Weekly Discussion #35: "Two Nuns" by A. Aubrey Bodine

[AlanKlein]

<p>Do we have to make a major federal case out of every photo some guy shoots? It's only a picture of two nuns in the snow. </p>

[charleswood]

<p>It's the active advocacy component I note as largely unrecognized in Bodine's work. Fred wrote "Sometimes, a more innocent, or unfettered, or unprejudiced, or simply objective view is a much more informative and meaningful historical and social document."</p>

<p>Sometimes? How is it that this a simple objective view <a href="http://aaubreybodine.com/gallery/default.asp?rtn=cat&cat=-3&pg=59&bc=16-171">http://aaubreybodine.com/gallery/default.asp?rtn=cat&cat=-3&pg=59&bc=16-171</a> . It couldn't be more surreal!</p>

<p>More so than this by Erwitt? http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/photographs/elliott-erwitt-segregated-water-fountains-north-carolina-5544674-details.aspx</p>

<p>Obviously there is a different mind engaging with his subject. Each mind advocates for its point of view. But we can't see advocacy in Bodine? How is that even possible to not see him as an advocate of <em>something</em>?</p>

<p> </p>

[charleswood]

<p>If you want me to make a big deal out of two nuns I am capable Alan. But we are now discussing a broader body of work and other contexts.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I am not always in agreement with Alain (nor he with me, no doubt), but he does have a point, perhaps not in the terms I would use (making a federal case) in critiquing some of the critiques that are less anchored in the photo under discussion and more on moving the discussion to sociological and intellectual viewpoints (objectivity versus subjectivity), that may be more related to his overall body of work than to the photo under study. I prefer often a simpler take on the work of a photographer (I am a simple man attempting to understand a complex world) who in all likelihood, not seeking a dissertation on humanity and sociology, probably looked at his approach in a very simple way and an everyday journalistic manner. Nonetheless, that doesn't prevent some of his pictures, and hardly I think the ones added by Charles (Charles and Fred, no negative thoughts intended, just my way off seeing photos and with some aversion to art-talk we often see elsewhere in exhibitions and chronicles on art), can move the viewer to deeper thoughts. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, it's obviously not how I chose to discuss Bodine either, as you can tell from my first two more complete posts which were about the particular photo in question and strictly from the point of view of what I was seeing in the photo. Charles then made some comments which I thought were worthy of a response. It's hard enough to get a reasonable discussion (as opposed to a series of monologues) going in these WEEKLY DISCUSSIONS, so since Charles is a regular contributor, I wanted not to simply ignore him, even though I'd been looking at the photo very differently. I feel no need to characterize his or others' posts as intellectual or sociological or artspeak. I just take the thoughts as they come and respond to them if I'm so moved. On first glance of Bodine's nun photo, I saw nothing controversial, and so far I still don't. Charles would have to make more explicit his taking exception to some of the photos posted. And I don't have a good enough feel for what may have been Bodine's supposed lapse in journalistic or sociological awareness and statement to take the discussion with Charles much further, if at all. But it certainly wouldn't bother me if others did. The last few of these weekly discussions have been limited to about 20 or so posts with very little back and forth among the participants. If an interesting discussion about the photo or the photographer's body of work has the possibility of ensuing and it pierces more than the surface, I'm all for it, whether or not I agree with all sentiments and whether or not it's the way I would approach the subject. I can always sit back and listen to what others have to say if the discussion is within the purview of the forum as outlined but not within my own interest level. Or I can always steer the discussion in a different direction, not necessarily by characterizing or questioning how other people discuss it, but simply by adding my own thoughts in a direction I want to take the discussion. If others are interested, they will then respond to me and at least part of the discussion will follow a path I am interested in. There's potential room for many different strands to develop in these discussions, even simultaneously. </p>

[charleswood]

<p>Patrick S - "As Fred G knows, I was torn between Bodine and a much lesser known artist's work, which happened to be a male nude."</p>

<p>Patrick can you just put a link to the male nude now and we can discuss that?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>To Alan and Arthur (and everyone):</p>

<p>These WEEKLY DISCUSSION threads are about the opportunity to draw on the variety of voices here at PN in discussing photos. I was hoping it would draw many different approaches to looking at photos and expose many of us to photos and bodies of work we may have missed or been less familiar with. I didn't expect people to assert their way of looking at or discussing photos, though I was hoping we'd all assert our opinions about and knowledge of the photos and photographers themselves. I hoped we'd remain as open as possible to others' ways of looking at the photos, even if somewhat foreign to us.</p>

<p>Many may have their preferred way of looking at things. But it is, in part, to get myself out of myself and to overcome self-imposed limits that I wanted these threads to survive. If it turns out others don't want this, these threads will die a natural death. I have purposely asserted minimal influence or control over the choices people have made and how they introduce the photos. Each person has been free to go in any direction they want.</p>

<p>To be honest, a couple of Charles's posts made me uncomfortable, because I hadn't really considered the kinds of ramifications of Bodine's work he was talking about. That's precisely why I engaged him on it. To get out of my own comfort zone and to allow him to challenge me. I guess my disappointment is evident in his being jumped on not for his specific views on the substance of the matter but for his wanting to go in that direction at all. How stifling!</p>

<p>It remains to be seen how these discussions will proceed and whether or not they will garner enough interest to last. I intend to continue contacting people in the order they've posted to these discussions to give everyone an opportunity to spearhead a discussion by choosing a photo, a photographer, and introducing it. I can only hope we maintain open minds and maximize each others' freedom in pursuing each discussion in as open and varied a way as possible.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>As a photographer I welcome Fred's initiative in creating a feature whereby we can discuss a particular photo that is in the public domain and which has been created by a photographer known to a fairly large segment of the world population. How that photo relates to the photographer's artistic or communicative approach in his other work is also useful. The appreciation of or critique of the work is important, as it can help us in comparing, confirming and altering our own approaches. That I see as the potential value of this feature. I would even extend that option further in other features by inviting group discussions of a featured member's photo or work instead of that of a renowned photographer, but I have already been told that that already exists in a different way on Photo.Net. So I will not pursue that thought further in this post.</p>

<p>Where I am slightly disappointed, and perhaps why I seconded Alan's frustration, is how the interaction often fixes more on the social or political aspects of a photographer's work rather than other artistic or communicative aspects of the photo presented (although I must say that I do gain something from the views of Charles and others in regard to social or political aspects) and the ignoring of fellow photonetters' analyses of the photo in question or of a body of the photographer's work. If I recall correctly, Fred also regretted that the specific artistic or emotional viewpoints of others on the photo are often not interacted with by other participants. That I have also noted. Talking to oneself is hardly the objective of participation that I think most of us desire in posting our comments. I made a number of personal analyses of the present photo and so far none of these points have been reacted to by others (with one exception, Fred reacted in part to my mention of the environment around the nuns). I have noted that I am not alone, as I see that happening with others who are attempting to engage in a group discussion of a particular subject, in this case a photo or part of a body of work by another photographer. I think I would rather disagree or agree with another's viewpoint, and express why I think that, or propose a different opinion in relation to the stated viewpoint, rather than just ignore it. If only to enhance group participation and to go a bit further in the profondity of the critiques related to the artistic or communucative qualities of the photo.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, I think it's worth getting some clarity on this if the discussions are going to proceed in a decent and respectful manner. It seems to me you defeated your own purpose of wanting substantive dialogue. You didn't disagree with Charles's actual views. I did. And Charles and I were substantively engaging on those views. You disagreed with <em>the way</em> we were discussing the photo, as you called it, the sociological/intellectual/artspeak approach he took, not his particular views. You and Alan effectively put down not any specific views on the photo and photographer, which would have been welcome and interesting, but the very fact that Charles and I were even getting into those things to begin with. That doesn't seek a dialogue on the terms already presented. It seeks to thwart it. And that's a very different matter from disagreeing with the substance of what either of us was saying, which you didn't address at all. Don't get me wrong, I didn't expect you or anyone else to necessarily address it on those terms but I also didn't expect anyone to try to thwart that direction of conversation.</p>

<p>It is true that no one responded to your specific points about the photo and often people just don't do that so no dialogue ensues, as you note. Yes, that's disappointing to me as well, when it happens. But just what you claim to want is exactly what was happening with Charles and me. We WERE having a substantive dialogue. And you and Alan interrupted it and expressed disappointment in it, not because you disagreed with Charles or disagreed with me but because it wasn't your preferred way of discussing a photo.</p>

<p>When you made your initial posts about the photo, there had already been several made before you. You didn't respond to them. You presented your view. And, as you note, people didn't respond to you. They presented their view. The best way to get a dialogue going is to RESPOND to someone, rather than anticipating someone is going to respond to you, and respond to them not on their style of critique or the tone or flavor of their critique but on substance. That may make it more possible that others will respond to you, again on the photographic points you made, not on whether your post was too arty or too intellectual.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred, I guess we can put any interpretation we wish on the manner in which each of us attempt to interact with each other, but I don't want to engage here in analysing yours or other's motives or behaviour or comment on them. I enjoy and benefit from your analyses as I enjoy those of Charles and other member's analyses. If they are not directly related to what I see in the photo I may mention that (I mentioned in one post that I did not clearly see the relation proposed by Charles in his three links, but I realize now that the first link was indeed a social commentary on the black-white situation in America, so I partly erred in that comment. However, as I meantioned in a similar way of speaking, I could not for the life of me see the socio-political relation to the two other photographs of the photographer under discussion. I still don't, but Charles has not told me why they are important).</p>

<p>I am not a perfect and continuing participant to these discussions. Often I have time only to arrive after a dozen or so critiques have been made, which I read quickly and then add my own. Then, usually other daily commitments take me away from the discussion for a while and my interactions are not perfect or bi-lateral. As my initial points in this discussion were original and had not yet been made by others, they were new additions to the discussion and not comments on those of others, except I did mention at one point that Charles' halos (interesting point) result from the lesser slope of the umbrella top where the halos (snow collection) were created by the relative density of that snow compared to the rest of the umbrella surface. Charles did not respond, but I feel that that wasn't needed, as he was no doubt aware of the physics as well as his attributed imaginary effect. You and I often agree on a critique but also often have had different views about the art of a particular photo and I have indicated often in the past where and why I differ. That is a healthy discussion and one I hope will continue, notwithstanding your reproaches.</p>

<p>There is less need I think to comment on the manner of interaction of others, as we are doing here - and even those who may express a certain frustration as Alan did and I supported (simply the relevance of the discussion between you and Charles to the photo in question, and other similar images from the body of work of the photographer, and not about the right to discuss other subjects than the photo in question, which of course is an accepted freedom) - and more to try to seek a better interaction of those present, rather than criticizing those who seek that possibility.</p>

<p>One of the advantages of serious discussion amongst peers is the freedom to state a disagreement with the way a discussion may be proceding (and not a disagreement about the lucidity or value of the comments) without being systematically pulled apart for having done so. As I mentioned, I am not continually engaged or concentrated on this or other forums, but although I admit to participating in an imperfect manner, I can still hope to see more generous (and understanding) interaction between the participants. You have made a significant contribution by initiating these weekly discussions. I hope they will continue to inspire all those who contribute to them.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>I thought I'd wait a while this time, partly because I was busy, partly in order to get the bad smell of a recent PN exchange out of my nostrils, but mainly because I found it very hard to engage with this week's choice, except on the mundane level of recognizing that this is the work of a highly proficient provincial press photographer who no doubt bore in mind constantly that his editor was looking for interesting feature shots for the Saturday edition or whatever and took every opportunity to produce these. "Highly competent" is my initial (and indeed only) reaction to this picture.<br>

I note in passing with interest that no one seems perturbed at the faking of the snowflakes, such tricks (and the use of cloud negatives) were of course accepted without question years ago, with today's photojournalists they are totally beyond the pale (IIRC at the time of the Oklahoma bombing, a photographer asked an overheated firefighter to repeat an action of dousing himself with water and was promptly fired by his editor). Nonetheless, thanks to the OP for bringing an interesting photographer to my attention of whom I knew very little.</p>

[wogears]

<p>Yes, and there's this <a href="http://darkroom-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/10/md-bodine-darkroom-post-p4.jpg">clearly servile image</a> of an African-American, (with whom I would not mess). And<a href="http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/capitalgazette.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/58/d58a57a7-b62d-5c99-9145-e6be628895df/51733d5c55717.image.jpg"> this shot</a> of carefree, happy-go-lucky kids enjoying a day out.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

I see two nuns standing in the snow. What do you see?

 

I see highly political social commentary lacking in innocent, unfettered, unprejudiced objectivity.

 

Well, these threads are title "Weekly Discussion" not "Weekly Photo Discussion". The photo often acts as a springboard to the political and social aspects of the past. I kind of liked how it was when the Weekly Discussion first started. The discussions centered around the photo chosen and not the social climate at the time the photo was taken.

 

I can see that this is supposed to be a discussion thread. I, and many people, treat it as a comment thread. When a new photo is presented, I will make a comment on the photo itself, say what I have to say and that is it. Other comments lead me to see things in the photo that I missed like that halo effect around the nuns. But I can see it now, thanks to a comment made. The halo is most pronounced around the nun's bodies where the snow has been burned darker up to their habits but the halo is between the darker snow and the habits. Anyone who has done any burning in the darkroom will note that it is the usual effect which is difficult to avoid.

 

These are the types of comments which I like to see concerning a photo. I am not sure of the difference between a discussion and a series of comments. It seemed when this Weekly Discussion first started there were a lot of comments. Someone would make a comment on the cigarette in Marlene Dietrich's hand and other comments on that cigarette would follow. I suppose when one addresses a previous comment then that is the start of a discussion. Well, it is all interesting anyway.

[aplumpton]

<p>Thanks to James (and originally Charles) for the halo identification. It is hard to see, but as James mentions it is due to the burning in under the enlarger of the snow on the ground in the darkroom to enhance details (the method is usually to make a small cardboard cut out of the nuns at lower magnification and then during final exposure to vibrate it under the enlarger light projection). Not seeing it earlier and lacking other comments I assumed that Charles was referring to the snow atop the umbrella (and usual spot for a halo), but I (and apparently others) completely missed James' identification. The observation of Charles is interesting because we all have feelings about the religious orders, that make, one way or the other, subjects pertinent to our lives</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Thanks James for pointing out that the haloing as a visual element of the photograph was introduced by the limitations of the burning technique. Once in a while I am able to contribute something to a strictly technical discussion of the craft/art of photography, once in a while I say because of my limited understanding of technique and craft. </p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>All of this is interesting insofar as trying to decide what it is we are doing here and that seems to be different things. I commented early here as I just happened to time it that way. I'd never heard of Bodine and while the original image left me flat it caused me to research and view some of his other work which I liked very much. Charles seems to want to put a current spin on an image taken in a completely different context and I'm don't see it that way. I don't believe we can hold judgement now on what a photographer was doing in a different era. He may not like it and that's fine but let's not turn it into something it isn't.<br>

I find that there are a few topics in this thread that I haven't cared to comment about so I don't. Sometime I comment and it contributes little. So be it. I have to say that both Fred and Arthur look much more deeply into photographs than I. My newspaper background led me to do things quickly (and without social comment)and move on to the next assignment and I still managed to produce a few good images or so I'm told. To this day I don't read much into photographs, mine or others', when I don't think it is there. Having run afoul of at least one other participant here in an unrelated thread, I was amused at his multiple partial responses and equally amused that much of his comment aimed at me was removed. It made me wonder though if the moderators are going to let us say what we think, albeit politely, or if we have to remain politically correct?</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Rick, acknowledging your newspaper background, I find it interesting to see what photojournalists, perhaps like yourself, do when they have completed their assignments. Our local newspaper features each week a photo made by one of their photographers for his own pleasure and usually during an assignment. Once they have met the picture editor's requirement they are free to make other photos and many of the results are intriguing and beyond purely documentary considerations. The artist is not far away.</p>

<p>Charles, is the "double entendre" in your image just an aftereffect? While you are documenting that you grew this European corn variety and the other artifacts are related to that or to other personal stories, the loss of the plains to the indigenous peoples as suggested by your arrowheads is an unambiguous statement and at least shows the power of the use of symbols in photography.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Rick - "I'd never heard of Bodine and while the original image left me flat it caused me to research and view some of his other work which I liked very much."</p>

<p>Yeah I saw some of those other images and I liked them as far as they went. I put up links to specific ones and mentioned that while Bodine was picturing an African American as a happy and dutiful nanny for a little white princess, other now more famous professional photographers were picturing segregated water fountains and the like. I pointed out that Bodine was just as much spinning as was say an Erwitt or a Parks. You, Richard, say you don't think that in Bondine there is anything there. That's what I'm talking about, how Bodine doesn't come off as political, but Parks and Erwitt sure do. I'm just noticing what others don't notice, that's one of my gifts, and I share that gift. I ask myself, why bother? Particularly with the inarticulate Les barking his stuff to no purpose other than to just bark.</p>

<p> </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>The heavy social and political commentary postings around a simple photo are partly due to the loss of our Off Topic forum. We just can't be told <em>"No".</em></p>

[charleswood]

<p>Alan, is the Parks photo heavy social and political commentary, or was Parks just speaking photographically about the facts of <em>his</em> life? Bodine's life facts look quite different from Parks' don't they? Why is one political and the other just a simple photo to you?</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Charles: I suppose I wasn't clear. My point, as Arthur more eloquently stated, is that we tend to spend a lot of time trying to show (prove?) that a picture is making a political or social statement rather than commenting on the photo as to its aesthetic, technical, and content value. </p>

<p>Maybe we're complicating things a little too much. are we trying to have photos make a bigger statement than they really do? I would think that Bodine happened across this situation. He probably thought that two nuns in black would make a nice counterpoint to the white snow, so he shot them. I have a feeling he was more concerned that he was scraping the negative correctly to get an appearance of failing snow more than what political statement he was making. I think we ascribe too much to photos and their shooters. Maybe if we still had a Off Topic place to dump our politics, we could spend more time on the artistry of the photos.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Ok. But once we discuss a particular picture to a point then someone, this time me, starts to throw in other works from the larger body of work of the photographer. I don't find much in Two Nuns to stir controversy. In some of the other photos of Bodine I think there are examples which are pretty darn funny today given how much change there has been since those days. I think Bondine avoided controversial works, he isn't known for his controversial images. Lack of controversy in Bodine's body of work is comment worthy.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>The OP Patrick S. kindly informs us that "A. Aubrey Bodine (1906–1970) was an American photographer and photojournalist for the Baltimore Sun's Sunday Sun Magazine, also known as the brown section, for fifty years.” He also tells us that AAB was a keen salon exhibitor. Given that, I am totally nonplussed to read of searches for political messages in his work – the readership of his paper was no doubt white, middle-class and conservative and his intention (very ably fulfilled) was to provide this readership with mild entertainment squarely within its comfort zone.<br>

Many times on PN I have expounded my belief that “A good picture is one that fulfils its intended purpose.” I find this very useful in making objective judgments – on this basis, the AAB picture shown is a very good one, even though I personally don’t care for it. </p>

[charleswood]

<p>Thank you David. Would you please also discuss how art appreciation also involves understanding the culture that produced it, both its harmonies and disharmonies? I can't discuss that issue very well myself and would appreciate a good presentation from you if you care to.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>Would you please also discuss how art appreciation also involves understanding the culture that produced it, both its harmonies and disharmonies?</em><br>

As you know, Charles, I am not one who dwells in the higher realms of the theory of art criticism :-) but common sense indicates that if a viewer is simply presented with an image with no title, accompanying information or backstory, he/she will certainly interpret the image within his/her own cultural framework (which may or may not include a greater or lesser ability to recognize that other people have different frameworks and to imagine these). For example, specifically in the case of the AAB picture, people may or may not realise that AAB’s viewers will immediately associate long black clothing with nuns (in some cultures most or all women wear this) or that snow is a rather rare occurrence and that people therefore react with rather makeshift measures – umbrellas, of which you don’t see too many carried by people in Arctic gales.<br>

Reacting in the above way is perfectly valid but will inevitably be subjective, and on the basis of “I like/don’t like that!”, and with the risk that the viewer may dismiss the image in question after a brief and superficial examination. As I said, my motto is “A good picture is one that fulfils its intended purpose.” If I act in accordance with this, then if I don’t know the background to an image (and therefore the creator’s intention), I will make efforts to find out. Some people may not find this motto particularly significant, but it has been of enormous help to me, especially when curating exhibitions or other people’s work, choosing other people’s work for publication, etc. I find it helps me to take objective decisions even when I am very tired or under pressure which I still feel afterwards are fair and correct. This is why I feel the AAB picture is a good one – AAB knew what his editor was looking for and used considerable skill to get appropriate images which I am sure his editor was delighted to receive and publish. Job done!</p>