I WENT AND SAW ROBERT FRANKS EXPEDITION TODAY

[newbie1]

<p>Any one who has not seen, or rather anyone who can, should go see the Robert Frank expedition at the San Francisco Musuem Of Modern Art. It will be there until August. It was "Great". That is all I can say. It did have the "Americas" as part of the expedition.</p>

[david j.lee]

<p>expedition?</p>

[newbie1]

<p>Sorry, I mispelled "Exhibition". I will go back to grade school now.</p>

[rob_wall]

<p>I must be one of those people who just "doesn't get it" when it comes to Robert Frank. Friedlander, Meyerowitz, Arbus, McCullin, Caponigro, Salgado all rock -- I find Frank's work banal and before someone tells me that is the point, please also indicate why thatmakes for good art.</p>

[newbie1]

<p>Jack Kerouac wrote: "Anybody don't loke these pictures don't like potry."</p>

[newbie1]

<p>If one looks at the photo only one can not admire the work.<br />If one looks at the quality of the pictures and tries to compare them to todays cameras, film, digital age and quality,<br />one can not admire the work.</p>

<p>If one looks at the photo entirely, at the content of the photo, at the composition, the lighting, the cameras and film of days gone past,<br />then one can admire the work.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Frank's work isn't banal, but he reveals much that is banal. No one had done it quite like he did before him. Try to look at the cultural/socialogical/historical context of both the state of photography, and the U.S. when he took these photos. Then come back and discuss what you discovered. Another way of saying it, is he was one of the first works of anti-modernism in photography after the "Family of Man" show.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>it's a fair question and I think it's also fair to say that in a way you're right. It isn't about being art or not, that I find the least important consideration myself. What Frank did was above all interesting for the exact reasons Barry mentioned although at the time it was not perceived as such. In fact it took quite some time before people began to see the importance of what he did and today his work is considered an important part of American culture. And anyway, banal can be extremely inspiring.</p>

<p> </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Ton is right. Franks' work was roundly criticized by the American photography critics as being anti-American, and a hit job on the American way of life. In their anger, they denounced it on every level, content and style. He couldn't even intially get the book published here. No one would touch it. He had to get it published in France, and it took a while for the impact of the work to become appreciated in the U.S. </p>

[rob_wall]

<p>So far people have praised Frank for understanding "context," for being anti-modern, for thinking the U.S. is "banal," and for having the right enemies. (After going to yet another MFA graduation exhibit, one could be forgiven for saying that it is the critique of post-war America that is banal.) All debatable, but not sure what it has to do with photography.</p>

<p>I'm also not sure I'm ready to part with the idea that the better part of photography is about the photographer, the artist, trying to let the viewer in on the beauty he or she has glimpsed. There are plenty of photographers who are grinding an axe (Don McCullin and Sebatiao Salgado come to mind) but who manage to grind it in a way that shows grace and mastery of the form.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>....can't wait till it comes to NYC</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Rob, it seems like you have your mind made. All he showed was America has warts, things that needed to be seen that people didn't care to look at, tweaked people's sensibilities. Some seem to think that criticisim = denouncement. Do I really need to do a whole discussion on modernism here? Really, you asked the question, Just read about him, read about the Family of Man project and Franks' reaction to it. He may not be the entire truth, but he was important. Plus, his photos look cool in my eyes. I love his work. the guy had an amazing eye.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>Rob.....a new book starting with Frank's Americans and the importance of it by a former NY Times picture editor might present to you a more thorough understanding of just how important those pics are for photography.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.aperture.org/books/books-new/photography-after-frank.html">http://www.aperture.org/books/books-new/photography-after-frank.html</a></p>

<p>I believe it comes out in June of this year. I attended a talk at the NY Photo Festival where he talked about the book and Frank.</p>

[rob_wall]

<p>So far people have praised Frank for understanding "context," for being anti-modern, for thinking the U.S. is "banal," and for having the right enemies. (After going to yet another MFA graduation exhibit, one could be forgiven for saying that it is the critique of post-war America that is banal.) All debatable, but not sure what it has to do with photography.</p>

<p>I'm also not sure I'm ready to part with the idea that the better part of photography is about the photographer, the artist, trying to let the viewer in on the beauty he or she has glimpsed. There are plenty of photographers who are grinding an axe (Don McCullin and Sebatiao Salgado come to mind) but who manage to grind it in a way that shows grace and mastery of the form.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>"...I'm also not sure I'm ready to part with the idea that the better part of photography is about the photographer, the artist, trying to let the viewer in on the beauty he or she has glimpsed...."</p>

<p>there in lies your basic mistake about what the better part of photography is.............exchange "...the beauty..." with "what".....and you'll see that not all artists see beauty in everything. And they never have. Half the paintings, sculptures, etc are not beautiful. Neither are half the photographs. The world is not all beauty. It is what it is. And that can be anything.</p>

<p>so it's about what the photographer, the artist, is trying to let the viewer in on WHAT he or she has glimpsed. You are very presumptuous to assume that artists only see beauty. Or, only with rose-colored glasses. Not everything in the world is favorable, some of it is down right ugly and evil. Some of it is just everyday. Some of it is hidden from the general population. Take off the glasses and look at the world with new eyes.</p>

[rob_wall]

<p>Tom makes an excellent point, i.e., that many people see the world as ugly, or elements of ugliness in it. </p>

<p>It's hard to support the contention that "half" the paintings and sculptures are not beautiful by design, although if you use the Dada movement as your beginning point this might be true. But it is not relevant. What is relevant to me is that even those photographers (third try with this argument) who depict awful things, whether Jim Nachtwey in the Balkans, Don McCullen in Biafra, or Ashley Gilbertson in the Middle East, manage to do so with a sensibility that is at times exquisite in comparison to Franks.</p>

<p>My view of Robert Franks has always been, and this thread bears it out, that he is one of those photographers who people are told they should look up to, so they do. It's the Emperor's New Clothes all over again.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Rob your last line is a decidedly (and I hope not intentional) arrogant one because it's a supposition based on ignorance. Or are you going to tell me you know all posters here personally and are intimately familiar with their background and knowledge of photographic history.</p>

<p>But let's take one of the photographers you mentioned as an example. I'm a great admirer of Don McCullin's work myself and even more than his Biafra work I admire his Cyprus and Middle East photos. McCullin himself has said that his work didn't change a thing. Think of that what you will but Frank's "The Americans" has had a fairly profound impact of how Americans see themselves. It's not unlikely that his background made him perfectly suited for this. That's part of the relevance that Barry and I tried to point out to you.<br /> What you or I think of that has nothing to do with that indisputable fact. What you do is confuse personal taste with fact.</p>

<p>Frank's work, certainly his later work is certainly not everybody's cup of tea. Like or dislike however has no bearing on importance. Frank's work deals what some have called the art of displacement.</p>

<p>Lastly, what you stated about Frank's work has also been said numerous times about one of the photographers you say you admire namely Diane Arbus. It's all kind of relative isn't it?</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Rob, the emperor's new cloths analysis is simply your conclusionary statement and there is nothing in this thread that supports it except where you have twisted the meanings to support your own position.<br>

I think it's jusst as fair to say that the view point that asserts that just because a person doesn't see the beauty in Franks' work, then it must be that everyone else is somehow deluded is rediculous. I would contend that the fault isn't in the work but in the viewer. So I'll just disagree with you and leave it at that. You can hold whatever view you need to in to support your personal subjective choice. <br>

I personally found the photos in the Americans really good just as photos, and particularly good in the way he sequenced them. Beauty doesn't always mean "pretty" as you seem to suggest and isn't just skin deep. But i find several of his photos quite "pretty".</p>

 

[michael s.]

<p>While I disagree strongly with Rob about his ultimate judgment, I think he's correct to note that the photos in "The Americans" show no attempt to "dress up" the roughest realities of the America Frank photographed in the garb of an appealing aesthetic.<br /> That aesthetic, certainly not universally attained, is not universally admired either. At the very least, it can be questioned, as it was in this "New York Times" review of a Salgado exhibit in 2001, with the subtitle "Can Suffering Be Too Beautiful ?"<br /> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/13/arts/photography-review-can-suffering-be-too-beautiful.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1</p>

<p>I've said this before, but I have checked out "The Americans" so many times from our public library that we're almost at a point where the librarian at the front desk can ask, "Will you be having the usual?"</p>

<p> </p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>I have no problem with your mentioning of Natchwey, McCullen, etc. They show what they see in the manner they want to and do it well. To stay with this ugly picture done well arguement. Take a look at Paolo Pellegrin's work....especially "Double Blind" and "As I was Dying"....same theme, ugliness of war....but, done in the manner he wanted to show it (actually, not unlike Frank's style) and done extremely well</p>

<p><a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R13CHLN&nm=Paolo%20Pellegrin">http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R13CHLN&nm=Paolo%20Pellegrin</a></p>

 

[Brad_]

Michael, try and get your library to get <a href=

"http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/3865218067/ref=s9_simx_gw_s0_p14_t1?

pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-

2&pf_rd_r=16BESVV51XSZJJA4TWYX&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846">this version.</a> I hear it's

great and the customer images support that. Will probably buy it at the SF MOMA bookstore after looking it over...

[michael s.]

<p>Tom - Thanks for the link to Pellegrin's photos. Just looked at a bunch of them -- very strong.</p>

<p>Brad - thanks. I'll be on lookout for that. I was aware of the other recently printed version, but not the one you referred to above.</p>

[rob_wall]

<p>Photography has always been the most insecure of the arts. Twenty years ago there were open discussions about whether photography was really art, and this in turn has made photography criticism among the most inclined to indulge in art crit flim flam as a way of demonstrating its bona fides. In this world there most certainly are emperors with no clothes.</p>

<p>We have to decide whether we want to judge photographers by criteria that include, in the words of one poster, whether they "had a fairly profound impact of how Americans see themselves." It is at a minimum debatable that a Swiss emigre photographer who is known to few non-art school graduates had a "profound effect" on anything. </p>

<p>And that judgement of "profound effect" is available only in retrospect, which is a strange concept for impatient people like me who want to enjoy photographic works whether or not they have demonstrated their social relevance. </p>

<p>If you want to know where this can eventually lead taken to its logical extreme, I suggest a long session with a book by another emigre -- Solzhenistyn's The Oak and the Calf.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Rob, just see it your way and be done with it. It's ok, just dig what you dig. My only last effort would be to remind you that several of the photographers you named that you enjoy, were all influenced by Franks. I do agree, "profound effect" isn't the sole criteria for enjoying photography, but enjoyment and effect are not somehow mutually exclusive, that would be silly.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p><em>"I do agree, "profound effect" isn't the sole criteria for enjoying photography"</em><br>

I never said it was the only criterium</p>

<p><em>"Twenty years ago there were open discussions about whether photography was really art, and this in turn has made photography criticism among the most inclined to indulge in art crit flim flam as a way of demonstrating its bona fides"</em><br>

what a novel idea. Rob all things are debatable but a discussion needs at least two open minded people. To me it seems you've made up your mind a long time ago. Nothing wrong with that in itself but on that basis any discussion can only revert to personal likes and dislikes and that is merely a waste of time.</p>

<p><em>"If you want to know where this can eventually lead taken to its logical extreme, I suggest a long session with a book by another emigre -- Solzhenistyn's The Oak and the Calf"</em><br>

Frankly I see not a single point in adressing this. Barry is absolutely right. See it your way and be done with it.</p>

<p> </p>