Garry Winogrand Quote - "Why I Photograph"

[Sal Favata]

Thought this quote attributed to 60s street photograph, Garry Winogrand, may be of interest for discussion. Naturally, there are a great many reasons--or combinations thereof--why we are drawn to photography, and those reasons may change, deepen, expand, and mature over time, especially as we experience all sorts of changing personal and social conditions throughout our lives.

I had trouble tracking down this quote that I heard a great many years ago. I like its rationale because it mirrors my own rather unsophisticated, non-tehnical, approach. It reminds me of the excitement of pouring over a roll of newly processed transparencies on my light table... just to see what's there.

Loosely paraphrased... "I photograph to see what things look like photographed."

I readily identify with this approach. Thoughts?

[Darin Boville]

I hate that quote. Then again I've never liked his work.

--Darin

[John Jarosz]

I remember him saying that in class. He certainly was his own person.

but:

Naturally, there are a great many reasons--or combinations thereof--why we are drawn to photography, and those reasons may change, deepen, expand, and mature over time, especially as we experience all sorts of changing personal and social conditions throughout our lives.

Whenever the discussion about a particular photograph got too esoteric (for him) he would say: "But the photograph is only light and shadow". That usually got everyone back to (his) subject.

John

[ic-racer]

Loosely paraphrased... "I photograph to see what things look like photographed."

Thoughts?

He is 'The Man!' After 30 years I am still excited by curiosity of wondering what things are going to look like in a photograph.

[John Jarosz]

Yes. And after all this time I never tire of watching a print come up in the developer. It's like watching a photograph that's a movie.

[David Karp]

It boils a lot of ideas/feelings down into a concise, if not completely informative, statement. I like it.

I photograph because it is fun, I like to work in the darkroom, and I like to see what the photographs look like when I am done. In other words, I like to see what I can create. I enjoy the entire process.

What else is there?

[Oren Grad]

Works for me.

You can find the idea in broader context about halfway down in this discussion: Garry Winogrand interview by Barbaralee Diamonstein (http://www.jnevins.com/garywinograndreading.htm)

[r.e.]

Loosely paraphrased... "I photograph to see what things look like photographed."

That is an extremely passive approach to photography. Given the number of undeveloped rolls he is said to have left, one might also question, if he made that statement, whether he was telling the truth.

[Nathan Potter]

My thought on that thought by Winogrand is that I pretty much know what the photograph is going to look like when I take it. It's called "previsualization" and after some 50,000 images I tend to subscribe to the concept.

The only "trap" in that previsualization concept is that when you get to know almost exactly what the print will look like - why bother to print it.

Thus my larger joy now is simply getting out and finding the scene. Perhaps if it's extraordinary I'll end up printing it.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[John NYC]

A lot of artists in every field say vaguely provocative broad statements. I have found, though, that almost to a person, when I find someone whose work I love in any field, they almost always are extremely articulate about their work, if they are the type that says anything at all. My explanation for this is that the same mushy-ness of thought that goes into pithy quotes like that is also the same brain behind the work they create.

[David Karp]

My thought on that thought by Winogrand is that I pretty much know what the photograph is going to look like when I take it. It's called "previsualization" and after some 50,000 images I tend to subscribe to the concept.

The only "trap" in that previsualization concept is that when you get to know almost exactly what the print will look like - why bother to print it.

Thus my larger joy now is simply getting out and finding the scene. Perhaps if it's extraordinary I'll end up printing it.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Nate,

Do you really mean that? Every photo you make matches up to your expectations when you made it? It is effective and achieves everything you wanted when you visualized it? You never make an error? You are never surprised? No mistakes?

Wouldn't you know it was extraordinary when you previsualized it? Why even make the rest of them? Or is going to the scene and going through the process of making a photo enjoyable even if the scene you find is not extraordinary.

I am not trying to provoke you. I am just trying to understand why you make all those other negatives, or if you are intentionally making an extreme statement, sort of the opposite of the Winogrand quote.

[cyrus]

Reminds me of the George Mallory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mallory) statement about why he climb mountains - "Because it's there!"
The "reward is in the journey" type of stuff.

[bob carnie]

I had the pleasure of viewing Paul Paletti's collection, and I must say one of Winogrands prints is right up their with the best prints I have ever seen, the image is breathtaking.
I now have to see more of his work to see if it was just a fluke or not.


I hate that quote. Then again I've never liked his work.

--Darin

[Darin Boville]

I had the pleasure of viewing Paul Paletti's collection, and I must say one of Winogrands prints is right up their with the best prints I have ever seen, the image is breathtaking.
I now have to see more of his work to see if it was just a fluke or not.

Do you remember which photograph it was? Why did you like it so much?

--Darin

[bob carnie]

It was an image of 5 people sitting on a bench communicating with each other, and the print quality was every bit as good as any print I have seen.
I never equated Garry Winogrand with such print quality and maybe this is what caught me completely off gaurd.
I am back in Louisville next week and will visits the gallery again to see this image once again.


Do you remember which photograph it was? Why did you like it so much?

--Darin

[Nathan Potter]

Nate,

Do you really mean that? Every photo you make matches up to your expectations when you made it? It is effective and achieves everything you wanted when you visualized it? You never make an error? You are never surprised? No mistakes?

Wouldn't you know it was extraordinary when you previsualized it? Why even make the rest of them? Or is going to the scene and going through the process of making a photo enjoyable even if the scene you find is not extraordinary.

I am not trying to provoke you. I am just trying to understand why you make all those other negatives, or if you are intentionally making an extreme statement, sort of the opposite of the Winogrand quote.

Good points that get me thinking a bit deeper. You know, after finding something extraordinary and spending great care in obtaining an image, most of the other images are a letdown. I usually know that at the time but am always driven to try to make something unusual out of the mundane. My extraordinary might average 1 out of 100 images and these are where I'll recognize the opportunity and previsualize the hell out of what I need on paper. Everything else is the journey, the delectable visual conundrum that makes up this earth, just simply the fresh air and wondering what's around the next bend in the road.

David, maybe you are too logical; maybe I'm too illogical.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[David Karp]

Nate, maybe so.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. Until recently, due to work, kids, life, etc., most of my photography had been with a digital point and shoot. With that camera, I just shot away, mostly making photos of my kids.

I take out one of the view cameras when I have the time, but I have become very selective when setting up the camera. Due to "previsualization" I just don't even set up the camera unless I think I really have something. Since taking up LF a bit over a decade ago, my "hit rate" has gone way up. My photos are more successful, and I still have a backlog of negatives that I really, really want to print. Even so, I still make my share of mistakes and sometimes wonder what I was thinking when I made that photo.

That was not the case when shooting 35mm or MF. With those cameras, I used to photograph things as an experiment, or to take a chance, or just for the heck of it. Sometimes, I got something that really surprised me, and was worth printing, and which I never had any idea of what I would get. That was fun too, even though the chance for a hit was much lower than when making an exposure that was well thought out.

Last winter, I purchased my first DSLR, and now I sometimes take that thing out and just bang away. My hit rate is down, and I do previsualize some of those photos, but I find it fun to photograph with abandon, even if I don't get anything that I really want to keep. Sometimes, just the act of photographing something is fun, without regard for the quality of the result. I always used to feel that I wanted to come home with something worthwhile, even before the view camera. Now, not so much. Don't get me wrong, I am happier if I have a keeper, but it is OK if not.

This is just a long-winded way of saying that I kind of understand Winogrand's quote on many levels. It is like the excitement we felt when we first started photographing, and we got the pics back in the Kodak mailer, or when the roll of negs first came out of the fixer. And he was doing something that is different than what most of us do, photographing people on the street. That happens more quickly and is less subject to previsualization.

Sometimes, you just don't know what you are going to get, and I am enjoying rediscovering this approach to photography while still doing the more intense LF thing.

[Brian Ellis]

With over 2,500 rolls of undeveloped film left at his death, I never understood how Winogrand could see what things looked like when they were photographed. Don't you have to develop the film to see the photographs?

[paulr]

With over 2,500 rolls of undeveloped film left at his death, I never understood how Winogrand could see what things looked like when they were photographed. Don't you have to develop the film to see the photographs?

Well, exactly. It's safe to say that by the end of his career (when he may have come a little unhinged) he cared less than most photographers about what things look like when photographed.

In general, I suspect there was a tiny seed of something in his remark, but it was mosly a clever and quotable way to dodge the question. Winogrand didn't seem to like talking about his art.

FWIW, I think Winogrand was a great photographer, and I don't believe that any of the great Modernists who claimed to "pre-visualize" their images really did so.

[Heroique]

Winogrand didn’t seem to like talking about his art.

Nor do I like listening to him talk about it – he might have appreciated that. ;^)

[Heroique]

Loosely paraphrased... “I photograph to see what things look like photographed.”


That is an extremely passive approach to photography. Given the number of undeveloped rolls he is said to have left, one might also question, if he made that statement, whether he was telling the truth.

The following excerpt from Oren’s link will help clear things up for people who may be misconstruing Winogrand’s claim. The excerpt is from the book, Visions and Images: American Photographers on Photography (1982) — one should remember that Winogrand’s claim was merely a suggestive evasion:

Interviewer: “Several years ago a student did ask you which qualities in a picture make it interesting instead of dead. And you replied with a telling statement describing what photography is all about. You said you didn’t know what something would look like in a photograph until it had been photographed. A rather simple sentence that you used has been widely identified with you, and that sentence is: “I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.” That was about five or six years ago. And I know there are few things that displease you more than being bored. [My note: I hope the interviewer smirked during the previous line.] So I would hope that you have since amended or extended that idea. How would you express it now?”

Winogrand: “Well, I don’t think it was that simple then, either. There are things I photograph because I’m interested in those things. But in the end, you know what I’m saying there. Earlier tonight, I said the photograph isn’t what was photographed, it’s something else. It’s about transformation. And that’s what it is. That hasn’t changed, largely. But it’s not that simple. Let’s put it this way — I photograph what interests me all the time. I live with the pictures to see what that thing looks like photographed. I’m saying the same thing; I’m not changing it. I photograph what interests me. I’m not saying anything different, you see.”

[John NYC]

The following excerpt from Oren’s link will help clear things up for people who may be misconstruing Winogrand’s claim. The excerpt is from the book, Visions and Images: American Photographers on Photography (1982) — one should remember that Winogrand’s claim was merely a suggestive evasion:


I am not misconstruing anything.

[James Morris]

From watching interviews with him, it seems his approach with the rangefinder was to frame all the elements he wanted in the photo, but not worry about how it should look, and to see how the camera made it look.

Given that he purchased an 8x10 later in life, I wonder what his plans were -- composing on a ground glass seems like the exact opposite approach.

[johnmsanderson]

Visions & Images Interview:

http://youtu.be/wem927v_kpo

Typical second generation Jewish New Yorker -- irreverent, witty, and honest.

Ansel Adams wasn't big on expounding on the deeper philosophical meanings of his photography either. I think being able to verbalize on the inner workings of photography (and art in general) is a skill, but individual ability varies. I don't find the ability to talk in depth about one's work to be critical to its impact, except if one's artist statement is crucial to understanding the work (such as Burtynsky's stuff, for example).

The Winogrand quote is a perfect distillation of his style. I find this especially so after seeing his work and being inspired to start photographing on the street. In contrast to working with the 4x5, trying to capture moments on the street at 500th of a second you don't have time to frame carefully and consider every nuance. If you are free of distraction and outwardly focused on everything that's happening around you, there develops a heightened awareness within oneself despite being amongst a busy street where any number of things are happening at once. Your reaction must be the releasing of the shutter, if you hesitate, it's over. You really are only reacting with the shutter to something that interests you, working on the street is done so fast that in many cases you can't tell if it's a good picture or not until you can sit down and review them.

I think this is what he was getting at. To say "I photograph to see what something looks like in a photograph." is a way of testing the strength of his "camera skill" in translating an emotional response into a picture.

Of course he failed 99% of the time, and although a Winogrand fan, I often wonder about camera skill when your success rate is so low.

[Mark Sawyer]

"Above all, I craved to seize the whole essence, in the confines of one single photograph, of some situation that was in the process of unrolling itself before my eyes." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson

"There is nothing as mysterious as a fact clearly described. I photograph to see what something will look like photographed." ~Garry Winogrand

Very close. Winogrand seemed in some ways a second-generation American Cartier-Bresson.

[johnmsanderson]

"Above all, I craved to seize the whole essence, in the confines of one single photograph, of some situation that was in the process of unrolling itself before my eyes." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson

"There is nothing as mysterious as a fact clearly described. I photograph to see what something will look like photographed." ~Garry Winogrand

Very close. Winogrand seemed in some ways a second-generation American Cartier-Bresson.


Truth

I just found this documentary on YT:

http://youtu.be/eitfGxc6vbw

When he's photographing people up close he'll often click the shutter before the rangefinder is at eye level, then quickly look away or at the camera, trying to make himself look nonthreatening/disinterested.

Compared to the visions & images interview, the video of him on the street with camera in hand is decidedly less stilted and his explanations flow more freely.

"I get totally out of myself, it's the closest I come to not existing... which to me is attractive."

[johnmsanderson]

"On the same day he acquired an eight-by-ten-inch view camera, an instrument that proposes a diametrically different approach to photography. The new camera was perhaps acknowledgement that his old line of thought was nearing the breaking point. He did not use the eight-by-ten, but he talked about using it, and about his notion of finding a small place on the Hudson River, not too far from New York, where he would do still lifes and portraits, and edit the work of the previous quarter-century. Hackford recalls him saying that he was done with the Leica, that he would now do something else. He also said he would remain in California only for the 1984 Olympics and would then go home, but perhaps he did not really expect to. Late in 1983, when the New York apartment that he had retained during a decade of absence was converted to a tenant-owned cooperative, he gave up his place with what seemed a despairing fatalism. His friends protested he could borrow money to buy his apartment, and at least make a handsome profit by selling it after buying it at the advantageous tenant's price. But he was afraid of banks and could understand only that he was losing his home of almost thirty years." -John Szarkowski in "Figments from the Real World".

[Robert Hughes]

Ansel Adams wasn't big on expounding on the deeper philosophical meanings of his photography either.
OTOH he was pretty smart with a camera, and wrote some handy books on the technical side, so I guess he wasn't completely useless. :p

Reminds me of that line (Laurie Anderson? Steve Martin? Frank Zappa? Martin Mull? Elvis Costello? Thelonius Monk?) about art criticism: "Writing About Music is Like Dancing About Architecture".

[Mark Sawyer]

(Laurie Anderson? Steve Martin? Frank Zappa? Martin Mull? Elvis Costello? Thelonius Monk?) about art criticism: "Writing About Music is Like Dancing About Architecture".

Martin Mull! Or so it seems...

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/07/ot-we-hear-from-martin-mull.html

I thought Adams wrote quite eloquently about photography at times, as in his book "Examples", his arguements with Mortensen, and perhaps in the original Group f/64 Manifesto, (Nobody seems quite sure who wrote it, but Imogene Cunningham thought it was Adams.) That his concerns weren't the same as the Fine Arts photography movements of later decades doesn't diminish them.

[James Morris]

johnmsanderson: Thanks for that! Trying to wrap my mind around the idea of a Winogrand still life.

[paulr]

"Writing About Music is Like Dancing About Architecture"

Except that some people write brilliantly about music. And about photography, and about the other arts. I'm thankful to critics who help me see better. I file it under Free Education.

I wish we could get away from the idea that talking about art = looking for "deep philosophical meanings" = bullshit.

Yeah, there is bullshit criticism, just as there's bullshit everything else. But most criticism doesn't concern itself with deep meanings of any kind. There many ways to look at a work and many kinds of things we can look for.

Winogrand was answering a question about motivation, which is really a personal or biographical question much more than an art criticism question.

Artists often say the damndest things when asked about their intentions. And they change their stories often. Maybe it's because the most honest answer is often "I felt compelled to do this," which doesn't sound smart enough.

[Mark Sawyer]

Very much in agreement, Paul. Thank you!

[Marco Polo]

Below is an interesting take on Garry Winogrand from the perspective of a former student. One fascinating tidbit is how he developed his negatives by inspection, similar to what Weston did.

http://www.americansuburbx.com/2011/07/garry-winogrand-class-time-with-garry.html

[John Jarosz]

That's a very good link. I'll say that my experience (one semester, in 1970) is pretty much exactly as described in that essay. Our class was made up of second year students, and we were pretty much in over our heads with Garry. The students (in their first year) had print quality drilled into their heads. Garry did not care about that at all, so it was a totally unexpected environment. At UT they were focused on the journalism approach so conforming to Winogrand's style may have been easier for students.

I don't remember seeing contact prints, but I do remember being in the big Institute of Design darkroom late one night when Garry came in with a 11x14 Polycontrast box of exposed paper. He pulled up a chair next to one of the long sinks and started putting sheets into the developer and pulling them out when he decided they had enough. He did this for about an hour, smoking and talking to us all the while. He was a very engaging guy.

But the classes themselves were exactly as described in that link. Thanks for posting that.