Photographer Andrew Sweet

Andy Sweet was born in Miami Beach, Florida. He lived his entire life, and died, there. I had the privilege of watching a documentary biographical film recently, the title of which is "The Last Resort." Please use this link to an online summary of the film, which is available on Netflix: ABOUT — The Last Resort Many, but not necessarily all, of Sweet's photos have been restored, and you can view them at another internet site: Andy Sweet Photo Legacy - Andy Sweet's Miami Beach.

I will be quite interested to read what you think about Sweet's work.

michael

Well, I didn't go through all of the galleries, but what I did see looked to me to be snapshots that pretty much any tourist could have taken. I saw that documentary advertised on Netflix, and didn't think it looked particularly interesting, and based on the galleries you linked to (thanks, by the way), I don't think I'd have enjoyed it. I took this shot at Cocoa Beach Florida (shown here with no post-processing adjustments), and can't see where anything of Andy's is any more interesting. Of course, what makes it interesting is the subject, as there was no particular skill needed to press the shutter button, and I think that is the case with a lot of 'street (or beach)' photography.

The fact that I don't personally get much from Sweet's work doesn't prevent me from seeing the difference between a quick, one-off, random snap of what someone thought was an interesting subject and the considered and consistent series presented by Sweet.

I grow really weary of the "my 12-year-old son could have done this" level of critique.

Phil correctly notes that Sweet's photographs provide a sense of place and time. I see them as documentary. Sweet's objective was to display Miami Beach's history, especially after World War II. That history, of necessity, had to include the migration to the area of people from the New York City, primarily Jewish people. Another migration was that of Jewish refugees from Europe. Regardless of his knowledge of the technical side of photography, he chose to use nothing more than realism to capture his subjects. I am confident that most who experienced Miami Beach during the time Sweet was plying his trade would note how he succeeded. I am one of them.

So you can tell the people are Jewish migrants from New York by looking at those photos? Pretty much all old family snapshots provide a sense of place and time. My parents have box fulls of photos that do such, none of which were taken by someone who would have considered themselves a photographer.

So you can tell the people are Jewish migrants from New York by looking at those photos? Pretty much all old family snapshots provide a sense of place and time. My parents have box fulls of photos that do such, none of which were taken by someone who would have considered themselves a photographer.

Jordan, my identification of the subjects in Sweet's photographs is based primarily on two sources: the narrative of "The Last Resort" and my own experience living in southeast Florida since 1958. Again, I'm confident that most people living in the area for the same period of time as me would be able to identify the dominant socioeconomic group living in Miami Beach, especially South Beach..

As to the term "photographer," I suspect your take on its meaning is much too narrow. Anyone who shoots a photograph, regardless of the instrumentality used for that purpose and of the person's abilities is a photographer.

Wonderful photos, full of life! Thanks for sharing Michael!

SJ, I'm glad you found value in Sweet's work.

Jordan, my identification of the subjects in Sweet's photographs is based primarily on two sources: the narrative of "The Last Resort" and my own experience living in southeast Florida since 1958. Again, I'm confident that most people living in the area for the same period of time as me would be able to identify the dominant socioeconomic group living in Miami Beach, especially South Beach..

 

As to the term "photographer," I suspect your take on its meaning is much too narrow. Anyone who shoots a photograph, regardless of the instrumentality used for that purpose and of the person's abilities is a photographer.

I'm talking about people who are known for their photography. I love to play golf, but no one would ever call me a 'golfer' after watching me play. Regardless, I'd never heard of Sweet, or many other 'photographers,' but I assume that he had some notoriety given there is a Netflix documentary about him. But looking at his 'beach' portfolio, I simply don't see anything that anyone with a camera who liked to take pictures couldn't have snapped, so I wonder where the notoriety came from. I suspect his shots will have meaning to those familiar with the time and era, but as someone simply observing a portfolio of beach pictures, none of them made me feel any particular emotion.

I'm talking about people who are known for their photography. I love to play golf, but no one would ever call me a 'golfer' after watching me play. Regardless, I'd never heard of Sweet, or many other 'photographers,' but I assume that he had some notoriety given there is a Netflix documentary about him. But looking at his 'beach' portfolio, I simply don't see anything that anyone with a camera who liked to take pictures couldn't have snapped, so I wonder where the notoriety came from. I suspect his shots will have meaning to those familiar with the time and era, but as someone simply observing a portfolio of beach pictures, none of them made me feel any particular emotion.

Jordan, we can agree to disagree.

Jordan, we can agree to disagree.

I don’t find the series or the other series particularly interesting either but can recognize how its visual and conceptual continuity makes it very different from any random snapshot that also happens to have been taken on a beach.

I'd suggest that nearly anyone with a camera could hang at the beach for a day and come up with a series of shots that are every bit as or even more interesting than these. The one I posted was just one of a number of shots I took at Cocoa Beach during the few days we were there. Perhaps if I posted them as a series, they'd show similar 'visual and conceptual continuity,' though since I wasn't concentrating on one specific subject (i.e. older folks), perhaps you would just see them as random snapshots (which is how I see Sweet's work - he was just more limited in what he took random snapshots of).

Jordan, we can agree to disagree.

So what do you think makes Sweet's shots more appealing than your own 'street photography' shots?

So what do you think makes Sweet's shots more appealing than your own 'street photography' shots?

Jordan, I never even insinuated that Sweet's photos are more appealing than my own street shots. What made you make this claim?

I'd suggest that nearly anyone with a camera could hang at the beach for a day and come up with a series of shots that are every bit as or even more interesting than these

Yet, lo and behold, most people with cameras haven’t done that. Many 5-year-olds, according to their non-discerning parents, could create a Mark Rothko yet, once again, they haven’t. Hypotheticals are wonderful but often don’t bear fruit.

The one I posted was just one of a number of shots I took at Cocoa Beach during the few days we were there. Perhaps if I posted them as a series, they'd show similar 'visual and conceptual continuity,' though since I wasn't concentrating on one specific subject (i.e. older folks), perhaps you would just see them as random snapshots

One difference between you and Sweet is that he did it and you talk about that you could, perhaps, have done it. Importantly, you didn’t. Do you think yours would show “visual and conceptual continuity?” Maybe select a dozen and post them so we can decide together.

In the meantime, I can just go with what I’ve got. Though I don’t love Sweet’s work, his color palette is expressive, he gets that there’s a narrative afoot, and shows that by placing subjects in context, often with some relationship to a story in the background as well. You grabbed a cute shot of an old man’s behind practically filling the frame. Your photo says to me you thought that was cute and you made no apparent connection with that man ... he’s an object for your camera ... or between that man and anything else in the camera’s view. The backgrounds in Sweet’s work are often subplots to the main subject. Your background could have easily been bokeh.

The shot of Sweet’s that most stands out to me is of the orthodox man with beard in dark overcoat and hat on the right side of the pic showing a classic beach neighborhood. His garb is instantly recognizable within a cultural milieu, the scene is deftly (not unconsciously) skewed, and the man’s body language exudes energy and Just plain has a Jewish dance feel to it. That was captured. Not having more of your photos at the beach to go by, I wonder if you would have imbued a subject and scene like this with that kind of knowing character or if you would have just made the guy bigger and in the center of the frame because he caught your eye. Would you have shown him as a curiosity, which is the feeling I get from your beach bum, or would you have found that right moment of movement and gesture that provides such character to an individual?

Jordan, I never even insinuated that Sweet's photos are more appealing than my own street shots. What made you make this claim?

The point I was making is that there wasn't anything extraordinary in Sweet's shots for me, and that many people who enjoy taking pictures could easily reproduce a similar collection of images. Given you apparently don't find Street's pics any better than your own, I'd assume you agree (unless you find your own work to be extraordinary).

Not anyone, but certainly a large number of equal or better visually and conceptually skilled photographers, yes.

 

 

 

But you didn't. I, as a viewer, can only respond to what you did do and have shown.

I really don't see what one finds so 'visually and conceptually' appealing about Street's photos. To me, anyone bent on capturing a day at the beach with a 50mm lens (or equivalent) could do as well, in my opinion.

Yet, lo and behold, most people with cameras haven’t done that. Many 5-year-olds, according to their non-discerning parents, could create a Mark Rothko yet, once again, they haven’t. Hypotheticals are wonderful but often don’t bear fruit.

 

One difference between you and Sweet is that he did it and you talk about that you could, perhaps, have done it. Importantly, you didn’t. Do you think yours would show “visual and conceptual continuity?” Maybe select a dozen and post them so we can decide together.

 

In the meantime, I can just go with what I’ve got. Though I don’t love Sweet’s work, his color palette is expressive, he gets that there’s a narrative afoot, and shows that by placing subjects in context, often with some relationship to a story in the background as well. You grabbed a cute shot of an old man’s behind practically filling the frame. Your photo says to me you thought that was cute and you made no apparent connection with that man ... he’s an object for your camera ... or between that man and anything else in the camera’s view. The backgrounds in Sweet’s work are often subplots to the main subject. Your background could have easily been bokeh.

 

The shot of Sweet’s that most stands out to me is of the orthodox man with beard in dark overcoat and hat on the right side of the pic showing a classic beach neighborhood. His garb is instantly recognizable within a cultural milieu, the scene is deftly (not unconsciously) skewed, and the man’s body language exudes energy and Just plain has a Jewish dance feel to it. That was captured. Not having more of your photos at the beach to go by, I wonder if you would have imbued a subject and scene like this with that kind of knowing character or if you would have just made the guy bigger and in the center of the frame because he caught your eye. Would you have shown him as a curiosity, which is the feeling I get from your beach bum, or would you have found that right moment of movement and gesture that provides such character to an individual?

I really don't see any specific use of color other than the colors depicted are those that one would typically find at the beach. The point I'm making is, here is a photographer who has gotten some accolades (apparently) for work that seems rather ordinary to me. Whether I or some 5-year-old has done it or not is irrelevant. An analogy would be giving someone who identifies as a runner accolades for running a 15-minute mile. Pretty much anyone of decent health could do that, whether they have or not.

Perhaps Phil (or anyone) can go into a bit more detail about how Sweet's snapshot of someone walking on the beach is any different from mine.

Hi, I would say that the main differences are that he is generally engaging, or perhaps confronting his subjects, and that he is shooting from fairly close, with a roughly "normal" focal length. This focal length gives more of a sense of "presence" to the photos. Whereas your example is a long focal length, shot from a substantial distance, with no interaction with the subject. The long distance/focal length gives a compression of perspective and a feeling of disengagement from the scene.

I should mention that I didn't see Sweet's website photos as my browser won't run it, so I did a Google image search limited to that site; I presume I'm seeing representative photos.

Personally, I'm not very impressed with the quality of the photos. To me they are just not very interesting to look at - they are generally not showing a story or interesting personality, etc. I wonder if the people who DO like the series are getting a sense of nostalgia from it? Maybe I should mention that my first ambition in photography was photojournalistic, and my judgment is in this vein.

One way I sort of judge my own "general" photos is by whether I, or someone I know, likes to come back to an image and look at it again, or perhaps to simply study it for a while. If a brief look is enough to satisfy the viewer then I don't see it as much more than adequate, or perhaps just a subject that doesn't interest them. (As a note, when I say a photo is "adequate" this is not meant as an insult - it can be a perfectly competent newspaper image, etc., it's just not a compelling image.)

I wonder if anyone who likes the series has any particular shots that they are coming back to multiple times? Or is one look enough?

Hi, I would say that the main differences are that he is generally engaging, or perhaps confronting his subjects, and that he is shooting from fairly close, with a roughly "normal" focal length. This focal length gives more of a sense of "presence" to the photos. Whereas your example is a long focal length, shot from a substantial distance, with no interaction with the subject. The long distance/focal length gives a compression of perspective and a feeling of disengagement from the scene.

 

I should mention that I didn't see Sweet's website photos as my browser won't run it, so I did a Google image search limited to that site; I presume I'm seeing representative photos.

 

Personally, I'm not very impressed with the quality of the photos. To me they are just not very interesting to look at - they are generally not showing a story or interesting personality, etc. I wonder if the people who DO like the series are getting a sense of nostalgia from it? Maybe I should mention that my first ambition in photography was photojournalistic, and my judgment is in this vein.

 

One way I sort of judge my own "general" photos is by whether I, or someone I know, likes to come back to an image and look at it again, or perhaps to simply study it for a while. If a brief look is enough to satisfy the viewer then I don't see it as much more than adequate, or perhaps just a subject that doesn't interest them. (As a note, when I say a photo is "adequate" this is not meant as an insult - it can be a perfectly competent newspaper image, etc., it's just not a compelling image.)

 

I wonder if anyone who likes the series has any particular shots that they are coming back to multiple times? Or is one look enough?

Bill, I agree that my snap shows no attachment with the subject, which is not surprising given I wasn't making any attempt at such, but was merely trying to document his look. I agree with you other points specifically regarding Sweet as well. Actually, seems that only one poster in this thread has stated he likes the photos.

A bit about Sweet - when I saw a photo of him holding a Hasselblad the first thing that I think of is, "how could a young guy like that pull off getting a Hassy?" From looking at photos I couldn't imagine him making the money through photography. So my first guess is that his family was well off financially. It seems this was the case.

A bit of his history from Wikipedia: after high school in Miami Beach he got a master's degree in fine arts (focusing on photography) from the University of Colorado. After that he and a friend decided to spend their next 10 years exclusively on the "Miami Beach Photographic Project". The most astounding thing, to me, is that they were awarded grants of $135,000 (per Wikipedia) for this project.

Sweet worked on this for 5 years, until 1982, before being murdered in his apartment - stabbed to death. He was only 28 years old.

A first book was published in 1991. (I'm not sure how, as the Wikipedia article says that Sweet's family had put his negatives into "professional" storage, and the negatives were lost.) Then in 2006 "thirty boxes with contact sheets of Sweet's work were accidentally discovered in a family storage unit..." I am guessing that the current images have been made from the contact prints, which is perhaps where the marginal color quality is coming from.

It's an interesting and tragic story. I think it would be interesting to see some properly done prints in an exhibition (along with those of his partner). Certainly there would be many more than what I've seen so far.

The point I was making is that there wasn't anything extraordinary in Sweet's shots for me, and that many people who enjoy taking pictures could easily reproduce a similar collection of images. Given you apparently don't find Street's pics any better than your own, I'd assume you agree (unless you find your own work to be extraordinary).

Can you please stop putting words in my mouth? I never stated anything that in any way, shape, form, or in any other possible world, that could be construed as the alleged comparison you mentioned.