Why is everyone hating on this woman so much? What's so bad about her? Remember she's asking questions on behalf of an audience who may not have a photography background... I like how she asked him to be specific on certain things, like the question about the difference he sees between himself and Walker Evans. I also appreciate the fact that she asked him to address young photographers. Very interesting interview. She got him really talking about stuff. Wish I knew the guy.
i agree with your analysis. she is asking intelligent questions, of great interest, with some humor, and as you said, she really got him talking. and that's the main point. thank you!
@@robertplautz9722 you guys aren't wrong... it's just that it could be better and it's frustrating and cringing sometimes. They think in different lanes and it's not her fault. He's different than most of us.
@@syanshih1268 thank you for your kind response. her interviewing skills are questioned in other episodes of this series, with other famous photographers (see those comments). i think she had some time limitations and wanted to get these rather elusive geniuses to speak as much as possible. her agenda. i rewatched this and found that Mr Horst seemed to be satisfied with his responses (as being "full enough") and the pace seemed not to have bothered him. who knows?
If ever there was a man who needed to photograph in order to live it was Garry Winogrand. This interview is a battle of wills and I love the way Winogrand squirms in his seat as he tries to avoid answering questions or dismisses others with a gruff laugh and a repeated "I can't talk about that" much to the frustration of Ms Diamonstein. The man is very much like his images - instinctive, direct, unconventional and deeply serious about the most ordinary facts of life.
Two very different people obviously. But also I think they swing quite well here. She asks stuff people wouldn’t normally ask him because they are either too on the nose, to cliché or not something most people would dare. And he gives some kind, interesting answers in his inimitable style. Toning it a bit down to accommodate the lady and viewers.
Very confident yet very modest in the same breath. Truly a master. If he proves anything, it's that to make a successful picture, it takes 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. Although, Winogrand would prob disagree with that statement. I think he put himself where he needed to be to get a good picture. That's the 90% perspiration. Truly a Master.
Everyone wants to know a deeper meaning behind what he does, his intentions, his inspiration etc. They're digging too deep. He just wants to photograph. It's how he interacts with his world. He's just a working class guy who happens to use a camera instead of a trowel. When asked why he does it he's taken aback because the answer is : what the hell else is he supposed to do? He's a great artist because he's not caught up in the idea of being one.
I like the work of Garry Winogrand and Robert Frank along with Saul Lieter. It's my understanding that all 3 created an amazing body of images. Which has definitely influenced so many.
The human eye sees in generalities. The camera sees in tiny fractions of time. When you see a situation that might have some promising frozen moments that your eye can't see you start photographing real fast. It is only when you see the contact sheets that you know whether or not you got something interesting or not.
this is a special interview. the pretentious art expert meets a real person. I think winogrand' manner may explain why the new york times review of his current show at the met was somewhat dismissive. he was not an "artiste." he simply wanted to shoot, he didn't go back and obsess about what he'd done. he was not an "artiste." he was a guy from the bronx for whom, in the end, the only important thing was the photograph, which, as he said, "is not what was photographed. It’s something else." who would have ever thought of calling diane arbus or lee friedlander, with whom winograd is often grouped, street photographers? given what we now know about brain science and how little of our daily function is within our conscious control, it is time to re-examine to notion that photographers, outside the studio, are in control of what they shoot in the first instance. what kind of graphic they turn the photo it into with lightroom is another question. one in which, like winograd, i am not interested.
I haven't watched this video in a few years. Coming back to it today, I was struck by how dismissive he was toward Ms. Diamonstein. He was annoyed by her questions, as if he didn't suffer fools easily, but that's the problem: she is not a fool and his irritation was unwarranted. There is another video where Winnogrand speaks at Rice University. The students turn on him in anger because he pulls the same routine on them. He's much like Robert Frank in this manner. Moral of the story: value your interviewer's or audience members' questions or don't do interviews/Q&As.
framing makes the composition. that's all there is to it. a photographer sees it in an instant--any slower and it's too late. the host can't seem to get this most simple concept as she sticks to her pompous scripted questions. could she be any stiffer or more obtuse? he's like charles bukowski, but behind a lens instead of a typewriter. thanks for sharing the vid.
Brace yourself for the incredible imbecility and pompousness of the hostess, and then you're in for a real treat here! As mentioned by others, Winogrand is as brilliant in talking about photography as he was in taking pictures. And it's a testimony to his character that he managed to deal with this woman for 30 minutes with such good humor... THANKS for posting this!!!
