Provocative NYTimes article: century's best photogs often Jewish

[pcg]

Today's Sunday Times (Arts section) runs an interesting article on the 20th century's best

photogs being frequently Jewish. A half dozen photos. Many, many of the greatest names are

Leica shooters. A string of great street photographers, particularly, who are Jewish. Worth

reading, evenly handled, thoughtful insights...

[olivier_reichenbach]

Not to start a controversy here, but why would an article stating that many Jews are among the

20th best photographers be deemed "provocative"? Who and how does it provoke?

[will_perlis]

"...why would an article stating that many Jews are among the 20th best photographers be deemed "provocative"?"

 

Because the author of the article wanted it to seem to be provocative, starting with his lead paragraph (below). It's an interesting article even if the beating on straw men gets old very quickly.

 

"To be a great photographer, Garry Winogrand liked to claim during the 1970's, it was first of all necessary to be Jewish. The best ones, in his opinion � past and present, himself included, naturally � shared this birthright. Jewish photographers by his definition were nervy, ironic, disruptive of artistic norms and proud outsiders. Eugène Atget, he happily argued (on no genealogical grounds), must have been Jewish because his photographs of French life on the tattered fringes seemed so Jewish in spirit."

[george_d._gianni]

I haven't read the article, but this statement would be hardly surprising, considering the political climate in Europe in the second quarter of the 20th century. And most of them were of European origin.

[Troll]

Why is this piece of racially devisive garbage on the Leica Forum? (POP is still around somewhere, though unfortunately not on photonet.)

[pcg]

Bill, that's quite the PC-oriented comment. Sorry to have brought a thoughtful article to your

attention. Before you begin to jerk your knees, I suggest you read the piece. It raises interesting

social issues and is written in conjunction with a mirror showing of 100s of photos at the Jewish

museum. Many of the photogs represented are lifelong Leica shooters, including Winogrand et

al. Interesting focus on an issue that many of us have talked about (that is, w/in photography

circles), but that has rarely been written about. To tie a certain religious group to a certain art form

does not constitute "divisive garbage," particularly when it's true. And we are speaking about a

major article in America's premiere newspaper.

[furcafe]

I agree w/Mr. Garner. I hardly think that posting a link to an article

in the Arts section of the NY Times counts as "racially devisive

[sic] garbage." Regardless of "political correctness," the

relationship of ethnic culture to the arts raises some interesting

questions. For example, I've always wondered why so many

people of East Asian ancestry, like myself, are into photography

(& Leicas to keep things on topic!), as opposed to other hobbies

& arts.

[olivier_reichenbach]

Bill, why is it that as soon as a thread is not strictly and entirely to your taste it's called "garbage"?

Call it DOT (and I challenge that) if you wish, but garbage...? And a "racially devisive garbage"

at that! No less!

 

Now, a discussion about an controversial article on Jewish photographers, with some Leica

users among them, definitely belongs to this forum. You know, for a change of pace from the

merits of the VF in the M3 compare to the M4-P or wether the pre-asph 35 Cron is superior to

the asph model wide open and what not... Not that these subjecst are not interesting, but a little

change can't harm.

 

BTW, there are three "races": black, white and asian. The Jews are not a "race". They are a

people, they belong to a religion, but, to my knowledge, they are not a race.

[paul_chefurka1]

I've also wondered why so many of the 20th century's great violinists were Jewish. Perhaps there's an intrinsic reverence for the arts that's intrinsic to Jewish culture?

[terry_dvorak]

Thanks, Patrick, for posting the reference. I saw it too (don't miss

the reference to the show in today's NYT Book Review section as well)

but didn't want to raise it here because I've seen too often the

response of Bill Mitchell types who think this forum should only be

used for (as Olivier so aptly put it) discussions about "the merits of

the VF in the M3 compare to the M4-P or whether the pre-asph 35 Cron

is superior to the asph model wide open."

 

Provocative article; VERY impressive list of photographers, most of

whom used Leicas and all of whom would qualify as practitioners of

"Leica [style] Photography."

 

I only wish we had MORE good discussions about such topics on this

forum!

[Jim_Tardio]

I'm not surprised...and I don't mean any disrespect to those who are Jewish. But I don't think it's any secret that the folks who perhaps published these great photographers were often times Jewish themselves. And I don't find anything wrong with that. That's the way of the world.

<p>

And I don't dispute the fact that they are indeed great photographers. But I'd wager there were those who were equally talented who just didn't get the same opportunities.

<p>

Please don't take this the wrong way. As I said, I have nothing against this...that's how I got a few of my jobs. As the saying goes, "It's not what you know, but who you know."

[olivier_reichenbach]

The violin? It's small and portable and that fitted the many journeys of the Jewish diaspora all

around the world through the millennia (a very musical people, the Jews.) The same can be said

of the guitar and the gypsies. All persecuted people who had to survive and resist expressed

their culture though the arts. To this day, of course. For the Jews, the music came naturally, for it's

ever present in their celebrations. So the violin has been the instrument of choice.

 

As aware as I was of the intimate link between the Jewish people and the music, I had no idea

of such a link with photography. Of course, photography is indeed an art form, as good as any

to express one's look on the world, one's dreams and anxieties, so... But I'm going to look into

the specificity, if any, of Jewish street photography. Could be very interesting, knowing the

humour and irony of the Jewish culture.

[pcg]

Part of the "theory" in the NYTs article is that Jewish photographers have always felt

themselves to be outsiders from the mainstream culture, & have therefore been able to see the

city, & the country, with a more objective eye. Perhaps. Perhaps, as music as always been an

intrinsic part of Jewish culture, great art has always been revered.

 

I know growing up in protestant suburbia that I heard little important music, & ran across few

people who treasured visual arts. Suburbia, at least for me, was always about baseball,

basketball & music--? School bands & rock & roll. I never met a real photographer until I went to

university. Today the paradigm is soccer. Oh suburbia!

 

So I suspect that much of the arts intensity & artistic achievement w/in the Jewish community

flows from the exposure to & appreciation of the arts. My hats off to all the great visions, the

great eyes & the great images, however derived & by whomever created.

[Jim_Tardio]

I agree, Patrick. I grew up in very much the same environment. Could it be that the American work ethic made the arts seem frivolous and time-wasting?? We've been conditioned from an early age get a "serious" job.

<p>

Much to the anguish of my parents, I "wasted" the efforts of my first working summer on a set of drums and a camera that I purchased with S&H green stamps.

[iván]

Interesting subject matter. Only that for us who live away from the States itsn't that easy to get to the source material: any link to a site where we can see something about the commented article ?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

-Iván

[cd thacker]

I think that the answer to the question, "why Jewish?", probably lies in a combination of what Winogrand said ("nervy, ironic, disruptive of artistic norms and proud outsiders") and what Jim Tardio mentions ("I don't think it's any secret that the folks who perhaps published these great photographers were often times Jewish themselves"). The question is "provocative", of course, precisely because the answer, in the first case, implies "special", national, characteristics - in what is ostensibly not a nation; and implies, as well, in the second answer, a certain media dominance. Both explanations - of special characteristics and of dominance - are traditional fodder for anti-semites (but only because anti-semite propaganda misunderstands, misconstrues, and mis-uses the truth). There is no question that Jews share distinctive cultural characteristics. The somewhat disproportionate role of Jews in media has come about, it seems obvious, largely through those characteristics. Favoritism almost certainly is a factor, who knows to what extent - but it would be meaningless without those very characteristics and talents that Winogrand mentions. And in any case, let us not forget that the real media control, in the US, at least, is in the hands of the WASP establishment - to whom Jews are still very much the "other".

[fotografz]

Any connotation citing one group of humans as inherently better

than another at anything is the root of prejudice. If one is better,

than some other is inferior. The conditions of time and place

may highlight groups of individuals such as the Post

Impressionists, but it does not necessarily follow that the

painters were the best because they were French.

 

In the book "Geniuses Together" the group creative dynamic is

vividly illustrated. The gathering together or confluence of so

many brillant minds feeding one another rather than working in

isolation regardless of national origin, race or creed. In Europe,

the photographic advancements were not necessarily Jewish

centric, but more wide spread. In the US, photography (as well

as modern art) was championed by Steiglitz who happened to

be Jewish, and NYC was heavily populated by Jewish imigrants

at that specific time. However, to say that the best photography

is/was done by Jews, discounts and ignores the myriad

non-Jewish photographers that fill our Pantheon of great image

makers.

 

As an artist, I believe in the group dynamic. There are far to

many examples in history to ignore this notion. What is so great

about the internet and forums like this is that it has the potential

to accelerate and feed that group dynamic...if we allow it to do so

with intelligence and spirit.

[hans_berkhout]

http://www.nytimes.com

 

The article by Richard Woodward inroduces the reader to Max Kozloff, art critic. He organized the show "New York: Capital of Photography" in the Jewish Museum in Manhattan and he wrote essays the Jewish photographers and their importance.

 

Dr. B. Mitchell shoots the messenger.

[stevierose]

Here is the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/arts/design/07WOOD.html">link</a> to the article. I don't think that anyone else should comment about this post without actually reading the article. I am Jewish, and while I certainly cannot speak for all Jews, I find nothing provocative about Patrick's posting. The article itself is purposely provocative, and the real problems associated with the premise it presents are well discussed in the article itself.

 

<P>For what it is worth, here is my point of view. If you make a list of great achievers in almost any area of the arts, science, literature, academics, medicine, Nobel prize winners, etc., for the twentieth century you will find that Jews are well represented. Jews have always valued scholarship and the intellectual world. Prior to the 20th century this was mainly reflected in biblical and talmudic studies, but when they have been lucky enough to live in a culture that allowed them the freedom to pursue secular pursuits they have excelled in those areas as well. As an example, the Jews of Spain were allowed a great deal of freedom under the Moors during the middle ages, and made great contributions to the arts and sciences at that time (particularly to medicine). This "golden age" ended with the Inquisition. Likewise, upon arriving in the United States early in the 20th century, my grandparents and parents generation lept at the educational and other (artistic) opportunities when they became available.

 

<P>I am not sure that I agree with the NYT article assertion that Jews have dominated street photography, but if, for the sake of argument, you accept it I would suggest the following possible reasons. First, the article refers primarily to New York City street photography, and since millions of Jews emmigrated to New York it should not be surprising that a few would be involved in almost any activity, including photography. Second, the price of entry to the "art" of photography at the time was low, all you needed was a camera and film. No art school education was needed. Lastly, many Jews will admit that no matter how well assimilated they may become in a country they still always feel at least partly like outsiders. This is the product of centuries of real persecution (the mid 20th century a prime example) and the fact that they are always a small minority in an otherwise majority Christian culture. This feeling of being an "outsider looking in" may be an advantage in photography (particularly street photography) where observation and point of view is so important.

[joshroot]

<i>"For what it is worth, here is my point of view. If you make a list of great achievers in almost any area of the arts, science, literature, academics, medicine, Nobel prize winners, etc., for the twentieth century you will find that Jews are well represented"</i> <P>Not only are they well represented, but I think you'll find that the percentages of jewish people on that esteemed list will be well boyond their 3% of the US population. There are many reasons why this might be, but I'm absolutely not the person to pick one. It's just a pretty obvious fact.

[cd thacker]

I saw the article in the paper at the store this AM, but didn't buy because, where I live (Hawaii), the Sunday Times costs $6.70 - too rich for my blood, most weeks. I had a pretty good idea, though, that a thread about that article would be posted here. And now, I've read the article on line.<P>

 

It's one thing to try to figure out, from a sociological or anthropological standpoint, why some human groups predominate in certain fields; it's quite another to label some field or other, or parts of a field, "Jewish", "Goyish", or, for that matter, "Aryan". Wasn't it the Nazis, after all, who first attributed to art various national characteristics - supposed ones?<P>

 

Is Phil Greenspun's photography "Jewish"? How about mine? - can you shoot "Jewish" photos without being Jewish? <P>

 

It is truly disappointing that today we are still making the same dunderhead mistakes in thinking, and floating the same old dead ideas in the general press. It makes me, for one, want to throw my hands in the air and say, I give up. Instead, though, I think I'll go outside now and do some good Jewish photography.

[Spearhead]

This article is just some additions to a far more interesting article A. D. Coleman wrote a number of years ago, which can be found <a href="http://www.nearbycafe.com/adc/adcmenu/readings/jews.html">here</a>. It's unfortunate that the Times, which once featured Andy Grundberg's truly original writins on photography, can't think of something new to say.<p>

 

On the other hand, for the more adventurous, there's a fascinating article in today's San Francisco Chronicle, which can be read <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/07/07/PK24430.DTL&type=performance">here</a>, about performance art that mimics old photographs.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/arts/design/07WOOD.html"><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-288.gif></a>

[peter_mcdonough]

HCB is jewish? Salgado? Danny Lyon?

[richard_ilomaki]

Hello:

 

A closely realated but just as intersting fact is that many "American" movie directors came from Jewish Polish communities within a 50 Mi. radius of each other in the Old Country.

 

I forget all the names but there was a TV program and I think some articles about the fact that many movies in the thirties through the 50s- westerns mainly, were directed by these guys and these helped to form much of the American "Ethos" and values up to the 70s, when they no longer made movies and the "Nouveau Right" ascended.

 

The Mc. Carthy era also had a chiling effect on many creative people

in the arts communities.

 

 

The above comments about "Suburbia" and "important" music applied to me as well, as my Jewish mother always made sure I was aware of much

"Important" music, arts and social issues.

 

Provocative? Maybe! The stream of European and Cetral European immigrants to N America certainly were different than teh religious fanatics with guns who landed in Plymouth in the 1600s and the exiles and others from England and the UK.

 

All that is what makes the US so culturally and socially varied and free and the place to which most others from the rest of the world flee.

 

Living as I do now in Asia, I very vividly see the differences between the diverse American culture and what I experience as the monolithic cultures of the Oreint.

 

Could some of the same comments apply to movies as well?

 

What does this have to do with a Leica? Perhaps it too, like a violin, is easy to carry in difficult times and dangerous places, reliable and capable of capturing and reproducing the richness of any culture.

 

An M6 and a 35 Summicron may well be the Stradivarious of the future!!!

 

Cheers