Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Garry Winogrand said:  (Read 12260 times)

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1749
Re: Garry Winogrand said:
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2014, 04:48:46 PM »

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-
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1155
    • Flicker photos
Re: Garry Winogrand said:
« Reply #21 on: October 04, 2014, 11:36:38 PM »

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. 
Logged

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1139
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: Garry Winogrand said:
« Reply #22 on: October 05, 2014, 03:16:14 AM »

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 3-5 paintings that speak to the ages!

Peter
Logged
www.peterfiore.com

Canvas Colors Brushes  

A life in Art >  www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRsNaNM0ZeU

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8355
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Garry Winogrand said:
« Reply #23 on: October 05, 2014, 12:57:24 PM »

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.)

pluton

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
Re: Garry Winogrand said:
« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2014, 04:10:07 AM »

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"
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up