[ buy prescription viagra | real cialis online | how much does cialis cost | viagra seizures | viagra fast delivery | viagra blister 4 | cialis online canada | cialis from mexico | generic cialis soft tabs | copycat viagra | buy cialis canada | who makes viagra | cialis 100 mg | recreational viagra use | cheapest generic viagra | viagra faq | what is cialis professional | herbal viagra | viagra how it works | viagra seizures | viagra gel | where to get viagra | viagra and sexual performance | 50 mg cialis | sildenafil oral jelly | levitra vs viagra | which is better viagra or cialis | viagra facts | recreational viagra use | buy generic viagra india rx | buy viagra pills | cialis online canada | viagra from canada | buy viagra 50 mg | how to make viagra | pizer india viagra side effects | buying viagra | purchase cialis next day delivery | canadian pharmacy viagra | how quick does a cialis work | viagra cartoons | buy gel viagra | how to get viagra | cialis from mexico | cheap inurl viagra viagra | cialis refractory | viagra in canada pfizer | sildenafil citrate tablets | buy online order viagra | viagra online stores | cialis without prescription | effects alcohol viagra | cialis without prescription | viagra prices ]
A follow-up to this. Audio from Howe Gelb’s “Lull (Some Piano)”
This Martin Parr video showed-up on the “TateShots” webmag a few weeks ago.
Albrecht TÃ¼bke’s street portraits from his project “Citizens” were the brightest highlight of the How Are We Now survey show at Tate Britain, even though they have nothing to do with motion or the moment, and the photographer’s not exactly British. The pictures are still and substantial, and have not yet been written-up on conscientious.
Albrecht TÃ¼bke, from “Citizens”
It’s been great here, thanks in part to a fantastic visit with all you friends of 2point8. Cheers, again!
Thanks for your mail and comments about the Winogrand Video. I wanted to give a quick shout to Jim Arnold, the man who found the tape on eBay and digitized it to share with the rest of us.
Another quick item. I mentioned that I’d seen footage from Moyers’ story in the Szarkowski documentary, but it’s not the case – it’s different footage. Which means there are more clips out there (for someone to dig up) of Winogrand photographing on the streets of Los Angeles in the early eighties. It may have been outtakes from the same production, but there’s no duplication of cuts between the two videos.
Anyone out there know Sandra (Sandi) McLeod? Perhaps she knows the source of the other footage.
More Winogrand on 2point8.
Updated, again: Someone uploaded the original post I had here to youtube, so here you go. Part 1:
And Part 2:
Updated, with Transcript:
I saw footage from this in a John Szarkowski documentary a year or two ago, but here it is for wider consumption. Thanks to Jim for giving the nod to let it reach a wider audience.
Garry Winogrand with Bill Moyers, Creativity, WNET, 1982
When I’m photographing, I see life. That’s what I deal with. I don’t have pictures in my head. I frame in terms of what I want to include, and naturally, when I want to snap the shutter. And I don’t worry about how the picture’s gonna look – I let that take care of itself. We know too much about how pictures look and should look, and how do you get around making those pictures again and again. It’s one modus operandi. To frame in terms of what you want to have in the picture, not about how – making a nice picture. That, anybody can do.
I’m very subjective in what I photograph. When things move, I get interested, I know that much. Women interest me. How they look – certainly how they look, and how they move. Their energy.
It’s sort of like photographing theater. That guy in the car, sitting on a back seat, waving at the crowd – to make a photograph more theatrical then the subject’s own theatricality is a hell of a problem.
A picture is about what’s photographed and how that exists in the photograph – so that’s what we’re talking about. What can happen in a frame? Because photographing something changes it. It’s interesting, I don’t have to have any storytelling responsibility to what I’m photographing. I have a responsibility to describe well.
The fact that photographs — they’re mute, they don’t have any narrative ability at all. You know what something looks like, but you don’t know what’s happening, you don’t know whether the hat’s being held or is it being put on her head or taken off her head. From the photograph, you don’t know that. A piece of time and space is well described. But not what is happening.
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.
Two areas of the country have always fascinated me to photograph. One was Texas and one’s Southern California. I don’t understand, it just fascinates me. Show business and the oil: it’s improbable.
I’m surviving, you know.
You see the Georgiette Klinger? When there’s direct sun on it the whole thing becomes like a giant jewel, and depending on which cars are parked in front, open convertibles or whatever, all kinds — it’s almost like a pat answer as to how to illustrate the idea of this place – to make that work beyond just being an illustration of an idea. It’s, for me, an interesting problem.
I learned a long time ago to trust my instincts. You see? When I’m photographing, I wanna — if I’m at the viewfinder and I know that picture, why take it? I’ll do something to change it, which is often the reason why I may tilt the camera or fool around in various ways. You don’t learn anything from repeating what you know, in affect, so I keep trying to make uncertain.
What I found out, over photographing a long time – the more I do, the more I do. When you’re younger, you can only conceive of trying a limited amount of things to work with. The more I work, the more subject matter I can begin to try to deal with. ____. The nature of the photographic process – it is about failure. Most everything I do doesn’t quite make it. The failures can be intelligent ____; nothing ventured nothing gained, I mean. Hopefully you’re risking failing every time you make a frame.
I’ve been in Los Angeles now a little over two years. This stuff is slightly under two thousand rolls, which is what I’ve developed since I’m here. And I have over two thousand to go.
I gotta show coming up in April. And I decided to make contacts from the film I’ve developed so far that I took in Venice and on Rodeo Drive, so that’s what I’m gonna deal with. You know what I mean? There’s no real system, it’s just, it’s gonna be pretty rough when I go to find a negative.
I get into situations where there’s a lot of activity, more things can occur to me to try. Really, that’s what it’s about.
It always fascinates me – it bolloxes my mind, I mean, when people talk about photographs in depth, and what not, you know, when all a photograph does is describe light on surface. That’s all there is. And that’s all we ever know about anybody. You know, what we see. I mean, I think we are our faces and whatever, you know? That’s all there is, is light on surface.
Printer: How much of what you see now affects what you do afterwards?
A: What a minute. You mean, affects my shooting? You know what happens? I look at some of these frames and I think, I gotta get my self a little more under control, though.
Printer: Well there’s a lot of things that you know aren’t going to be good, and certainly not great pictures, but they might be interesting to you. And I think as much as the final picture’s going to be interesting, the process of taking that picture at that point in time is equally interesting.
A: Well sure! One thing at a time. But it’s not just the act itself, it’s what I’m photographing. It’s the subject. I think I’m interested in how a lot of things look.
I’m shooting, to seeing the contacts, to seeing an enlargement, which again, is different than seeing a contact – it should be an event that you’re seeing.
I am surprised that my prints sell. They’re not pretty, they’re not those kind of pictures that people easily put on their walls, they’re not that window onto a nice landscape or something. They aren’t.
I don’t have pictures in my head, you know. Look, I am stuck with my own psychology. With my own, uh, with me. So I’m sure that there’s some kind of thread, whatever, but I don’t have pictures in my head.
Q: When you went to Texas did it take you awhile to get your legs, kinda get oriented?
W: Not at all. Once there’s no – I start working right away. I know that.
Q: You shoot every day?
W: Yeah, sure. _____
I don’t lay myself down on the couch to figure out why I’m a photographer and not this or that. Whatever it is, I can’t seem to do enough of it. It’s a pleasure.
Moyers: I’m struck that for Emmit Gowin and Garry Winogrand, photography is a way of life as well as a work of art. Gowin, wanting structure, prefers the rural where life changes slowly and traditions are deep. Winogrand, wanting action, is drawn to the new cities of the Sun Belt, where culture is motion and glitter reigns.
One believes ____, the other doubts we can know anything below the surface about anybody, ourselves included. Reality is the photograph itself, a particle plucked from time and space.
When I emailed Joerg to let Conscientious know about last week’s Taryn Simon interview on Charlie Rose, I didn’t realize that someone at PBS had been busy uploading nearly everything Charlie’s done in the last ten years or so.
These videos weren’t up a few months ago, but they are now. Here’s a quick and incomplete list of what a search for “photographer” yields. I’ve only watched one of these, so I can’t vouch for their quality (or the inanity of most of Rose’s questions).
If you find others, holler in the comments.
Nachtwey and TIME photographers
Larry Fink (
eager to see this)
Nat Geo Women & Bruce Weber
Sept 11th photographers
Leibovitz / Avedon
Robert Capa Retrospective
She sings while she shoots (and pats head while rubbing belly).
Accidentally blew-away the links in the footer today with the Word Press upgrade. Dang!
Back in the day (2001), I set my VCR to tape this interview of Richard Serra on Charlie Rose. I kept returning to it because it was so rich. I started transcribing it one night so I could share it with friends, though my computer can’t locate where it went… Google Video to the rescue.
I’ve learned as much about photography from poetry, painters and cinema than anywhere else. There’s something to be said for art ghettos, and rent’s cheap on photography’s block. It never hurts to take the train uptown and see what’s going on in sculpture, video art, or textiles, even. Even if you hate it.
There’s a great book of Serra’s words and interviews over on Amazon, if you like the direction of this.
Question: Have you seen video work that comes close to capturing everything you like best about street photography? A few examples from cinema come to mind, but I’m really interested in finding someone who’s doing small clips (and posting them online, youtubestyle) that are candid and revealing.
Naturally, video would fail to capture the 1/125th of a second moment and everything it has the potential to communicate. But I’m curious to see what can be said with a wider span of time, say five or ten seconds or so. There’s something about this video by Heather Champ (no, this one!) that comes close to what I’m imagining.
The Tokyo section in Ron Fricke’s “Baraka” has a few great examples (albeit with a crazy lens and a 70mm movie camera). The audioless clip below of a man wiping his face in slo-mo and looking at his handkerchief is a longtime favorite of mine. A few seconds later, there’s a great sequence of portraits of schoolkids looking straight at the camera (in real time, as I recall) while a subway blurs behind them.
Please leave a comment if you’ve seen videos that are close to what I’m describing.
There’s a street corner in El Paso, Texas, that Stephen Shore photographed in 1975. The picture appeared in his book, “Uncommon Places.”
Even at the time, Shore’s photography was a cataloging of the kinds of things that were doomed to vanish; wallpaper, street corners, truck stop restrooms. His pictures were down the road from Greil Marcus’ “Old Weird America” and just shy of the multiplex and big box store. I visited El Paso a few weeks ago, and the location bears little resemblance to the Shore photo. Here’s what it looks like from above (pic links to a flickrmap):
Here’s Shore’s picture. Note the large brick building on the left of the frame, and the small, historical marker in the foreground:
Above and beyond the merits of Shore’s picture as a photograph, there are few key things that have changed in the last 31 years.
- The street that the pedestrian is waiting to cross has been filled-in and is now cement, part of an extended memorial area
- The (rootless, planterless) tree is gone
- The marker has been turned into a larger memorial/statue area
- The front facade of the large brick hotel remains, and has been added onto, after demolition of the Capri Theater and Payless Drugs
- The parking lot on the left is larger and the liquor store is gone
Here’s a crude cellphone video of what it looks like now: