by the very least, it is a refreshing interpretation.  The more time I spend schmoozing in a “world of photography” the more irate I become with notion that somehow documentary/event/street photographers project their own role/philosophy on creating the images and a narrative in them as a final result.  Reality is often the opposite, and this video illustrates the truth of image cataloging philosophy perfectly.

Most monotone commentator ever.

“The indifferent asphalt…bricks unsusceptible to sorrow”

This guy gets it.

“To see the world of things as things in a world, rather than our world with things in it”. That’s some food for thought… I agree with Tatyana, but Tyler has a point: philosophy doesn’t need to be talked about with that sleep-your-audience-to-seem-interesting mode

Ian: I appreciate your deliberateness in this video. It allows me to really hear and get what you are saying.

I happen to be jet lagged right now, as you were when you recorded this talk, but wanted to write to say how much I enjoyed your words, and thoughts, about Garry and his photographs. One quibble: Garry’s actual words were, “I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed,” which effectively reduces the ‘world’ of your quote to the role of being the material substance, or ‘something,’ that provided Winogrand with the stuff of his project of transformation. This, then, points more clearly, I think, to the notion that he was acting less as an anthropologist of the ontological, and (much) more as an photographer forcefully shaping those ‘somethings’ into art. No, he wasn’t a ‘journalist-commentator’ on the ever-changing state of things, but he was a visionary whose strenuous thinking about the nature of photography could, finally, never be separated from the tremendously complex person who took it upon himself to engage with those questions by answering them in the street, one photograph at a time.

If you’re interested, you might take a look at my writings on Winogrand in “Core Curriculum,” recently published by Aperture. But, once more, thank you: without suggesting that I’m anything like a spokesperson for his unexpressed thoughts, I think it’s fair for me to say that Garry would have enjoyed your observations about his work.

Tod Papageorge

Tod, thanks so much for these comments. They mean a lot coming from you.

I’m a little embarrassed to have inadvertently transposed that quote (since it’s the central point of the talk!) but looking around, I see I’m not alone in getting it wrong in the particular way that I do. Is it possible that both quotes appeared in different contexts? Even if not, I think the “something” is actually better for my argument, since “world” implies a stable totality that I’d rather avoid.

I’ll definitely check out your book. Thanks again.