Schaffers Crossing Roundhouse, O. Winston Link -- WEEKLY DISCUSSION # 3

[Norma Desmond]

<p>No joke, but when I came back to this page to re-read my post, one of the member photos on the bottom of the page was this gem by Les Berkley, which I submit without comment or psychoanalysis . . .</p>

<p><a href="/photo/7766811"><em>Mysterious Standing Stone</em></a></p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Fred, perhaps my point was unarticulated due to tiredness or whatever. Lemme try again. There are images that the big majority of people or at least guys will find appreciably erotic; I think that some of the ones of Jane Seymour in <em>Live and Let Die</em> qualify for that category. Then there are other images which some people find erotic, but I think the considerable majority do not; I think Link's railroad photos fall into that category. The reasons why some people find eroticism where most do not--both objective elements and subjective reactions--can be an interesting topic.</p>

<p>P.S.<br>

I laughed out loud at your report of the semi-random picture that you found at the bottom of the page.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Then there are other images which some people find erotic, but I think the considerable majority do not"</em></p>

<p>Dave, IMO art is often a minority view. Viewing a photo can be an art and, for me, often the more esoteric viewings of photos, even when I don't agree, are the more interesting and challenging ones. Documentary photos are interesting because they provide information, are grounded in something known, but can also have aesthetic (artistic) qualities.</p>

<p>Most of the responses to these photos seemed grounded in information and memory. The methodology was discussed at great length (lighting, etc.) and was of great interest to me and I learned a lot from those many posts. Riding trains in our youth was discussed, memories of actual times gone by, the demise of the railroad, even Canadian rail passes, etc.</p>

<p>I was moved when Mark, in addition to his other insights about the work, provided a somewhat abstract (looking at forms, shapes, and design) and symbolic view of the photo.</p>

<p>The photos themselves, IMO, are more than documentary in that Link utilized the nighttime and his lighting setup to emphasize some of the abstract photographic qualities of trains, shape, line, form, drama, etc. These are not simple renderings or representations. So, Link, true to being a documentarian but also a photographer seemingly clued into the aesthetics of his craft, presented us a minority view. That's, in part, why they stand out to us. They are not typical-looking. He found, whether it is to my taste or not, an extraordinary way to photograph, not an ordinary one.</p>

<p>I appreciate Mark's finding a non-majority (minority, extraordinary) way to look at them.</p>

<p>True, sometimes a minority view is just so out there that I would be inclined to dismiss it. At the same time, I realize that's the way a lot of art gets dismissed. In this case, though Mark's view is a minority view I don't find it so far out there and am more inclined to challenge myself to adopt his perspective (at least for a few moments of insight) than to reject it.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Fred, I agree with much of what you say. And sometimes art can have a fairly definite, reasonably-objectively-verifiable meaning / intent / message / viewpoint / whatever, that nevertheless takes some work and consideration to appreciate / 'get'. But I also think that the smaller the proportion of people who 'get' some aspect of it and/or the more work and consideration necessary to get that aspect, the more likely it is to be mostly subjective / a reflection of the viewer instead of some inherent quality or property of the art. I don't remotely propose any bright lines or definite rules, and simply reflect here on the interesting aspects of who sees what in Link's and others' pictures.</p>

<p>As to Link: no doubt he was careful, thoughtful, talented, etc. He cultivated certain aesthetics. Now as to what those mean, other than that he found steam locomotives and the activities around them to be interesting subjects (as do I)--see above.</p>

 

[john_mcmillin]

<p>Last summer, I had the pleasure of an hour at Link's museum in Roanoke. Sorry to say that, on a Sunday afternoon, my daughter and I were the only ones there. It's housed in a Streamline Moderne stone building, a former train station, that's sleek and elegant. The N&S mainline passes just adjacent. Link's darkroom, reconstructed, is a centerpiece. We enjoyed a display that allows you to selectively light up each of the flash arrays used in several of his photos, remixing the lighting at will. Dozens of framed prints are hung on hung on racks, like school art show pieces. That room is dimly lit, hampering viewing. Surprisingly, there's no movie loop playing to dramatize and hype up the Link story. </p>

<p>The year before, I saw a show of Norman Rockwell's original paintings for Saturday Evening Post magazine covers. I can see Rockwell's iconic Americans showing up as bystanders in Link's photos, watching those trains go by. Rockwell painted with crisp, precise brushstrokes on white canvas, achieving the same kind of high acutance as Link's pushed Tri-x in crisp light. You might say that Link continued Rockwell's work, specializing in steam trains, as well as the rural railroad employees who were about to lose employment working on them.</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Fred, to quote Sigmund Freud, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."</p>

[Mark Z]

<p>I can agree with Freud on that point, if not on his other views. Whether or not Link intended any symbolism with the trains in his photos, the phallic symbol is a familiar one. So familiar that Hitchcock could use it for a smile at the end of <em>North by Northwest</em> (released in 1959). It seems it's more of a joke now than a subliminal message. Had Link used the symbol as blatantly as Hitchcock did, his photos would likely be less appealing to me. What was interesting to me was the attempt to mine some meaning beyond the surface story, regardless of the photographer's intent.</p>