I am just guessing, and i do not have a Digital SLR, but......i would think That has already been problem for the last...10 Years.?With the amount of photos that can be taken digitally, Will the problem of sifting thru 'Digital negatives' be a similar issue for the future?
The curators had to invent a word to justify Winogrand's crappy work...snapshot aesthetics! Winogrand wasn't trying to emulate snapshots, he was just a lousy photog. Now, one thing about Winogrand's work is...it wont offend anyone.
Meyerowitz, Eggleston, Winogrand, Cindy Sherman (to some extent) They all have this in common. This is a big plus for curators...work that wont offend people.
At least he was not one of those bragging about his lux and cron.He has no problems with cheap Canon LTM lens on his second hand Leicas for decades.
Most of known street photographers from this era "knew right people". And nothing changed since then. For all photography. Or any business. It is called as "networking".
This is how most of the contracts signed.
You could call it as the system and continue to shoot weddings. Or you could do what he did, quit regular photography as source of the income and teach people to try to be different and try it by yourself.
And be honest about it.
Winograd told what those who are buying his prints are doing it as tax shelter. And he was not glorifying streets, but studying of America.
Just like Evans did and Frank did. At least two of them did it one same grand source, if I'm not mistaken. And did it well. I mean, to me their photography is great documentary.
You mean no summicron SUPREMACY?
Why should he be given credit for not being a gear snob? What other personality defects should he be given credit for not having?At least he was not one of those bragging about his lux and cron.He has no problems with cheap Canon LTM lens on his second hand Leicas for decades.
I'm not sure if money spending on film and paper instead of gear is the defect of personality. I like his method of film developing and his prints.Why should he be given credit for not being a gear snob? What other personality defects should he be given credit for not having?
In the long run, Winogrand will be judged by his images. History may or may not be so kind.
i guess the point is to offend people.. ?
now it makes perfect sense
why you said in a different thread
if it was a sacred ceremony that they said
no filming &c that you would do it anyways ...
i try to give people the benefit of the doubt when they say stuff like that .. s/he says it and doesn't respond to people questioning what s/he saysjnanian, you've nailed it: bad people is bad people all around the world.
Who among us is not where they are at because......He's made a lot of photographs I like, a lot I don't (no surprise considering how many he made). Some, I think, have grown on me, not because of any aesthetic value, but because of how they captured a time long past. Still, even my favorite photographers have made images I don't care for. I've made photographs I don't care for.
As for those who think it was "who he knew", it's important to realize that he only knew them because he had confidence in his work and desired to have them see his images. His "connections" didn't sneak into his home and look through his work. He made it available. No doubts. No fear. We should all be so confident...
Who among us is not where they are at because...
...
What “kind” of photography are you defining, and why should we be happy it has shifted to the site’s you’ve mentioned?Happily his kind of photography has now shifted to Facebook and more narrowly targeted sites, such as Photrio.
What “kind” of photography are you defining, and why should we be happy it has shifted to the site’s you’ve mentioned?
I’m just challenging you to be more specific in your statement. You have, on more than a few occasions, been generally demeaning about the work in the Gallery. Your post seemed to be more of the same. If I’ve misunderstood your posts, I apologize but, I doubt I’m the only one to do so.
I’m just challenging you to be more specific in your statement. You have, on more than a few occasions, been generally demeaning about the work in the Gallery. Your post seemed to be more of the same. If I’ve misunderstood your posts, I apologize but, I doubt I’m the only one to do so.
If you study the history of photography, and I mean really dig deep, you will find all kinds of interesting tidbits. My general impression of Winogrand isn't good. He knew the right people which is 90% of it.
If you apply any kind of logic to his work and the things he said over the years everything just falls apart and makes you question if he even really knew what he was doing or if he was just full of it. One of his famous quotes is he "photographed to see what things looked like photographed." He didn't develop thousands of rolls of film though, so that is totally b.s. It doesn't seem like he cared what things looked like photographed. Or he knew that what he was doing was basically worthless.
Later in his career he produced a ton of drivel. I've heard stories of him firing out a window with a motor drive just burning through film like some obsessive-compulsive monkey. He was washed up. If you read between the lines of what curators said about his later work, you will see they have to try hard to find anything salvageable for his reputation. It is all kind of sad. Just go back and reread what Szarkowski said about him, and Szarkowski was his friend!
I never had much of an opinion about Winogrand over the years. I was kind of neutral, until I heard a recording of what he said talking to MIT students about Ralph Gibson in the 70s. I found his words horribly ironic. Winogrand had no intention when he photographed. They were snapshots. Gibson's early work is about more than what is there, which is one hell of a feat in photography. At the time Gibson had just published his trilogy which is still considered a milestone in book publishing. Anyway, Winogrand was making fun of Gibson to the students of MIT and this is what he said about Gibson's photographs-"They are very dull. Go find an interesting photograph in his book, in any of his books. They're boring. On any terms, on their own terms. God forbid you should miss the point there is a title. They're no place." I kept this quote because when I heard it I was awestruck at the stupidity of it. I suspect Winogrand knew he was the emperor without clothes and Gibson was the real artist. Maybe Winogrand didn't understand anything beyond the surface.
I don't know about you guys but I'll take Gibson's work over the mushy crap that Winogrand produced. Gibson could also print, and made beautiful prints. Winogrand was a monkey with a camera, which is what A.D. Coleman said of him. Just because he was popular doesn't make him good.
And that isn't sour grapes on my end either. Just call it an informed opinion. Your opinion might differ.
If you want to read what A.D. Coleman wrote about Winogrand-
http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/2014/07/13/garry-winogrand-monkeycam-at-the-met/
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?