Robert Frank, "The Americans" and the reading of photo books

[je ne regrette rien]

2 hours ago, Ricochetrider said:

I like this one -not that this is anything I ever experienced, but it combines elements of things familiar in a new way. 

Peculiar, because this photo, strange enough, raises some feeling of "deja vu" in me.

[Ricochetrider]

1 minute ago, je ne regrette rien said:

Peculiar, because this photo, strange enough, raises some feeling of "deja vu" in me.

 It’s the juxtaposition of the cowboy in the deeply urban environs that grabs me here.
 

I love NYC with its endlessly photogenic qualities, and the cowboy is the exact personification of people I’ve worked with and known in my life. 

[samstevens]

In the context of the book and what Frank was doing, the following description by one of the curators at the Met in NY offers an interesting take on Frank's Rodeo. Interesting to associate the disconnect of the cowboy on the streets of NY to the disconnect/hypocrisy of what America and American society was at the time. I offer it as one interpretation, not the interpretation, of course.

Quote

This photograph is one of the more benign, if jarring, images in Frank's watershed book, The Americans, published in America in 1959 (the book was originally published in Paris in 1958) to an outcry of public controversy. Half of the country felt that Frank had betrayed his adopted home, and half felt his criticism was not only warranted but necessary. What is clear is that the photographs pierced the core of a country saturated with complacency and not entirely comfortable with its world persona. As it happened, the cowboy in the city was a good metaphor for America on the world stage in 1955: the country had emerged victorious from World War II, saving the world for democracy; at the same time, it had done so by unleashing the most terrifying weapon ever invented. Moreover, its egalitarian political ideals were severely undermined by a growing intolerance for racial and ideological differences, which intensified in the Cold War climate of the 1950s. The hypocrisy of such a position was perhaps most apparent to recent émigrés like Frank. While the specific antecedents of this image are a matter of interpretation, this ten-gallon-hatted, plaid-shirted, jeaned, booted, and silver-belt-buckled Tex leaning against a wire garbage can in the middle of New York are an undeniably odd sight-although his self-absorbed preening may not be. It highlights Frank's talent for spotting camera-ready incidents that resonate far beyond the character's immediate significance.

 

[Ricochetrider]

Great inside-looking-in commentary! 

[je ne regrette rien]

1 hour ago, samstevens said:

the following description by one of the curators at the Met in NY

Good quote, offers some interesting food for thought.

In a previous post I questioned whether there are other (modern) examples of photo books creating a stir in society. We agreed that Frank’s book appalled and shocked certain circles because it showed an America different from the mainstream narrative.

Today that wouldn’t be possible:

In 1959 there was one narrative. Today we have many narratives and many news, we know “everything” (quotation marks on purpose), often real-time. All existing narratives are in the public domain and certainly we do not lack communication channels, bubbles and debates.

I completely disagree with the notion of hypocrisy. Societies then and now perceive themselves in a certain way, be it because of the media mainstream, be it because of political communication, be it because of social media bubbles (today). The difference between then and now, in my opinion, is that there is no “watershed” today. Everything is fluid, sometimes undifferentiated.

Edited January 8, 2023 by je ne regrette rien

[samstevens]

18 minutes ago, je ne regrette rien said:

Today that wouldn’t be possible:

I think it’s still very possible, as the photographers mentioned after you asked the question have shown. Shock is not the purview of only a bygone era. Look how shocking, though not art photos, the Abu Ghraib photos were. 

18 minutes ago, je ne regrette rien said:

completely disagree with the notion of hypocrisy.

You don’t think there was hypocrisy in America in the 1950s and also in America today?

Edited January 8, 2023 by samstevens

[je ne regrette rien]

36 minutes ago, samstevens said:

You don’t think there was hypocrisy in America in the 1950s and also in America today?

Sam, I don't know the American society that well to be able to judge so I'll talk about societies in general, but don't you think that there is a fundamental difference between then and now?

• back then the hypocrisy was to hide unpleasant social facts, to present an idyllic picture of society;
• today there is an explosion of truths (alternative facts) and the hypocrisy is to claim that they are actually true, even if the fabricator very well knows that they are not?

Edited January 8, 2023 by je ne regrette rien

[inoneeye]

 

3 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

Peculiar, because this photo, strange enough, raises some feeling of "deja vu" in me.

somewhere between James Dean boulevard of broken dreams and a Joe Buck Midnight Cowboy for me.

Edited January 8, 2023 by inoneeye

[je ne regrette rien]

38 minutes ago, samstevens said:

Look how shocking, though not art photos, the Abu Ghraib photos were.

That media in general shock societies is out of question.

I was thinking of the specific medium "book", which works differently than other media, as we know.

[samstevens]

30 minutes ago, je ne regrette rien said:

That media in general shock societies is out of question.

I was thinking of the specific medium "book", which works differently than other media, as we know.

All you have to do is look at all the books being banned and being ripped from libraries and schoolrooms across the U.S. today, books taking honest looks at race, books by and about gay and transgender people, books written by contemporary women authors, to know that people are still shocked by books, and afraid of them. 

Edited January 8, 2023 by samstevens

[samstevens]

17 minutes ago, je ne regrette rien said:

to present an idyllic picture of society;

Precisely what many Americans and people the world over are still doing. That’s what the book banning is about. To falsely teach children that the world is a straight, white, Christian place … which is many people’s idea of idyllic. 

[je ne regrette rien]

1 minute ago, samstevens said:

All you have to do is look at all the books being banned and being ripped from libraries and schoolrooms across the U.S. today

Now I understand where you come from.

In the "old" (and decadent) continent it's a bit different, even if we do our best to do our part.

[inoneeye]

6 hours ago, Ricochetrider said:

I really wish each pic was labeled page by page instead of being indexed at the back of the book

Somewhere in the recesses of my memory is a discussion I read or heard in an interview from Frank that he wanted the photos on separate pages without words. He felt that having the photos facing each other changed the photos.

I think it does.presentation.

Edited January 8, 2023 by inoneeye

[Ricochetrider]

On 1/5/2023 at 3:55 PM, samstevens said:

Are you familiar with ROBERT ADAMS? He strikes me as someone you might find interesting.

Hey thanks for that. I didn’t know his work. Good stuff! 

[AlanKlein]

18 hours ago, samstevens said:

All you have to do is look at all the books being banned and being ripped from libraries and schoolrooms across the U.S. today, books taking honest looks at race, books by and about gay and transgender people, books written by contemporary women authors, to know that people are still shocked by books, and afraid of them. 

 

18 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

Sam, I don't know the American society that well to be able to judge so I'll talk about societies in general, but don't you think that there is a fundamental difference between then and now?

• back then the hypocrisy was to hide unpleasant social facts, to present an idyllic picture of society;
• today there is an explosion of truths (alternative facts) and the hypocrisy is to claim that they are actually true, even if the fabricator very well knows that they are not?

You mean like Facebook and Twitter banned certain ideas and posters?  Burning books isn't monopolized by one side or the other.  There's a lot of arguments about lies being done by the other side while my side is honest.  Nothing new now with these arguments compare to then when ever then was.  Also, history is written by the winners. 

[je ne regrette rien]

Just now, AlanKlein said:

You mean like Facebook and Twitter banned certain ideas and posters?

No.

[AlanKlein]

4 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said:

No.

It was a rhetorical question.  

[c_watson1]

For some much-needed perspective on these issues, the American Historical Association's internal feuding and trench warfare over "presentism" is worth a look:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/arts/american-historical-association-james-sweet.html

 

[Ricochetrider]

Hmm well the NYT, in their their infinite … well

whatever you want to call it, blocks (my) access to this article.

But I found an opening with The Atlantic,  who publishes lengthy, deep reads on many interesting subjects within and around The News.

The Atlantic on The Debate Around Presentisim at the AHA

If we want to draw a line between such thought and The Americans, I must first ask if there can be such a line drawn? On one hand it seems so. On the other hand, I must ask who, exactly, is creating (or perhaps more accurately, has created?) the divide on opinions surrounding The Americans, or judging this photographic work as a negative portrayal of U.S. culture and peoples? 
 

I think the differences (or similarities) between so-called Presentism & Antiquarianism amongst Scholarly Historians, VS knee jerk reactions to a photo book are maybe too vague to be accurately quantified.

Have photographic scholars at the highest levels of academia roundly rejected -or upheld, Robert Frank’s book in any way? Has there been endless academic debate on the subject? Doctoral dissertations published? Have people whose relatives or whose towns and cities were featured made an outcry? Or was/is the reaction to The Americans strictly at ground level, from the gut, based on delusions of grandeur, personal prejudices and hearsay?

Perhaps, if we must claim a parallel between the debate at the top of and within Academic History Research & Teachings and raw photographic endeavors, might it be that  the continuing argument against The Americans - at least in theory, can be seen as just another example of “whitewashing” our admittedly checkered past?

For my part, just personally, having glanced through the book, I found the subject matter not only benign, but familiar to my own life experiences. Not that that legitimizes my own take that The Americans has been wildly overblown when it’s “just” a record one man’s journey back and forth across the Heart of “America”, but hey I’m no scholar, and some may argue not even much of a photographer- 

that’s just my opinion! 
 

 

[samstevens]

1 hour ago, Ricochetrider said:

The Americans - at least in theory, can be seen as just another example of “whitewashing” our admittedly checkered past?

That … and … something about art … 

People like to choose sides, so they do. I’m used to that and people in the 50s were too, having just come off being on the winning side of WWII and now either on the side of Joe McCarthy or agin’ him. A football game with higher stakes. “My team rules,” offered from the comfort of the couch watching tv with beer in hand and chip crumbles falling to the carpet. Frank was the quarterback to others’ Monday morning-ing. Public art criticism can be led by those I like to think of as the “art backlashers”. This often comes with a dose of willful ignorance, where the art itself can be completely ignored in order to score a political or social point at its expense. That’s not really art criticism so much as it’s art exploitation. This kind of art criticism is often a mask for the propensity not to see … or even look.

[Ricochetrider]

1 hour ago, samstevens said:

This often comes with a dose of willful ignorance, where the art itself can be completely ignored in order to score a political or social point at its expense. That’s not really art criticism so much as it’s art exploitation. This kind of art criticism is often a mask for the propensity not to see … or even look.

Yes, agreed on all points - this particular one coincides with the points made by the “Atlantic” article I linked, that people use or cherry pick stuff to further their own causes. Not a new tactic by any means but it sure is a popular one these days

[samstevens]

 

Quote

Photography is a contest between a photographer and the presumptions of approximate and habitual seeing. The contest can be held anywhere.
—John Szarkowski

 

[AlanKlein]

12 hours ago, Ricochetrider said:

...

For my part, just personally, having glanced through the book, I found the subject matter not only benign, but familiar to my own life experiences. Not that that legitimizes my own take that The Americans has been wildly overblown when it’s “just” a record one man’s journey back and forth across the Heart of “America”, but hey I’m no scholar, and some may argue not even much of a photographer- 

that’s just my opinion! 
 

 

Then he should of called the book, "My Journeys Across America," instead of "The Americans".  His title is presumptuous.

Before a reader even opens the book, he is preparing for an expose on America by a foreigner who's barely been here and who published the original book in France, in French.  That's a lot of baggage for an author to carry and have to prove himself. Of course, the name created such a stir it helped sales, which was the purpose of naming it that way.  It's still selling.  After all, photographers here have gone out and purchased it.  So 75 years later, it's still creating a stir. And selling.

Photographers trying to make a buck here should learn a lesson.  Be controversial. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by AlanKlein

[inoneeye]

What is presumptuous is expecting any book to cover All Americans or more than the authors take simply because it is called The Americans. Anymore than Bresson’s book The People of Moscow or Klein’s New York or Barney-The Italians  or Burri-The Germans and of course many many others. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by inoneeye

[je ne regrette rien]

3 hours ago, AlanKlein said:

So 75 years later, it's still creating a stir. And selling.

Alan, you’re bashing a book, one single book of over 60 years ago, and a photographer, who moved on since 1955 and died in 2019.

You make this one book responsible for ruining the image of a people and a country. One book? With photos of nearly 70 years ago? What about all other books, photos, films, songs, poems, talk shows, news articles, press, you name it?

None of us embraced this work as the absolute representation of a people and a country, we are just curious and open minded, and well aware that any work, any work, I repeat, represents a point of view and is more or less biased. We are neither stupid, nor blind Alan. We do not claim any moral high ground, we just love photography and, at least myself, the way it is used and can be used to portray society. And we do not stick to one single work but seek to widen our horizons.

This intellectual debate here does not aim to praise anything, it is about sharing ideas, different points of view. Because it is out of diversity that thoughts spring out, that different information and opinions are shared to enrich our thoughts and experiences.

Dismissing The Americans as a useless, unfounded mercantile work by a legal alien, which is your argument throughout this thread - and you haven’t even seen the book - sounds like a purely ideological stance, which is intellectually impoverishing. Exactly the opposite of the purpose of this photo.net section and of this thread.