WEEKLY DISCUSSION #28: Charles C. Ebbets “Lunch Atop a Skyscraper”

<p>“<em>Lunch Atop a Skyscraper”</em> See first big BW photo on this link. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206050/The-picture-proves-iconic-photograph-workers-eating-lunch-Rockefeller-beam-publicity-stunt.html">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206050/The-picture-proves-iconic-photograph-workers-eating-lunch-Rockefeller-beam-publicity-stunt.html</a> There’s a 2 ½ minute “Men at Lunch” video trailer of a documentary about the photo at the bottom. <br>

This 1932 iconic photo owned by Corbis Images has had more posters of it sold world-wide then their photo of Albert Einstein. <br>

It’s been credited to <a title="Charles C. Ebbets" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_C._Ebbets">Charles C. Ebbets</a> although there is still a dispute who really photographed it. <a href="http://nowyorkcity.com/2012/12/12/charles-c-ebbets/">http://nowyorkcity.com/2012/12/12/charles-c-ebbets/</a> <br>

It was taken atop the RCA Building later renamed the GE Building during the construction of Rockefeller Center in NYC. Although taken as a publicity stunt to advertise the Center, the construction workers are real and they are on the 69^th floor, 850 feet (259 meters) above the street. Since the photographer isn’t the main focus of attention here, the photo really stands on its own or not. Your judgment. I’m not going to give you my viewpoints now. I don’t want to influence the flow of your feelings or the way the discussion develops. <br>

Thanks for your interest and to Fred G. for inviting me to select this week’s photo. </p>

<p>I don't care if it was a set up, which it almost has to be, or not. It's a very cool photograph and I like it all over again every time I see it. It could never be done today. <br /><br />Rick H.</p>

"Would you fellows mind sitting out on that beam while you eat your lunch so I can get a group photo of you?"

 

"Sure, why not. C'm Gus, Herb, you other guys. This should be good."

 

Anyone looking at that photo would realize or strongly suspect that men eating lunch would not all gather side by side on one beam. There are plenty of other beams where a man could stretch out with one or two friends and chat while eating lunch. That doesn't detract from the impact of the photo.

 

One of the hardest things to do on a photo is to capture grandeur or awesomeness. Looking down some hundreds of feet over the edge of a skyscraper or cliff gives most people a feeling of vertigo, queasy stomach or fear. Looking at a photo taken at that location only gives the viewer a feeling of an abstract scene. This photo does capture that feeling of height. One can almost get a queasy feeling looking at the buildings far below the workers feet. I'm sure that feeling would be heightened more so in a large rendition of this photo.

<p>The obvious fact that it was set up in no way detracts from the power of the photograph. After all these years, though, I am still less awed by the photograph than by the fact that some people are capable of doing that kind of work--definitely not a job for those suffering from acrophobia or panic disorders.</p>

<p>Great shot selection, Alan.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Anyone notice that the man on the right has what appears to be a bottle of whiskey in his left hand? I can't tell if it's empty or not, though.</p>

<p>It's immaterial to me whether or not this is a publicity shot. There is a staggering amount of detail in this photograph. The viewer can even see the sign for the Essex House far in the background (sort of over the middle man's head, and it's in reverse). But one of the things I like most about this photograph is the sense of casualness and fun, which is entirely authentic to me. As someone who, in his younger days, did iron work similar to this, I can relate to this. It took me about a day-and-a-half (and a lot of ribbing from the other guys on the crew) of sliding along a 9-inch-wide beam on my butt before I could get up and actually <em>walk</em> on it, but once I did, it was just another job. Like these guys, we had no safeties. There was no such thing as OSHA yet. We even had guys who would do little dance steps as they carried bags of big steel bolts along the beams (I was <em>not</em> one of them). So I imagine this crew had its share of clowns, too.</p>

<p>The thing to remember about this photo, is that it was 1932. The height of the Great Depression. A man would take any job, anywhere, to support his family. These guys were one tiny misstep away from death every day, but they did it anyway. You don't see that in this photo, but you can <em>feel</em> it.</p>

<p>I love this photograph. It's real, but not real at the same time. It may be a setup, but it's also documentary photography at its finest...no HDR and overprocessing here, just straight photography. It shows our country in a way that we'll never see it again, I think. </p>

<p>I'd like to know what kind of camera, lens, and film were used. </p>

<p>I have been to the Top of the Rock several times. On each occasion, before stepping out onto the observation area, I looked at the <strong>Lunch . . .</strong> photograph, placed in a very conspicuous location, and larger than life. Of course I've also seen the same image many other times, but in print formats and much, much smaller. Viewing it at the Rockefeller Center was an entirely different experience. It is not only part and parcel of New York's history, but also a tribute to working people in the USA. I could care less then, as I do now, whether the photograph was staged. </p>

<p>Many thanks, Alan. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have a considerable affection for this photograph and it never fails to bring on a smile, followed rapidly by " I don't think I could cope with that". Even the pastiche that used to ( maybe still does) parade around west Broadway on top of a van got the smile. I absolutely don't care who made it or whether it was posed; it was just important that it got made.</p>

<p>Two things that stand out to me from a technical standpoint are the unevenness of the tones in the background (a mottled, smoky appearance), and the light halos around the men. It's hard to tell if they are an effect of age or bad darkroom work. To me, it looks like some sloppy dodging around the men.<br>

This article shows a picture of the original glass negative:<br>

http://blogs.reuters.com/photographers-blog/2012/09/20/protecting-an-iconic-image/<br>

A quote from the article: <em>"The old Bettmann darkroom workers never much cared for printing from this negative as it required a lot of manipulation to get the image onto paper, dodging and burning and such. Prior to its being broken they had made a number of high-quality prints of the image from which copy negatives were made, to make printing it easier."</em> It seems odd that a photographer as experienced as Ebbets would make a negative that required so much effort to get a good print. It could be that conditions were not ideal for photography that day, and this was the best that could be had.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am still less awed by the photograph than by the fact that some people are capable of doing that kind of work</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a Mohawk <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=mohawk+indian+skywalkers">tradition</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... it was 1932. The height of the Great Depression. A man would take any job, anywhere, to support his family. These guys were one tiny misstep away from death every day, but they did it anyway. You don't see that in this photo, but you can <em>feel</em> it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Precisely. I wince every time I see this image, and attempt to draw attention to it every time I hear BS from someone about the "nanny state" and excess government interference in private "freedom". As a picture, it's a valuable document of its time, in particular of the fact that the building owner would gratuitously expose the workers to unnecessary additional danger for the sake of a "humorous" publicity shot.</p>

Thanks Alan, yet another great choice of weekly photo.

Everything is however ruined by David's rant on "Nanny state" inspired by a photo that recalls,to all, the thousands of

poor workers who killed themselves falling down during construction work under such conditions. We don't have an off

topic forum anymore so I will just withdraw from the discussion.

<p><em>... David's rant on "Nanny state" inspired by a photo that recalls,to all, the thousands of poor workers who killed themselves falling down during construction work under such conditions.</em><br>

Bizarre! The ONLY reason that fewer poor workers are killed on construction sites these days (it's still around 60,000 world-wide each year)<br>

https://www.nebosh.org.uk/news/default.asp?cref=816&ct=2<br>

is because of government safety legislation. Do you object to this in some way?</p>

<p>A great photo which always grabs the attention. A large part of its appeal is the danger. If I watch film of construction from those days I see a continual stream of working practices which would be completely outlawed today (in the UK anyway and I assume the US too) and result in instant dismissal. It is perhaps ironic that the workers here might have risked dismissal for<em> not</em> taking their place on the beam. A case of <em>Autre temps, autre moeurs</em> and thankfully goodbye to all that.<br /> In any case though the beam is a double channel and quite wide, and would present no balance problems for steel workers then or now. I found I got used to working at heights and thinking back took some pretty hairy risks myself.<br /> <br /> I always find my eye is drawn to the background in this shot, almost more than the beam. Maybe because the beam and its crew can be comprehended quite quickly while the baclground takes a bit longer.<br /> <br /> I have always assumed this shot was a set up and do not think that detracts from it any more than any other posed shot.</p>

<p>The men aren't "at work" -- they're on lunch break ("free" time). Which is to say, work rules no longer bind them; they're <em>free</em> to have some fun.</p>

<p>I would suspect that being in this famous photo was the most fun many of the participants had in their whole lives. I certainly feel it radiating from the photo.</p>

<p>Ever seen <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_Wire">Man on Wire</a></em>?</p>

<p>At all places I've worked, most work rules still apply when I'm at lunch on site.</p>

<p>Observations about the political ramifications of a photo are not off topic, or at least shouldn't be.</p>

<p>_________________________________________________________</p>

<p>One of the key elements of this photo for me is the supporting rope. Compositionally, it adds a strong and dynamic diagonal. Narratively, it helps show the precariousness of the situation. Without that rope, I think it would be a much more surreal photo and, perhaps, feel less documentary-like. Were the men dangling in air, more visually unsupported, I think it would change the whole tone of the picture. That rope seems to really ground it (ironically) for me and maintains the nuts and bolts of the situation, preventing me from seeing it in that purely surreal way it might otherwise have been shot. That rope, not to overemphasize it but just wanting to call attention to it as it calls my own attention, is a photographic gesture not unlike the more humanly directed gestures of the men relating to each other or doing their own things. It's part of the orchestration of the photo. And whether intentional or not and whether the director of the shoot would see it as I do or not, it has this effect on me. It makes it more real and much less abstract than if there was a simple clean line of men on a parallel bar floating mid-air.</p>

<p>In terms of the staging, I think poses and staging can be very effective when they are obvious enough to be recognized as such and yet still achieve a level of authenticity and acceptability. Then I don't feel as though any kind of wool is being pulled over my eyes, but rather that a degree of intentionality went into the creation of a scene that conveys to me something of significance. It seems a good balance was reached here with the staging.</p>

<p>A staged photo will often have a different effect on me than a candid one and I can very viscerally feel that difference, which I do here. I don't think one is better or more effective or more honest or more genuine than the other, but I find the difference significant nonetheless. I tend to appreciate each, candid and posed photos, for what they offer but also tend to be very attuned to the differences in how each says what it says and in how each feels to me. In this photo, the adept sense of artifice I feel works quite well against the still exhilarating sense of reality of the situation. Both artifice and breathless reality work together in this single still photo. That's powerful!</p>

<p>I've always loved this photograph, and have always assumed it was a setup. It still works today, because of the perfect direction of the photographer (?) or whoever 'posed' the interactions. Those interactions look real, because they undoubtedly <em>were</em> real. These men knew each other from years working together. There was, in fact. no way this could have looked other than authentic in that respect. You recognize that the scene was created for the photo, and you also realize that the subjects were entirely authentic.</p>

<p>On the sociopolitical aspects: These were high-iron workers in the 1930s. If you had suggested to them that they needed safety harnesses and work rules, you'd have gotten a reply that began with knuckles. Those were the times. In the middle of a crippling depression, these guys had <em>highly paid work</em>! They knew the risks, and took them. Me, in 2014? I support rules that protect workers, whether created by government or negotiations between workers and management, but I don't try to project my sensibilities on a prior age.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's a Mohawk <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=mohawk+indian+skywalkers" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">tradition</a>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The guys in the photo are predominantly European. I don't know why this myth persists that those of native American ancestry had no innate fear of heights. Everyone is born with an innate fear of heights, and everyone can learn to overcome that fear to some degree.</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Center"><strong><em>Here</em></strong></a> is a more recent picture of the GE Building (formerly the RCA Building) in Rockefeller Center.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I selected this picture since I've been in construction and have seen this poster in many contractor's offices. It's always been a heart-stopper for me. The cavalier attitude of men working in such dangerous places comes across. It's like watching performers who know what they're doing performing a high-wire act with no net. Today, steel workers wear personal fall protection tied off to the steel. But even with that, construction workers often take risks beyond safety regulations. It's a "man" thing. Drinking use to be big time as the flask on the right shows, as well as smoking. Those too have pretty much been stopped. The picture really echoes back to a time that has pretty much past in one sense. Yet, continues in another. This link shows some other shots of this type. Some are even scarier and some I think are better compositionally. http://nowyorkcity.com/2012/12/12/charles-c-ebbets/</p>

<p>Photographically, it certainly has the "wow" factor. The content and interest are compelling. Although it probably would work in color, BW focuses your attention on the action. Being able to identify NYC Central Park in the background adds to the reality of it, especially for a New Yorker like me. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Those are great, Alan. It appears that Ebbets himself had to shoot from some pretty precarious locations in order to get his pictures. As for those others, I love the parodies!</p>

<p>On another note, the angle of the buildings near the bottom of the original shot indicates that it was likely shot at (or cropped to) a moderately wide angle perspective. (Shooting downward, the angle of deviation from vertical is reversed from when one is shooting looking up at buildings.) Central Park appears just a bit too far away if shot with a normal lens--but with moderate wide angle, that is about how it would look, I believe. (I have never actually shot from any of the Rockefeller Center buildings.) The wide angle lens used also makes the apparent altitude greater. Yes, it was shot high, but not from as a great a height as it appears.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>In addition to his photographic endeavors, throughout the 20s he had many adventurous jobs including being a pilot, a wing-walker, an auto racer, a wrestler, and a hunter. He was also prizefighter Jack Dempsey’s official staff photographer, a staff photographer for the Miami Daily News and a freelance photographer</strong></em><br>

<em><strong> </strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>In other words, Ebbets was an adrenaline junkie.<em><strong><br /></strong></em></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Staged or not, this is one of my favorite photos of all time. It illustrates the power of photography to share the experience of being in a place where we are unlikely to find ourselves - I never intend to walk on "high steel" - and it does it in a humorous and entertaining way.</p>

<p>This image demonstrates the art of photography on multiple levels, and it's always a joy to experience it. And when I'm in the mood for a bit of fun, I enjoy Mike Stimpson's version of the image realized in Lego.</p>

<p>I think many people who see the photo and think about it will realise that it has been orchestrated and would realise that the photographer didn't just happen to be there.<br>

I think the hateMail simply has a liking for belittling creative people's work and for making its self look like the orifice of all truth. It's my opinion that even if what is presented in the hateMail does contain some truth, we would be far better off looking for the truth somewhere else.<br>

My 2p.</p>

<p><em>I think the hateMail simply has a liking for belittling creative people's work and for making its self look like the orifice of all truth. It's my opinion that even if what is presented in the hateMail does contain some truth, we would be far better off looking for the truth somewhere else.</em><br>

Could you explain this? I have no clue what you're talking about!</p>

I don't have much of an opinion of that publication.

<p>David, as I put it together, "hateMail" is a euphemism for "Daily Mail," maybe an in joke in the UK. The article accompanying the photo suggests some major controversy, which seems mostly manufactured to me, about the sudden discovery that this "iconic" photo has been staged. It's laughable if that's the extent of the controversy because it's so obvious. If the controversy they're supposed to be uncovering is that workers were put at risk back in the 30s in the U.S., that's also worthy of an ironic "you don't say" response. Like this is news!</p>

<p>I don't know if Alan linked the article because he felt it was an interesting context in which to show the photo and wanted it to be part of the discussion and our experience or if it was simply because it was where he found a large and decent-quality version of the photo itself.</p>

<p>_______________________________________________</p>

<p><em>[For future reference to everyone: You can usually separate a photo out from its original web site by right-clicking on the photo and choosing from the drop-down menu that will come up "OPEN PHOTO IN A NEW WINDOW." Or you can ask me to create a link directly to the picture and I'll be happy to do it. Which is not to say that some OPs won't want to include the web site a photo is on for some informative background or interesting content, which is also perfectly fine.]</em></p>