Something a bit different #6

[tonmestrom]

<p>Without any doubt Gordon Parks can be called one of the most notable photographers in American history. Multitalented as he was his star as a photographer has perhaps not risen as high as perhaps it should have.</p>

<p>When you look at <a href="http://www.theknightlynews.com/storage/harlemnewsboy-757412.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1256031156863"><strong>this photo</strong></a> of his it shows a scene few of us would walk by. Indeed, I think it's fair to say that many here have comparable photos in their portfolio but perhaps not of the same quality. Personally I like it because it brings across many of the elements a good portrait needs (and in many cases lacks).<br>

There's openess, directness, even a sense of joy and optimism all caught in an informal way. There's an immediate appeal and for whatever reason a portrait of a boy which you will remember.</p>

<p>Your thoughts?</p>

[starvy]

<p>For me the background adds an element of context. It is a fine naturalistic portrait of a young boy.</p>

[machts gut]

<p>Read the word "american" behind the boy and keep in mind the times when Parks took that photo and who he was. I see this photo as a political statement.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>It strikes me as much as a documentary photo as it does a street photo, perhaps more the former than the latter.</p>

<p>Photographically speaking, I especially note the perspective, which shows the photographer to be engaged with the boy, and the way adopting that perspective enhances both the boy's expression and the magnitude and importance it allows the background to have.</p>

<p>The sunlight and smile seem to dance with each other.</p>

<p>The eyes move in the direction the camera is suggesting by the perspective adopted. There's harmony in that.</p>

<p>Street portraits are very often somewhat distanced feeling, even when close up. They will often provide a person in their surroundings but not provide the kinds of connections I feel from this photo, and it's certainly rare for any portrait, street or otherwise, to achieve this level and genuineness of expression. The viewer is connected to the subject whose connected to his surroundings, including the light.</p>

<p>The light doesn't just fall on him and illuminate him. The light isn't just good for a photo. It belongs to the boy. And there's also a light that emanates from him. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>One addition, Ton, as I look further and linger. The tonality is incredibly subtle and allows for the warmth of his skin and expression and the soft texture of his coat to be welcoming. Too often, photographers go for more of an initial wow, perhaps more graphic, look. And the nuances get lost. This could easily lend itself to a higher contrast look, because of the sunlight and the dark skin and clothing, and the white lettering on the wall. It could have had a "stronger" look, that probably would have been harsher though perhaps more eye-catching, and I think that would have been to its detriment. What's important here to me is that the content seems to be driving the style which, as I said, is subtle and inviting. We can feel this boy, his expression, and the touch of his coat. Rather than just looking at him. Often, we see style that kind of overwhelms content. This may attract the viewer through the strength of the look, especially when it's a high contrast or graphic kind of look. And that kind of approach may well be dictated by content at times. But often it is not and is rather just style for style's sake and more of an attention-grabber than anything else. I think here we have a consciousness of content and a blending of content and style, a visual harmony that shows a sensitivity to the moment and the narrative.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Well, he has got very close to the subjects, which in someways is good, but in others leaves a story behind. His work is all in your face; for me I would like some background interest to add to his story to give it an atmosphere, I just find a coldness in his work.</p>

<p>The photo is very good but for me only works on one level</p>

<p>My take.</p>

[spanky]

<p>I agree with Stefan, I also immediately saw a political angle to this picture. I also like how Parks has gotten down to the boys level, this should be photo 101, but I'm still surprised at how many people shoot kids from adult height...drives me nuts! Was this a kid that Parks knew I wonder. It doesn't matter really, but in these paranoid times, I don't think I would take a portrait on the street of a kid I didn't know. Times have changed since Parks days. </p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Starvy yes, it creates context because after all, it's a paperboy but Stefan, Marc, I'm not sure about the political angle, if any, of this photo. No doubt Parks was politically motivated in a lot of what he did but I myself am a bit hesitant to project too much into this.<br>

The trouble is that if we know (about) the photographers who've shot the photo we look at we tend to translate that knowledge into any given photo and for all the wrong reasons. It's a trap I've fallen into myself on occassion. What I see here is a portrait of a young kid and a damned fine portrait at that but that's about it.<br>

Yes Fred, it's as much a document as a street portrait but the question is, given the passage of time, if that doesn't happen automatically. In other words, haven't the social and historical context of this photo become more prominant as time went by. I think they did.<br>

And oh yes, there's that beautifull light or as you put it so aptly <em>"The light isn't just good for a photo. It belongs to the boy. And there's also a light that emanates from him."</em></p>

<p><em>"a blending of content and style, a visual harmony that shows a sensitivity to the moment and the narrative." </em>I like that.</p>

<p>I appreciate your take on it Allen but I do wonder what you mean with <em>"I just find a coldness in his work" </em>You mean his work in general or this photo in particular? Furthermore I find this an interesting observation: "<em>Well, he has got very close to the subjects, which in someways is good, but in others leaves a story behind" </em>because it raises the question if a portrait (shot on the street or elsewhere) has to always tell a story? I ask because given its title and the includedbackground it certainly provides environmental context.</p>

<p><em>"I also like how Parks has gotten down to the boys level, this should be photo 101..."</em><br>

You're right Marc, in most cases it should.</p>

<p>Thanks all for contributing.</p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>Gordon Parks didn't have a "political" bone in his body. Gordon Parks was devoted to the human rights movement of the American people. Calling that 'politics' is even more ignorant than calling it "civil"....beautiful pic.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes Fred, it's as much a document as a street portrait but the question is, given the passage of time, if that doesn't happen automatically. In other words, haven't the social and historical context of this photo become more prominant as time went by. I think they did.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. That's a good point. Often documentary photos of a certain time and even what would not necessarily have been considered documentary photos in their time will, with the passage of time, take on MORE OF a documentary character. Looking back through history almost automatically can give any photo a documentary feel.</p>

<p>That having been said, I think this would have been a documentary (and political) photo in its time as well. That's not to take away from the artistry of it. For me, its social and political impact actually adds to its artistry. Though Parks was by this time doing fashion and commercial work, he had done work for the FSA, did photo essays on important black Harlem figures, and a black child like this in a neighborhood like this didn't have much visibility in 1943. The background, while it may have been what was available in the nearby vicinity, does make a political statement. In 1943, a photo of a handsome and SMILING (not pathetic, not sad, not obviously poor or downtrodden, but SMILING) little black boy whose head is practically bathed in the word American just IS political. Which, again, does not take away from its being a fine street portrait or a fine portrait or a fine work of art.</p>

<p>Parks has a <a href="http://cache2.artprintimages.com/lrg/22/2256/RGKZD00Z.jpg">similar photo</a>, though with a much more serious expression, of a young black child beside a poster for Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., who was the Congressional Representative for this district from 1945-1971. This is, perhaps, more blatantly political but I wouldn't want to look at your original photo without seeing the politics of it. That, to me, is an important part of the story, though it shouldn't in any way diminish the photo as a beautiful photo first, portrait second, and street portrait third. The photo shows a beautiful kid with an infectious expression, tells an important and soulful story, utilizing expression, light, and texture, with an economy of area and surroundings.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Gordon Parks was devoted to the human rights movement of the American people.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>E., we were writing simultaneously. I think that's beautifully stated. But I think that's almost a definition of political. Being devoted to a human rights movement, marching on Washington in 1963, talking about your own work being about freedom are many, many things, including political.</p>

<p>I'd be interested to understand more about your strong rejection of the word "political" here. In what way do you see it as an ignorant usage of the word and why doesn't "political" apply? You've got me baffled and curious.</p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>Fred G., by strict definition of the word "politics", meaning government of people (or lack thereof); you are correct. However, in our country's history, rarely do you see Americans willing to die for purely political reasons, we need more passionate reasons to lay down our lives like folks did during the very long battle for Black Americans to get simple recognition as human beings. Politics is a perfect hairdo worn by a bland, rich guy running for public office on CNN. While, human rights and warfare are attack dogs, fire hoses, and molotov cocktails in any country...but not in the USA? Here it's just "politics" or "civil" rights? Nah, I'm calling bullshit on that.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>E., thanks. On all that you just said, we agree!</p>

<p>I tend to see CNN, etc. as infotainment, not politics, and the perfect hairdo people as caricatures, not leaders or statesmen, and barely even human.</p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>I guess, I need to back up and consider the socio-economic background of the majority of PN membership....Gordon Parks is a hero to me, and a rather cold photographer to many of you all. There is a vast gulf of <em>separation </em>between our personal experience that cannot be bridged here. I didn't take that into account when I commented.</p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>Uh, Fred, we're writing at the same time again. I really appreciate ALL of your participation here. I don't always agree with what you say, but it always makes me think.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>Gordon Parks is a hero to me, and a rather cold photographer to many of you all</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder why you say that Elmo. Personally I'm neither here nor there in this case. But if you mean by "cold" that there is a kind of perfection (and a classical one at that) in his photos I would agree. It's something in fact I do admire about his work. It's very deliberate, studied and yet there's often a kind of seemingly informality to it, all of which I do admire in his work.<br /> I think he was a far greater photographer than he got credit for.</p>

<p>As for politics, sure there are cultural differences. Perhaps that explains why I see his work a bit more with European eyes. While not being blind to the historical context it's more a kind of emphasis that's at play here I think.</p>

[machts gut]

<p>I'm european and in my view "being political" is first and foremost participation in the process of defining and forming the society the polis builds. Politicians do that, as well as artist. I meant it as a compliment for Gordon Parks. I admire his work very much. It must have been around 1990, when an exhibition of his work was one of the first grand photo exhibitons I had the chance to see. I see dignity in the way he photographed people in general and that implies for me some emotional distance to the subject, which is not the same as "coldness".</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>The trouble is that if we know (about) the photographers who've shot the photo we look at we tend to translate that knowledge into any given photo and for all the wrong reasons. It's a trap I've fallen into myself on occassion. What I see here is a portrait of a young kid and a damned fine portrait at that but that's about it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ton, to me it shows that there's usually more than one way, or perspective in which to view a photo. Certainly you can look at how Parks conceived of his own work, and you can look at it as like you say, just a really nice portrait. This is one of those times where if you saw this photo in one of Park's exhibits you might have whole other nuances of association and meaning including his social and political values and the whole history of social movements and history in the U.S. And really, since I've seen work of his in that way, and others of that era, I find myself projecting my own dimly informed and skewed view of it. Sometimes it's nice to just do the disassociation and look at the photograph just as a single photograph, if that is possible. Anyways, I really like the photo just as a portrait. It's really nicely done, and he was really a master photographer. This whole idea of how we apply the whole history of our associations, beliefs and our perception of things to the viewing of virtually anything, isn't that one of the explorations of the so called post-modern art? Not to mention the exploration of all the interconnections, infinite actually that intersect in endless ways that forms collective consciousness that we associate with in really unknown ways to come to a point of view and it can boggle the mind. But I guess its just a photograph :)</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>Sometimes it's nice to just do the disassociation and look at the photograph just as a single photograph</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Barry, absolutely. You've put it better than I could. As for the rest I know you long enough by know to know that your views are anything but dimly informed and skewed.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> And really, since I've seen work of his in that way, and others of that era...

 

 

Five years ago at the local university, I saw two exhibitions that were held simultaneously (in

different gallery areas). Gordon Parks' photography and a *complete* exhibition of Avedon's In the

American West. I always thought it was unfortunate viewing the Parks exhibition in those circumstances,

being overwhelmed by Avedon's - both in size and the way the exhibitions were curated and produced. In

any event, what was interesting in the general case, was that both photographers managed to photograph

the extremes of society - the very poor (more so by Parks) to the very well-off (more so by Avedon) - but

under different circumstances.