When it comes to photography, we are often told to mimic the works of great photographers. One reason is that imitation often leads to new learning, while training one’s eye in the rules of composition. Some of the names that often come to mind during such teachings are Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and Alfred Stieglitz, amongst others. However, one name often pops up during these conversations is Garry Winogrand, whose cultural footprint continues to echo in many classrooms. While he is a revered subject, we believe he is one figure who should not be followed. Why so? Continue reading to find our response.
The lead image is a screenshot of a book cover from Amazon.
It all began a few years ago, when Garry Winogrand‘s 1975 photobook, Women Are Beautiful, was seen in a new context. The book, which showcases photographs of women, was published at the height of the feminist movement. As he said in the introduction of the book: “Whenever I’ve seen an attractive woman, I’ve done my best to photograph her. I don’t know if all the women in the photographs are beautiful, but I do know that the women are beautiful in the photographs.” However, today, the work has drawn criticism, with one of the criticisms being that it has an ethical problem and a voyeuristic gaze.
To some, the work borders on “leering” since no woman had consented to being photographed by Garry Winogrand. Another issue is that the work showcases women in certain angles and wearing certain clothes, which is further viewed as predatory by today’s critics. While some may argue that women at that time were asserting their sexuality more so in public spaces, and with the clothes they chose to wear, the angles and the decision to shoot these images in his style is what is now being labelled as “creepy.” Instead of being an artistic decision, today’s viewers question the power the photographer had versus the subjects’ lack of control.
He rejected the style of making images with the subject at the center. Instead, he focused on cramming the chaos into a single frame while also commenting on American Culture.
Before we delve into the other reasons, one must understand why Garry Winogrand was famous in the first place. He rejected the style of making images with the subject at the center. Instead, he focused on cramming the chaos into a single frame while also commenting on American Culture. One of his most famous images is Central Park Zoo, which was captured during the height of the Civil Rights Movement. The photo showcased an interracial couple, holding two monkeys, and it showed the uncomfortable layer of racial subtext. His image humanized the apes while animalizing the human behaviour. However, one must also consider that, at that time, photographers such as him, Diane Arbus, and Lee Friedlander were observing the world through a personal, idiosyncratic lens. Had they not documented the world as they saw it, they may not have been where they are today.
This brings me to the most important point of the article: if everyone is going out to make photographs like Garry Winogrand, then when will they create new narratives, one that stems from their experiences and observations? After all, nobody wants to be called a second Ansel Adams or Alex Webb. One may think this is a huge compliment, but it is not. You are basically walking in someone’s shadow rather than being your own person.
…if everyone is going out to make photographs like Garry Winogrand, then when will they create new narratives, one that stems from their experiences and observations?
So, if you are someone who practices photography, then the key thing to learn is intentionality. Why are you making the kind of images that you are today? What draws you to certain subjects, places, or people? With a trillion images floating on the internet, what are you creating that is different? If your intention is to make pretty photographs, that is okay, too. As long as you are true to yourself and the audience you are targeting. If not, then your work may get applause from some people, but it will often be void of cultural shift.