Why did Gary Winogrand photograph that? NYT article

[chip j]

"What an unclean lot has risen to the top".

 

[CMoore]

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?

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.?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

As usual for threads about GW, where will be one clueless person with Eric Kim quote.

On regular people note, couple of days ago my mother in law took our Winogrand's book with her to study it.
Her first impression was good. She is open minded and gifted in visual arts person.

 

[NB23]

The thing is, all these discussions about winogrand that come up every 3-6 months on various forums create and fortify the myth. That’s how this stuff goes.

And I agree, he knew the right people. That’s also how these things work. You could be a true master and if you don’t give a sheet about the game, or even if you do give a shiat but can’t be lucky enough, you can forget about the recognition.

The work itself is 10%, the rest is about selling your soul to the devil.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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.

 

[slackercrurster]

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) This is something these overrated photogs all have this in common...work that wont offend people. This is a big plus for curators.

 

[removed account4]

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.

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 ...

 

[faberryman]

In the long run, Winogrand will be judged by his images. History may or may not be so kind.

 

[NB23]

You mean no summicron SUPREMACY?

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.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

You mean no summicron SUPREMACY?

Hard to tell. I looked at my images with 50mm lenses on BW and here is no S. But on color film it well might be .

 

[faberryman]

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.

Why should he be given credit for not being a gear snob? What other personality defects should he be given credit for not having?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Why should he be given credit for not being a gear snob? What other personality defects should he be given credit for not having?

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.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

In the long run, Winogrand will be judged by his images. History may or may not be so kind.

He is already judged by his images. Great documentary of America. But I was not impressed with his work in Greece .

 

[jtk]

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 ...

jnanian, you've nailed it: bad people is bad people all around the world.

 

[removed account4]

jnanian, you've nailed it: bad people is bad people all around the world.

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 says
it might have just been bait, who knows, ifi it is true its kind of sad, it paints all photographs in a bad light when someone visibly flaunts they don't care ..

 

[eddie]

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...

 

[CMoore]

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......
Their Mom knew a guy that worked at Ford Motors
You Father was friends with a guy that worked at IBM
Your sister dated a guy that was Superintendent for a plumbing contractor
The uncle of your girlfriend was the amp tech for Keith Richards
Your neighbor owns a Grading and Paving company
Your teacher is married to a woman that is CEO of a solar panel company
Etc etc etc
Who among us did not get ahead because of who the knew, who their parents were, the color of their skin, the money their family had, because they live in a climate where you can work all year,.?
Who hear started with no advantages, did not know anybody of import and never got a hand up from anyone.?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Who among us is not where they are at because...

...

Ecclesiastes 9:11 King James Version (KJV)

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

 

[awty]

I like his pictures, they look simple, but are not. They all seem to have a human quality.

Didn't read the article, as most I read seem to be too subjective.

 

[jtk]

He made quite a few interesting photos. Right?

Happily his kind of photography has now shifted to Facebook and more narrowly targeted sites, such as Photrio.

 

[eddie]

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?

 

[jtk]

What “kind” of photography are you defining, and why should we be happy it has shifted to the site’s you’ve mentioned?

Eddie, you don't need to be happy. I like the graphics you've posted, would love to see serigraphs.

Today is a printing day for me...all day. Color and B&W. Inkjet.

 

[eddie]

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.

 

[jtk]

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..apologize but.." Amusing formulation LOL. Perhaps you've failed to notice my frequent and very specific praise for individual entries in Media.

 

[removed account4]

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/

i see and understand what you are saying ... but even monkies with add and a camera are able to produce shakespeare on a typewriter !
i don't really keep up with people, don't really know who ralph gibson is, and only knew who winograd was because of the PBS special with him
and his studio and all that film while suggested some people hate him because of sour grapes it was mostly because he is one of those people put on a pedestal
like a golden cow that people who do street work aspire to be like ( like a 1970s /60s .. HCB ) .. and he has made it / yet a lot of the haters ( including him apparently ) don't have much of a reason to hate
( you have actually posted something interesting at least ) ... other than he is someone who made it, and they are still trying. and maybe winograd said that
not so nice stuff to the MIT students because he knew gibson was the real deal and he was jelous ?
maybe he knew the trick was to have sheer volume ... and to be a monkey with a camera out the window. ?