Robert Frank - Don't Blink

[The Shadow]

Alan's description of America is meant as a literal description of what America is. "... individuality, entrepreneurialism, wealth, power, spirituality, generosity... " Now, add the rape of Indian lands, extensive poverty in addition to the wealth, the proliferation of guns, incredible scenic beauty, a national parks system to be very proud of, relatively terrible long-distance train transportation, some incredible historic monuments, an extraordinary constitution, a national ego the size of a galaxy for better and for worse, and lots of other things and you round out that description of America. But none of this has anything whatsoever to do with Frank's project, which was to critique some of what was going on in society that had remained relatively hidden or at least not shown in the way he was able to show it.

 

Criticizing Frank for not showing "what America is" is like criticizing an apple orchard owner for not growing oranges.

[Sandy Vongries]

Of course ideology always intrudes - from usual voices. There are two sides to a coin, and many views and interpretations of every situation. Nearly every view raised by either side can be rebutted successfully by the other - whether accepted or not is another issue, since debate is dead. This had devolved into a political discourse rather than a photographic one. Unfortunate.

[The Shadow]

This had devolved into a political discourse rather than a photographic one. Unfortunate.

You don't seem to understand this sort of photography or the discussion that's now taking place. Politics are involved, but we're specifically discussing the politics of photos that can very easily be interpreted as political. There are many ways to discuss photos, and discussing the politics shown, political expectations one might have, biases any of us may have when approaching street and documentary photos showing certain aspects of America is one of them. You've got it wrong. There was a point when the thread was strictly political and non-photographic. You deleted those entries. The current back and forth has everything to do with photography, even though it's obviously got concerns of politics and social commentary. You need to get all this straight.

[Sandy Vongries]

You don't seem to understand this sort of photography or the discussion that's now taking place.

Oh, I'm quite clear on motivations involved. :D

[Vincent Peri]

I finally decided to order a copy of "The Americans" to see what all the fuss is about. Judging from the few dozen Robert Frank photos I found online, the whole thing seems to be a mountain out of a molehill. I didn't find his photos to be all that interesting (runs for cover).

[Vincent Peri]

...

That's like saying you read a few lines from a poet without reading and digesting the whole poem they came from.

 

That's why I ordered the book. I wanted to see firsthand why the photos caused such an uproar:)

[The Shadow]

Oh, I'm quite clear on motivations involved. :D

That’s known as ad hominem. It’s an alternative to dealing with actual ideas and the substance of what people say. Claiming to know people’s motivations instead of dealing with the substance of their observations. Maybe you even guess right at the motivations. Doesn’t make them relevant to this discussion. I don’t care about Alan’s motives and won’t pretend to know them. I take his statements at face value, respect them, and argue with them. Check out the PN terms of use and determine whether projecting motivations and making ad hominem replies are encouraged here.

[denny_rane]

To "claim" The Americans either for or against ones political ideology is the ultimate insult and ignorance to Robert Frank’s oeuvre as a photographer and artist. Frank didn’t at all liked the fame that was brought by the publication of The Americans and as an artist wanted to move away from it as fast as possible and move on creatively once it was established. From the point of view of Frank as an artist (whose work has always been more autobiographical than socio-political), it wasn't at all about the grand statement it's been made out to be. It's inward-looking more than outward looking.

 

 

 

That's like saying you read a few lines from a poet without reading and digesting the whole poem they came from.

That is "exactly" the point he was making in that interview i read. And he was well aware of the regressive ideology that his book was used to prop up. As if he had somehow convinced the photos to lie about one thing or another.

Like that Swiss interview pointed out, a "famous" piece of art can really pigeon-hole a photographer.

It is very similar to what happens to an actor that is part of a Hugely Successful television show.

The actor wants to move on but the world , forever, sees the actor as Captain Kirk, or Ginger or Mary Ann.

Once again, the double-edged sword of fame.

[The Shadow]

The actor wants to move on but the world, forever, sees the actor as Captain Kirk, or Ginger or Mary Ann.

Hey now, wait just a minute. I’ll always think of Tina Louise as Selah in The Hangman and Griselda in God’s Little Acre. She moved on to Ginger, not the other way ‘round! But I take your point.

:):):)

 

Also, I don’t necessarily take what artists say about their own work as the ultimate statement about their work. They assert and deny stuff all the time and that can often be taken with a grain of salt. I prefer the artist’s work to speak or show. His words about the work will sometimes hold much less sway with me.

[Allen Herbert]

To "claim" The Americans either for or against ones political ideology is the ultimate insult and ignorance to Robert Frank’s oeuvre as a photographer and artist. Frank didn’t at all liked the fame that was brought by the publication of The Americans and as an artist wanted to move away from it as fast as possible and move on creatively once it was established. From the point of view of Frank as an artist (whose work has always been more autobiographical than socio-political), it wasn't at all about the grand statement it's been made out to be. It's inward-looking more than outward looking.

 

That's like saying you read a few lines from a poet without reading and digesting the whole poem they came from.

Click to expand...Phil.

 

Obvious common sense,. unless you are intellectually blind, or, a lost soul in some sort of political mystic agenda.

 

The photographs were of Americans that simple to understand.

 

Americans.

[The Shadow]

To "claim" The Americans either for or against ones political ideology is the ultimate insult and ignorance to Robert Frank’s oeuvre as a photographer and artist.

That's not what's being done in this thread.

 

Assessing a body of work in terms of the politics and culture of the time is not claiming The Americans for or against one's political ideology.

 

This is, in part, how art and photography have been assessed throughout history and will and should continue to be assessed in addition, of course, to more strictly aesthetic and personal assessments as well. If we don't see art and photography as parts of the larger culture and as in part expressing politics of the day, we turn a blind eye to much of the import of The Americans as well as to art and photography.

Frank didn’t at all liked the fame that was brought by the publication of The Americans and as an artist wanted to move away from it as fast as possible and move on creatively once it was established.

He may have wanted to move away from the fame but that's different from his moving away from the politics of his series. If he, in fact, denies political or social elements to his work, then he's kidding himself or not approaching his own work honestly or clearly. He may well not have INTENDED the work that way to begin with, which is doubtful considering the work itself, but there is often stuff in art that the artist didn't overtly intend. That's why artists can learn from their own work and can learn about themselves through their own work if they keep an open mind to revelations their work may have to offer. I've already made clear above that I think the strong suit of The Americans is its stream of consciousness approach, its personal view, and his unique style and eye, but I would certainly never deny the political and social expression it also contains.

[AlanKlein]

I never said Frank didn't have the right to critique America or show what it's about according to his belief, including all the negative stuff. However, the title, The Americans, has a conceited, I only know who they are, ring to it. The definitive article "The..."presents his view as the only correct view. That's why I object to it. It's a narrow, limited, dark view that doesn't show all of America's traits. Who is he to speak for who we are? It's insulting. If he titled it, "The Darker Side of Americans", I would have no objections.

[Moving On]

Y’all keep this up and I’m going to have to add another book to already sagging shelves....

[The Shadow]

Who is he to speak for who we are?

All you need do is actually look at the pictures to know that he's not speaking for who we are. You seem to be refusing to do that, however, in favor of dwelling on a definite article in a title. To each his own.

 

By the way, there's a difference between "the" and "only." You seem to be assuming that titling something "The Americans" means he thinks that the traits he's choosing to show in The Americans are the only American traits there are. Can you specify exactly which theory of logic you're using to make that leap?

Edited October 11, 2018 by The Shadow

[leo_papandreou1]

If you get The Americans, lend it to Alan.

[Moving On]

I don’t expect the controversy is wholly attributable to right wing paranoia.....

Guess I gotta get the book to judge for myself.

 

Robert Frank's The Americans still shocks, 50 years on

 

Kerouac wrote: "Robert Frank, Swiss, unobtrusive, nice, with that little camera that he raises and snaps, and with one hand he sucked a sad poem right out of America on to film, taking rank among the tragic poets of the world."

 

Sounds pretty Dark to me.

But I’ve lived near and worked in Memphis my whole life and witnessed a marked decline so it may seem pretty balanced to me.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Moving On

[Moving On]

Good points.....

Some of the earlier posts referred to the detractors as being politically motivated:

 

Perhaps it is worth noting that the original US reviews of Frank's work were extremely negative. The book was taken as an attack on 'Merica'

.............

"The Americans" showed America darkly. That's why it was so appreciated by the left.

..............

“Darkly” is an oversimplification. But, indeed, “the left” doesn’t mind social critique of the sort Frank, and Kerouac, so insightfully offered

..........

Redifined the icons of America

Edited October 11, 2018 by Moving On

[The Shadow]

I don’t expect the controversy is wholly attributable to right wing paranoia.....

I don't attribute the controversy in this thread to right wing paranoia at all. I attribute it to misinterpretation of a title and not looking carefully at the work in question.

 

The controversy when the images were first shown was that people (no matter their political stripe) were not used to seeing photos that didn't conform to a more 1950s-style-Life-Magazine-eye-view. I think the original controversy had less to do with political left and right and more to do with expectation.

[The Shadow]

he sucked a sad poem right out of America

There's a difference between sucking a sad poem out of America and saying that America IS that sad poem.

 

To show sadness in America, or to write about sadness in America, is different from saying America IS sad or sadness.

 

Alan has given no indication that he gets the difference.

[The Shadow]

“Darkly” is an oversimplification. But, indeed, “the left” doesn’t mind social critique of the sort Frank, and Kerouac, so insightfully offered

I noticed you included a quote from me in your examples of those claiming earlier that the detractors were politically motivated.

 

Please keep in mind, however, that my statement was IN RESPONSE to Alan and I put quotes around "the left" specifically because that's the phrase Alan used. It wouldn't have been my formulation at all in this context. I would never have thought to see Frank in terms of left and right. Like I said, I always thought of his work as stream of consciousness and as showing some harsh truths about life in America, lives I don't think of as left or right and truths I don't think of as universal in America.

[Moving On]

“Redifining the icons of America” is pretty unambiguous......

[Moving On]

I noticed you included a quote from me in your examples of those claiming earlier that the detractors were politically motivated.

 

Please keep in mind, however, that my statement was IN RESPONSE to Alan and I put quotes around "the left" specifically because that's the phrase Alan used. It wouldn't have been my formulation at all in this context. I would never have thought to see Frank in terms of left and right. Like I said, I always thought of his work as stream of consciousness and as showing some harsh truths about life in America, lives I don't think of as left or right and truths I don't think of as universal in America.

That is why I put his post immediately prior to yours....

Here’s another example from another poster:

 

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

[Moving On]

Well I’ll give you my impressions when the book arrives....

Best I can do.

There a two points here it seems in this thread not necessarily the same.

A bit of cross pollination in the conversation.

The photos on their own merit.

The book in the context of its history.

A bit hard to divorce one from the other it seems.

From what I’ve read about Frank’s recent comments he recognizes that.

[The Shadow]

Like you, I don't agree with everything said in this thread, even things said by people I mostly agree with on the main points.

 

“Redifining the icons of America” is pretty unambiguous......

That's from the review you quoted. Not sure what you mean by its lack of ambiguity in the context of talking about detractors as being politically motivated. Can you explain? The way I interpret what the reviewer is referring to in terms of redefining icons is that Frank's photography took less grand, more humble things like jukeboxes and the road and dealt with them as other photographers previously might have dealt with majestic mountains or waving flags or The Empire State Building, things we tended to think of as icons. The reviewer is also suggesting that he redefined icons through his photographic handling of them, by showing them in an off kilter and more intuitive manner rather than a more traditional supreme or heightened and formal manner that had been previously used for most iconic matter.

[Moving On]

A substitute of materialism for ideals......

Not unfounded.

But not definitive to the point of “redifining American icons”.

George Carlin’s bit on “Stuff” comes to mind.

I expect the guy probably had a bit of aversion to commercialized materialism run amok considering his background.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Moving On