Interview, Eyes Wide Open with John Szarkowski

“If I understand your question, you are suggesting that fecund artists are likely to be inferior to artists who produce little. According to that test, Paul Dukas should be considered at least 100 times greater than Haydn. (I am assuming that Dukas wrote at least a few things other than the Apprentice, although I don’t know what.) I doubt that you would agree to so ludicrous a proposition, but I really don’t know what else you might mean. Surely the best artists, by and large, have been very productive; it is difficult to think of one who was stingy with his talent and energy. I don’t know whether or not Eggleston is a prodigious shooter; Winogrand certainly did expose a great deal of film, and until his very last years he had an astonishing percentage of successes, even by his own high standards. The proof sheet containing the famous picture of the crippled beggar at the American Legion Convention includes three or four other pictures–never printed by Winogrand–that most photographers would count among their prizes.”

From an interview with former MOMA Director of Photography John Szarkowski. Read the whole interview here.

Be Sociable, Share!
Loading Facebook Comments ...

2 Comments

  1. Art is underrated. Keep on capturing the individualistic eye, John.

  2. Anonymous says:

    It doesn’t follow that publishing a million will make you great. You might just be remembered as the ego responsible for this mediocre effort :

    http://thomashawk.com/2010/12/you-know-how-sometimes-businesses-like-to-go-on-flickr-trying-to-score-photos-for-free.html