 02-09-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by -doomed-

I think that your comment goes along with the thread recently about editing . Perhaps Winogrand was better for not ever looking at so much of his work, maybe he subconciously knew he'd be a terrible editor of his own work. I'm just guessing here as I can agree that its almost all someone else that crafted his image , with that said i still enjoy Winogrand's work and enjoy the stuff I've read and seen of him here and elsewhere.

Editing is central to photography. By the nature of the medium, photographers make many more exposures than they'll ever use, and the ability to quickly make multiple photos of a scene (unlike painting or drawing) encourages experimentation with composition that you don't see from painters. I think this is one of the things that makes photography interesting. Editing becomes a necessity because of the need to narrow it all down to a body of GOOD work for exhibition, publication, posterity. Winogrand shirked that responsibility and left it to people who had no idea what he would have chosen out of those thousands of rolls left behind to basically decide what is and is not a "Gary Winogrand Photograph"

RayPA · 02-09-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

Hell, he left 9000 rolls of unprocessed film when he died, 3 yrs worth of shooting he never bothered to even look at.

Really? Is it 9000 now?! This number keeps getting bigger and bigger. The first and last I heard (Winogrand book by Szarkowski, iirc) it was around 3000. Is 9000 accurate??

/

Chriscrawfordphoto · 02-09-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by RayPA

Really? Is it 9000 now?! This number keeps getting bigger and bigger. The first and last I heard (Winogrand book by Szarkowski, iirc) it was around 3000. Is 9000 accurate??

/

There were 3000 rolls unprocessed and 6000 that were developed but never proofed or printed. Winogrand didn't even look at them since he made proofsheets of his rolls before looking at them. So total he never saw, 9000

aizan · 02-09-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

A.D. Coleman called Winogrand a monkey with a camera randomly snapping photos of anything, while his handler picked out the 'good stuff'. I agree,

sounds like sour grapes to me. a.d. coleman disliked john szarkowski, who was much more influential at the time. it's all water under the bridge, now that szarkowski is dead and his influence waning.

shenkerian · 02-09-2010

Chris, I don't think anybody is arguing that Winogrand edited the 9500 rolls before he died. The controversial claim you made was that he wasn't responsible even for his finished work:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

The thing is Winogrand DIDN'T create a body of work out of all that. ... John Szarkowski is the real author of the Winogrand legacy, he directed the creation of Winogrands books, exhibits, and largely created the image of Winogrand the artist.

I'm genuinely curious what evidence you've got for those statements. I'd always had the impression that Winogrand was closely involved in making the selections for his books.