Robert Frank - Don't Blink

[The Shadow]

Sounds pretty Dark to me.

It does, doesn't it!

 

I think there is a lot of darkness in what Frank is showing. But I don't think he's reducing America to that darkness. That's my bone of contention with Alan and has been all along. I think we're seeing similar things in Frank's book. I think, though, Alan is unrealistically expecting Frank to have shown a more well-rounded picture of America instead of taking on the project of showing a side of America he discovered in his travels and felt was worth unveiling, a side of America personally speaking to him at the time. And though there is darkness, out of darkness often comes light. And I think if one is open to it when looking at the photos, one will also see that light. Or, at least, I'll speak for myself and say that I see challenge and a lot of hope in both Frank's and Kerouac's darker sides and it feels like it's right there in front of me, not hidden away at all.

[The Shadow]

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

Interesting. I'll think on that. It's not how I've seen his photos at all, though. I don't see the jukeboxes and the road as signs or symbols of materialism but just as smaller and more common things that can take on the power of icon. The reviewer doesn't seem to me to be talking about ideals and materialism. Icons were never ideals, though they are usually representations of ideals. The flag is an iconic representation of patriotism, country, America. The Empire State Building an iconic representation of building, maybe to some extent industrialization. The jukebox is the diner, the humble meal, the neighborhood dance. The road is travel, open space, stream of consciousness. All these icons have ideals behind them. None seem more materialistic than the other.

[Moving On]

I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it stands.

Or...

I pledge allegiance to the jukebox and to the recording contract for which it stands.

 

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution and Government of for and by the People.

Or....

I pledge allegiance to Walmart and lower prices of for and by cheap labor and high profits.

 

For me this is probably the closest I ever get to agreeing with my Liberal (left leaning) friends.

I can see where a person in a mood,a point in life, a state of mind would reflect that mood in pictures he took in a certain period in his life.

 

I also see Alan’s point, which I think is valid as well.

[The Shadow]

I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it stands.

Or...

I pledge allegiance to the jukebox and to the recording contract for which it stands.

OR...

I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it stands.

And...

I love going down to the diner and listening to the jukebox while falling in love with Betty Sue who will become my wife and the mother of my children.

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution and Government of for and by the People.

Or....

I pledge allegiance to Walmart and lower prices of for and by cheap labor and high profits.

I'm not touching this one since The Americans was published in 1958 and the first Walmart was opened in 1962. I don't know why Walmart comes into this discussion.

 

I can right now look at one of Frank's photos with a flag and note that it represents more than "the Republic." (LINK)

 

Here's where it might be easy to talk only of darkness, the faces in shadow, the solid, flat, hard brick wall confronting the viewer. But the flag still hangs in the light and the women are SHOWN by the window, even if mostly faceless. It's not just the flag of an ideal of the Republic, it's the flag of individual struggle and plight as well. Very American.

 

And I can then turn to one of the photos of a jukebox. (LINK)

 

In the context of the book, though there are some photos that strike me as being about consumerism, this jukebox photo strikes me more about culture and American music and love for it at the time. Not materialism. The jukebox brings in own kind of glow into the world. There's another jukebox photo in a bar in Las Vegas. Strikes me as a bar Frank would have wandered into on the road. It's a very personal photo. This is part of his helping to evolve the street and even the tourist photo. Instead of an iconic photo of, say, a church or a state capitol building, he goes where people go for very different reasons. In this bar in Las Vegas, there's a lot of light blaring in, a different kind of light than the more traditional guiding light. Again, nothing about materialism. More about the individual alone in a bar and with his thoughts as opposed to, say, "the Republic." Also very American, but from a different point of view.

[The Shadow]

For me this is probably the closest I ever get to agreeing with my Liberal (left leaning) friends.

I can see where a person in a mood,a point in life, a state of mind would reflect that mood in pictures he took in a certain period in his life.

 

I also see Alan’s point, which I think is valid as well.

A couple of things about this. Though I've talked about Frank's social critique, I haven't specified what it is. You're addressing your own notions of what the liberal left thinks, but you're not addressing what Frank shows. Maybe when you get and carefully look at the book, you'll be able to address Frank's The Americans and its social critique rather than some notion of what the liberal left thinks.

 

If I were to state where I think much of the social critique in The Americans lies, it's as much about visibility and power structures and who gets to be seen and who has the power. It's less about Americans' rugged individualism as a source of power and more about individual struggle as a struggle against power.

 

In terms of Alan's point, Alan is misreading the photos and demanding a point of view be shown that is not the point of view of the photographer. It's a position that makes little sense and seeks to bind all artists to well-rounded and full-spectrum points of view instead of allowing them the freedom of their individual passions. Alan's point of view is very much at odds with what The Americans is all about, both as an artistic endeavor and in its portrayal of the more stifled individual Frank shows moving into the light.

 

Alan seems to think Frank owes us lightness in addition to dark (because he's missing the important kinds of light Frank actually does show, though they're not as typical as he may be used to). Do we fault Michelangelo as an artist for presenting David as such a perfect and ideal man? Did he owe us David holding hands with a hunchback to show how well-rounded and fair minded he was? Or is Michelangelo's representation of an ideal enough?

Edited October 11, 2018 by The Shadow

[Moving On]

I’m at a disadvantage until the book lands in my mailbox.....

[Vincent Peri]

I’m at a disadvantage until the book lands in my mailbox.....

 

Me too... I expect the book will get here from England some time next week.

 

Hmm... anyone know where

I can order a banana sales

catalog...?

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

[pavel_l.]

I can't say that I know the Frank's perception of the world, but according to the history of the fine art and history of literature/poetry, the most appealing pieces were about drama/dramatic story.

I can appreciate generosity and stories of success, except they are more documentary to me.

[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.

 

Gary, I'm quoting my own post to to remind you that I never said Frank does not have a right to present his own views of America. I really wish you;d stop repeating that error on your part. My statement is self-explanatory. His use of the word "The..." presents his view as the only one there is of who we are. That's what I object too. You don;t have to agree with it. But please don't misquote or misinterpret my statements.

[The Shadow]

Alan, can you point to any specific sentence where I said you didn’t think Frank had the right to present his version of America. I don’t think that’s what you’re saying at all. So, if you can point to where I said it, I’ll immediately take it back because it’s not my view of your thoughts. I think you’ve said Frank missed a lot of aspects of what it means to be an American and I think you’ve said his title, THE Americans, suggests he should have included more optimism, entrepreneurialism, and other things you think are important to being American. What I find wanting in your criticism of Frank is that I think you ask him to be more balanced and all-encompassing than he wants to be in what he’s doing with his series and I think you’ve given his title too much power over the images. I NEVER said and don’t think you think Frank didn’t have the right to present his version of America. The only reason I can’t stop repeating it is because I never said or thought it to begin with!

[denny_rane]

Funny, after all these years, there is still a certain percentage that have problems with Franks book.

Now even the title draws scorn

What should he have called it.....The Germans, The French, The Islanders.?

Some guy with a Guggenheim, walked around with a camera, and took pictures of the era.

If somebody published his book of photographs, and called it "The New Yorkers".....would ANYBODY think the book, somehow, was purporting to be THE WORD on what New York Citizens do or look like.?.......Of course not.!

Franks book gets the same bizarre complaint, year after year after year.:)

 

One of my teacher's MFA was built around "The Americans".

She had corresponded with Writers/Photographers that worked for Pop Photo at the time of the books release. It was typical HUAC stuff of the day. They did not like the color of the truth, and Frank took a lot of flak for it.

They told her The French text was never considered for the reprinting of The Americans. Apparently, even the likes of Rosset/Grove....rather progressive publishers... thought it would offend THE Americans sense Nationalism. What a humorous twist of irony that was.;)

Like frequently happens, The Controversy and Detracting breeds interest and book sales

No such thing as bad publicity...as the saying goes. :)

[AlanKlein]

Alan, can you point to any specific sentence where I said you didn’t think Frank had the right to present his version of America. I don’t think that’s what you’re saying at all. So, if you can point to where I said it, I’ll immediately take it back because it’s not my view of your thoughts. I think you’ve said Frank missed a lot of aspects of what it means to be an American and I think you’ve said his title, THE Americans, suggests he should have included more optimism, entrepreneurialism, and other things you think are important to being American. What I find wanting in your criticism of Frank is that I think you ask him to be more balanced and all-encompassing than he wants to be in what he’s doing with his series and I think you’ve given his title too much power over the images. I NEVER said and don’t think you think Frank didn’t have the right to present his version of America. The only reason I can’t stop repeating it is because I never said or thought it to begin with!

Gary, you did imply it here in your 5:51 post above, copied below. I never said he had to show point of view other than his own. What I said was his title implied that his view was the only view of Americans. That's what I object too.

 

Gary's quote 5:51: "In terms of Alan's point, Alan is misreading the photos and demanding a point of view be shown that is not the point of view of the photographer. It's a position that makes little sense and seeks to bind all artists to well-rounded and full-spectrum points of view instead of allowing them the freedom of their individual passions. Alan's point of view is very much at odds with what The Americans is all about, both as an artistic endeavor and in its portrayal of the more stifled individual Frank shows moving into the light.

 

Alan seems to think Frank owes us lightness in addition to dark (because he's missing the important kinds of light Frank actually does show, though they're not as typical as he may be used to). Do we fault Michelangelo as an artist for presenting David as such a perfect and ideal man? Did he owe us David holding hands with a hunchback to show how well-rounded and fair minded he was? Or is Michelangelo's representation of an ideal enough?"

[The Shadow]

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.

Alan, I’ll stick with my interpretation of what you said. You make yourself quite clear.

 

When you say that Frank has a conceited, narrow, limited view that doesn’t share all of America’s traits, and when you claim to be insulted (pretty thin-skinned of you) that he’s speaking for who we are, I think it’s safe to say you’re asking that he show a point of view other than his own.

 

What you didn’t say, even though you claim I said you said this, is that Frank didn’t have the right to show his point of view. You never said he didn’t have the right to do it. In other words, thankfully, you believe in freedom of speech. But you’re clearly saying he was conceited and insulting for not showing a wider point of view. And in saying so, you’re being insulting to ALL artists who take a particular stand and offer a personal point of view rather than the more balanced view that you’re demanding in order not to feel insulted or not to think of the photographer as conceited.

 

And the strangest part is that you’re basing this all on a misunderstanding of how the word “the” can and does operate.

Edited October 13, 2018 by The Shadow

[Moving On]

“The Tennesseans”

[Moving On]

But you’re clearly saying he was conceited and insulting for not showing a wider point of view. And in saying so, you’re being insulting to ALL artists who take a particular stand and offer a personal point of view rather than the more balanced view that you’re demanding in order not to feel insulted or not to think of the photographer as conceited.

I find that ironic given the context of your arguments in the thread.

[denny_rane]

[ATTACH=full]1266804[/ATTACH] “The Tennesseans”

[ATTACH=full]1266804[/ATTACH] “The Tennesseans”

Good Heavens...had to do a double take.!

At first look, i thought that was a Police Car.:oops:

Anybody else see that.?

 

We have thieves of course, but the thieves in Tennessee, they have some REAL Machismo. :)

[Moving On]

That was on a University Campus.....

The thieves were well educated, understanding how to center a fulcrum and cantilever loading for time and material efficiency.

 

There is enough social commentary in that one photo to make it the sum total of a whole book.

Edited October 13, 2018 by Moving On

[Vincent Peri]

Hi Gary,

 

I also take "The Americans" to mean the book shows what at least the majority of Americans are like. As I said earlier, I ordered a copy and hope it arrives next week. Then I can see for myself what all the fuss is about. :)

[The Shadow]

Hi Vincent,

 

That’s too bad. If you’ve already decided what Frank meant when he titled his book The Americans before you’ve seen the book, then you’ve prejudiced yourself before you even begin. Under those circumstances, not sure you’ll get a free and fair reading of the images. Seems an exercise in futility to decide in advance the umbrella meaning and purpose of the photos. Me, I’d wait until I look through the pictures a few times and think about them a bit before deciding what the title means and what the photos are purporting to show. But, as the famous cliche goes, to each his own.

Edited October 13, 2018 by The Shadow

[Vincent Peri]

Hi Vincent,

 

That’s too bad. If you’ve already decided what Frank meant when he titled his book The Americans before you’ve seen the book, then you’ve prejudiced yourself before you even begin. Under those circumstances, not sure you’ll get a free and fair reading of the images. Seems an exercise in futility to decide in advance the umbrella meaning and purpose of the photos. Me, I’d wait until I look through the pictures a few times and think about them a bit before deciding what the title means and what the photos are purporting to show. But, as the famous cliche goes, to each his own.

 

I haven't decided what the photos will show. I'm going to decide if the photos appear to show what the majority of Americans are.

 

I think there is a difference in my point of view and what you think it is. :)

[The Shadow]

I'm going to decide if the photos appear to show what the majority of Americans are.

I understood you before and I understand you now.

 

The question is, why are you going to do this? Why are you arbitrarily going to decide whether his photos show something they don’t purport to show? Why would you base your assessment of a series on a willful misreading of a title?

 

Yes, I understand you. That’s precisely the issue.

 

By misreading the title and then seeing if the photos show what your limited and eccentric take on the title is, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment. As a matter of fact, you’re virtually ensuring it.

[Vincent Peri]

I understood you before and I understand you now.

 

The question is, why are you going to do this? Why are you arbitrarily going to decide whether his photos show something they don’t purport to show? Why would you base your assessment of a series on a willful misreading of a title?

 

Yes, I understand you. That’s precisely the issue.

 

By misreading the title and then seeing if the photos show what your limited and eccentric take on the title is, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment. As a matter of fact, you’re virtually ensuring it.

 

Thanks for reading my mind, which isn't made up yet.:rolleyes:

[The Shadow]

Again, I’m going by your words, not reading your mind. You’re very clearly stating what you’re going to do.

 

Your words: You’re going to decide “whether the photos appear to show what the majority of Americans are.” Direct quote.

 

What the “majority of Americans are” is your fabrication based on the title The Americans. So you intend to see if the photos appear to show something YOU have brought into the equation instead of looking to see what the photos show that’s not relative to this fabricated theme you’ve created of “the majority of Americans.”

 

This is a great way to not allow art or photography to speak for itself, but instead to devise unrealistic expectations of what the theme is and then see whether the art or photos show the theme you’ve made up for it.

[Moving On]

Hi Vincent,

 

That’s too bad. If you’ve already decided what Frank meant when he titled his book The Americans before you’ve seen the book, then you’ve prejudiced yourself before you even begin. Under those circumstances, not sure you’ll get a free and fair reading of the images. Seems an exercise in futility to decide in advance the umbrella meaning and purpose of the photos. Me, I’d wait until I look through the pictures a few times and think about them a bit before deciding what the title means and what the photos are purporting to show. But, as the famous cliche goes, to each his own.

That sounds like you already made up your mind about folks who dare question your premise.

They buy the book you suggest to investigate both sides of the argument but can't even comment on its title based upon reading numerous reviews.

You have closed your own mind Gary to our opinions even before we get to examine those opinions after purchasing and reviewing the photos ourselves.

 

Vincent clearly articulated his interpretation of the title and what his motives are for ordering the book.

Nearly every book I ever opened was to examine what the title meant.

The least you can do is give someone as much grace as they've given the author in purchasing his book based upon a conflict of interpretations of those who have reviewed it, to "see what all the fuss is about".

Edited October 13, 2018 by Moving On

[Sandy Vongries]

Since this dialog is based on individual viewpoints and assumptions there is little of value, even in relation to the topic. Another course of conversation will probably prove more productive.