Some Winogrand

[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

[sepiareverb]

Thank you Harry.

[dfoo]

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

[RayPA]

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

/

[35photo]

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]

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...

[Renzsu]

Thanks for sharing!

[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.

[gns]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

[35photo]

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

[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.

[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.

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.

[sepiareverb]

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.

[gns]

Note: The other picture of the couple with the monkeys is not by Winogrand, but Tod Papageorge. The man in that photo at the left of the frame with the smoke and the camera IS Winogrand.

[filmfan]

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

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!

[biggambi]

Interesting links, i much enjoyed the MIT link. As for the conversation in this thread regarding shooting either judiciously vs prolifically, I see no reason to consider one method any greater than the other. I do believe that you need to shoot with a rangefinder at a certain threshold or greater to be proficient. The mechanical side needs to be subordinate to the actual act of seeing the moment and composing the picture. Unless we are speaking of static objects of course. Beyond that, one may do as their whim dictates.

Obsessive is a strong word that is speaking about the motive behind the act. I do not know what his motive was beyond capturing life on film. What I would say is that if we only saw a collection of his finest photos, and we never knew about the number of photos taken outside of them. Would we even think to bring this question up? Probably not. I think we either like or dislike his photos on their own merit, after the editing process.

Kindest Regards,

[Harry Lime]

When I was studying traditional character animation we used to have life drawing classes several days a week. My drawing teacher always used to say that you had 100,000 bad drawings in you and you had to get them out, before you have a clue about what you are doing.

When I started to shoot on the street I shot about 1500 rolls over the course of the first 4 years. 99.99% of it was crap, but I learned a lot and one day it all clicked. I'm still shooting and learning, but at least now I sort of have an inkling of what I am doing.

[jbf]

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.

[jbf]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

When I was studying traditional character animation we used to have life drawing classes several days a week. My drawing teacher always used to say that you had 100,000 bad drawings in you and you had to get them out, before you have a clue about what you are doing.

When I started to shoot on the street I shot about 1500 rolls over the course of the first 4 years. 99.99% of it was crap, but I learned a lot and one day it all clicked. I'm still shooting and learning, but at least now I sort of have an inkling of what I am doing.

Harry Lime,

what do you do now? reason I ask is because I work in the animation industry now, albeit a much more modern and different industry than before (and no longer traditional 2D animation)

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

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,

[Bill Pierce]

Harry - Thanks for starting this thread. I've been traveling, mud slides on the West Coast and closed airports on the East Coast; so it hasn't been a very efficient trip, and I didn't check into the site for a few days.

[filmfan]

I believe this is turning into one of those "what is the definition of art" debates... with an attempt to not perpetuate this new topic, I wish to ad that many highly regarded artists do not fulfill both sides of the final product: 1) the creation, and 2) the presentation. Some do neither.
Christopher Crawford clearly proves that Winogrand only fulfilled #1 while Szarkowski (or whatever) did #2 for him. This, however, does not mean that Winogrand did not produce great images!
Without an appeal to the masses, I am in the camp that believes Winogrand's technique, as unique as it is, does not revoke his title as a great photographer.