'One of Those Days'

Maybe it's alcohol, maybe it's something treacherous like the disease

narcolepsy which causes one suddenly to fall asleep no matter where

one is. I don't know because I didn't smell this man's breath, but was

attracted to this scene not only by the fact he was on the ground, but by

the exact composition of his arms and legs -- as Cartier-Bresson would

have said the 'geometrie' or composition of this man's akimbo body and

limbs. Your ratings, critiques and observations are invited and most

welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically or wish to make a remark,

please submit a helpful and constructive comment; please share your

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks!

Enjoy! john

No matter what edicts are issued by some about 'shooting those less fortunate', sometimes it is imperative (my view) that a photo HAS to be taken.

This is one of them, in part just for the composition, from the personal composition of this man's limbs (arms and legs) to the diagonal from the man through the pedestrians going into the near distance.

I just couldn't help myself.  

Some of my finest photos are of those 'less fortunate' than average - edicts about whom a 'street shooter can 'shoot' or cannot shoot are fine and dandy, but in the real world, who would Vivian Maier (the Chicago Nanny whose work has been discovered and promoted) have shot when she went to the heart of 'skid road' in Chicago, a place populated by poor people, winos, bums, and ne'er do' wells and took wonderful photos of them.

I shoot what is interesting to me no matter what the subject.

john

John (Crosley)

He does look impaired. Sadly interesting how everyone just stares and no one in the photo looks interested in checking on this man. I guess it's a sign of our world in cities today. I hope he was okay.

Amy

I am sure his wife and children are really glad you posted this.

Your first comment gives me pause. That you included it may say something as important as the words themselves.

Vivian Maier, for instance in THIS PHOTO, adopts a perspective and proximity that suggest her being part of the scene . . . empathy rather than objective distance. It's not just the subject matter. It's the tone and overriding feeling of the photo. It's what I am made to feel about the subject matter and whether a sense of humanity gets translated into the image. There's such a palpable connection in Ms. Maier's photo.

Cartier Bresson can be cold and, as you say, geometric, which I often find to be a flaw, even as I can appreciate his work and its import. In your photo, the viewer, through the eyes of the photographer, is as one of the bystanders on the street, with a kind of disinterested interest. No one cares and the photographer is not visually even posing the question whether anyone should. He's one of those bystanders, only he happens to be carrying a camera with him. "Great shot!"

While I believe in a degree of determinism, both cultural and biological, I'm also a big believer in my freedom to make choices. When I encounter people and situations such as this, I feel as if I have to not take the picture (or, if I must, take it in such a way as to show the dignity worth finding) but still wonder how much of a choice that is. I cannot escape responsibility either through art or through determinism or obsession. As a matter of fact, art heightens my sense of responsibility. I would feel no responsibility, have no desire, and fight off any imperative to show a person like this, especially in this manner. My responsibility would be more to the man than to myself, my photography or need to photograph, or my viewers.

John, for sure I am the last person to tell anyone else what to shoot, what not to shoot; to feel what is necessary to capture and what not. Fact is, though, it will always raise a discussion and this image sure will. And I think it is good that it raises this discussion; even if it's a discussion that's been had many times before, as photographers we should always remind what we're doing.

Let's drag in another photographer: "If your photographs aren't good enough, you're not close enough". A quote by Capa used also for another photo in your portfolio here; we discussed it before, but I feel it applies here as well.

For a long time I read this quote of Capa as being about getting physically close (and hence wider angles), but I've settled on reading it as being about emotional distance. You have to feel involved, part of the scene. What would Vivian Mayer have captured if she lived in a different part of town? Who knows, it all depends on the level of empathy she could have found for that surrounding (and I think empathy with curiosity are key elements in her work). The urge to capture a scene should come from understanding the scene, at least in her work I sense this. Being close enough.

Cartier-Bresson might be more applicable here - more the artist concerned with composition, form, putting elements together into a composition that brings coherence to those elements. This photo does that, and in that sense it works pretty well.

But it also degrades the man to being a graphical element, and not much more. No emotional close enough, but a shape, form and tonality that balances well with other shapes and tonalities.

And that's where this image for me starts to go wrong. His condition (be it illness, handicap or alcohol) is a human condition, has tragedy. He's not a graphical element, he's a story. It's not here, nor there.

In your best photos, you are close enough. You feel part of the scene, and involve the viewer as part of the scene. In this photo, that is missing. We're distant viewers, hands-off and disconnected.

The other day I took a photo of a man seated against a building, sleeping, and for all appearances he was a 'bum' but on photo inspection, in his sleep, he was wearing expensive glasses, his sleeveless t-shirt revealed the well-muscled frame one would expect of a lifetime bicyclist, and being at a train station, it may just be that he was hours between trains, saving on lodging, or a friend could not pick him up until nighttime and he'd ridden on a train all the previous night and needed rest and chose a building to sleep against.

I take the photo and examine it later.

I took a photo of a man (a bum for sure) on steps leading into an underground complex, in summer's broiling heat, back to cooling stone steps, with his body position mirroring in its diagonal the handrail above, including a break and leveling for a 'landing' and subsequent continuation diagonal descent.  A young woman's legs, foreground stepping down, frames and contrasts his lassitude, as, eyes closed, he begs, cup upright even while sleeping.  

That photo is one of my most seen and is very successful aesthetically.

Two men are sleeping on a  bench in the Paris metro, feet to feet, exactly mirroring each other in reverse, each balding somewhat, each with his hands between his legs for warmth, and the photo literally looks as though I had reversed the frame and mirrored one side to include the other (as one posting member did in a joke to make the point).  

An overhead sign names the stop.  

The symmetry makes the shot for me, and there's no way I'd have passed up the shot.  They'd have been sleeping there or not whether or not I took the photo, and it has turned out to be a top photo for me.  To me it's very aesthetically pleasing, also to some of my favorite critics.

There are others -- two begging women, faces faces seemingly terrorized at their poverty as they beg on Kyiv's most fashionable street, is considered on of my all-time best photos.

Was I uncaring?  Was it a 'social document'.  Do you withhold taking such photos, and if you do, are you doing such people a favor?  They don't go away for withholding taking their photo, but you also sometimes don't get a great photo, but their plight remains unknown if you don't take the photo.

Who was the great American photographer who disguised his camera then set out to photograph drunk American bums lying on NYC subway floors?  Those photos are classics and do not 'dignify' the drunks.  Drunks essentially are undignified, yet drunkenness at one time was a terrific social problem (remains one but slightly less), and was deserving of a cold hard, photographic look.  America then was famous for how many drunks it had, according to Ken Burns in his famous documentary on drining in America which I commend..  

How do you dignify a drunk?  Do you ignore them because you can't dignify them?

A tourist book would never include the photo above, and frankly I've never seen such a scene as this precisely.  

I don't know if the man was drunk or narcoleptic, but a moment or so before, he was rolled in a ball as I approached.  I learned long ago "take what is interesting and worry about 'ethics' long afterward", and frankly disregard those who tell you 'don't take photos of bums', because those people are just as much a part of the street landscape as others - at least in certain parts of most major cities.

Try taking photos of downtown Los Angeles and NOT recording the bums there -- yours will be an incomplete documentary.  And how do you dignify the sometimes undignifiable?

Is he a bum or a sick guy?  I know he was not in danger; the other day with a guy in danger I helped summon an ambulance; I'm not hard-hearted.  Nor, if you look at my photos, do I lack in empathy or connection with my subjects at the proper time.

This is one photo of 2,000, and for this photo I was drawn to posting mainly because of the interesting positioning of the man, which literally says 'look at me' and its geometry within the photo.  It's a photo about disability and confusion, and whether it's about drink, I don't know, though I suspect.

Is he responsible, or is a case of narcolepsy?  I just don't know.  You can make your own conclusion.  The photo speaks for itself.

Art is where you find it.  To me this is art.

I find NO obligation to make my subjects 'dignified.  Fred above may have that obligation, but I have No such obligation.  If SNOT runs out of a child's nose, then it will run out of the nose in my photos because that's the human condition.  I won't be cloning out that snot.   I am part documentarian, and when documentarian, I record, not 'dignify', though sometimes dignity can show through and often does. 

There are thousands of photos I don't take or show, because they are not artistically worthy, but this is NOT one of them; it commands attention.

I flipped on a bus through my captures for my seat mate, and Max said instantly 'I want to see that one', and insisted that I blow it up large on my digital readout.  I knew then the power of this photo.

I post all kinds of photos for all kinds of reasons.  As I said, I feel no obligation to 'dignify' my subjects even though many of my subjects are posted as quite dignified.  

I'll send subjects to needing dignity to Fred, above, although I also can do that well too, as I can take all kinds of photos.

I look for a photo that captures a viewer's interest and a subject's essence..

In this case, this man's positioning is a major part of his essence.  However fueled (alcohol or narcolepsy), this man is the man who finds himself asleep or passed out in a public train station plaza -- that's who he is, and in doing so, he finds his legs and arms akimbo in a state of confusion.

I recorded that, then moved on after the half second it took to take this photo as I walked by.  (yes, 1/2 second to frame, take and walk on).

But as noted above, this photo has the 'geometrie' that Cartier-Bresson looked for (not to compare otherwise with his powerful captures).  It's 'interesting', and I'm not ashamed to take 'interesting' photos regardless of subject with no grand design to make 'em look good or make what is inherently and basically, completely undignified into something 'dignified' other, than perhaps aiding through adding some 'geometrie'.

In fact this is a photo about complete and utter indignity, and the commenter above (Fred?) has missed the point when he suggests that I should be somehow trying to capture to make a point of dignity.

Consider the photo taken in NYC or Paris of 'Falling Man' by a famous street photographer.  Is that dignified?  Does it add dignity?  No matter; it's  great street photo.

I'm glad I took this one, and won't be dissuaded.

It's the apotheosis of a certain part of my 'street art' - just not all, as I shoot in varying genres of street, as commenters above know, I shoot from warm and fuzzy, to cold and geometric.

I'd take this photo again, again and again, and always post it.

john

John (Crosley)

When I started this man's way, he was sleeping curled in a ball.

Here he is beginning to stretch and recover his facilities.

Narcolepsy (to be kind) or alcohol?  Who knows?

I didn't smell his breath.

OK?  Depends on whether he was drinking andpassed out.  If passed out from drink, I'm sure that if he does it (and such behavior is frequently repeated) that he's NOT OK, and  it dominates his life and those close to him.

He's young, but if he is a drinker and he continues drinking, he hasn't got much of a future.

This the 'early days'.

No, I don't think he's 'all right', but for reasons different than you are imagining.  Alcohol is a great disabler, and it seems that probably (more than likely) is the problem here.

john

John (Crosley)

I am sure if this man has not alienated his wife and children (if he has any), they are the most familiar with his problem, and that it's far from any secret from them.

If this is from drinking (not proved), his disorientation in public is a sign the problem is well progressed, at least on this one day, even if he's an episodic drinker.  If narcoleptic, he needs meds or to take his meds.

I'll not worry about his wife and kids seeing this; that's his own worry before he drinks (assuming it's drink).

john

John (Crosley)

I daily go through the same intellectual struggle you write about.

I just resolve it differently.

Long ago, I gave up photography because I then resolved that struggle in favor of the way you see it; basically 'stealing' others images for my personal gain (not monetary, but you get the point).  I was very sensitive and embarrassed at TAKING photos, and felt as though I was taking and not giving anything back.

Today it's different. I see the 'ART' in what I am doing, and though not successful with every shot, justify each attempt by the attempt at leaving a 'body of ART work' that justifies each attempt.  Should I have withheld taking this or that photo or not posting this or that photo -- or course, but not this photo.

As I took up photography again with a vengeance after several attempts in the 80 and 90s, when I joined PN, I was searching for an outlet for my creative juices, and by then I had a whole lifetime then (almost) of personal and photographic experience - from working in the profession as a photographer and photo editor as a youthful adult and from years of working one-on-one with people in great distress.  

I learned much about people -- how to emphasize with them and communicate with them -- skills that greatly have aided me in street photography.

One can pick any one photo of Vivivan Maier's and say 'see, this photo has empathy', and many do, and many of hers do not, but hers are distinctive for that --- it was her genius to see and find that empathy, if only for the second of framing and shutter clicking, then moving on, with her clodhopper boots, big coat, Rolleiflex and broad-brimmed hat, often with kids in tow.

I often schmooze with my subjects, just not this guy; I'm very wary of personal safety around alcoholics. (and I wondered if he was an drunk but not proved).

Yes, this is not a 'personally engaged' shot, but I should not be limited to such shots;I've taken a fair share of such personally engaged shots, so I cannot be faulted for lacking empathy in my photography.

I think I can be allowed my own style.  What I have justified to myself is to let the future of art decide whether it was worthwhile for me to depress the shutter for those frames I choose to expose and then to expose to others.

I justify what I take by the artistic  merit -- whether it is in the cold hard composition (a la Cartier-Bresson) or the empathy (a  la Vivian Maier), or both, sometimes.

You can't have it all, (always),  but I have the good fortune of being able to walk a line and feel like I embody part of both photographers, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

See the comment by Wouter Williamse about my 'best work'.

He writes and analysis it very well.

This photo was taken and exhibited for one purpose, and was not meant to be 'touchy feely' but there are numerous others on exhibit here to show I have that capacity, so I cannot be faulted for lacking that capacity, and you're short sighted if you fault this one photo for not embodying every photographic strength I have in my quiver of capture devices.

To NOT take the photo would be the sin; then there'd be nothing to judge ever, and one could wonder "did Crosley have the ability to take 'that kind of photo' or no? except you'd never know the ask that kind of question - there being no reason to ask it, since there would be no trigger photo such as this.

I can take a variety of photos from more than one point of view, from the cold, aesthtic, to the warm, empathetic, fuzzy, photo.

And take them one after the other on a 'card' (formerly roll).  You'd be surprised if you could examine a photographic session how effortlessly I slide from one capture and style to the next, or even slip in a few abstracts from time to time.

Even a landscape, if available.

I might surprise you.  

I try not to take the 'ordinary'

Or the 'cliche'.

Those are the photos I leave to others to take or just withhold from taking.

john

John  (Crosley)

Yours is as able a discussion of my craft compared to those of historical artists I could hope for, so I'll just refer to it, and ask others to read your comment.

I don't think this photo, however, 'goes wrong'.

You mention its strength in passing, as though it were something to be thrown away, and its strength is two fold, actually.

One, it is 'cold and clinical and aesthetic' as Cartier-Bresson's sort of capture (no other comparison invited), because I am not in direct sympathy or empathy with the man because I am not in direct 'closeness' with him.

But I am not because this man is an outcast -- a pariah and an 'untouchable'.

He is a tragedy.

You summed the photo up in that one word.

This is a tragedy.

I have recorded a tragedy.

This man is his own train wreck.

I have recorded it.

So, as noted below, this photo brings up in the viewer contradictory feelings.

He is a human train wreck, recorded in an aesthetically pleasing way, and in a way that compels the viewer to look because of MY ART as a photographer has caught the scene so well that that . . . well . . . one must look.

You are compelled to view this photograph because it is well composed - any other way and you'd dismiss it out of hand, but you cannot.  It's really well done (if I do say so myself) (within its limits of course).

You may think it's cold or hard-hearted and fault me for not establishing empathy or sympathy with this man, but frankly, there was none to be had -- there was NO THERE THERE, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein on Oakland.  He was 'not home' so to speak.

No one was there to empathize with and probably voluntarily so.

Why do I need to show him sympathetically, empathetically, with dignity or even with hold my shutter when I am capturing a tragedy?

He is a both structural element and tragedy at once.

And it's compellingly submitted -- after all you looked.  I think you felt compelled to look, even if you felt 'ashamed' or somehow that the photo made you feel 'bad'.

Wouter, in a sense, you are right on the mark about 'closeness'.

But at the same time you named the point of the photo and missed it by dismissing it or glossing it over.

It is a depiction of a tragedy' (compellingly told).

Somehow this photo makes you 'feel wrong' or that the photo is 'wrong or 'goes wrong' when in fact the photo 'goes right' because it depicts reality -- the wrongness of why this man is there and the wrongness of why he is there and in such a helpless position.

If this photo makes you feel uncomfortable, it was meant to do so.

It was both meant to please you aesthetically (and thus suck you in), while displeasing you and making you uncomfortable about its depiction (thus letting you down).

It's a far more complex photo than a guy on the ground with legs and arms akimbo might appear at first glance or to those who don't know me or my work so well.

It's about the viewer's feelings -- good feelings about the aesthetics and bad feelings about the captured situation -- and maybe even the conflict about 'feeling good about the capture and feeling horrified that you feel good about finding 'good' aesthetics compared to such an awful circumstance that give rise to the capture.)  

Have I got it right?

Isn't it really a fight of the contradictory feelings between feeling good about captured aesthetics and unhappy personal reactions to the situation - and difficulty reconciling the two.

Isn't that what this discussion is all about?

Your own personal reaction about being 'compelled' by good aesthetics to look at this tragedy?

john

John (Crosley)

I record 'life' is most of its permutations and combinations.

I don't record every poor person, bum or outcast.

Many of those I record I do so with empathy and some times with sympathy -- those who know my work know that.

(See comment by Wouter Willemse above).

I also record, rich people, middle income people, old people, young people, grandparents, parents, youths and kids).  In short I record everybody I find interesting.

And, In fact, I take so many photos, there's little reason to show you something unless it's artistically 'interesting' in one way or another - and whether you'll 'feel good' about it or not.

I showed my portfolio to a guy once, an American, and he hated every photo, except the landscapes, what he called the 'pretty photos'.  T hat was his test of what a photo was - it had to be 'pretty'.

My test is different - it has to be aesthetically pleasing or compelling in some way in relation to the composition or the subject generally to be considered for posting or considered a keeper -- even good tonalities may win for the proper photo if they're outstanding tonalities.

This photo above is a compelling and an interesting photo.  I don't concentrate on taking photos of bums or tragedies, nor do I withhold -- I get threats sometimes when I take such photos, from their  cohorts, so it's not always an easy craft.  But if I went to the opera, I'd be taking photos too, and nobody would be suggesting I withhold taking photos there.

What about my photo of the thin, weak, old, small, poor beggar woman walking next to the tall, healthy, attractive, wealthy striding, well-dressed woman in Kyiv's famous shopping street -- always among my ten most-viewed photos?

The old woman is a beggar -- the young woman is pretty, well-dressed and obviously wealthy.

Did I single anyone out?

Obviously, even though I didn't 'connect' with anyone in that photo, I connected with viewers through the 'contact' I evoked in viewers' hearts and minds.

One does not have to see into a subject's soul -- this man's soul obviously (to me) is tortured, or at least very confused at this moment.

I could not have shown him sympathetically.  I don't feel sympathy for him.  He is a tragedy.

He is an actor playing his part as a stand-in for all the tragic people in the world, and he's doing it because he's in a standout photo - that so because of his wonderful, singular positioning in this representative capture, and this capture itself 'tells a story' even if it's not apparent.

Yes, there's an entire story here.  It's a story probably of missed meals, a bed that's not slept in, a husband who has lost his job, maybe a beaten wife and kids, a job that was not tended to and maybe lost, promises not kept, and then, 'oh, last we heard bout poppa was he was found he was sleeping down by the train station like a bum.'

Yes, this is an entire story.

And the story is a tragedy.

But there's an alternative story.

Poppa's a narcoleptic and he's not taking his meds, or not controllable, and you can finish the alternative story.

You see, there is far, far more to this photo than just a guy on the ground, limbs splayed.

That guy is representative of all the disable, confused guys you pass by and don't photograph because frankly they make lousy photographs.  This one makes an excellent photograph - a compelling one.

This is the story of every guy you ever met who drank so much he lost his job or disappeared on a bender for six days.

This is the story of everybody who goes to AA Meetings, for whom I know it will have special meaning (not me, as I just don't even drink much, let alone to excess).

This is a tragedy.

Wouter Willemse has his thumb on the right word - he just didn't recognize it, I think.

I'm its storyteller.

The story's first part is 'I made you look' by what I captured.

You tell yourself the rest.

I'll never feel wrong for that.

john

John (Crosley)

Wouter, you suggested this was a 'story' but appeared to say there was something missing in my photo because I did not get emotionally 'close' to this man and tell the story.

I agree that I did not get emotionally 'close' to this man and used his positioning as a compositional element without doubt - that is one significant attraction of this photo.

But I did not lose track, as you may have supposed, that this is a 'story' as noted above, but I did not give you credit for noting that in addition to naming it a 'tragedy', it is a 'story' even if you fault me for not telling  it as you would have wished.

I have told it my way, for this particular circumstance.

In a way, this is like an elipsis in a sentence, you know, and elipsis is those three or four dots that finish an unwritten idea . . . . (like that).

I have started the story of this man's tragedy for the viewer to cogitate on . . . .and for each viewer to complete the story on his/her own from personal experience - in short to flesh out the story personally.

For each viewer to think for his/her own about all the persons in their lives who have lived lives like this man.  

I can flesh it out with the story of the newsman at Associated Press I worked with in San Francisco my first few months there who kept disappearing into the darkroom (where he kept bottle hidden), and then kept smelling of booze, and who on his fist vacation days, his wife called screaming (after two days' absence, crying) 'where is he?

He was in the San Francisco police drunk tank a few calls revealed.  The staff and I chipped in enough money and I was sent to bail him out.

Within a year he was fired.

Two years later, I read he jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge to his death.

It's dangerous to get to close to such people . . . they can drag you down a bottomless pit.

And will many times.

The photographer cannot be faulted for getting very, very close at times and establishing connection -- I do that many times.

I just don't do it every time.

Sometimes the viewer can complete the story and the photo is an 'elipsis'.

As here.

john

John (Crosley)

John, just to be sure, at no point do I want to define what you should shoot, or not, nor how, or why. If it seemed otherwise, that would be unfortunate. I am glad we can discuss our different choices, and possibly where needed agree to disagree.

I think you replies highlight better what for you the story is that drives this image; and it makes sense. If your approach was a Cartier-Bresson-like composition, at that level I think you succeeded. It sure has a HCB-touch to it. And as an artist, your choice of approach is in a sense indisputable: your choice, and how you wanted us to see this scene. It is (or should be, at least) part of your artistic integrity.

Where in my view the discussion is, is a different one: as a viewer, does your approach resonate with me? You shared this image with us because you feel it is good, and worth showing. Next is: does that message you want to share arrive at the audience. It is in this sense where I meant the image goes wrong, for me. As a viewer, this image leaves me cold in the sense that I see it is a tragic situation, and it doesn't pull me in enough to want to know more, to dig into it. It is aesthetic pleasing, but not engaging me enough. A personal 'gut'-reaction. It does not go wrong in an absolute sense, it isn't wrong in an universal way - it's just that it does not manage to establish that connection towards me, as a 'consumer' of the image.

Good aesthetics sure help for being compelled to look better at an image (be it a tragedy, be it joyful, be it ...). But it's for me a subtle play between aesthetics, my perception of intentions and approach, the content of the image and my own limits and preferences as a viewer. It's not an either/or, nor a good/bad.

Given your experience, I can understand the unwillingness to get close. And no arguing, you are right that there are potential emotional black holes which suck all your energy and goodwill - no arguing there. We merely respond to the photo, and in as much as I regard myself a photographer, I am very much aware that my perception of my own images is tainted, different. I know the story behind the creation, the situation outside of the frame, how I felt while making it, and so on. Emotionally, that is a different experience than watching somebody else's photos.

Sometimes those outsides views are brilliant, bring me new eyes and lift me up, sometimes they bring me down because nobody perceived my story behind the photo and I cannot let emotionally go of that. It is the complexity of communication, and certainly with personal expressions such as photography.

Thanks for the comparison to a Cartier-Bresson image --  I felt the comparison when I first viewed it, but hardly dare write the words as being too presumptuous.  Who am I to compare my work to Cartier-Bresson - even one work?

Even though when I did meet him (he didn't see or review my work), and it was only a chance meeting, he discouraged me as a photographer in general from pursuing photography (in general) as a profession based on general economics.  In a sense, the great one changed my life, as I had not previously heard of him, but had just viewed his work, and if he was discouraging me (with his greatness which I saw and knew of for the first time, having never previously even heard of him), then who was I to presume to try to make a career of photographing, so I moved on.

The point I make above, which you may have missed slightly, is that I HAVE MADE YOU LOOK AT THIS PHOTO, and it DOES HAVE A STORY, but the story is inside you.

You may feel a slight revulsion or at least some sort of letdown that you were compelled by pretty good graphics/compostion/interesting looks, to look at this photo, but come away 'empty handed' but the 'empty handed' part is something you expect the photo to deliver to you -- something you expect me to extract from the subject in my photo as an emotion, connection, feeling  or something (maybe a sympathy or empathy) and hand deliver to you and make you 'feel' something).

The sense then may be one of having been left 'high and dry' or simply 'cold' by my photo rather than being left introspective to ask 'why to I feel that way?'

Look deeper, Wouter, and maybe you can look inside yourself and your reaction to this photo, examine your reaction to all bums and alcoholics laying around, getting in your way, people too much in a stupor that you have to trip over, people you worked with too drunk to do their job (and maybe got fired or maybe who even supervise you and prosper based on your work while they were soused).

I'll bet that in your feelings of 'coldness' and lack of connection with this photo is some 'lack of connection' with those who are like this man, just as I felt.  

We must put some distance between ourselves and those who throw their lives away, at least sometimes, or we will be pulled down with them.

That doesn't mean for all times.

Remember, Vivian Maier eventually got drawn into her own paranoia, by her own suspiciousness, her reclusiveness, into her own hoarding behavior, lived out of dumpsters, and sat on a park bench for days at a time just looking, talking to no one, buried in her own thoughts, hoarded everything and never showed anybody anything (and apparently sometimes abused her charges physically and verbally.  

She may have had more 'connection' with those subjects falling into life's gutter than I -- maybe she could foresee her own future.

Who knows?

Food for thought?

Do you feel a little cold about this photo?

Or about the subject and its depiction?

Try looking into yourself.

It may be a perfectly healthy response.

john

John (Crosley)

I reread your comment about this photo leaving you 'cold.

I thoroughly expected that, and I wrote about it above - viewers' mixed feelings I expected.  

The good feeling for the composition I wrote to suck you in, then the letdown for failing to engage the viewer emotionally - leaving you hanging.

Perhaps you hadn't absorbed that, overlooked that, but surely you agree.'

It is my intention that you look inside yourself to complete the story of why you feel those feelings, then as to this 'TRAGEDY' which you named yourself, to complete the story yourself.

Best regards, and thanks for wonderfully colloquy.

john

John (Crosley)

P.S.  I hope you'll agree that the mark of a good photo is one that 'engages the viewer' which means that the photo cannot be dismissed by a mere glance or little more, but somehow 'sticks'.  I think  for all this one may seem to lack, it's very 'sticky'.

;~))

P.P.S.  Wouter, imagine this as a detail in a Brueghel painting . . . . .

jc

A few random thoughts.

You, yourself, brought up both Cartier Bresson and Vivian Maier before anyone else mentioned them. It sounded to me like they were shoulders you felt you needed to support you. It still sounds like that.

Vivian Maier chose never to show her photos publicly. That might tell us something.

The world and sensibilities have evolved and changed since Bresson and Maier were shooting. Using any past artist for justification of a current sensibility is tricky. I'm not saying it can never be done. But consider some of the great filmmakers, for instance, who got away with their portrayals of women only because that sensibility was a product of the times in which they lived and hadn't yet evolved. We couldn't possibly expect much more of them. Those same filmmakers wouldn't consider portraying women the same way if they were alive today. The past can be as much a minefield as it can be a building block. A homage is one thing. And adopting previously-honed artistic sensibilities can be magical. But the flip side is that internalizing the same sensibility as past masters can sometimes come off as simply being out of touch.

As a quick aside, it's also the case that the Internet has changed things forever. Artists will do well to consider that. It has changed the entire personal equation. There is a huge difference between the viewing medium of a gallery, museum, or book on one hand and the Internet on the other.

If there is a story here, for me it's more like gossip than anything else. This is MY reaction and I won't have that turned it into something it's not. Every viewer is entitled to think ill of something without having the artist turn that into something of significance, because someone's being engaged enough by a photo to be bothered by it or left cold by it must tap into an important emotion or be a source of distinction. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I just want you to know how very wonderful your contribution to these remarks (and remarks on previous photos) has been.

To a one, they have answered the 'call of the critique request' 'please share your knowledge to help me become a better photographer.'  I don't just write those words for the sake of putting something in a critique request -- some of my commenters, you included, and quite a few others -- have greatly contributed to the way I see things when I go out shooting, then again in the editing and even in my photo processing.

I want to personally thank you; sometimes in the give and take of ideas, especially over an Internet forum where you cannot see a person eye to eye, it's easy for feelings to come into play that can be unanticipated.

Please be assured I look forward to the times when you critique and engage in colloquy - I know I'll learn something and it'll be done without rancor and in good faith.

john

John (Crosley)

I am pretty sure that I've seen a figure much like this discombobulated guy in some 'modern art' work, especially with the legs splayed.

That may play a part in why I was so sure in capturing this image -- because I had seen such a posture before.

Perhaps it's a rendering of a jester?

I just cannot recall precisely, exactly or surely at all, that I've seen such a figure, that so precisely or nearly mirrors the figure, foreground, in this photo, but I think Ive seen such a figure - perhaps in something by Picasso.

I am aware of the woman on a couch by Kertesz, limbs akimbo, but I don't think that's the image in my mind, but it's there as well, and as well, there's a corollary image (photo) of a young boy in a McDonald's on a bench,  limbs also akimbo, taken in part because I saw in him a 'mirror' of Kertesz's famous woman, limbs akimbo.

(Fred G., I'm not ignoring you, just letting you have your thoughts, unimpeded).

Can those of you who are viewers and those who have a passing acquaintance (or more) with 'modern art' help me try to find the 'modern art' analog for this figure if it exists  

I suggest thinking of 'clowns' or 'jesters' as a hint, but I may be totally off base.  

I never studied art beyond a semester 'introduction to art in 1964, though I've been through most of the world's major museums and used to hang around 'Art in America's' offices (my wife worked there, and I used to read its magazines -- boring -- at great length, as there often was little else to read, and our apartment was full of past date, glossy 'Art in America' magazines (something I am sure the magazine took NO pride in --since they catered to an exclusive and fabulously super rich clientele, and we were mere struggling newlyweds).

I may be entirely wrong -- the analogous figure in modern art may be a figment of my imagination, but I just don't think so.  

Think also harlequin, and that may help (I know it's almost a synonym for the other buzz words.)

Help show me and other viewers the corollary figure from the 'other half of the divide -- the absolutely acknowledged world of 'true art' as opposed to our 'ersatz art' or just our 'craft' which we (at least I) know and love so much called 'photography.'

[A side note:  It's very interesting to me that Stieglitz, who was first and foremost a great and famous photographer played such an important part in bringing pure art -- as opposed to photography - modern art at that -- across the Atlantic from Europe to the United States to his NYC  gallery, and in fact he probably should be called the 'father of bringing modern art to America' for his role in so doing, but I'm not going to buy an argument  -- I'm just a guy with a camera who makes or 'takes' images that I like to share with members, and who care what it's called -- I'm sure the true, PURE 'artists' would think it absurd to call what I do 'Art' with capital or miniscule letters.]

I would be ever so appreciative for a link or even a hint from anybody, member or not.  If you're not a member, my e-mail is Jcrosley (insert @ sign) photo.net. I'd welcome hearing from you if you cannot access comments even far into the future if the answer is not realized here soon.

Thanks so much.

john

John (Crosley)

Watching the thumbnail I decided to click in only noticing the head-figure better. Just because of the way our man is positioned. The different persons keep a 'safe' distance and/or ignore(d) this 'sleeping' Picasso. That's a choice, even in protecting him and/or protecting the own feelings. That's what got 'recorded' in this image. Is it cold/warm?

In fact is every image choosen in showing publicly a kind of Selfie, in fact every shot is. And yes, by that, sometimes certain courage is needed in presenting them. Yes, there are scales and certain limits, but fortunately all the persons reacting here can handle them, sometimes differently. Has also to do with the own amount of 'street experience.' Yes, there is the danger that John can be seen as the hunter who did shot the elephant, now represented by this, his image alone and he not standing behind our man in getting shot as well. A Selfie nowadays has this all.

Art? In a certain way street is an open museum where we can find art and 'record' that in our own way. Yes: Art is walking, sitting and even laying in the streets. And it needs artists in recording, translating that. 'If I was in that situation..' might be helpful in thinking: 'Shoot'. However, the reflex often is faster and getting the enddecission delayed. And here, maybe a different title could have 'solved' a lot.     

You have written some interesting thoughts regarding hunting, the hunted, 'trophies', and 'selfies' as well as each shot being a 'reflection' (selfie) of the photographer.  I will take those remarks under advisement, as they are almost poetic.

It is true that Cartier-Bresson started out in Africa as a big game hunter, actually killing and selling meat to locals; it helped home his skills, and he only returned to Europe when he got deathly ill, but he had seen a GREAT shot by Martin Muncasi, which greatly influenced him, and it was the only photo he ever displayed in his apartment/flat.

I have no photos in my flat either.  No selfies, no 'trophies', nothing.

I hone my skills almost daily or several times a week at least, but alas, the results will feed or clothe no one, and not even make the slightest contribution to the rent, as I don't sell -- at least not yet.

The day probably will come, however.

Olaf, I always look forward to deciphering your interesting posts.

john

John (Crosley)

Thanks for letting me know your positive thoughts about this photo.  No hand wringing from you, thank goodness.  You know what you like, and I'm thankful to learn it.

john

John (Crosley)

Pardon me for misspelling your name in the post above.  I know you have a one correct spelling for your name; if the editing window were still open as soon as I saw it, I would have been able to correct it without a separate post.

My apologies.

john

John (Crosley)

I have been faulted seemingly by a commenter above, who linked to a Vivian Maier photo seeking to compare what he stated was essentially my more geometric and noninvolved stance vis a vis this photo with the more 'involved' (my quotes) view he attributes to that of Vivian Maier.

While that may be true of ONE PHOTO or maybe more of Vivian Maier, it also may be true of more than one (or many) photo(s) of mine depicting those who have received life's 'short stick' or who can sometimes be regarded as 'bums'.

However, Vivian Maier did not always give a sympathetic or empathetic view to those who were 'bums' - witness the guy on the ground in Paris whom she photographs somewhat disinterestedly and not so sympathetically, and note she 'does not withhold' taking the photo, as the commenter suggested he (and suggested by implication I also) would or should do.

See this link from the Goldstein collection, from the Paris photos, and if it's a scroll, go to the photo of the bum lying on the ground, an example of a photo with great tonalities especially but making little other 'connection'.

http://vivianmaierprints.com/paris/

It seemed Vivian Maier herself could take a photo of a bum on his back without trying to 'dignify' him and without 'withholding' from taking the photo -- after all, she depressed the shutter, just as I have and continue to do.

I have some wonderful photos, including ones taken this month, which I will never show because they essentially are too graphic to show -- ones which show the subject in such a terrible and undignified state that it's shocking, and somehow I think the 'shock' is so great it will reflect on me the photographer rather than on the subject in the belief that somehow I provoked the shocking behavior (I didn't)  

These photos are some of my most compelling, but will remain private so long as I live, as far as I envision.

But it's a chancy game to compare ONE PHOTO of Vivian Maier's to one photo of Crosley's then make a general conclusion about the photography of Maier and Crosley alike, as Maier took photos of just about everything, seldom 'withheld', and in many cases did NOT establish a 'connection' between herself and those less fortunate including those we see as 'bums' who are on their backs (as in the link -- you'll know it when you find it)

Link courtesy of Jeffrey Goldstein collection on a site devoted to Maier images he owns and is selling independent of the larger Maloof collection. 

Note:  Please note that in addition to the tonalities there seems to be use of 'lines' in this photo from the lines of the grate on the ground (a source of heat?) to the 'brace' on the wall, and the positioning of the man vis a vis the grate lines.

Note also his right leg, akimbo, as in my photo where the man's leg also is 'astray'.

In both cases the use of the 'astray' leg as a 'geometric' device is not an accident, and its use by Maier in this photo seems strong evidence against the thesis that a man on his down and outs (and literally 'down') in a Maier photo MUST ordinarily seek to establish an emotional connection versus serve as a 'geometric' or compositional device, as I see in this Goldstein collection photo from Paris.

Sometimes I don't say anything to rebut arguments that I see fault with until I see something that lends them some substantial weight; that time has come.

john

John (Crosley)