Robert Frank, "The Americans"

Any filmfans out there? Look at 'The Pledge' by Sean Penn wich stars Jack Nicholson. There's a shot in the movie,during the 'parade' scene , maybe no more than a fraction of a second, that's an exact copy of the famous 'Parade-Hoboken, New Jersey' photograph from The Americans, with the American flag and the two people standing behind the two windows with one's face covered by the flag...for sure you know the one...It's just a blink of a second but I instantly saw it and recognized it as a great hommage to a great photographer, also made by a great director in a great must see film by the way. The films mood is very close to the mood of The Americans and the other way around, this is especially so after seeïng the shot and recognizing it as the Robert Frank photograph. Very clever also from the director, making a statement like that in using the famous, almost iconic photograph by Robert Frank for telling the deeper story or mood within, and this done only in a fraction of a second. So although very short, just a fraction, the parade photograph, and by that one photograph, actually the whole body of work from Robert Frank, is used and acknowledged as still valid and fueled with meaning, even translated to creative works of art ( in this case the movie) made in this day of age. Outdated? No way, in line with the example above I think the look and feel of The Americans is very universal and definitily not outdated.

did you really say negro? that's all i need to know...

Two points not yet covered:

 

First, we need to look at these essays, or collections of period photos, from Brady, Atget, Frank, and dozens of others over the last century and a half as part of an evolving continuum. They were ALL cuting edge in their day and they all look dated now. That's part of what makes them interesting. Our concepts of war have changed, our outlook on race and religion have evolved, along with our equipment and materials.

 

Second, consider how much the art of printing, I mean printing press printing, has changed over that period. That alone accounts for a lot of the improvement in image quality, yet even today you can't really judge what a real silver print might look like from even the best modern reproduction. The process camera operator of half a century ago at best had a single coated lens, and it was by experience alone that he knew how long to make the exposure through the half tone screen in relation to the other two exposures he'd make, one of the picture without the screen, and one with the screen but of just white light, no picture. This put the highlight and shadow detail where he wanted them, how "open" the shadows, how detailed the highlights. It wasn't a computer program. It was skill and experience. And I keep using "he" because there were really not many women in the field half a century ago!

One could argue that Mr. Frank doesn't even know the intent of his photograph. Although I appreciate anyone taking on some of the lemming-like tendencies of the Leica board, it is truly thin ice when discussing an artist's intent for a work.

No, Andrew, one really can't argue that because if one wants to, one can find plenty of information about how and why Frank did what he did in "The Americans". I'd suggest reading some of the essays in the retrospective, "Moving Out". His intent (and I think it rather successful) was to question the iconography and the myths of 1950s America. Now perhaps Frank was pulling our leg by voicing such an intent but if so, its hard to fathom the photos in another vein, especially given his proximity to the Beats and other "outsiders" in American culture of the day.

 

And, by the way, the snipe about "lemming-like qualities" smells of the rich aroma of sour grapes...

Excuse me, "lemming-like tendencies"...

Mr. Eul...er... I mean Mahone. There is actually a well founded school of thought that an artist is so much a product of their environs; that they are an amalgam of their upbringing, of the rhetoric of their time, of the family in which they were raised, etc, that they are in essence not the author of their work. The author his/ or herself is actually a product, as is their piece of art. I guess is comes down to if you see man making history or, as Marx would put it, history making man. I wouldn't posit that it is 100% the case, but I think to say that Frank automatically knew what his intention was in a frame, is naive.

 

Maybe I am wrong and this isn't an argument? Seems valid as it has been a discussion occuring in critical circles for quite a while, at least since Roland Barthes published his work on the subject.

 

An interesting question: would not a documentary photographer be EVEN MORE the product of his environs?

 

As far as sour grapes, sour about what? I find very little to be sour about.

Oh that's okay, you can call me Andy Eulass, Andrew, or anything else you care to. Yes, yes, I submit to your superior understanding of French post-modern thought, though I was sure you'd have preferred citing Foucault's "The Archaeology of Knowledge" as a better paradigm for the premise you are attempting to posit.

 

Damn, I haven't waded this deep in bullpoop since I was a grad student at the University of Chicago. This is fun!

 

Oh, pogue mahone.

You win Andrew, you must be smarter than I. Bottom line, people jumped all over this in varying ways...some would argue that Frank COULD'T know his intent, some would argue he is the only one who could know. Some could argue that the meaning of the work is exactly what the reader or viewer sees.

 

Red Rover Mulholland

Sorry to be prosaic but does anyone happen to know what Leica model he used and lens and film stock?

This has to be a troll! After all, Robert Frank's work culminating in the book " The Americans" is ONE of a handfull of photographic works that changed the nature of Photography in the 20th century. Further it continues to have enormous impact on 21st century photography. What good documentary photographer hasn't looked and been influenced by "The Americans"?

I guess we got out of the typical necessity to focus on the equipment. In Leica-land, it is the camera, not the photographer, right?

And John, I wasn't arguing that it isn't wonderful work...it is.

Yes but what camera did he use.

Nothing stays radical and cutting edge but good art endures. Even if what you say is true about the photos being dated and badly printed, Robert Frank's work has been haunting me for years. It is art with feeling, mostly ironic and a little sad whatever else its faults.

"...today I'd say that it fails from a pure photographic viewpoint."

 

From your perspective, it may be dated. But the concept of the book project, the method of shooting and printing the pictures, all of it was so advanced in the 1950's and has since influenced so many photographers, it certainly cannot be considered a failure. If "The Americans" had never appeared, I cannot envision what photography today would be like.

 

I guess that virtually everything could be considered dated--from the Old Testament to Shakespeare to Impressionism to Abstract Expressionism to whatever. But it doesn't diminish their importance and influence.

Lee:

 

I couldn't agree more. By the time paper hits pen, or the shutter trips, something is already "dated", but that doesn't diminish it in the least.

OK, I'll stick my head on the block. There's nothing wrong with using the word "Negro" in the context of an historical book from a period when that was considered the polite term for black people in the United States. Where am I coming from? A multicultural society where no-one ever stared at us during the dozen years when I lived with my black Jamaican ladyfriend, hugged and kissed her in public, where I'm still welcomed into her hair salon as family, warmly greeted by her friends and clients (mostly Jamaican) when I run into them at the market or the mall. As her brother, my accountant, put it "once a brother-in-law, always a brother-in-law".

 

I helped raise her two sons, now 22 and 26, and it's not unusual to run into one of them, often with a group of their friends, or me with mine, and High-Five with a mutual "Yo Niggah, how ya doin?", and no offense is meant or taken, followed by a hug. And that's just as likely to happen with one of their friends even when my step-sons aren't there.

 

"Negro" was the polite term for a few generations while they called us o'fey (sp?) and honky and whitey. Whether any of it was offensive is mostly in the minds of the peopple involved and third party eaves droppers shouldn't pass judgement. I guess "negro" is as passe as "darky" these days. But it was the POLITE word, the proper acceptable term. End of rant.

Why not just use the word 'black'?

....since it's the acceptable word to use today? What are you proving by doing otherwise?

Well said, Al!!!

 

I have a copy of Evergreen magazine in which Frank traveled with Kerouac through Florida and maybe more of the south. Haven't looked at it in a long time. I do remember the photos as being not spectacular....but they are from a time ago, and must be considered "history" and, perhaps, a personal vision of the photographer. Frank took the photos, and Kerouac wrote the text.

 

It's not something I'll keep forever and will probably try and sell.

Ray, there's nothing wrong with the word "black", but unless that question is coming out of the mouth of a black the reality is you're just another third party eavesdropper. It has become a socially acceptable word, and many people from the Carribean MUCH prefer it to "African American" because they point out that they're Jamaican or Bahamian or Trinidadian or what ever, not Hyphenated-American, and very proud of their heritage.

 

This whole thing reminds me of a few weeks back when I got blasted for talking about "Oriental" bidders on Ebay, yet as politicaly incorrect as that word may be in some circles you can still buy Oriental brand enlarging paper. My critics seemed unaware of its existance!

 

While we're on the subject of cultural differences, in the USA most people of all races seem to put the word "pickaninny", which refers to a black child, in nearly the same category as "ni*ger". Yet amongst Jamaicans it's just seen as a word of African roots meaning "child". There is nothing unusual for one woman to greet another and ask "how are your pickaninnies doing?"

 

Again, because of our shameful American history, both during slavery and long afterwards, we really haven't come to grips with dealing with race in the USA. That guilt in some of us, and the animosity felt by others, still intrudes too much. Try inviting "those people" down the block over for bar-be-que, go to church with them, invite them to yours. Whether it's playing golf or fishing or skiing, or taking photos while they do, get to know your neighbors and business associates. It'd be really nice to live in a world where using a word correctly, in its proper historical and cultural context, didn't start a stupid war!

 

(Crap! Even your computer is politicaly correct!)

<I>This whole thing reminds me of a few weeks back when I got blasted for talking about

"Oriental" bidders...</i>

<P>

Yes, several people brought it up when you first used that for generalizing a group of

people.

<P>

You then asked what was wrong with that term - which seemed like an honest question.

When people stepped in to explain, you just brushed them off and brandished your

credentials as justification for supporting your position. You weren't listening. And then

more mocking in a few subsequent threads re "Oriental Paper." I suspect that was more

satisfying than to simply say, "Oh, OK, thanks for the tip."

<P>

 

As you told someone recently in another thread: "It never hurts a brain to learn

something. You'll survive the excersize, trust me."

Al, your "some of my best friends are black" routine just doesn't

stand up. I have no idea why you feel the need to "rant" in

defense of Bill's use of the word negro. It's not about political

correctness, it's just about courtesy and consideration.

 

The bottom line about Frank is that he's one of the most

influential photographers of all time, he's as relevant now as he

was the day The Americans was published. He and Eggleston

have shaped modern photography.

<i>your "some of my best friends are black" routine </i><p>

 

Bingo.<p>

 

<i>The bottom line about Frank is that he's one of the most influential photographers of all time, he's as relevant now as he was the day The Americans was published. He and Eggleston have shaped modern photography.</i><p>

 

No disagreement here.