in light of the recent discussions about "mystery" photographs I thought I would post an image from a well known photographer (Gary Winogrand). Open it up for discussion as to why you like it or dislike it and your reasons why.

Personally I love Winogrand and think his images transcend the time they were made. This image is probably not one of his better known, but one of my favorites. I think it works on a lot of levels. I'll defend my ideas after a few responses.



I apologize for only having the link in the thread. Either my computer/software combo will not let me actually put the image in the thread, or I am just totally computer illiterate and can't figure out how to do it. (more the latter I am afraid) Maybe someone can tell me what i need to do to get the image in the thread itself.

Did not know this image. I like it, I like it. Very cool. I see why it's one of your favorites.

It works 'cause it reaches deep into humanity. Compositionally it's wonderful too. The tension of the triangle created between the two hats and the seated man is perfect.

Love the tonal range of the light. Just the right amount of direction to the light to make the image sing, without overwhelming the content.

The upper right corner of black balances perfectly with the horizontal wall molding across the bottom of the frame. The whole image takes on a modernist structure found in paints of the time.

This image could hang on my wall any time. Don't think I'd grow tired of it.

It has mystery!

Great image! I'm also a fan of Winogrand. His street work is an amazing record of the human condition captured with a great sense of humor. Thanks for the link, I haven't really looked at his work in awhile!

Just saw some Winogrand's up close and personal at the Lowe Museum in Miami. I like the picture you posted more than the 10 or so that I saw. Again the use of light and the compositional factor.....
Best, Peter

I like the little details like the light band on the hat hanging and just the hint of a black band on the man standing. While the two could be friends having a nice chat, the expression on the face of the man sitting makes me almost afraid to see the face of the man standing. (somewhat menacing I imagine)
The hat on the post almost seems like a sign of surrender, maybe a metaphor for someone's head on a pike. I think if I was a mean SOB of a boss I might have a large print of this hanging on the wall of my office. It's an image I can go back to over and over again and get pleasure from trying to decode it.

As pinhole master pointed out there is a wonderful flow to the image due to the compositional triangle he pointed out- big man's posture and stare to sitting man to hat and back over.

For me the hats are the key to the image. While the hats obviously date the image as pre- 70s, the strength of the composition and subject keeps the image fresh and relevant (IMHO) 50 years later.

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/winogrand/winogrand_untitled_1950s.jpg

I love this, and it definitely makes me want to look at more of his work - I know his work a bit but not too much.

Funny about the hats - ones in that style are quite fashionable around here now - you can get nice panamas in marks and spencer...

Just a suggestion on posting other photographers' images - It might be better to post a link to an operating website, or else you're in danger of breaching copyright.

Cate

Very cool. Film noir.


Michael

Just a suggestion on posting other photographers' images - It might be better to post a link to an operating website, or else you're in danger of breaching copyright.

Cate

definitely fair use imo (as restrictive as that is, and bear in mind it's the Canadian definition of fair use that applies... or maybe the NZ one... or maybe the... :-) ) + there is the whole hotlink thing - which some love and some hate. Is it actually posting the image - or just a hot link to the image...

That one is well-known and I must say one of Garry's most conservative photographs — a rather indirect one at that. It would be easy to mistake it for the work of someone else of the period — unlike work that followed, say The Animals, Women Are Beautiful, or Stock Photographs. His work has been so written and written about (& for a time I idolized GW so much) that I find it hard to look at it with fresh eyes (I think in his last years he had the same problem).

http://static.flickr.com/53/152377868_29aa2b214b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bjorke/152377868/)
(Oslo, 2006)

definitely fair use imo (as restrictive as that is, and bear in mind it's the Canadian definition of fair use that applies... or maybe the NZ one... or maybe the... :-) ) + there is the whole hotlink thing - which some love and some hate. Is it actually posting the image - or just a hot link to the image...
Fair enough, I certainly wouldn't claim to know the ins and outs of global copyright law.

FWIW another UK-based photography forum I visit has decided not to post attachments but to link to websites when discussing other photographers' work, as certain agencies (e.g. Magnum) and photographers would not look kindly on directly reproduced images, without linking to and acknowledging the original source.
Cate

Fair enough, I certainly wouldn't claim to know the ins and outs of global copyright law.

FWIW another UK-based photography forum I visit has decided not to post attachments but to link to websites when discussing other photographers' work, as certain agencies (e.g. Magnum) and photographers would not look kindly on directly reproduced images, without linking to and acknowledging the original source.
Cate

Note that these aren't attachments though - they are, if you like, small windows to the original site (though still a grey area in many cases). Now, some people hate hot-linking, others love it - but that's another issue...!

That said, copyright isn't an absolute. It allows a creator/photographer a limited monopoly on and control of their work. There are always exceptions - which need to be exercised or they will be lost. And although Fair Use/Fair Dealing is more limited than most think, discussion and critique of a single photograph imo falls within that.

That one is well-known and I must say one of Garry's most conservative photographs — a rather indirect one at that. It would be easy to mistake it for the work of someone else of the period — unlike work that followed, say The Animals, Women Are Beautiful, or Stock Photographs. His work has been so written and written about (& for a time I idolized GW so much) that I find it hard to look at it with fresh eyes (I think in his last years he had the same problem).


I picked that one because it was early in his career and perhaps not as recognizable to many. Even though it goes against the grain of his later work I think it is one of his best. Certainly not his "signature style" of later years.

I missed this the first go-round.

Winogrand's photographs have a lot going on in them. What I like about them is that I can find new things in them every time I go back to them.

Very cool. Film noir.


Michael

Yes.

"Get yer hat, we're goin' for a little ride....."

My first thought is that this is a very bold composition and as such is very striking. My second thought is that the composition which the photographer has imposed on the scene, while strong, is entirely artificial and virtually makes it impossible to divine what is really going on. This second thought I would find intensely irritating if I were to put this picture on my wall. Nonetheless, a very good and thought-provoking posting!

Regards,

David