Quotes of All Topics . Occasions . Authors
You've got to deal with how photographs look, what's there, not how they're made.
I'm pretty fast with a camera when I have to be. However, I think it's irrelevant.
Aside from women, I don't know. My work doesn't function the way Robert Frank's did.
The photograph should be more interesting or more beautiful than what was photographed
You've got a lot going for you, you see. By just describing well with it, something happens.
It's the easiest thing in the world to do that, to make successful photographs. It's a bore.
I certainly never wanted to be a photographer to bore myself. It's no fun - life is too short.
Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed.
There's an arbitrary idea that the horizontal edge in a frame has to be the point of reference.
The game, let's say, of trying to state photographic problems is, for me, absolutely fascinating.
There's all kinds of people teaching who don't do anything worth a nickel. Likewise in advertising.
If I saw something in my viewfinder that looked familiar to me, I would do something to shake it up.
I may very well move in. I just don't know. I can't sit here and know what pictures I'm going to take.
The only thing that's difficult is reloading when things are happening. Can you get it done fast enough?
A photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how the camera 'saw' a piece of time and space.
Nobody sold prints then and prices didn't mean anything. In terms of earning your living, it was a joke.
There's no way a photograph has to look... in a sense. There are no formal rules of design that can apply.
It's a lot of work organizing something, whether it's a show or a book, and I don't want to do it every day.
Photographers mistake the emotion they feel while taking the photo as a judgment that the photograph is good
Frame in terms of what you want to have in the picture, not about making a nice picture, that anybody can do.
I've goofed, and there's been something interesting, but I haven't made use of it. It just doesn't interest me.
I'm still compulsively interested in women. It's funny, I've always compulsively photographed women. I still do.
I don't know how to say easily what I learned. One thing I can say I learned is how amazing photography could be.
Cameras always were seductive. And then a darkroom became available, and that's when I stopped doing anything else.
What you photograph is responsible for how a photograph looks - the form, the design, whatever word you want to use.
There is a transformation, you see, when you just put four edges around it. That changes it. A new world is created.
Certainly, you know, you can always learn from some - from somebody else's - from some intelligence. I think. I hope.
Teaching is only interesting because you struggle with trying to talk about photographs, photographs that work, you see.
I said the photograph isn't what was photographed, it's something else. It's about transformation. And that's what it is.
I look at a photograph. What's going on? What's happening, photographically? If it's interesting, I try to understand why.
I was able to work with two heads. If anything, doing ads and other commercial work were at least exercises in discipline.
There is nothing as mysterious as a fact clearly described. I photograph to see what something will look like photographed.
If you run into a monkey in some idiot context, automatically you've got a very real problem taking place in the photograph.
Two people could look at the same flowers and feel differently about them. Why not? I'm not making ads. I couldn't care less.
I get totally out of myself. It's the closest I come to not existing, I think, which is the best - which is to me attractive.
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.
I think there's some stuff that's at least photographically interesting. There are things I back off from trying to talk about.
Los Angeles has interested me for a long time. I was in Texas for five years, for the same reason. I wanted to photograph there.
I felt that from my end, I should deal with the thing itself, which is the event. I pretty much functioned like the media itself.
Photography is about finding out what can happen in the frame. When you put four edges around some facts, you change those facts.
I don't care how they think of it. Some of these people are acquiring some very good pictures by a lot of different photographers.
The museums want large crowds coming to the shows - it's the same thing. It's hype. Absolutely. But there's nothing evil about it.
The only thing that happens when I'm teaching is that I hope there are some students out there in the class who will ask questions.
I enjoy photographing. It's always interesting, so I can't say one thing is more fun than another. Everything has it's own difficulties.
When I see something, I know why something's funny or seems to be funny. But in the end it's just another picture as far as I'm concerned.
If you ever watch children play - what do you observe when you watch children play? You know, they're dead serious. They're not on vacation.
I don't really have any faith in anybody enjoying photographs in a large enough sense to matter. I think it's all about finances, on one side.
You see something happening and you bang away at it. Either you get what you saw or you get something else--and whichever is better you print.
I'm living in Los Angeles for a couple of years. I've been a gypsy for quite a while. It'll come to an end. I'm going to come back to New York.
You know, you get into the business of commercial photography, and that's all you do is photograph what you know. That's what you're hired for.