Garry Winogrand

[loman]

They All got developped after his death. John Szarkowski tells about how tedius it was to look through 300.000 photographs to try and find some good ones, of which, according to Szarkowski, there were surprisingly few. At the end of his life, winogrand seems to have taken pictures obsessively for the sake of taking pictures, what he was taken pictures of seems to have mattered little (Szarkowski tells about how frustrating it was to look at contact sheet after contact sheet, of seemingly random photographs).

 

[Shawn Rahman]

They All got developped after his death. John Szarkowski tells about how tedius it was to look through 300.000 photographs to try and find some good ones, of which, according to Szarkowski, there were surprisingly few. At the end of his life, winogrand seems to have taken pictures obsessively for the sake of taking pictures, what he was taken pictures of seems to have mattered little (Szarkowski tells about how frustrating it was to look at contact sheet after contact sheet, of seemingly random photographs).

As much as I admire much of Winogrand's work, ever since I learned about his obsessive shoot without thinking mentality, I've started to regard him less. Just for the sake of taking pictures and seeing what things look photographed? Sorry - not if 99% of what you shoot is simply not worthy.

 

[mabman]

Perhaps apocryphal, but I've read in a couple of places online (yes, I know, reader beware and all that) that he bought a motor winder for his Leica at some point later in his life, and some speculation that the increased automation encouraged him to take even more shots than he normally would.

 

[patrickjames]

I have been trying to get this Winogrand thing for a long time. I know he took some great pictures, but he has been elevated to a mythical figure by the mere fact that he left thousands of rolls undeveloped and that he wore sprocket holes into the pressure plate of a Leica, but for what purpose? The information above makes me wonder why he would photograph without knowing what his results were. It almost falls into the "spray and pray" line of photography. If he took hundreds of thousands of frames and one of the greatest curators in the history of photography had trouble finding a good image.... Hmmmmm...... I find it interesting nonetheless, and would like to read more about him. Has there been a biography yet? I am not trying to be negative here, I just find it curious.

Patrick

 

[loman]

My post is referring to the last three years of winogrand's life, when he was living in Califnornia. The information is from a Szarkowski essay in the winogrand book: "figments from the real world". It seems that Winogrand was depressed in this last period of his life, which accounts for his apathic picture taking.
In the same book Szarkowski says that winogrand even bought a 8x10 view camera, all though he never used it.
I would also like to add, that I'm a big fan of winogrand, and think his best work is some of the finest photography in the twentieth century.
Winogrand wasn't interested in taking pictures he knew, he wanted something different, his well known "modus operandi" was his answer to this problem.
I believe that in the end his working method took the place of artistic vision, but it doesn't make him a lesser artist in my mind.
Best Regards
Mads

 

[Lee Shively]

The fact that he shot so many rolls of film is really secondary to the fact that he created some iconic photographs during his relatively short lifetime.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Another question might be whether we can say that he shot a lot of film--measured, say, in miles per hour--relative to, say, a fashion photographer working in 35mm, a sports photographer or a wildlife photographer, or did he just spend more hours out working with the camera than most street photographers? Fashion less so, but sports, wildlife, and street are all areas where there are many random factors (mainly subject movement, shifting light, and moving obstructions) that can get in the say of getting a good photograph, so people do tend to shoot a lot of film.

In fashion, I think the motive to shoot a lot is in part personal style and in part the pressure to be productive and shoot a lot of products in a limited amount of time. Imagine you're shooting a catalogue that has a beach theme, and you're dealing with outdoor lighting, models and assistants being paid to be on set, and there are hotel and travel costs, and you're trying to use morning and late afternoon light--100 rolls of film a day seems like a modest expense and good insurance.

In a half-day of good bird photography, I usually shoot about 6-8 rolls of 36, and I'm pretty conservative. I'd say most serious bird photographers shoot at least twice that in the same amount of time, and probably more than twice now that most of them aren't using film.

Rather than thinking of Winogrand using the "spray and pray" method, I think he was just out there working hard. Maybe it was obsessive to work that hard, and there may have been irrational psychological motivations, but that's not so unusual for people who are very dedicated to what they do.

 

[Richard Wasserman]

Rather than thinking of Winogrand using the "spray and pray" method, I think he was just out there working hard. Maybe it was obsessive to work that hard, and there may have been irrational psychological motivations, but that's not so unusual for people who are very dedicated to what they do.

David,

I think you got it, success does not come without hard work. Photography done well is hard! And what's wrong with a little obsession? It works for me....

Richard Wasserman

 

[loman]

What we can conclude is simply that his way of working worked very well in achieving what he set out to do. And of course he was obsessed about his work, all great artists are.
My point was simply, that at the end of his life, he got depressed, he didn't feel the same anymore, he felt that he had lost the spark (all this according to Szarkowski, I never knew the person, so frankly I have no idea if any of it is true!), he got sick with cancer etc. etc.
I think he got so apathic about the whole thing that he switched to autopilot, and stopped caring too much about what he took pictures of (this at least is evidenced by the fact, that he seems to have cared very little, in the end, to see proofs of his final work. I think szarkowski says that besides the 3000 rolls of undevelopped film, there was another 3000 who had been developped, but hadn't been proofed)

 

[pentaxuser]

A couple of comments. If I had terminal cancer and shooting rather than developing and proofing was my "thing" then in the time I had left I think I'd want to do "my thing" as well. I watched father dying from cancer. He knew he was dying and I knew it but what he wanted to do before he lost his strength completely was buy and drive a new car, although his old car wasn't very old. It didn't make any sense to others but it made perfect sense to him. There are no car showrooms in heaven nor critiques of photography.

Even if I didn't have cancer then if I go out each day and shoot several rolls as opposed to several shots , I realy won't know what will be keepers until I look at them all again and doing this can wait until I either tire of taking shots which he may have thought would happen to him or until I get "too old" for the hustle and bustle of street photography but have many years or at least enough left to develop and proof as he may have thought before he know about his cancer.

I can easily appreciate " a method and sense in his madness" as they say


Finally what I like tomorrow after developing each film I take today and what I will like or think worthy in several months/years later might be two different things. He may have believed that his judgement on keepers got better the longer he waited before developing and proofing.

pentaxuser

 

[bjorke]

...he left thousands of rolls undeveloped and that he wore sprocket holes into the pressure plate of a Leica, but for what purpose?

Dead Link Removed

Has there been a biography yet?