Weekly Discussion #33: Elliot Erwitt

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>“To me, photography is an art of observation. It's about finding something interesting in an ordinary place.... I've found it has little to do

with the things you see and everything to do with the way you see them.”</I> – Elliot Erwitt<p>

 

When I look at, the photographs Elliot Erwitt has made, the word that pops into my head is “humane.” <P>

 

Erwitt’s snaps (as he likes to call them) can be genuinely insightful. Many times they are also a little bawdy, witty, silly, sly, or playful. But I

have yet to see one that was not informed by a deeply intelligent sense of the absurdity of life. This spirit also holds for his purely

commercial and editorial work as well. <P>

 

Dictionary.com defines the word "humane" as an adjective describing the condition of being <I>”characterized by tenderness,

compassion, and sympathy for

people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed.”</I> and it’s synonyms are <I> “merciful, kind, kindly, kindhearted, tender,

compassionate, gentle,

sympathetic; benevolent, benignant, charitable.”</I> It's an apt summation of Erwitt's body of work. <P>

 

Analyzing his photos in formal photographic terms reveals that Erwitt pays acutely painstaking attention to framing, light, tone, and when

he uses it, color. In other words, he has done the work required to be a very versatile master craftsman. <P>

 

Elliot Erwitt came of a age as a working photographer in a time when magazines were the king of media and the competition to get your

work on the pages of the big mass media publications was intense. Perhaps this made him hone his eye and his craft in a way that isn’t

possible in the internet dominated era as media space is so freely available it is disposable. <p>

 

 

 

My selection is far from being one of his best known photographs but it exemplifies much of what I admire in Elliot Erwitt's "life-like snaps".<p>

 

http://www.phaidon.com/resource/p75.jpg<p>

 

You find worse ways to spend your time contemplating photography then by visiting Erwitt’s website,

http://www.elliotterwitt.com/lang/index.html<p>

One last Erwitticism: <I>”The whole point of taking pictures is so you don’t have to explain things with words.”</I>

[dan_south]

<p>Brilliant, both the featured photo and the larger portfolio. This is a challenging style, i.e. to make the mundane look more interesting by making it look artfully mundane. (I hope that that description made sense.)</p>

<p>I wouldn't even attempt this style. There's no way that I could pull it off. Erwitt mastered the approach. Bravo! And thanks for posting!</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Does Erwitt have a photographic "style"? What a great observation on your part! What do mean by style?

 

I think Erwitt certainly has his own way of looking at and for moments and things, but when I think of photographers with a signature "style" I think of someone like Albert Watson, Winogrand, Arthur Elgort, Avedon, Frank, or Arbus, photography where there is an insistent and obvious "I" as well an "eye" at work.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ellis and Dan, if I had to use one word to sum up Erwitt's style it would be <em>droll</em>. His photos show a distinctive wittiness in presenting humorous, ironic, and sometimes even absurd situations that seem to very organically grow out of the otherwise ordinariness of those same situations. His style consists in sometimes using scale to heighten the juxtapositions he's "focusing" on and he also often cuts things off or allows interruptions or distractions into a frame that help tell an amusing tale he has in mind.</p>

<p>I find his style less visually compelling than many other photographers, instead leaning to concept, cleverness, idea, narrative, and outright jokery. I've seen one very well done exhibit of his work at the International Center for Photography in NYC. Because I found it less visually stimulating and acute than other photographers and found his work often to rely on the equivalent of visual puns (and sometimes even what I consider to be somewhat sophomoric humor), I didn't come away terrifically moved but nevertheless appreciated the experience and learned from it and still took much away from the show. There's a lot to get out of his work even if it doesn't appeal to me as much as other types of work.</p>

<p>I think the group portrait you singled out for the OP is among his best because he seems to combine photographic finesse, in terms of perspective, scale, and emphasis, with the characters he seems both to be capturing and simultaneously creating. I really liked many of his political documentary photos and was more moved by some of his "social commentary" photos.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Thank you, Ellis.... for your selection of Erwitt and for your observations.</p>

<p>I think Erwitt -- in some of his more well known photos (as in the one selected by Ellis) -- does have a signature style. And yes, it is encapsulated by Ellis in his comments and summation above. But if I had to choose one word to describe it, I think Fred nailed it with "droll". I do not like everything of Erwitt's. Some of it is a little too "cutesy ironic" and is emulated to death by some some street and documentary photographers who think they are being witty and showing that they are really "seeing" things around them. Some examples would be Erwitt's photo of the crane next to the tall skinny pipe, or the orthodox priest framed by the legs and crotch of the naked sculpture. Too clever by half. But I admit that this is a matter of my personal taste and prejudice, and may also be influenced by my distaste for the second rate work of those who try to emulate this style. This may be a more verbose way of describing what Fred has already called "visual puns". </p>

<p>By comparison, the family portrait that Ellis links to possesses wit, humor, and social commentary -- but it is more subtle and possessed of greater depth and more layers. </p>

<p>But, as a viewing of Erwitt's site shows, he is no one trick pony, and that is certainly not what I'm trying to imply in my objections to some of his work. Overall, I appreciate his work a great deal and he would easily make my top 20 list of photographers I most admire. I found his photograph of a building in dramatic light and shadow to be very striking. And there seemed to be more than just a simple capturing of a dramatic moment of light and shadow. An indefinable quality that gave it a sense of depth, of something more going on under the surface. But, again, maybe that's just me.</p>

<p> </p>

[GerrySiegel]

Ahhh.I was unfamiliar with Erwitt's work before this reference, Ellis, but I see a real artistry in his people photography. His posed pictures, or staged pictures still yield a feeling of naturalness and are to use a trite phrase 'slice of life shots ' in their effect on this viewer anyway. Like the photo of Kennedy in the office looking out the window. The shot in the portfolio of the cast of The Misfits is posed with grace and an admirable rapport of working with some heavyweight egos. That is Marilyn Monroe, - camera ready- in the power position, closely tied but watched over by the more relaxed Clark Gable and flanked by the introspective the more sensitive type, the already prematurely aging Montgomery Clift. Then, in back row, the overloads of this ensemble, the Director John Huston and writer husband of Marilyn, Arthur Miller-no pipe though this time.... A powerful ensemble that would have any photographer 'wet their knickers' just asked to set up a shot or two on set. Professional he is at his craft,without gizmos or gadgets. A balance that comes easy to some people shooters. So well organized that it looks easy, which it isn't.

 

I rather like the classy family on the sofa, first link you provided. Not the standard issue family grouping. Especially enjoy and chuckle at the mid '60s look of all four. Again the wife has the key spot with legs crossed, and pointed in body language that all women must be born with. The young Joe College with the striped Ivy League tie is earnest and buttoned down. The youngster with the white socks and loafers is with the spirit and relaxed, but has got used to the tie clip as we all did then.... Husband is sitting back with arm along the sofa to express his sturdy second in command personality. The lovely lady has the most charm and the Jackie "do" which means she likes the model job. I like the shot because it is shows a little bit of each personality and could have been one of the Outtakes of a Session, where Erwitt picked this kind of whimsically -- and the family chose other more conventional straight up poses..I betcha!, sly guy Erwitt I think with mischievous humor working to his pleasure in people study. Technically, not much to say which is probably because Erwitt did not let lighting be obvious in any of his shots. Some are funny, like the nude painters and the clothed model, which is a dilly in itself. This is a guy who has the kind of confidence working with people that I really admire. And his work is uniformly interesting and full of detail and worth looking at closely. Nixon being Nixon and a crowd being something else for instance. I like the choice Ellis. I guess that shows:-)

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Elliot Erwitt has the ability to "put his hand on us". He catches those little moments which reveals our humanity often in a clever humourous way; like a street magician with a sleight of hand he reveals parts of our character, directly and sublimely. When l look at his photographs, l look again, they have always a undercurrent of something else to tell, something else going on, other than just a clever capture.</p>

<p>An Inspiration.</p>

 

[michaellinder]

<p><strong><em>"I've found it has little to do with the things you see and everything to do with the way you see them."</em></strong><br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><br>

<strong><em><br /></em></strong>Ellis, this quote from Erwitt confirms something I've believed for quite a while - that photographers tend to "see" differently than others. Sometimes it just comes down to the fact that photographers recognize the photographic potential for a particular event, object, or scene, while others usually walk by without giving what they observe a second thought.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Interesting that Erwitt has gone "double platinum" by being selected a second time (oreviously #21) for the "Weekly Discussion". Even more interesting is the fact that the picture chosen this time is totally different. A truly fascinating image, and quite an achievement to get it on film!<br>

We have a family group, at first sight in their churchgoing clothes - the two boys have neutral expressions, the man (father?) has a stiff and awkward pose and hides behind half-closed eyes, while the woman (mother?) creates the impression that she would not mind being somewhere else shaking a tail feather (or two!). I would love to know the backstory to this picture, but even without this it is well deserving of study.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The lamp is like a fifth member of the family, perhaps an eccentric aunt, cleverly stuffed into the corner of the frame and slightly tilted as if having knocked back a couple already. The family is seated uncomfortably close together (even for a family), not using up any of the extra space at the other end of the couch. As posed as this feels, I feel like I'm getting a lot from the people themselves and there's a very candid kind of engagement.</p>

<p>It's a photo of the Potwup family of Detroit, taken in 1962. No back story I could find.</p>

<p>In true Erwitt fashion, I'm getting at least as much if not more expression from the poses and the perspective of the shot as I am from the faces. Here's a case where I don't get a feeling for anyone's "essence" or as if I'm seeing through to the "souls" of these people.* It's something else. Isn't it?</p>

<p>_________________________________________</p>

<p>*This is not a criticism, just an observation.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

To me it looks like a mid or late 1960s "successful" family. Mother, father, and two sons perform their best behavior

routine for the camera. Wearing their best Dressed for Success clothes , every 0nee's hair is perfectly held in place with

Brylcreem and Aquanet , the men of the family are wearing spit shined shoes, perfectly knotted ties, and the woman is

wearing a shortf, sleeveless and snugly form fitting dress that flirts with a promise of sexual ripeness but doesn't

announce it too loudly.

 

But look at their expessions! The older son's gazes at the camera (and thus the audience ) with a palpable

aggressiveness verging on a rapacious hostility, the father leans back and looks upon the world through smugly

appraising half-shut eyes, his jaw and mouth set in a way that let's you know the king is in his castle. The youngest boy

sits back with an air of smug self-satisfaction -and why not? So what if his white socks roll loosely around the ankles?

Just a little unearned decadence there junior, a little rebellion against the fastidious suit of armor.

 

Novels have been written about women like this one. There she sits, turning her face slightly to the right in a way that she

thinks flatters her while using her eyes to directly address the camera, and through it the viewer, in a much more

seductive manner ("I''m ready for my close up Mr. Erwitt"). Pivoting slightly at the hips, so her shoulders are squared to

draw attention to her ample (but not too ample) bosom for appraisal and appreciation, while those long carefully crossed

legs leave you no choice but to notice their length and shapely form.and narrow ankles.

 

But the really outstanding detail, the one that really tells a story, is her left hand . Her fingers play with the hem of her

dress: Will she pull it back to reveal even more or is she just enjoying the sensational feel of the fabric? Either way she

looks to be having the time of her life, having all this attention paid to her, her brood, and her man. By the way have you

notice that the man and wife appear to be joined at the hip, to be one creature? Sure they are wearing different clothes

and have very different heads (and maybe even different thoughts inside them) but how many arms doghouse: her left

and his right, while the two boys are completely independent creatures.

 

Still they look like a pack of predators who'd be happy to shred the photographer (and by the cameras ability to project

you into their world, , you too). Into tasty morsels.

 

And that is the thing about Erwitt's photography when it really works: his empathy extends both to the creatures in front of

the lens and to the viewers looking at the photograph. His photos don't embody the philosophy of "hey look at this" bit is

more akin to philosophy that expressed in the title of a history lesson series of shows CBS' Walter Cronkite hosted in the

1950s titled "You Are There".

 

But who are or were these people? Why was Elliot Erwitt photographing them? Why did they pose for him? Invite him into

their home? Was this an assignment for a magazine or an outtake from a commission for an ad or an annual report ? Did

they commission him to shoot a family portrait (if so I bet the one he slivered wasn't this one)?

 

The photo also reveals a lot about Erwitt: at the time he must have been near a peak of his powers as a photographer.

Other peaks had come before and others would follow, so he is photographing with a self-confidence and his own

aggressiveness.

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Here's a case where I don't get a feeling for anyone's "essence" or as if I'm seeing through to the "souls" of these people.* It's something else. Isn't it?"</p>

<p>A photograph is not about essence.....a simplistic play of a word which is trying to associate itself with a language it does not understand.... Souls (sole) are at the bottom of footwear. A photograph has its own language, it does not have to be explained with another language....and have a little simple word, in another language, to reveal all.</p>

<p>Clearing the misnomers.</p>

<p>The photograph is a posed/ candid photograph. The stiffness of a posed photo is combined with a freedom of movement emphasizing the character's and insights into their persona. They are movements of life...as alive as the time the photograph was taken. Unlike most posed photographs which dwell on stiffness, self awareness....the characters are breaking away offering more of themselves.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"The photograph is a posed/ candid photograph. The stiffness of a posed photo is combined with a freedom of movement emphasizing the character's and insights into their persona. They are movements of life...as alive as the time the photograph was taken. Unlike most posed photographs which dwell on stiffness, self awareness....the characters are breaking away offering more of themselves."</em></p>

<p>Here we have a wonderful and astute description of a photo in the English language, belying the claim that "A photograph has its own language, it does not have to be explained with another language." Now, of course it's true that it does not HAVE TO be explained with another language, but Allen has shown how effectively a photo CAN BE explained with another language. Thanks, Allen.</p>

<p>What's also nice is that others are willing to do this as well, and it's so great to hear everyone who participates in these threads describe and explain what they're seeing when they look at the photos, as well as all the other great insights and info shared.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

All though we cannot avoid it, language is a trap when used to discuss art forms other than writing. We discussed Avedon here recently and he said that he was a great believer in surfaces. Erwitt has said something similar. How we interpret this or any other photograph has a great deal to do with the intellectual, social, psychological, and life event histories we bring to our contemplation of the image. We quickly reach a point where what we are discussing is not the work itself, but our varying interpretations of it. Erwitt shot other families over the years

 

 

Erwitt has photographed other family groups over the year: https://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K1HRGMKF1J

[sjmurray]

<p>A lot of great observations have already been made here on the Erwitt photo and his photography in general. What I like particularly about this family photo is that it is, as many people have already pointed out, fairly candid. It’s not a studio portrait. It is more revealing about the characters in the photo than a standard studio photo. The studio photographer could certainly not get away with this, but Erwitt is apparently making some kind of documentary statement. Since he is well known as a street photographer it is certainly obvious that he has a good eye for documenting the typical categories of street photography, such as: odd or interesting juxtapositions, strong graphics, strong emotions, odd or interesting characters, etc. His outright portraits in general to me are not as interesting as those of many other photographers, but his skill as an observer of life in the visual dimension is obvious.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"All though we cannot avoid it, language is a trap when used to discuss art forms other than writing."</em></p>

<p>Ellis, I completely disagree though that disagreement is stimulating and welcome.</p>

<p>Language is one way to communicate, especially in these forums. I don't know that I see much difference between "the work itself" and "our varying interpretations of it." It's not like there's a work out there that can be accessed or experienced without someone's perspective on it. That's all we got, I'm afraid, is our perspective with which to view it. To experience a photo is to <em>experience</em> the photo, which takes the one experiencing as well as the photo. I wouldn't know how to separate the experience of the photo from the "photo itself."</p>

<p>For me, language is not a trap at all when it comes to art, though I hear similar sentiments expressed a lot. IMO, language is one means we can use to share ideas and to share our experiences. I could remain mute and still have my wonderful experience of Erwitt's photo. But then I couldn't participate in a discussion forum, which is what I'm here to do. Words aren't necessary to photography. But they are necessary to a discussion. I am not here photographing. I am here discussing. I think the trap is in the assumption that words are a trap. For me, words are a significant accompaniment and means of communication. Photos communicate among other things. So words often seem totally appropriate.</p>

<p>When others, such as Allen, speak, I don't assume they're trying to speak for the photo. I assume they're speaking for themselves and revealing a little of their experience of the photo. Listening and sharing in this way can be of great benefit in broadening my own experience, understanding, insight, and feeling. Otherwise I'd be out of here in a nano-second. Why would I enter a discussion forum if I thought discussing photos / using language was a trap?</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I agree Fred, discussions like this can bear fruit if they make us look at the work of others, or the work we ourselves do,

in a new way.

[Julie H]

<p>Ellis, rather than thinking of language as a trap (which it often is, solidifying and compartementalizing what is beyond solidification and compartmentalization), think of words as the spoon that stirs the soup; it's never part of the dish, but it does stir the ingredients and thus excite the ingredients to more vigorous interactions. Plus, the talking is kind of affectionate, nurturing, like chimps picking each others nits. There's things other than nits going on there ...</p>

<p>With that in mind, I will say that in looking at the chosen photo, for God's sake, what is it about photography that makes us so often go for the least imaginative arrangement of groups of people? They're lined up like cans of soup at the grocery store. We shop their faces. When/where in any of the other art mediums would you ever see such stupid configurations of characters? Flat, in a row. Plunk. There they are. Stupid obvious.</p>

<p>Or, but, rather, DUH, Julie you dummy, that's the point! He's spoofing our consumerist attitude; all those TV shows (The Dating Game, beauty contests, Match.com, etc.) that encourage this kind of cattle show mentality toward looking over, sizing up, pricing, our fellows. </p>

<p>Just stirring the soup ... (and adding some salt)</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Nice introduction Ellis, I'd have expected no less. And thanks for the link to his website. Whilst I didn't particularly appreciate the specific photograph selected, the half hour I spent on Erwitt's website was time well spent, enjoying the work of a photographer of whom I knew very little. But he's a perceptive chap with a good sense of humour combined with the technical skills to construct his point of view very well. Maybe the specific selection was just not obvious enough for me and I took it as compositional clumsiness rather than poking fun. But there's some stunning photographs on his website.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Every time I look at that photo I see something new. This time, the matching cleft chins of the mom and fellow at far left. It's absolutely marvelous. It manages to convey a sense of the absurd in a gently humorous way, not at the expense of the people depicted. I'm not laughing at them, I'm laughing with them - so many of my own family photos have that sort of endearing awkwardness. Those are my favorites.</p>

<p>The only criticism I can manage is that I wish I'd taken that photo.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

After spending a good deal of time studying the photo, I think I have a good read on that family:

 

Father - Was a mediocre student in school and college. Has risen as high as he will go in middle management and accepts that. Is proud to be the breadwinner of his family. Favorite book = TV Guide. Often heard saying, "Honey, I'm home."

 

Mother - Was the recognized leader and trend setter of her peer group in school. Had pierced ears. Was considered "fast" by other parents. Has a hard time coming to grips with her role as a middle aged housewife. Favorite book = Confidential magazine. Often heard saying, "If I didn't get married I could have been a model."

 

Oldest son - Was an honor student in school and college. Was a member of the rowing and lacrosse teams. Will join a Fortune 500 company after attaining his MBA degree but only one that will give him paid leave to work in the Peace Corps. Favorite book = "Thus Spake Zarathustra". Often heard saying, "We must stop the spread of Communism."

 

Youngest son- Is an above average student but has to work at it. Enjoys bike riding, pick up games of baseball or football and splashing in the old swimming hole. Owns a BB gun. Uses Vitalis hair tonic only because his mother tells him to. Favorite book = The Hardy Boys Mysteries. Often heard saying, "Gosh, this Junior Chemistry kit is great."

[lex_jenkins]

<p>100 internets to you, James.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

James, that's perfect. Except you left out the bit about the older son joining the CIA after becoming disillusioned in the

Peace Corps and getting disillusioned with that, going to work on the 1972 McGovern campaign. These days he is a

master at a Zen retreat in the Los Angeles hills.

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Here we have a wonderful and astute description of a photo in the English language, belying the claim that "A photograph has its own language, it does not have to be explained with another language"</p>

<p>　<br /> Thanks for the words, Fred...a pat on the back is always nice somewhat lacking on PN. Nope not a love in, but just the effort of showing some appreciation of other contributions.</p>

<p>　<br /> Fred, you will have to be a lot quicker to catch the tail of this little monkey. Art works in its own language. Yes, we can put clever words together, astute observation , but Art has has its own language and is communicating in its own language in a visual form. Yes, to discuss, analysis. we need a practical language something more earthy.</p>

<p>　<br /> But the Art is speaking to us from a different place... we only have to free our imagination to join with it.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>James.<br /> Mr. Observation and Imagination.</p>