WEEKLY DISCUSSION #21 Elliott Erwitt "Segregated Water Fountains"

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Anders, the kind of emotional detachment that I was referring to is that which often comes with distance, as for those who did not live in the South during that era. I did not mean to suggest that you were emotionally unfeeling on such issues. Yet, yet, I realize that those whites who witnessed this every day might have become emotionally deadened by the banality of it. </p>

<p>As for humor, I personally rather doubt that Erwitt was trying to use humor in this case. I cannot imagine seeing this scene, taking this picture, and feeling humor--or deliberately using humor on such sensitive issues as this. Yes, humor can be a way of coping with grim circumstances, and in some circumstances humor can be effective as social criticism. I personally do not see that here. I see horror. Unless Erwitt commented on the photo, I do not know how we can know for sure what went through his own mind.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>The photo doesn't have the force of some others I've seen that address the same issue</em><br>

I guess "some others" would include this picture of the New Orleans trolley car:<br>

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/LargeImage.aspx?image=http://www.christies.com/lotfinderimages/d49723/d4972301x.jpg<br>

by Robert Frank. It has often been said that this picture is highly symbolic of the hierarchy of pre-civil-rights society.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Lannie, as usually, it is indeed not possible to know what went through Erwitt's mind when he snapped the segregated water tap shot. It is not very interesting to know either, I would think. What is important at least is what we see, as viewers. I see the horror of racial segregation and the absurdity of the perverse setup, highlighted by a devastating humor totally in line with Erwitt's "engaged documentary photography" - if one can use such a term without anachronism. </p>

[c_watson1]

<p> "...the image remains forever as a reminder."</p>

<p>That's soothing but untrue. How can you be reminded of what never really went away?</p>

<p>The American justice system isn't very different from the racialized water fountains.</p>

<p>Doubtful? Have a look at Matt Taibbi's "The Divide" for a tour of how the law works as poverty becomes criminalized.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>This photo of course lacks a certain force simply because it is not horrific and brutal, but I think as Mark Zell notes, it is the very triviality of the subject that says something important. The inequality and the marginal placement are telling, of course, but ultimately the very idea of setting up segregated water fountains says volumes.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Sarah ... your piece on page one most interesting ... thankyou :-)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><a href="http://malphotographyblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/segregated_water_fountains.jpg">LINK TO LARGER VERSION</a></p>

<p>When looking at a larger size image, I become more involved in it as a photo. The man's being blurred in motion seems to make it less about THIS MAN and more generic and universal, which seems important here. The skew of the photo seems to be a gesture of disturbance as much as specific political/social commentary. Something is off kilter. The overall lack of high contrast can be taken somewhat literally as a foil to the stark contrast of the narrative of the scene. The flatness of shooting straight toward the wall rather than on an angle or a longer perspective is perhaps meant to give more a sense of document and convey a simple sort of blatancy to what's going on. The white water fountain is afforded more space (and completion) in the frame than the man, who is "cornered." The exposure favors the griminess of the walls and colored fountain and highlights the whiteness of the man's shirt and the fountain he's not supposed to use. While still not finding it a terribly compelling photo even as I find it a very compelling social document, I do appreciate and can learn from what Erwitt put into it even if I am ultimately disappointed by it. I am more moved by the memories it conjures and the social injustice it portrays than by the photo itself. There are many, many average photos that can stimulate strong emotional responses by portraying content with powerful associations. That's why I mentioned family snapshots above. While great photos often elicit strong emotional responses, the eliciting of a strong emotional response can be primarily due to content and doesn't necessarily say much about the photo <em>per se</em>.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Thinking a little more about the motion blur. I tend to like some motion blur especially when it's used expressively, which I think it is here. It adds life and dynamics. At the same time, it does render the man's face and features a bit indistinguishable, thereby creating a sense of anonymity or, as I said, generic-ness. There could be different reactions to this. On the one hand, it could universalize the situation and make it a larger statement of the politics and social order of the time, not simply limited to the individual portrayed. On the other hand, and this is what bothers me, it could be seen as reinforcing the sense of type over the sense of individuality. This latter is a problem which racism exacerbates, emphasizing type over individual. If I see it as universalizing the man, I can see it as a significant photographic move in looking at the larger picture and increasing the significance of the document. If I see it as reducing this man to a type, then the photo runs the risk of reinforcing, unintentionally I assume, some of the very aspects of social inhumanity that it seems to be portraying. (Obviously these are not the only two ways to see it, and one might simply see it as the man caught in motion and read nothing more into it.) I tend to see it as reinforcing type, especially as I put it into the context of Erwitt's work, which I have not found particularly profound or in tune and which, IMO, relies more on visual tricks and puns than on the kinds of human sensitivity I prefer. In other words, I just think this was a lost opportunity in Erwitt's hands.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>There may have been a lost opportunity, and I appreciate your analysis of the photo as a photo. Personally I'm inclined to dispense with the photo more generally by in my own mind labeling it the work product of a photographer who at that moment was acting as a journalist, created reportage, so I'm not of the mindset to ask more of that particular photograph.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, to be honest, I'm asking more of myself as a photographer-viewer in looking at the photo than I'm asking of Erwitt.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>For me, the departures from conventional standards for a technically "correct" photo help reinforce the underlying zeitgeist of the time in which the photo was taken.</p>

<p>The wonky composition, with the man barely in frame and blurred, give the impression of a stolen glimpse by a passerby who feels a bit guilty about the inequity, but is too timid to get involved or do anything about it.</p>

<p>From that perspective it's the perfect image to describe how many of us, who are comfortable in our niche as "normal", average Americans, view the plight of the disadvantaged and oppressed. We're mere passersby, stealing sidelong glimpses, muttering tut-tut-tut to ourselves but not really getting involved beyond offering feeble prayers and wishes for a better world. Erwitt's photo challenges our comfort zones in many ways, and this discomfort is emphasized by the skewed composition and motion blur.</p>

<p>Erwitt may not have consciously intended this interpretation when he took the photo. But considering how direct and unflinching he was in his other photos, I'd imagine that he may have, upon review, decided this was a nearly perfect photo to represent the viewpoint of the lukewarm wannabe-do-gooder <em>because of</em>, rather than in spite of, the technical "flaws".</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Let me ask, are Fred and Lex's comments, about blur and departure from convention, respectively, comments about form as opposed to content, in the sense of Steve's offering of to us generally an Erwitt philosophically more about content than form?</p>

<p>I'm trying to get a handle one <em>when</em> we might want to ask ourselves <em>more</em> as viewers who also do photography. It's interesting to go there, but does one <em>have</em> to? If the whites only picture is strictly bound to reportage by Erwitt's intent, then at least I don't have to do the hard work that is involved in appreciating other photographic genres.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, I don't expect anyone to feel they <em>have to</em> do anything. When I talk to fellow photographers, I generally like it when a photo is discussed on a variety of levels and don't often feel I want to separate content from form, since I think they each inform each other. The only way I can know the content of this photo is by seeing it through the form it's presented in. That will affect my perception and understanding of the content. And, having a passion for photography, I don't necessarily want to know Erwitt's intent (though that certainly interests me) but I want to look at how different aspects and qualities of the photo affect me. They don't only affect me emotionally. I believe they affect what I actually think the content is. I think if you look carefully at both my own and Lex's comments you'll see that we haven't talked about form <em>as opposed</em> to content. Rather we've talked about both, and both as they interrelate.</p>

[AlanKlein]

As with most photojournalism photos, content is

more important then form.

[charleswood]

<p>Fred: "Rather we've talked about both, and both as they interrelate."</p>

<p>True enough. Yet can we correctly distinguish in those relationships the intention of Erwitt, though in the final analysis it may not be important if we do or don't, the thing more interesting if seen as just speaking for itself through those relationships, or how well it speaks. (By temperament I just like things short, sweet, unambiguous, settled and often in art, photography, that just isn't how its going to be, nothing I can latch onto there really to make it "end of story." I look for things to close the door, like the word 'reportage'. That's part of my experience of art, closing the door on it to be able to regroup from the impressions it make on me and then just move on. My saying "Do I have to" is an artifact of a grand struggle within me and of sloth.)</p>

<p>As to Lex's point about lukewarm as to involvement. Personally I don't interpret the photograph as being a statement about neglect by those who were unwilling to effect change albeit that their hearts may have been in the right place, if that is the gist of Lex's remark. I think of that period in our history as one where organizing, leg-work, and good leadership effected change.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, ss I look through Erwitt's body of work, I see much more interest in visual irony than in reportage. And, as I said, my problem with Erwitt is that the ironies he portrays more often strike me as fairly simple though cute visual puns than anything having more magnitude.</p>

<p>So, we can easily put this week's discussion photo—and many of the sites, books, and exhibitions devoted to Erwitt do—alongside such photos as <a href="http://fashionblog.am/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/elliott_erwitt_26.jpg">THIS</a>, <a href="http://fashionblog.am/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/elliott-erwitt1.jpg">THIS</a>, and <a href="http://fashionblog.am/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/20100318_erwitt_france.jpg">THIS</a>. When I do that, I see not a reportage sensibility but one that goes after "shtick" more than journalism and "gimmick" more than any sort of social, political, or philosophical sensibility, even when the subject matter might otherwise obviously fall into a natural sense of politics or social interest.</p>

<p><a href="http://fashionblog.am/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ElliotErwitt-Peacemarch.jpg">THIS</a> photo might have some high emotional impact for me, and does, until I put it into the context of a greater body of work which, for me, lessens the seriousness I might otherwise give to it were I to see it alone or in a very different portfolio. But alongside the three I linked to in the previous paragraph and those photos of big feet in high heels with a dog by their side, I begin to see what Erwitt was looking for and telling me and don't have as much interest, because the clever ironies of even the most serious of situations are finding more triteness for me than depth of political consciousness or emotional conflict. Because of the subject matter, I may choose to associate to memories of an era gone by and injustices I knew about or experienced, but the photo itself seems more meant to lead me up to the visual irony and no further. If, in the next shot after the water fountain shot, I got a look at an African American man's expression and some of the life he led that wasn't a simple irony, I might see some sense of a social commentary. But when I move right onto the irony of three people in a museum looking at a painting of three people, I am stuck at a certain level of visual chicanery that doesn't quite move me to go to a place of political and social injustice. I think the content may lead me where the photographic sensibility simply seems not to. And when I look at bodies of work of photographers who did have a more penetrating sense of social injustice and political strife, I see a clear difference in approach and in penetrating that content to a more significant level.</p>

[AmyHelmick]

Fred, don't we all have different aspect to our lives, personalities and work? While it is interesting to compare this week's

photo in a larger context, I don't think that the majority of work has to necessarily "dilute" the impact of an individual piece.

It's a type of type-casting or, prejudice if you will, in itself.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Amy said: <em>"It's a type of type-casting or, prejudice if you will, in itself."</em></p>

<p>Amy, sure, I guess we could call any person's way of talking about or looking at photos a prejudice, if you will. So, I could respond by saying that your looking at it individually is a type of prejudice. I'm not sure where such characterizations get us though.</p>

<p>Lex seemed to disagree with my take on the photo. And yet, I appreciate his response because it opens my eyes some and gives me an alternative perspective, not on civil rights or my photographic prejudices, but on the photo.</p>

[AmyHelmick]

<p>I am sorry, Fred. There was truly no intent for those words to come across negatively. I worded it badly. Let me see if I can re-state this:<br>

If we were viewing the photo exactly as it is (same settings, perspective,etc) except it was taken by a different photographer, say, Dorthea Lange, would you view it any differently?<br>

My point being that all of us are capable of shooting (and do shoot) many types/genres of photos. Should a single work necessarily be evaluated on the basis of the majority of the others? It's just a question for thought.<br>

I see the need for congruency when developing a portfolio or a show,book, or other group of photos. However, when an individual piece does not fit within a group, it doesn't mean it has limited value, it's just different and may work better in another group. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Amy asked: <em>"Should a single work necessarily be evaluated on the basis of the majority of the others?"</em></p>

<p>Not necessarily and not always. But I often do. (I appreciate those who prefer to look at individual photos without regard to a bigger context. And I like hearing how they describe the photos and what they have to say about the photos. A discussion of civil rights, IMO, is a different animal, every bit if not more significant, but a different animal.)</p>

<p>This particular photo of the water fountains leaves me wanting more, since I see no attachment to the subject or empathy with the subject but rather a more distanced, almost gawker-like view of this faceless man and the two fountains. What I see in this photo is a token, not a living, breathing man. So that's my reaction to it on an individual level. At the same time, as an individual photo, it does compel me to associations I have with segregation and the era. It would be hard to view this content presented at any level and not think about civil rights.</p>

<p>Because of my reaction to it as an individual photo, which is to be left wanting, I am moved to seek more from the photographer, see if there's more than what immediately struck my eye. When I look further into the photographer's work, my original feelings are confirmed.</p>

<p>I'm probably not familiar with all of Dorothea Lange's work but I don't think I've found one photo in her portfolio comparable to the one posted here. <a href="http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/SHORPY_8b32056a1.preview.jpg">THIS</a> is more representative of Lange's sensibility, which I find less ironic and more humanizing.</p>

[AmyHelmick]

<p>Fred, I'm not able to see any of your linked photos. I'm getting an "access denied" or the previous ones and "page not found" on the Dorthea Lange, above. Can you send the url or title?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I see in this photo is a token, not a living, breathing man.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That, of course, is the crux of racism. When we choose to see individuals instead of groups, we become more compassionate to others. Whether or not this was the intended message from Erwitt is unclear, but the photo does mirror back to us the inequality of that (our) world, whether he intended it so or not. This photo challenges us to see what had(s) become mundane and accepted even with the innate "wrong-ness" of it all staring us in the face.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Just in case I wasn't clear, Amy, in my last sentence . . . I don't find a comparable photo in Lange's portfolio to the one we're discussing of Erwitt. The Lange photo I linked to is representative of Lange, I think, and I find it less ironic and more humaniziing than most of Erwitt's photos.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Amy, these are the three photos I'm referring to as Erwitt's ironic photos in my post of 6:50 a.m.:</p>

<p>http://fashionblog.am/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/elliott_erwitt_26.jpg</p>

<p>http://fashionblog.am/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/elliott-erwitt1.jpg</p>

<p>http://fashionblog.am/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/20100318_erwitt_france.jpg</p>

<p>This is the 4th photo in that same post, the more serious but still ironic Erwitt photo:</p>

<p>http://fashionblog.am/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ElliotErwitt-Peacemarch.jpg</p>

<p>This is the Lange photo:</p>

<p>http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/SHORPY_8b32056a1.preview.jpg</p>

<p>Mind you, I wouldn't necessarily have brought up Lange in the context of Erwitt. I'm doing so because you mentioned her and there are some clear differences to consider and I don't think I'd find something like the Erwitt photo of the water fountains in Lange's body of work.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Fred, they are all "permission denied" links apart from the last of Lange, where you get "page not found" !</p>

[AmyHelmick]

<p>Sadly, these links aren't opening for me either. I don't know if others will run into this or not. I'm getting the same error messages as before. Thanks for posting them though, Fred, and for the interesting discussion. </p>