Putting lipstick on a pig.

On of the more frustrating aspects of being a mechanical engineering student in London in the 1970s was that the sobriquet ‘engineer’ was applied equally to those highly educated as to those with a vocabulary of a dozen words or so. The ‘engineer’ who designed turbine blades for Rolls Royce Aircraft was described with the same noun as the moron bashing spikes into railroad ties.

Thus it is today with photography. Anyone who can post an image to Instagram is a ‘photographer’ even if the best thing that could happen for world civilization would be to keep his finger from the button for the benefit of future generations. Irving Penn and Joe Instagram are now one and the same.

But the Instagram generation could have been seen coming 50 years earlier, and was never better foretold than in the truly execrable work of one Gary Winogrand. It’s not just that Winogrand could not make a good image, it’s that he refused to do so. Thousands of times a day.

In this regard his non-existent sense of composition or timing distinguishes him from that other great fake of his generation, Diane Arbus. My sub-caption to that piece – “A cruel, exploitative photographer without a shred of decency.” – cannot be improved on, but what distinguishes Arbus’s work from that of Winogrand is that she had a clear purpose and direction, even if these were evil and corrupted. Needless to add, Winogrand’s output of noise found its apologists and just when you thought his pap was forgotten, new rumblings surface. Yes, I’m afraid Winogrand put lipstick on the pig that was his manic monochrome manglings, using color film.

Adding insult to injury, the Brooklyn Museum has a show running no fewer than nine months devoted to his color carnage. Here’s a random image from the show and in this case random selection is entirely appropriate as the result is always the same. Pure garbage.

Winogrand in color.