Robert Frank - Don't Blink

[The Shadow]

Balance can be important in photography, and so can taking a stand and asserting a clear and distinct point of view. I generally prefer the latter, especially when it comes from the heart and is done with passion and skill.

 

Clearly, Frank is a photographer with a marked point of view. Good for him!

 

Balance ought to be the default in photojournalism and may be effectively conveyed and utilized in other types of photography, including street, documentary, and art as well. Even in photojournalism, unfortunately, it is often not practiced to the extent it could be.

 

I would never want to saddle a documentary photographer or a street or art photographer with balance if their proclivity is toward a more pointed political, social, or aesthetic statement.

 

In the case of those who express an unbalanced point of view, the balance can come from other photographers with alternative points of view.

 

A photo essay about apprentices making good money in right to work states sounds like it has a lot of potential. All it takes is an interested, perhaps involved, photographer to get busy and do it.

[Moving On]

The overtime bought four new tires for the apprentice’s truck as he learns a trade.

I asked if he learned anything this week.

“More than I learned in High School”.....

The real world.

[The Shadow]

Good captioning and expression of a point of view. Balance might suggest you accompany this photo with one of someone who found high school rewarding and maybe became a special ed teacher as a result, or became a chemist who’s helping find cancer cures. But such balance here is certainly not necessary and not even necessarily desirable, depending on what you want to show and accomplish with your particular photo(s).

[Moving On]

When I mention balance I don’t mean to say I expect it from the individual photographer.

I am pointing to the larger group of photojournalism.

I am perfectly content with individuals offering competing views photographically.

The best photos reflect personal taste.

People are good at photographing in accordance with their own goals in mind.

It simply appears to me there is a tendency for the world of photojournalism to be populated by one view when it comes to politics.

For me right now, I am documenting a world I will soon no longer be a part of, nearing retirement, my contribution in it done.

Best to pass on as much as I can at this point.

[The Shadow]

Frank’s The Americans is not photojournalism. I may have misunderstood you to be critiquing either his work or reactions to it based on the lack of balance. So I’m not clear on why you brought up balance in the context of The Americans.

[Moving On]

Frank’s The Americans is not photojournalism. I may have misunderstood you to be critiquing either his work or reactions to it based on the lack of balance. So I’m not clear on why you brought up balance in the context of The Americans.

I was addressing the posts of others.

[Sandy Vongries]

Enough - I'd prefer not to go on a deleting rampage.

[Sandy Vongries]

I've never given a warning point - prefer not to. What's next is up to y'all.

[Sandy Vongries]

In a case like this, if anyone feels I have treated them unfairly as Moderator, please feel free to contact management or other moderators. My interest is in the good of the site and it's presentation to visitors, current and potential members.

[The Shadow]

From Kerouac's introduction to Frank's The Americans:

Or the picture of a chair in some cafe with the sun coming in the window and setting on the chair in a holy halo I never thought could be caught on film much less described in its beautiful visual entirety in words.

Not so dark. There is an alternative kind of spirituality both in Frank's photos and Kerouac's words. Maybe they seem dark in comparison to platitudes about the American spirit we're more used to hearing, but when I look and listen I see a shining light, not darkness.

[Sandy Vongries]

Fair enough. The truth is in the middle. But c'mon now Sandy. You're legit I guess but all these threats are nothing but counter-productive.

 

My first comment is an attempt is to get the thread on a more friendly and topic oriented course.

My next is not a threat, it is a proposed remedy / course of action which hopefully I will not have to follow, but certainly will if pressed.

Just the way it is - there are all sorts of sites where those who choose to can battle endlessly.

[AlanKlein]

Frank's book is political. He's making a statement about how he sees America - warts and all. To delete comments or shut down the thread because people are discussing its political impact would defeat the whole purpose of this forum. No one cares about the tones in his photos. It's the photographs' political point of view that matters. How could you leave that out of the discussion?

 

From my standpoint, I think it's title The.... creates the problem. He's saying his photos represent what America is. It's a conceited view on his part as someone relatively new to the country having been born in Europe. Maybe more people would accept it if he called the book, "A Recent Immigrant's View of Americans"

[leo_papandreou1]

It's a conceited view on his part as someone relatively new to the country having been born in Europe.

 

And yet, his pictures of America then look completely normal today.

[The Shadow]

He's saying his photos represent what America is.

I think this is a literal rather than a photographic, metaphorical, or even a fair reading of the title. The photos show an extremely personal and engaged/lived point of view as opposed to a universal or iconic inclination toward America itself as an idea. Very much akin to Kerouac's and other beat writers of those days, the photo book is stream of consciousness. It is a cultural critique, not a national monument. Viewers might want to look at the photos and discover what they, as a series and a travelogue, have to offer instead of giving a reading of and emphasis on the title such power over the imagery.

[JDMvW]

the support from many on the left who made it seem that his dark view of America was the only truth.

 

Why insert this sort of baseless speculation? Both historically incorrect and "fake news" to boot.

[denny_rane]

Yep, he went out, shot some very good frames, and for some reason, they still upset a small minority of people. I guess that addresses the excellent quality of his photos. :)

We all have a unique eye. There will always be people that do not like a group of photos for one reason or another.

I am dumbfounded at why Bill Cunningham was so popular. He was a super nice guy, and VERY Dedicated to his photography, but his photos were largely lousy IMHO. Just because he shot CERTAIN frames and not others, dose not speak poorly of Bill, or make him some kind of manipulator. Just like Frank, he shot what he shot. There is NOTHING dishonest about Robert Frank or Bill Cunningham.

Somebody like Robert Frank, regardless of what imaginary lines on a map he crossed, are just a mirror of the times they point a lens at and snap the shutter.

I guess Street Photography has always been misunderstood and upsetting. Why people would try to pin that on the photographers worthiness is quite strange.:(

Edited October 9, 2018 by denny_rane

[Moving On]

Context.

[The Shadow]

are just a mirror of the times they point a lens at and snap the shutter

Denny, I agree with your main point and do think there is a strange misunderstanding being created in this thread. Social critique, instead of being seen as an authentic and essential human activity and as American as apple pie is being cast as a cause of American ills instead of the check on some of the very real ills it has so often been and certainly was at this time in history. It's a sad day and an upside down world when shining lights on some of the unfortunate situations of society while also still acknowledging the incredible spirit of that same society is seen as being dark.

 

That being said, I only half agree that Frank and other photographers are mirrors of their times. While they often do reflect such a zeitgeist, photographers and artists are, importantly, not just passive bystanders snapping shutters at what they see. They also help create the culture of the day. Frank was more than a mirror. He added his own voice and stirred imaginations while suggesting possibilities and emphasizing aspects of American life he deemed important to show. Again, he CHOSE where to point his camera and what images to put in his book, what strands of the American fabric he wanted people to see and think about. He could have chosen to show pretty landscapes and thin, attractive women and made some people much happier! Of course, they would likely have mistaken fluff for light.

[AlanKlein]

If he also showed Americans individuality, entrepreneurialism, wealth, power, spirituality, generosity, as much as the darker areas of America, that balance would have made him more accepted by many. But the title, THE Americans seems to make it seem that only his view represents America. It shows how photos can tell the truth and lie, both at the same time. Edited October 9, 2018 by AlanKlein

[denny_rane]

BTW.....the titile is Not....."THE Americans".....it is "The Americans".

I own the book, he photographed all kinds of different people.

Did you want him to shoot everybody in the country.?

Also...Immigrants have Always been a problem.....just ask "THE Indians" :)

There is nothing in the book that remotely approaches anything resembling a lie.

Once again, Robert Frank seems to have the Non-Natives doing a war dance.;)

Edited October 9, 2018 by denny_rane

[The Shadow]

If he also showed Americans individuality, entrepreneurialism, wealth, power, spirituality, generosity, as much as the darker areas of America, that balance would have made him more accepted by many.

Why don't you talk about your own opinions instead of "many" people you're supposedly speaking for?

 

Mapplethorpe could have broadened his view and photographed heterosexual S&M activities, but he didn't. Ansel Adams could have broadened his view of Yosemite and showed trash bins and cabins and people making love in the woods, giving a more complete picture of the park, but he didn't. Dianne Arbus could have included many more non-mentally challenged people in that book of hers, but she didn't. Brassai didn't have to give the impression that the Paris streets were filled with prostitutes. The only people who would get that impression from looking at Brassai's work are probably wrongheaded in universalizing from one photographer's perspective and choice of emphasis that that's what he thinks is the extent of the world or a country or city or population.

 

I don't think a photographer has to present a wide-ranging sampling of people or places or things or ideas. A photographer can very effectively and sincerely concentrate on their own areas of interest and make whatever sort of statement, positive or negative, they want.

 

Focusing so much on the title seems to me a way of missing what the photos themselves have to offer.

[Moving On]

The American Indian is not native to North America.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Americans-Robert-Frank/dp/386521584X

Additionally.

From a review:

First published in France in 1958, then in the United States in 1959, Robert Frank's The Americans changed the course of twentieth-century photography. In 83 photographs, Frank looked beneath the surface of American life to reveal a people plagued by racism, ill-served by their politicians and rendered numb by a rapidly expanding culture of consumption. Yet he also found novel areas of beauty in simple, overlooked corners of American life. And it was not just Frank's subject matter--cars, jukeboxes and even the road itself―that redefined the icons of America; it was also his seemingly intuitive, immediate, off-kilter style, as well as his method of brilliantly linking his photographs together thematically, conceptually, formally and linguistically, that made The Americans so innovative. More of an ode or a poem than a literal document, the book is as powerful and provocative today as it was 56 years ago.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Moving On

[Moving On]

You can’t have it both ways.

Either the guy’s book was an expression of a socio/political view of America or it wasn’t.

It was initially published in France.

I didn’t know anything about the guy or his book before this thread, but it seems to me Alan’s general assessment has merit based upon what I gather from comments about it here and elsewhere.

Like I’ve said before, there is a context.

 

As a side note I wasn’t the only one who thought of deTocqueville when reading about the book.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Moving On

[The Shadow]

First published in France in 1958, then in the United States in 1959, Robert Frank's The Americans changed the course of twentieth-century photography. In 83 photographs, Frank looked beneath the surface of American life to reveal a people plagued by racism, ill-served by their politicians and rendered numb by a rapidly expanding culture of consumption. Yet he also found novel areas of beauty in simple, overlooked corners of American life. And it was not just Frank's subject matter--cars, jukeboxes and even the road itself―that redefined the icons of America; it was also his seemingly intuitive, immediate, off-kilter style, as well as his method of brilliantly linking his photographs together thematically, conceptually, formally and linguistically, that made The Americans so innovative. More of an ode or a poem than a literal document, the book is as powerful and provocative today as it was 56 years ago.

Yes. Right. A good alternative view from the one Alan presents. Not all dark.

You can’t have it both ways.

No one is.

Either the guy’s book was an expression of a socio/political view of America or it wasn’t.

The crux is what that socio/political view is and what its extent is. Alan thinks it's summed up by this: "He's saying his photos represent what America is." And that's simply wrong. He's not saying his photos represent what America is. The expression of a socio/political view of America is something different from claiming the photos purport to represent what America is. America is much more than one man's socio/political view of it and I suspect Frank and Kerouac would recognize that. America is a big and diverse place, a big idea, and a whole lot of things more than what they chose to show. Anyone who purports to represent what America is in a single book of 83 images is fooling no one. One can have socio/political takes on a country expressed in a book of photos without having represented what that country is.

 

I could foresee someone making a book of photos from citizenship naturalization ceremonies, for example, and calling it The Americans. It would be a perfectly appropriate title. It could easily be the expression of a socio-political view of America. And it would not represent what America is any more than Frank's book did.

 

As I said, a social critique is not a national monument. A social critique doesn't necessarily try to capture the essence of a given society as much as it looks at aspects of a society deemed worthy of serious scrutiny and criticism.

[denny_rane]

It remains a well selling book of photographs. It gets discussed in in all beginner and art appreciation classes. Kind of a Photography Icon at this stage of the game.

The only legitimate complaint about Frank's book is the lousy quality of the reprinting. :)

The power of the book has been somewhat Enigmatic over the years, even causing debate about the path of travel of "Native" peoples it would seem.

Frank never put any limitations on the photographs. A person can have them as many ways as they like.

 

It is amazing, Frank eluded to the fact in a mid 1970's German/Swiss Interview. Forty years after that, Circa 2015 and a certain minority is still lodging the same diatribe about a few measly photographs. :)

The nerve that Mr Frank touched with that book is (still) very telling. No wonder he got a Guggenheim for it. That would be an honor for any photographer.

If the translation i read was accurate, the woman that interviewed him called The Americans, The Americants......I believe the reference she was making was current affairs of the state with Nixon and Vietnam at that time.

Mr Frank was Gobsmacked by the many furrows of society that made claims to the "Intent" of the pictures he had taken.

 

I suppose it happens with any famous piece of art, whether it be a book of photographs, a hit record, or a movie. The "artist" moves on, but the art cements them to a certain time in history.

Price of fame and all that i sup[pose.;)

.

Edited October 10, 2018 by denny_rane