Lyricism - J. Sudek and W. Evans

<p>In an old <strong>Aperture</strong> issue devoted to Joseph Sudek, I found a quotation which I find interesting to compare with Walker Evans' use of lyricism :<br>

<br /> "Everything around us, dead or alive, in the eyes of a crazy photographer mysteriously takes on many variations, so that a seemingly dead object comes to life through light or by its surroundings. And if the photographer has a bit of sense in his head maybe he'll be able to capture some of this - and I suppose that is lyricism."<br>

<br /> In the <strong>Walker Evans: Lyric Documentary</strong> summary of Evans' famous March 1964 Yale lecture, Evans is reported as stating that :<br>

<br /> "Stieglitz pressed too hard to find Art and God in his pictures...Evans damned the entire lot as 'decadent lyric.' He assured the audience that true lyricism enters spontaneously without notice, almost never when called - and is often discovered after the fact, as an unexpected but welcome guest."<br>

<br /> "Evans elected to define the subtleties of his new phrase by example, and began by honoring Leonardo da Vinci has the father of lyric documentary. Foremost there was Leonardo's scientific curiosity versus the artistic urge...(in) works initially meant to record information with secondary regard for aesthetics. There was Leonardo's faultless line and unaffected goal of clear documentation, matching Evans' own intention."</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't think anyone, neither Sudek nor Evans, has the one or only method to achieving lyricism. For some, it will come by surprise and, perhaps, instinct. For others, it will be sought, just as they seek a muse. Some will capture it. I suspect more will take responsibility for <em>creating</em> it.</p>

<p>For me, lyricism has an association to song and melody, therefore to line (melody is musical line), so mention of Leonardo seems apt. Chopin was lyrical . . . by design. His music is often likened to poetry because of it. He did pretty well by it.</p>

<p>Lyricism can also have an association with sensuality. I often think of "rhapsodic" as a close neighbor to "lyrical" and there, I think an element of <em>passion</em> comes in.</p>

<p>All of this is consistent with a wide variety of methods with which someone's creations can be imbued with lyricism.</p>

<p>I don't think Stieglitz pressed too hard. I think he pressed just right.</p>

<p>Evans, in his own way, did a good job of it as well.</p>

<p>There are many great artists who are not terribly lyrical. Mondrian, a favorite of mine, comes to mind.</p>

<p>Jon, what aspect of this do you find interesting?</p>

<p>Compared to Paul Strand and W. Eugene Smith, Evans has always been something of an enigma to me. The quotations help me understand his artistic goals.</p>

<p>Ahem, technically speaking, lyric photography is photography snapped to the tune of a lyre. In other words, put your iPod on and fire away...<br /><br />Having said that, the term did occur to me a couple of weeks ago, while I was leafing through a newly acquired book of Frank's Paris photographs. Not even lousy publishing could kill that little something his later American opus so sadly lacked.<br /><br />Anyway, early morning here, hitting the hay... :)</p>

<p> No formula for lyricism, save to be a poet, and that's easier said than done. The clue as to when this happened to Evans is Atget. Abbot showed Evans the part of Atget's estate she'd bought and brought back from Paris before Julian Levy snapped it up. Evans' work was transformed by those pictures. I'm not saying he 'borrowed' from Atget so much as the lessons of Atget fell on fertile ground.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Per extended bio below, Atget's work, which Evans first saw in the US was "a confirmation of his own intuitions." <br>

<a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/E/evans/evans_articles3.html">http://www.masters-of-photography.com/E/evans/evans_articles3.html</a></p>

<p>IMO, the adjective "true," as in the "true lyricism" cited in the OT raises a doubt about whatever's being asserted. The word "true," used in that manner, is a ploy to convince the reader/listener that the writer/speaker is an authority...and it risks infecting the rest of what is being said unless everything else is similarly certified "true."</p>

<p> Stieglitz's work was more quiet than Evans', more somber, and was <em>perhaps</em> more intended as "art." Stieglitz's might have seemed more "new," and less appealing to the mass of humanity, much like Picasso's work in that respect.</p>

<p>Passing thought: our Yale lecture quote comes from a famous FSA photographer who may have thought himself superior to the towering Mr. Stieglitz... certainly more "modern," more "humanistic," and undoubtedly more familiar with political concepts of "decadent" art ... (Nazi, Soviet, Cuban, Maoist etc)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>...also, Stieglitz literally dealt in eros, as did Picasso.<br>

<br />Did Evans address eros?<br>

<br />Is eros too heavy for "lyric" ? Or were the hands and nudes of Georgia O'Keefe both lyrical and erotic?</p>

<p>"Artistic urge," "decadent lyric," ...</p>

<p>Evans couldn't stand making pictures of anything that wasn't "manly." The main subject, if its person has to be ugly or angry; if it's a thing it's going to be metal, or dirt. Rugged. Stern. No girly-man stuff. No poetry or symphonies or operas or theater or any of that useless stuff.</p>

<p>But (I think) inside he was intensely poetic. Lyricism was leaking out of his ears. What was this poor conflicted man to do? I think he always needed (consciously or unconsciously) to have that main "manly" subject front and center in order to give himself permission to then get or release his innate lyricism. Look at his pictures and mentally (or with your thumb) cover or remove the main subject. I think, in his good pictures you will find all kinds of music going on once you get past that frontal subterfuge (and the ones that aren't good are because this lyricism is missing). Look at the way clothing lies, the way bodies are twisted and turned, the bulges and curves of the earth, of stains on wood, of shadows and incidental lines.</p>

<p>This conflict, this contest between the overt and the covert, is, in my opinion, what makes Evans pictures so good. The tension is what matters -- tension that is entirely of Evans's invention.</p>

<p>I don't think Evans would have made "Migrant Mother." She's too pretty. It's blatant lyricism.</p>

<p>Two Evans quotes from the book <em>Walker Evans at Work</em> for your mild amusement:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>[<em>below: hand penciled note to his tool series</em>]<br>

"Time and again a man will stand before a hardware store window eyeing the tools arrayed behind the glass; his mouth will water; he will go in and hand over $2.65 for a perfectly beautiful special kind of polished wrench; and probably he will never, never use it for anything."<br>

[<em>below: from his</em> Lyric Documentary <em>speech</em>]<br>

"The real thing I'm talking about has purity and a certain severity, rigor, simplicity, directness, clarity, and it is without artistic pretension in a self-conscious sense of the word. That's the base of it -- they're hard and firm ... "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>(Evans was bi-sexual but not openly so. Search Google Books for Belinda Rathbone's <em>Walker Evans: A Biography</em> for details of his personal life in the <em>Exposure</em> chapter. )</p>

<p>Evans loved lyricism but wouldn't or couldn't deal with it openly. He has to reach all the way back to Leonardo for a suitable example -- scientific illustrations!! I think we've had a bit of lyricism in art since then, not to mention Leonardo's own non-scientific works.</p>

 

<p><strong>Julie - </strong> "Evans loved lyricism but wouldn't or couldn't deal with it openly. He has to reach all the way back to Leonardo for a suitable example -- scientific illustrations!! I think we've had a bit of lyricism in art since then, not to mention Leonardo's own non-scientific works."</p>

<p> It's hard to keep in mind when looking at Evans' imagery that he was a failed writer. His lyricism stems from the literary, not the photographic. This is one of the things that sets him apart. He's an outlier in photography, in many ways.</p>

<p> That's a good observation, Julie, the tool-time passage.There's a lot of psychological overcompensation and the paterfamilias thing in Evans, which I believe he wrestled with all his life, finally settling into it in his later years. Evans openly saw the photographic act as a sensual one:</p>

<p>"Whether he is an artist or not, the photographer is a joyous sensualist, for the simple reason that the eye traffics in feelings, not in thoughts." <a href="http://www.photoquotes.com/showquotes.aspx?id=196&name=Evans,Walker"></a> <a name="7230"> </a><br>

<a href="javascript:void(window.open('emailQuote.aspx?type=form&id=196&name=Walker%20%20Evans&QuoteID=723&Type=Q','','width=400px,height=350px'))"> </a></p>

<p> IMO, the reason he chose Leonardo, was not only the precision of the drawings, their functionality (compare that to his own "...You see, a document has use, whereas art is really useless. ", the incisive observations of Da Vinci, their lyrical descriptive powers, and not incidentally, the lush texts that accompanied them. Here was a man who'd balanced the literary with the visual, and Evans felt a strong affinity with him. </p>

 

<p>It's a mistake to assume poetic = lyric. Poetry is a big tent kind of thing, lyricism is a specific subset, like rap, sappy postcard drivel, and punk ranting.</p>

<p>Similarly, attributing hidden implications to someone's work, beginning with their presumed orientation, was the vogue a few decades ago among an in-group of critics and academics, but has always been a joke to people who identify with wider communities (eg San Franciscans). The affection of many gays for Harley Davidsons isn't due to a lyricism or its absense, and to imagine that Marine Corps types are more attracted to beautiful tools than are their different brethren seems hilariously uninformed at best :-)</p>

<p>Perhaps Evans' worry about Stieglitz and the lyricism question can be addressed better without relying so exclusively on gender prejudices? </p>

<p>For example, I think he dealt in touching moments, fleeting expressions. Some of his images feel like post cards. Perhaps he was simply more aware of moments and the emotions of others, and more political than was Stieglitz, who was burdened with gallery commerce, bigger cameras and who pursued images that were more overtly and personally erotic.</p>

<p> </p>

<ul>

<li>John, I have a hard time associating Evans with "touching moments". He prided himself in trying to remove sentiment from photographs. As to his large postcard collection, the more banal the postcard the better. He is described by his colleagues at Yale as aloof and totally uninterested in the common man. Unlike Agee, he personally saw no political cause in his "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" photographs.</li>

</ul>

<p> We might remember that "banal" has special meaning in photography. Evans did work some in that realm (as did Irving Penn...cigarette butts, crosswalks etc), as well as in what seems a postcard realm (hardscrabble families, toughing it out). </p>

<p>His work seems full of "touching moments." "Now Let Us Praise..." in particular.</p>

<p>FSA was created as a politically activist organization (fully proper, imo). As one of Roy Stryker's photographers Evans was by definition and default a political activist. Looking at his work and trying to "strip sentiment" from it is to deny the moments he selected. I think viewers pity and resonate with the plight of his subjects today, and did when they were first published.</p>

<p>Undoubtedly like most of us, Evans functioned at several levels, saying one thing or three, doing two or six others. Capsule biographies reduce subjects to metaphors (as we've seen above) stripping away substance, which is first a complex dynamic.</p>

<p><em>"The Popes have long been the patrons and preservers of art, just as our new, practical Republic is the encourager and upholder of mechanics. In their Vatican is stored up all that is curious and beautiful in art; in our Patent Office is hoarded up all that is curious or useful in mechanics."</em><br>

Mark Twain, "The Innocents Abroad" ...Papal Protection of Art chapter. </p>

<p>Perhaps Evans (and Leonardo) most notably worked on the "curious and useful" side, and Stieglitz (and Leonardo) worked on the "curious and beautiful" side.</p>

<p>That one government employee was more "unaffected" than the other (Pope Vs FSA) seems unsupported...isn't evident in the images, save in Stieglitz's of-the-era necessarily higher craft.</p>

<p>"Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" was not an FSA project.</p>

<p>Jon, you're right.<br>

<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsahtml/fachap04.html">http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsahtml/fachap04.html</a></p>

<p>Evans: "Art is really useless." Does this suggest that he thought his work was "useful?"</p>

<p>My impression is that he wasn't as attuned to his subjects as individuals as were some of his contemporaries, and that he wasn't able to admit the "affectation" in his own work. He evidently thought his "affected" images were spontaneous gifts, not his intention. </p>

<p>What are your own perceptions? (vs what Evans said)</p>

<p><br>

Lyricism is derived of course from the word lyric and signifies expression or high flown sentiment. Of course the latter can reduce to drivel, but in good art that is not often the result. The first quote of Evans in the original post is very interesting in terms of the impetus for lyricism in photography, inciting the photographer to transform seemingly dead objects into personal and lyric visual statements . Perhaps I think that simply because it is somewhat parallel to my own photographic approach. The other quotes from Evans in the original post do not hold true in my mind (particuarly the stuff about Leonardo. His technical creations are from a different approach and mindset than his art, just like the opera singer who runs a small dairy farm as a hobby). Documentation and lyricism are not always good bedfellows, one being technical or scientific as often practiced, the other more free expression. Possibly Evans was just substantiating his own approach by what he said at Yale (not an unusual approach of competing artists)?</p>

<p>Much can be learned from looking at, and even more so by analyzing, the works of others. As much as I find this fascinating and useful in early years of personal photographic effort, I will leave much of that to the academics or academically inclined, as too much interpretation of other's works can become an albatross in one's own production. The last thing I wish to happen is to be so influenced by other's works or thoughts that when I try to create an image for myself it essentially becomes a copy (whether highly similar or loosely adapted, both are negative) of what someone else has done before me.</p>

 

 

<p>Arthur, I wonder about your characterization of lyricism. I checked several sources and "sentiment" isn't used in any definitions or discussions of lyricism I can readily find. Perhaps I am working with a somewhat negative connotation of sentiment (as in sappy sentimentality), and am resistant to including it in the definition.</p>

<p>The first definition of "sentiment" in Merriam-Webster is <em>an attitude, thought, or judgment prompted by feeling</em>.</p>

<p>The reason that above definition is crucial is that, as I see it, sentiment adds a layer to feeling. It is what we do with feelings once we experience them. Even if in no way sappy or negative, entiment suggests to me a secondary response, where feelings seem more primary. And that bears on your further thoughts to me. You move seamlessly from looking at to analyzing to interpreting the works of others in your own personal resistance to being influenced by others' work or thoughts. I'd put "interpretation" of others' photographs or paintings, etc. on the same level as sentiment, a secondary response. Looking at and feeling something from someone else's work doesn't have to lead to interpretation. For me, it often does not. One can critique and talk about someone else's photographs without "interpreting" them and I actually find I get more out of others' work when I attempt to do that.</p>

<p>I have a different experience from you regarding influence. Though I've always loved exploring the work of others and imagine I'll continue to, at the beginning I was more intimidated by the thought of undue influence. I often regretted asking for critiques of my work even on PN because I really didn't want to hear others' opinions of what I should have done differently (which seems to be what most people on PN think a critique is . . . wrongly, in my opinion). I was even avoiding immersing myself in photography books when I first started taking pictures myself, though of course I'd already been exposed to much over the years. As my own sense of my photograph making has developed, I'm less concerned about being unduly influenced. As a matter of fact, I crave it more and more. Not so much so I can copy or imitate others, but in the sense of a dialogue. I have long seen one of the key aspects of art as its historical nature and the way it creates a dialogue of expression over the ages. Philosophy is very much like that. Just as I've always loved hearing others' philosophical ideas, I think I will always love looking at and responding to (in my own photographs) others' visual expressions.</p>

<p>John, I associate Evans with the emotional detachment of someone observing a foreign country, especially in his post 1930s work. He favors hard and geometric surfaces. The only time he seems to connect with people is the"Now Let Us Praise Famous Men" project where he was actually living in their home for a few weeks.</p>

<p>Last year the Fraenkel Gallery in San Francisco had an exhibition of Edward Hopper and his probable influence on photographers of his era. There is also a book. Evans was one of the photographers featured. What struck me was that his vintage print had a presence that made the building photographed of secondary importance - something I have not experienced in his published photos. Although interested in documenting the world as he saw it, lyricism in his finished print must have been what he was after. If alive today, I think he would be making daguerreotypes.</p>

 

<p>Fred, my definition is from an old volume of the concise Oxford dictionary. I may be wrong but I don't think their use of high flowing sentiment necessarily relates 'a priori' to sappy sentimentalism.</p>

<p>Elsewhere, definitions of lyricism on the Web:</p>

<p>lyricality: the property of being suitable for singing<br /> <strong>unrestrained and exaggerated enthusiasm </strong><br /> wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn<br /> Great enthusiasm; Suitability to be sung or used as lyrics<br /> en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lyricism<br /> lyrical - suitable for or suggestive of singing<br /> lyrical - lyric: expressing deep emotion; "the dancer's lyrical performance" <br /> wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn<br /> Lyrical is a Hip hop artist from Lowell, Massachusetts, who also teaches college. His 2005 album iNFiNiTi won for album of the year in the M.I.C. Hip Hop awards in Boston and is available worldwide. ...<br /> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyrical_(artist)<br /> <strong>lyrical - songlike; characterized by emotion, subjectivity, and imagination</strong><br /> www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~anne_conghuyen/literaryterms.doc<br /> the practice of writing verse in song form rather than narrative form to embody the poet's thoughts and emotions. Also lyrism. —lyricist, n. ...<br /> www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2505200420.html<br /> <strong>an intense personal quality, expressive of feeling or emotion, expressed in poetry or music</strong><br /> www.cgsmusic.net/Classical%20Guitar%20Sheet%20Music%20Dictionary/Classical%20Guitar%20Dictionary%20L.htm<br /> lyrical - The name "Contemporary Dance" describes a range of techniques and styles using the body's natural lines and energy, allowing a greater range and fluidity of movement that conventional dance techniques do not offer.<br /> millenniumdanceconcepts.com.au/Classes<br /> <strong>lyrical - a stylistic approach which emphasizes the romantic, thereby producing in the viewer intense emotional feelings.</strong><br /> web.commplus.net/jda/glossary/glossary_L.htm</p>

<p>In addition to the Oxford sense, I particularly like those in bold characters above, at least as lyricism applies to photography. They don't seem to relate in a conventional sense to Leonardo's engineering creations, unless interpreted as lyricism in an <strong>imaginative</strong> sense.</p>

<p>Fred, I am surely influenced by the work of others and I enjoy greatly looking <strong>and</strong> interpreting their work. But (excuse the use of a common cliché) "when push comes to shove" I have to divorce myself from all but my own individual thoughts and approach, or I do not successfully create anything that I am personally happy with.</p>

<p>This has also been the experiece of a few friends who are engaged in creative art (sculpture, poetry, painting). They are influenced by others, but have to go and create in a Mahler-like cabin atmosphere, away from the influence of others.</p>

<p>Arthur, I've always thought of "lyrical" as poetic and/or songlike, a bit more specific than just emotional or expressive. Lots of things are emotional and expressive that, to me, are not lyrical. Even if the sappiness and sentimental part of "sentiment" are removed, I still don't see where sentiment comes into lyricism. For me, it's got to do with musical kind of movement, visually or poetically.</p>

<p><em>"I have to divorce myself from all but my own individual thoughts and approach, or I do not successfully create anything that I am personally happy with.</em></p>

<p><em>This has also been the experiece of a few friends who are engaged in creative art (sculpture, poetry, painting). They are influenced by others, but have to go and create in a Mahler-like cabin atmosphere, away from the influence of others."</em></p>

<p>Yes, I understand. You've mentioned it before and I appreciate that that's the way you work. Very different from my own way and many whom I know.</p>

<p><strong>Jon W typed: "</strong> What struck me was that his vintage print had a presence that made the building photographed of secondary importance - something I have not experienced in his published photos. Although interested in documenting the world as he saw it, lyricism in his finished print must have been what he was after. If alive today, I think he would be making daguerreotypes."</p>

<p> Sounds great, except Evans rarely printed his own work. His attitude towards printing has been described as 'cavalier'. The earlier stuff was done by John T. Hill and sundry pro labs of the day, the latter stuff by Sven Marston. Both printers were friends of Evans. The emphasis on various geometric forms was perfectly in line with Modernist formalist concerns in painting at the time (although, as usual, Atget did it earlier). I doubt Evans would have been printing anything if he were alive today. He'd be having it done, as he did for most of his life as a photographer.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fred, I think sentiment in the British (and perhaps Canadian, or French Canadian) sense must be different and perhaps more universal (large gamut of sentiments) from that in the American sense, at least in regard to how the term and lyricism is being used in many posts here.</p>

<p>Is it the influence of culture? Perhaps. The distinctiveness (in aspects of sentiment, and other) from each other of American (Hollywood), Australasian, British, French, Canadian (say, Atom Egoyan or Robert Lepage, for two examples if you know their oeuvres), other European, Iranian, and other films (or theatre) is to me quite clear. I can usually guess quite often which country the film comes from (although some expressions or sentiments overlap). Sentiments are very differently expressed.</p>

<p>Alhough I haven't thought of it too much lately, this is probably also evident in photography, though to a probably lesser degree, or not in the same way.</p>

<p>I don't know fully how you work in photography Fred, although your posts give some incling to that. I don't think I am less involved than you are with, say, my human subjects (although there are not many because I have not found my talents to be very well developed there, although hope prevails), but very much so with inanimate ones. My friends and I discuss philosophy and approach quite often, possibly because some of them also exhibit during the summer at my little gallery. I do share more with them on a human or emotional plane and in our respective crusades (some crusade against political inequlities, others against social ones including their dificulties as a result of sexual orientation, some because art expression is the only thing that makes sense in their lives, one because he has to support himself with his sales). We also have a great exchange on our respective art and our approaches and support each other in our respective projects or thoughts. But we each work like monks when it comes to our own portfolio.</p>

<p>I would be interested, as you brought up this aspect, to know how your artistic work differs in context than mine, as stated above (I am a curious bugger, who loves to learn).</p>

<p>Luis, thanks for the information. He had good printers. Could you give me some references for the modernist painters you refer to?</p>

<p>Jon W, thanks for the observations and for responding mercifully to my embarassing error.<br>

I now owe it to Evans' ghost to make a study. <br>

I love daguerreotypes for their inherent beauty. But I can emulate them closely (save for the wobbly-weird mirroring) with inkjet prints. I don't think there was anything distinctly lyrical (or distinctive in any other way) about them that can't be achieved with conventional materials and long exposure times...except for the beautiful velvet & metal cases, of course.<br>

Aaron Siskind did more more with found graphics than did Atget OR Evans IMO...your thoughts?</p>

 

<p>Jon, the most obvious would be Braque, Picasso, Gris, specifically during the Analytical period of Cubism. Evans' work also shares some similarities in themes with the American Ashcan school, which preceded Evans, but whose works were well-known at the time. He also had a lot in common with Social Realists (though ideologically opposed to the Russian branch), like Ben Shahn. He also admired Paul Strand's work, and Atget. One can see some correspondences between the work of the New Objectivists (like Abbott, whom he knew well) and Evans.</p>

<p>[Keep in mind that most of his early influences are literary, not photographic.]</p>

<p>"No, no." he said. "You don't understand. I would write lies, too. You can't write anything but lies about the past." <br>

----- Evans talking about the notion of writing his autobiography. </p>

<p><br /> </p>