From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 08/29/02-05:37:39 PM Z
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Carl Weese wrote:
> And A.D. Coleman very perceptively pointed out that what Garry should have
> said was that he wanted to see what something looked like when photographed
> by Garry Winogrand.
... with a hand held camera.
> > It's all relative... Fast for a bicycle isn't same as fast for a racing
> > car.
> ... My point is that people
> overemphasize the gap between what you can do with a small hand camera and
> what you can do with a large camera on a tripod.
And my point is that there are differences -- gaps if you will -- that are
absolutely overriding: The business of the presence of the photographer.
And Sandy, I'm going to beat you up first chance I get -- I do NOT wish to
be conspicuous, except for beauty, wit & intelligence -- at least in
normal life. But as photographer, I wish to be INVISIBLE. I don't want
pictures of people staring at the camera, or worse yet "posing." Even in
early 20th century (one magazine I have notes) people changed their
positions and stiffened the moment they saw the camera. (This from an
article defending the "miniature camera.")
That said, I have to add a footnote... Often, for whatever reason (my
adorableness possibly) folks asked me to take their picture. They didn't
expect prints, they just wanted to have their picture taken. And I always
obliged. Some of these are among my most affecting "portraits" of Times
Square. But I always told them "don't smile." That was crucial.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:51 AM Z CST