Norma Desmond

<p><em>"Including battle destruction would have been near impossible. The photo shows exactly what it's intent was."</em></p> <p>Alan, I agree with both your statements. IMO, that a photo shows its intent doesn't necessarily make it great. Sometimes, the intent itself has to be considered and even critiqued. I think Rosenthal's intent was likely just fine. As I said, it's the way of looking at this photo that I have to question.</p> <p>And you may be right that showing any battle destruction in this photo might have been impossible, BUT . . . photography is a matter of a lot things coming together: a good eye, a vision, stylistic choices, perspective, composition, also often luck and opportunity. I think a great photographer like Rosenthal will make the best of the situation he has, and may well have done so. But, for me, a magnificent photo, which I reserve for very few that I've seen, is where everything comes together. If he lacked the opportunity to show the destructive side of war here, then he lacked it and did the best given the situation. A magnificent photo, for me, would be one which had included that opportunity (even if accidental). So, I'm not taking anything away from Rosenthal by saying this photo isn't magnificent. I'm taking something away from the photo because of its limited narrative about war. I readily admit that, for me, it's partly political. Just like I'm disappointed even when I see a stunning and brilliantly-timed and composed photo of a homeless person that doesn't address in some visual way a deeper narrative about homelessness but instead just shows homelessness in a kind of vacuum. I will always be disappointed in a war photo, any war photo, that just shows heroism and victory while the darker realities of war seem to go visually unmentioned. </p> <p>By the way, that might have to come in a series. Not every photo can tell a complete story or all sides of a story, though a magnificent one should do a pretty good job at having a broad perspective on a news event or political moment.</p>

<p>Part of the reason it may be a such a good photo is that it serves its subject matter. In doing so, it is also a very particular, intentional, unique, and deliberate perspective. Any good photographer, which Rosenthal certainly was, would know not that this would become such a well-known and important photo, but certainly that his perspective and the stark composition would lead to an iconic view of the moment. Shooting upward, against the sky, at the scale he did, with a moment like a flag raising after a battle is going to yield an iconic-looking photo, whether anyone ever sees it or cares about it or not. He wasn't out to tell the story of war. He was out to (and succeeded in) put a fully heroic spin on a moment of victory. Not a thought-out propagandistic spin that he, himself, necessarily thought would have that effect on people (though clearly others would use the photo that way, which is not Rosenthal's problem). He was just doing something that came naturally to a good photographer . . . making what he thought was the most of a moment.</p> <p>But he had many choices. He could have included something in the frame that would have given a hint of devastation and destruction, harm, negativity. That was not the photo he was taking. He was singular in his approach. I can both applaud that AND regret it, as I have done in this thread. And I still don't hold Rosenthal that accountable for all of it as much as I hold myself accountable for my reaction to it. When I view it, I see a great photo, but one that tells a very one-sided part of the story. I would consider it magnificent if it told a bit more.</p>

<p>In general, the people I'm talking about are not doing it as a hobby. They're doing it because it's a fad. It's the thing to do. It's not as intentional or thought out as stamp collecting. It's more akin to saying "like" in every sentence uttered. More of a habit than a hobby.</p> <p>But if you guys want to turn every Tom, Dick, and Susan snapping their cell phone cameras as if they had a tick into a potential Robert Frank or Garry Winogrand, go for it. </p>

<p>I humbly thank you for allowing me that!</p>

<p>Robert Frank had an idea and a vision. He was not snapping at anything and everything that came into his field of vision. I bet if I looked carefully at the thousands of rejects, I'd see some purpose and vision he was moving toward. It would likely not all make sense to me, because I'm not inside his head, but I bet I'd see a thoughtful and visionary photographer at work. I think that's different from what Marie is getting at. Maybe not. I'm not inside her head either. Just giving her the benefit of the doubt in agreeing that there are likely many shutter-happy and pretty mindless snappers out there that can't be compared to or even spoken about in the same breath as Robert Frank.</p>

<p><em>"Wouter, only the first sentence of my previous comment was directed at you."</em></p> <p>Yes. I believe that was Wouter's point. In a dialogue among peers, more than a quick one-liner in response to each other might be constructive and engaging. Building on <em>each other's</em> ideas <em>with</em> each other as opposed to regurgitating whatever knowledge one wants to dispense <em>at</em> the others. More quotes and sources will never be a substitute for the interaction and joint evolution of ideas.</p>

<p>I think it's pretty much universally understood to be limited to that generation of the Allies and, more precisely, Americans, because it also includes the fact that the same generation had already experienced, in their youth, the Great Depression. If it was good enough for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Generation">TOM BROKAW</a>, it's good enough 16 years later without needing any limitation or qualification, IMO.</p>

<p>Wouter, before moving on to yet more facts and sources, I'd like actually to address what you've said and shown. </p> <p>Like you, I think photos often both refer to their referents and don't do that. It's kind of the yin yang of photography, a neat little tension between what IS and what IS NOT. I remember seeing that photo (or maybe it was a similar one) in your portfolio and thought I commented on it but my comment seems not to be there, which is strange. Don't remember what I said, but I'll say in the context of this thread that negative space (what IS NOT) is an important part of it. That's not an object cause of the photo, it's a state of its being. And it's how you saw the <em>picture</em> rather than how you saw the object. The photo is as much about a kind of simple rhythm, staccato-like with even a few grace-notes thrown in as the droplets fall. They are droplets and they are NOT droplets and they are more (and less) than droplets. I may have said in my original comment that I'd like to see some detail in the shower head because that texture would add a little to the orchestration while still keeping your minimalist approach in tact. </p> <p>What you seem to be getting at, or at least as I understand it as I read it, when you say <em>"it connected to me in a way that transcended a showerhead as a symbol of showers"</em>, is what I would refer to as the abstraction that takes place even in the most literal of photos. That shower head is as much a dark shape as it is representative of the "thing" you shot. And it works viscerally on that level as well as on the more literal or representative level. The diagonal of the structure behind it gives me a feeling without my needing or wanting to know what it is. Whatever it is didn't "cause" the diagonal. You did that with your chosen perspective and the photo did it by being framed in a rectangle that will usually be shown so its right angles line up with the right angles of the wall it hangs on or the screen it's displayed on. Rotate your image just a bit and it becomes a straight line, not a diagonal. The photo is as much a cause of what we see as the original object is. So, I agree with you that the cause includes not only the object but the photographer but also think the cause is the photo itself, as a photo.</p>

<p>Also, I think there's nothing wrong with being critical of what photos people are coming up with and what's being done in photography. That's different from simply being annoyed at behavior. That's assessing results, and there's plenty to be critical of. I'm a typesetter by trade and am still critical of a lot of badly kerned headlines I see and bad graphics populating the web. Sure, I shouldn't be annoyed by it. And maybe I should stop even noticing it. But I'm a visual guy. And when my visual sensibility is offended, I react, whether it be to photos or to newspapers and advertisements and brochures.</p>

<p>Lex, we live in a shared space and we connect in many ways. I choose not to isolate, to get out there and mingle with lots of people, friends and strangers, and I have many opportunities living in a thriving, big city. I think that means I'm going to annoy some people just by taking up space but also because my own actions won't always comport with what they're doing or wanting at the time. I admit to being annoyed (sometimes even needlessly and to my own detriment since there's nothing I can do about it and I ought to be able to ignore it) by the behavior of others at times. It's part of life when you share space. Every couple I know, even the most in love, gets annoyed at some of the small, very ignorable things each does. Such is life. And I'm happy to share in all its ups and downs.</p>

<p>James, I responded to David because I don't really see that the perspective in the sculpture is any "better" than in the photo. I agree with you that the photo is excellent and disagree with David when he says the composition of the photo is poor, whether or not it's compared to the sculpture. I think there's a lot more to the photo than "content." As you say, the timing is crucial. As are the perspective and scale, as is the capture and conveyance of the energy.</p>

<p>David, IMO, the strong emotional content and so-called poor composition can't be completely or ideally separated in a photo or painting. Looking at the strong emotional content of this photo, part of that content is the men working together, grouped in determination around the flag, a common goal. Isn't that grouping and proximity both content and composition? The direction of the flag and the gestures of their arms upward . . . both content (suggested movement and showing us what they are doing) and composition (a strong diagonal pull and sense of energy).</p> <p>Comparing a photo to a sculpture and claiming the sculpture is better composed is tricky business, and I'm not sure it works and could be like comparing apples to oranges. A photo often wants to be and winds up being suggestive of a more fluid moment in time, so what might seem like a poor composition is really a matter of the imperfection of life as it's caught. Journalism and street work, in particular, often carry with them different needs for compositional effect. A sculpture usually is more studied and more structured.</p> <p>In most cases, a sculpture doesn't take account of its surrounding space to the same degree as the subject of the photo is seen as part of a framed-off space. So, the <em>statue</em> of Iwo Jima is only positioned within a rectangular or square frame in a picture of it but not so delimited when we see it in person. When we see the sculpture in person, what we call the sculpture IS the subject and the surrounding area includes periphery and is not framed in, so there is less of a consideration of composition in terms of the sculpture's placement within the environment and the composition is mostly limited to the sculpture itself and not its surrounding space. Obviously a sculpture's placement will affect our perception of it, just as the placement of a photo in a museum will affect our perceptions. But that placement of the sculpture is not part of the sculpture in the same way that the framed space in a photo is part of the photo.</p> <p>That the profile of the front man in the sculpture, for example, is a bit more "perfect" than the much more hidden position of that same front man's head in the photo doesn't, for me, mean that the photo composition is poor. It means that a photographer doesn't always have the choices a sculptor has and suggests a difference in how I accept and look at different mediums more than it means one is more "poorly" composed than the other. In fact, more "perfectly" composed or constructed photos often lose that sense of spontaneity and the live moment and what works in a sculpture could potentially ruin a good photo, suggesting too much thinking and intentionality rather than the kind of fluidity and life-as-it-happens quality a camera has the potential to catch. True, some photos are poorly composed. But that's a determination I make with all the considerations of what a photo is and is doing, and not in comparison to what a sculpture might accomplish. I expect different things from sculptures and photos. The sculpture of Iwo Jima was obviously made to highlight the iconic aspect of it and the more perfected sense of each man was probably quite intentional. On the other hand, I've seen many sculptures that work well in giving me a sense of life and moment that more freely interpret the moment and seem less intentionally wrought or contrived and more free in their gestural and compositional qualities. The intention behind the statue was likely, in part, to perfect our experience of the moment, and for good reason. A lot of sculptures, and probably more photos (and this one specifically, IMO), don't do that and aren't meant to, also for good reason.</p>

<p><em>"Why we fight is not to embrace militarism per se, only as a means to some end."</em></p> <p>I would agree that most of those brave soldiers of WWII at Iwo Jima, in other parts of the Pacific, and in Europe did not embrace militarism as an end in itself. Indeed, war was the means necessary to thwart enemies who were foisting horrors on the world that could not remain unchecked. But a PHOTO like this is different from the men and memories it pictures. It and other icons like it have a kind of power that goes beyond the actual moments it depicts. I think it does lend itself to a sense of national pride in military might and in winning at all costs. And just as it elevates heroes it may also blind us to the very real suffering that results and that we, ourselves, now cause. </p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>This has a more universal and survivable feel to it. It's less about the particular individual, who we can't really recognize. It might have been caused by circumstances as opposed to a particular subject. It felt like it was caused somewhere within me. It was, as I experienced it, less caused than created.</p><div></div>

<p>This seems to me like a less universal and less survivable photo than the one I will post below it. It's particular. It's about George. It was, as I felt it, caused by George. If, for some reason, my body of work survives beyond me, it would likely only survive as part of that. I can't imagine it surviving on its own. That's fine.</p><div></div>

<p>Michael, as I understand it, an indexical in Philosophy is a word like "I" whose referent changes depending on the context, in this case the speaker. When I say "I", I'm referring to a different person than when you say "I." The word is "indexed" according to the speaker. "Here" and "now" are also indexicals, whose meaning changes depending on where, when and by whom they are said. Two people can use the same indexical and refer to very different things. How that relates to photography might be interesting and I will think about how it might.</p> <p>[i, too, would be interested to know where Julie got her usage of the term, which is different from my own understanding of it. Regardless, though, of the particular use of "indexical," the question posed here is an interesting one.]</p> <p>_____________________________________________</p> <p>In one sense, photos are not caused by what they are photos of. They are caused by a photographer who takes a picture of something. What a camera is pointed at doesn't have to be seen as a cause, though it may in some cases. Sometimes, what I point my camera at does feel like its compelling me to take its picture. Other times not. It can be something in me that causes me to notice and photograph something. Or it can simply be a desire to express or show.</p> <p>_____________________________________________</p> <p>Regarding longevity, some photos are more universal and timeless and other photos are more particular and local and of their time.</p> <p>I think art that lasts over generations will usually have something timeless about it, though we may very well love it as well for its particularity to a certain time and place in history (like so much of Lange's work). Other art doesn't quite have that timeless reach but is important to its time. There's nothing non-artistic or wrong with art that is disposable or doesn't pass the test of time. Art is allowed to be fleeting. My guess is that some extraordinary art has not been seen by subsequent generations. I like thinking that much good art has been forgotten or didn't translate well beyond its era.</p> <p>Musical contrast: Both The Beatles and The Grateful Dead were products of and leaders within their time and milieu. As much as I loved the Dead, I don't think their music survives well beyond its time. It's not universal in that sense. It's not everlasting. The Beatles, more so, are. Beatles music will likely have reach for decades if not centuries to come. The Dead are no less artists. But you had to be there. It doesn't work as well beyond its relationship to the era and to what else was going on at the time. It was a more localized sound and had more immediate rather than global purpose.</p> <p>I'm not saying one is better than the other. The Dead were so in touch with the moment and, in a way, it's meaningful that they won't survive . . . maybe even the whole point of their music . . . not to survive beyond its life span. The Beatles were about a bigger picture.</p> <p>Nan Goldin is not Edward Weston. I think her work is more of its era and place. It's of a particular moment and culture. I don't see it surviving to the extent Weston's work likely will. Ryan McGinley, more personal, more culturally defined, IMO, less universal. Steichen, more likely a survivor.</p> <p>Yes, I've thought about it, though I can't say I dwell on it much. I'm happy to be a product of my time and place. I don't think much about the survival of my photos beyond me. I do think about their place in a current world and their communication to my fellows.</p> <p>Art, whether timeless or more of a particular era, is to be shared. In the sharing itself, there may always be a sense of survival beyond the artist or maker. That going beyond oneself to another and to others, in the sharing, the expressive communication, the reaching out of myself, is more important to me than survival decades or centuries later.</p>

<p>To add to what James so astutely noted, some more reasons why it comes off as iconic:</p> <p>The perspective . . . we are looking up and the men and flag are seen so starkly against the sky.</p> <p>The scale . . . as seen against that sky, the difference in scale between men, flag, and the universe is great.</p> <p>The monumentality . . . it's arranged as if it were a statue, frozen in time. Though not "posed", which seems to concern people and photographers endlessly and needlessly, its intentional and deliberate look comes not from the direction of the photographer but from the determination of the men on what they're doing. There is, however, not just as Rosenthal has said but in how the photo itself looks, deliberateness in the moment chosen and in where the shot is taken from, and the composition does have a very intentional feel to it.</p> <p>_________________________________________</p> <p>From my place in history, which means none of this had to be present at the time but a photo outlasts its time and takes on new meanings over time, IMO, I refuse to get completely swept away in the militarism and patriotism that it has come to represent. IMO, we fought a necessary war back then and the men fought valiantly and the country sacrificed much. The country as a whole had a right to this photo, to celebrate it, and even for administrations to use it as a symbol to muster support for what they felt had to be done to finally end the war. The horror of what happened in its wake, from the dropping of the bombs to our continued military actions to this day, can't be forgotten in favor of this iconization of the U.S. and Allied victory. Since WWII, the U.S. has pursued an often warmongering stance, and we use our symbols of military strength and dominance as propaganda to further a global agenda that, frankly, sucks. And that's putting it mildly.</p> <p>My father was a disabled WWII vet, and he never felt comfortable feeling proud of what he did as a young and naive 18-year old, though he knew it had to be done and did it honorably. Rarely did he talk about his war experiences, preferring to continue to serve into the future by becoming an activist for disabled veterans, not only from WWII, who were better accommodated than the rest of the vets from subsequent wars. He could never rest with sympathies for icons like this photo while the rest of the country and more importantly the government's treatment of its veterans continued to deteriorate over time to the shameless place in which it exists today. In WWII, the entire country made sacrifices for a demanding and necessary war effort. Today, while our young people, men and women, are at war, we go shopping and our government plays a bigger role in what pictures get seen and in what inept and insufficient services get provided to those so badly injured in our wars and in our name.</p> <p>IMO, there is much to celebrate in this photo but there's a dark side looming in the future of what it's showing that can't be glossed over by any romantic preoccupation with what it symbolizes. In addition to heroism . . . death and harm and horror and lost lives and lost limbs must remain part of this great "icon" if we are truly to honor what it means.</p>

<p>Truth may not be at the extremes, but it is rarely in the middle. The Internet is can be a bad place to search for political realities, but would depend on the quality of the sources. On the Internet, if the truth were to be found somewhere in the middle, Clinton would have had at least something to do with Vince Foster's death, climate change would be at best a speculative questioning, and Obama might be about half a U.S. citizen. Truth is found by research, experimentation, verification of facts, and other methodical factors, not by dividing the difference in all the stuff we hear.</p>

<p>Thanks, Mark, the darkroom work in getting the print must be the culprit. And, yes, I do remember reading your post about the difficulties the negative presented. Thanks for that as well. When there's a stark compositional change like the strong dividing line in the image, sometimes a more subtle gradation of background effect can be overlooked since it may feel like the photo is simply divided in two. And I don't know how difficult it would have been to achieve a more nuanced graduated feel to the background, though I do think it would look better if the change in character of the background weren't so sudden, so if it was an aesthetic call on the part of the printer, I'd disagree with that decision.</p>

<p>What about the background in the photo? Does it seem like the quality and look of the background changes a little suddenly from what we see below the men to what we see above them? Or does that seem typical for a camera and lens of the day? It feels like the degree of blur and haze increases quite a bit in the portion of the background above the men.</p>

<p><em>Whether this particular photo was "staged" is superfluous</em></p> <p>Alan, if the only question were about risk, I might agree. Since there are so many more things at work for me in the photo than the risk factor, I don't find the staged aspect superfluous. I think it's an important part of how the photo makes me feel and what I'm looking at. It in no way lessens the effect of the photo. But, for me, it does affect the photo in significant ways. As I said above, the combination of the reality of the situation and the staged look of the people is something I consider very worthy and interesting about this photo. Such theatrical flare is very effective in some documentary work and certainly in photos that are meant for publicity. It can help make the viewer feel like an intended audience and can help that same audience pay as close attention to the people in the photo as they would to actors on a stage. Good staging will very often help a photo achieve that level of the iconic that so many mention in reference to this photo.</p>

<p>David, as I put it together, "hateMail" is a euphemism for "Daily Mail," maybe an in joke in the UK. The article accompanying the photo suggests some major controversy, which seems mostly manufactured to me, about the sudden discovery that this "iconic" photo has been staged. It's laughable if that's the extent of the controversy because it's so obvious. If the controversy they're supposed to be uncovering is that workers were put at risk back in the 30s in the U.S., that's also worthy of an ironic "you don't say" response. Like this is news!</p> <p>I don't know if Alan linked the article because he felt it was an interesting context in which to show the photo and wanted it to be part of the discussion and our experience or if it was simply because it was where he found a large and decent-quality version of the photo itself.</p> <p>_______________________________________________</p> <p><em>[For future reference to everyone: You can usually separate a photo out from its original web site by right-clicking on the photo and choosing from the drop-down menu that will come up "OPEN PHOTO IN A NEW WINDOW." Or you can ask me to create a link directly to the picture and I'll be happy to do it. Which is not to say that some OPs won't want to include the web site a photo is on for some informative background or interesting content, which is also perfectly fine.]</em></p>

<p>Kent, and for sure there are different emphases and different perceptions by different people. Most people I run into don't defecate in the streets though, like you, I've seen it happen. It's an anomaly, not the norm. Most people I run into don't panhandle and, unless I asked them, I'd have no idea what the few who do panhandle plan to do with the money. I was talking about the average crowd in public. I think you're talking about something completely different. And I don't mean to minimize these problems by any means. The problems you mention are a societal problem, one we're all responsible for as we allow the wealth disparity in this country to grow more and more extreme. I tend to prefer optimism to cynicism, yes!</p>