Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: Rob C on February 18, 2014, 03:32:31 pm
-
From a conversation between Garry Winogrand and Bil Moyers.
GW: " I think that there isn't a photograph in the world that has any narrative ability. Any of 'em. They do not tell stories - they show you what something looks like. To a camera. The minute you relate this thing to what was photographed - it's a lie. It's two-dimensional. It's the illusion of literal description. The thing has to be complete in the frame, whether you have the narrative information or not. It has to be complete in the frame. It's a picture problem. It's part of what makes things interesting."
-
Aaaah, THAT man. Self absorption to the nth degree.
So, what of the narrative qualities of imagery that have fostered the movies and television. It may well be delusional, but what is wrong with that. Sartre, Camus and I all think that all of life is delusional. But we can be comforted and content with delusion, so what does it matter?
-
It would be interesting to know when this conversation took place, Rob. Late in his relatively short life Garry began to lose contact. As you probably know, after he died 2,500 undeveloped rolls of his film turned up. If you look at his later work you see that what he was saying about the narrative ability of photographs applied to most of his own work at that time, though there were a few gems among the stuff. But I agree with him that a shot has to be complete within the frame. That's one problem I often see over in User Critiques, a frame that's not complete within itself. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. Garry is one of my all-time favorite photographers. Some of his earlier work is astonishing, and contains loads of narrative information. Anybody who wants to do street photography would be well advised to become intimately familiar with Garry's work.
I love the story about the time he was lecturing to a group of museum curators. He had, I think, this photograph projected on the screen: http://adequatebird.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Garry-Winogrand-imgSrv_020.jpg. With his nose in the air, one curator who didn't really think of photography as art asked, "Mr. Winogrand, how long did it take you to produce this 'work of art?'" Garry turned around and looked at the picture for a minute and then said, "I think it was 1/100th of a second."
-
Aaaah, fresh words from the sciolist dilettante.
-
I don't care what these people think.
I am the greatest.
Cheers
~Chris
:P
-
I love the story about the time he was lecturing to a group of museum curators. He had, I think, this photograph projected on the screen: http://adequatebird.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Garry-Winogrand-imgSrv_020.jpg. With his nose in the air, one curator who didn't really think of photography as art asked, "Mr. Winogrand, how long did it take you to produce this 'work of art?'" Garry turned around and looked at the picture for a minute and then said, "I think it was 1/100th of a second."
Great anecdote.
-
But I agree with him that a shot has to be complete within the frame. That's one problem I often see over in User Critiques, a frame that's not complete within itself. "
Russ - would you mind expanding a bit on what you mean by 'complete within the frame'. Don't you think that there are images for which the narrative is carried by hints at what might be outside of the frame? I'm thinking about some of the images in your Ghost series for instance. Or am I being too literal?
Chuck
-
It would be interesting to know when this conversation took place, Rob. Late in his relatively short life Garry began to lose contact. As you probably know, after he died 2,500 undeveloped rolls of his film turned up. If you look at his later work you see that what he was saying about the narrative ability of photographs applied to most of his own work at that time, though there were a few gems among the stuff. But I agree with him that a shot has to be complete within the frame. That's one problem I often see over in User Critiques, a frame that's not complete within itself. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. Garry is one of my all-time favorite photographers. Some of his earlier work is astonishing, and contains loads of narrative information. Anybody who wants to do street photography would be well advised to become intimately familiar with Garry's work.
I love the story about the time he was lecturing to a group of museum curators. He had, I think, this photograph projected on the screen: http://adequatebird.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Garry-Winogrand-imgSrv_020.jpg. With his nose in the air, one curator who didn't really think of photography as art asked, "Mr. Winogrand, how long did it take you to produce this 'work of art?'" Garry turned around and looked at the picture for a minute and then said, "I think it was 1/100th of a second."
http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/06/interview-garry-winogrand-excerpts-with.html
Apologies; I should have posted the link.
Rob C
-
I love the story about the time he was lecturing to a group of museum curators. He had, I think, this photograph projected on the screen: http://adequatebird.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Garry-Winogrand-imgSrv_020.jpg. With his nose in the air, one curator who didn't really think of photography as art asked, "Mr. Winogrand, how long did it take you to produce this 'work of art?'" Garry turned around and looked at the picture for a minute and then said, "I think it was 1/100th of a second."
That's a great image - in my opinion - and a fine example of 'street' not doing anyone any harm. I can see it as encouragement to go out there hunting serendipity. It's unfortunate that so much 'street' contains elements of cruelty and what seems to be expression of testosterone-laden visual aggression. Maybe my own testosterone pumps never functioned well enough, but I can't say I ever felt any desire to be aggressive with the camera... definitely not a street-fightin' man!
Rob C
-
Russ - would you mind expanding a bit on what you mean by 'complete within the frame'. Don't you think that there are images for which the narrative is carried by hints at what might be outside of the frame? I'm thinking about some of the images in your Ghost series for instance. Or am I being too literal?
Chuck
Chuck, The best I can do is say that the picture has to be a gestalt: "A configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that it cannot be described merely as a sum of its parts." Yes, there may be hints, even strong hints at what's outside the frame. The picture, "Las Animas," a collection of storage tanks that I shot seven years ago outside the city of that name in southeastern Colorado certainly implies that more of the tanks lies outside the frame, but the parts of the tanks inside the picture, and the hairy-looking ladder up the side of one tank convey, to me at least, an experience that's more than the sum of the picture's parts: sort of an H.P. Lovecraft nightmare. There are very strong hints at what's outside the frame, but what's outside the frame is immaterial to the gestalt.
I guess I'd echo what Alan Greenspan said after a lecture he gave to a senate committee : "If I have made myself clear, then I've misspoken."
-
But I agree with him (Winogrand) that a shot has to be complete within the frame. That's one problem I often see over in User Critiques, a frame that's not complete within itself.
My friend Bruce, an illustrator & sculptor who (like me) takes photos mainly for the sheer pleasure of doing it, prefers triptychs to single images. He often does this with drawings too. I wonder if some of the people who post in the Critiques section might be series photographers who either don't realize it or who feel compelled to follow the prevalent norm?
I do like photos that are complete unto themselves. That Winogrand is a classic. But I also like groups of photos that might not stand alone quite so well but still make a complete collective whole.
-Dave-
-
I agree with you Dave. I like sequences too. But I'd call that documentation or reportage. It's not quite the same thing as that single photograph that's complete within the frame. By the way, Elliott Erwitt has done some hilarious sequences. The one I like best is a series of three where a man with a dog energetically throws a stick into a pond for the dog and the dog just sits there and stares at it.
-
I agree with you Dave. I like sequences too. But I'd call that documentation or reportage. It's not quite the same thing as that single photograph that's complete within the frame. By the way, Elliott Erwitt has done some hilarious sequences. The one I like best is a series of three where a man with a dog energetically throws a stick into a pond for the dog and the dog just sits there and stares at it.
That's why some dogs eventually get stuffed: failure to perform. Poor mutt.
;-)
Rob C
-
...Garry is one of my all-time favorite photographers. Some of his earlier work is astonishing, and contains loads of narrative information. Anybody who wants to do street photography would be well advised to become intimately familiar with Garry's work.
I love the story about the time he was lecturing to a group of museum curators. He had, I think, this photograph projected on the screen: http://adequatebird.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Garry-Winogrand-imgSrv_020.jpg. With his nose in the air, one curator who didn't really think of photography as art asked, "Mr. Winogrand, how long did it take you to produce this 'work of art?'" Garry turned around and looked at the picture for a minute and then said, "I think it was 1/100th of a second."
I will agree wholeheartedly about Mr. Winogrand and his work.
As for self absorption to the nth degree, I think that description fits the nose in the air curator (quote, above) like a second skin.
-
From a conversation between Garry Winogrand and Bil Moyers.
GW: " I think that there isn't a photograph in the world that has any narrative ability. Any of 'em. They do not tell stories - they show you what something looks like. To a camera. The minute you relate this thing to what was photographed - it's a lie. It's two-dimensional. It's the illusion of literal description. The thing has to be complete in the frame, whether you have the narrative information or not. It has to be complete in the frame. It's a picture problem. It's part of what makes things interesting."
I disagree with Winogrand.
Some photos have to be explained. https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/12197590215/in/set-72157625796644064/
Some don't. https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/12197936803/in/set-72157625796644064/
-
Depends, Alan. If the photograph is a work of art it needs to stand on its own feet without explanation. What you're saying is that you've made some pictures you'd not consider to be works of art. Don't feel too uncomfortable about that, we all do it from time to time.
-
Whether they're works of art have nothing to do with whether they work or don't work without a separate narrative.
-
Aaaah, THAT man. Self absorption to the nth degree.
So, what of the narrative qualities of imagery that have fostered the movies and television. It may well be delusional, but what is wrong with that. Sartre, Camus and I all think that all of life is delusional. But we can be comforted and content with delusion, so what does it matter?
The movies and television, and the captioned Life and National Geographic magazine picture stories folks of my age were told were the apotheosis of documentary photography, add drama, which is the fake, uh, err, I mean 'storytelling' part.
If you have to be told what the photo is about, either verbally or by it being placed in a dramatic context, then the photo wasn't standing by itself as a singular work of [attempted]craft or art, was it?
-
Here is one my favorite quotes.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/a3d3ecc0f6f49fa9dfe8fcc646756844/tumblr_mmgu7lazYp1sn6ihao1_r1_1280.jpg)
-
Most of what Winogrands shot was garbage. He had a few nice shots. The same handful of pix that is always brought out when his name is discussed. (Ladies talking on a bench, feeding the elephant, acrobat in a parade, etc.) He was just a terrible photog. He was great at making lots of junk shots, he should get an award for that.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Garry-WINOGRAND-Women-Are-Beautiful-c-1970-Printed-1981-Silver-Print-SIGNED-/320947133342?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item4ab9f09b9e
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Garry-WINOGRAND-Women-Are-Beautiful-c-1970-Printed-1981-Silver-Print-SIGNED-/321141031135?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item4ac57f40df
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Garry-WINOGRAND-Women-Are-Beautiful-LOS-ANGELES-1961-Silver-Print-SIGNED-/321236085770?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item4acb29ac0a
If you ever get a chance to see his rodeo book you can feast your eyes on page after page of absolute crap.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Garry-Winogrand-Stock-Photographs-Fort-Worth-Show-and-Rodeo-Texas-HC-DJ-1st-ED-/151282526318?pt=Antiquarian_Collectible&hash=item233924286e
-
Most of what Winogrand shot was garbage.
Most of what everyone shoots is garbage. Even me. Even you. The best Winogrands are among my favorites by anyone.
;)
-Dave-
-
Actually this can be said about most famous photographers. I've notice that whenever I check, it's always the same pictures they are more famously identified with and which draw the highest prices. It's usually a dozen maybe two dozen pictures. That's it. The upside of that is we only need that many too to become famous like them. The downside is that we have to shoot as many bad pictures as they did as well to get there.
-
Actually this can be said about most famous photographers. I've notice that whenever I check, it's always the same pictures they are more famously identified with and which draw the highest prices. It's usually a dozen maybe two dozen pictures. That's it. The upside of that is we only need that many too to become famous like them. The downside is that we have to shoot as many bad pictures as they did as well to get there.
Alan,
The same goes for painters.....only they have 3-5 paintings that speak to the ages!
Peter
-
Peter's right, Alan. And the other thing to note is that, relative to painting, photography is a very young art. History's great paintings have been culled by time and public interest to a very few. Consider that at the time the Impressionists were being spurned by the art powers in France, the painters whose work those same powers were pushing are now pretty much known only to art historians. The culling process is still going on for photographs. I think we're just about there for Atget's work, but we haven't finished the job for people like Cartier-Bresson or Ansel Adams, and certainly not for their successors.
(We're also haven't yet culled Jackson Pollock's drippings.)
-
I love the story about the time he was lecturing to a group of museum curators. He had, I think, this photograph projected on the screen: http://adequatebird.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Garry-Winogrand-imgSrv_020.jpg. With his nose in the air, one curator who didn't really think of photography as art asked, "Mr. Winogrand, how long did it take you to produce this 'work of art?'" Garry turned around and looked at the picture for a minute and then said, "I think it was 1/100th of a second."
I thought, as I read this paragraph, that his answer was going to be something to the effect of: "My whole lifetime, up until now"