squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
OK, let me start off by saying that Elliot Erwitt is one of my favorite photographers, and I love the big "Snaps" book, which I look at all the time for inspiration. But there is one photo in that book that has always bugged me, and it is a good example of something about Erwitt that has always bugged me, and bugged me about other photographers as well. here's the pic, you've probably seen it before.
Now, if I had seen this moment, I have to admit, I would have snapped it too. But here's what bothers me. First, what the photo seems to be saying to us is, basically, "Men like women, women like clothes." Not to make too big a deal of this, but does an artist of Erwitt stature really have to recycle such a sentimental bit of status quo? By and large, I don't like any of Erwitt's men-and-women pictures, especially the ones of children made to look like adults (the dance contest winners one, for instance); these pictures seem embarrasingly mawkish, especially from a guy who has given us such arresting takes on race and class.
OK, that's not the main thing though. The main thing is that this picture, broadly put, is a lie. At the moment he took it, the men were indeed looking at the nude, and the woman was indeed looking at the clothed model. But, doubtless, the men were in front of the other picture mere moments before, or after. I don't argue that the nude wouldn't have particular titillating interest for those who like looking at naked women--god knows I'd linger a bit longer in front of that one myself. But the photo attempts to posit an amusing universal truth that is not, in fact, true. And I doubt seriously that, given the wide accessibility of images of naked women, those guys would be terribly turned on by the painting. Everyone in a museum is generally there to look at art.
Here's a short piece I found online about a book Erwitt put out in 1999:
The picture above is absolutely a manipulation, every bit as much as it would be if he'd photoshopped in a few extra dudes. I think it's odd that Erwitt could be so aggressively against digital manipulation when every photo is in fact manipulated in the framing--and here, I feel as though he has manipulated a scene in order to advance a false thesis.
My $.02. Pile on.
Now, if I had seen this moment, I have to admit, I would have snapped it too. But here's what bothers me. First, what the photo seems to be saying to us is, basically, "Men like women, women like clothes." Not to make too big a deal of this, but does an artist of Erwitt stature really have to recycle such a sentimental bit of status quo? By and large, I don't like any of Erwitt's men-and-women pictures, especially the ones of children made to look like adults (the dance contest winners one, for instance); these pictures seem embarrasingly mawkish, especially from a guy who has given us such arresting takes on race and class.
OK, that's not the main thing though. The main thing is that this picture, broadly put, is a lie. At the moment he took it, the men were indeed looking at the nude, and the woman was indeed looking at the clothed model. But, doubtless, the men were in front of the other picture mere moments before, or after. I don't argue that the nude wouldn't have particular titillating interest for those who like looking at naked women--god knows I'd linger a bit longer in front of that one myself. But the photo attempts to posit an amusing universal truth that is not, in fact, true. And I doubt seriously that, given the wide accessibility of images of naked women, those guys would be terribly turned on by the painting. Everyone in a museum is generally there to look at art.
Here's a short piece I found online about a book Erwitt put out in 1999:
The picture above is absolutely a manipulation, every bit as much as it would be if he'd photoshopped in a few extra dudes. I think it's odd that Erwitt could be so aggressively against digital manipulation when every photo is in fact manipulated in the framing--and here, I feel as though he has manipulated a scene in order to advance a false thesis.
My $.02. Pile on.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
No, I'm not kidding. I suspect those people were moving through the galleries, looking at all the paintings, like most people do.
ampastoral
Newbie
perhaps he took the shot because it is such an amusing instance of the "status quo." he knows the scene is so over the top that it looks staged. if i saw that, i'd never get the camera to my eye because i'd be laughing so hard and looking for everyone else with my vantage point to be doing the same. it's funny when people act the way we "expect" them to.
well, that, or maybe it's just about the male character closest to the camera...if i didn't see jeans sticking out of the bottome of that trench coat, i'd swear he was probably nude under there
well, that, or maybe it's just about the male character closest to the camera...if i didn't see jeans sticking out of the bottome of that trench coat, i'd swear he was probably nude under there
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
why think so hard about it? Its a photograph, not the architecture for a revolution. Cant it be enough that it just looks cool? Thats about as far as it goes for me. Frankly, Id be pretty bummed if someone twisted one of my photographs into some moral ethical debate, thats not why I take photographs...
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
OK, here's another example of a manipulative photo. I have to confess, though, I love this picture.
If anyone here went to the big Arbus retrospective a few years back, you'll remember that the contact sheet with this picture on it was on display. And in every other shot on the contact sheet, this kid looks like a normal, healthy, cute kid just fooling around in the park. Only here does he look like a budding violent lunatic with a muscular disorder.
I think the reason I like it, though, is its intent--I feel that Arbus loved the fleeting moments of madness in everyone, the ways in which all ordinary people are weird, and that's a philosophy I hold dear. Whereas with the Erwitt, what's being communicated is a cliche.
If anyone here went to the big Arbus retrospective a few years back, you'll remember that the contact sheet with this picture on it was on display. And in every other shot on the contact sheet, this kid looks like a normal, healthy, cute kid just fooling around in the park. Only here does he look like a budding violent lunatic with a muscular disorder.
I think the reason I like it, though, is its intent--I feel that Arbus loved the fleeting moments of madness in everyone, the ways in which all ordinary people are weird, and that's a philosophy I hold dear. Whereas with the Erwitt, what's being communicated is a cliche.
Encinalense
Established
I'm with you. But I'm not sure whether you're more bothered by the thesis itself -- which I agree (unless maybe there's more to Erwitt's argument, here) is little more than a sentimental gag -- or by Erwitt's failure to recognize the inconsistencies at play . . .
I enjoy the photo, however, at the level you're addressing it -- that is the image is suggestive of rich layers of creators and spectators and subjects and objects, not the least of which are the two implied creators -- Goya and Erwitt, each of whom is 'manipulating' material. At each stage -- including the stages of creation and viewing -- are implicit and explicit acts of creativity and interpretation. That is, every act of creation is also an act of interpretation, every act of interpretation an act of creation, no? Perhaps Erwitt is trying to get at that idea?
Or perhaps I shouldn't log on to RFF while I'm at work!
I enjoy the photo, however, at the level you're addressing it -- that is the image is suggestive of rich layers of creators and spectators and subjects and objects, not the least of which are the two implied creators -- Goya and Erwitt, each of whom is 'manipulating' material. At each stage -- including the stages of creation and viewing -- are implicit and explicit acts of creativity and interpretation. That is, every act of creation is also an act of interpretation, every act of interpretation an act of creation, no? Perhaps Erwitt is trying to get at that idea?
Or perhaps I shouldn't log on to RFF while I'm at work!
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Because I care about art, music, and literature with an insane passion, that's why. I think existence is brief and cruel, and I don't believe in a god or an afterlife, and think that art is the thing that makes life worth living.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
No, that's a good way of looking at it! Erwitt is smart, I'm sure he's aware of all the layers here. But ultimately, I consider the picture just a very high-quality example of the Amusing Juxtaposition school of photography, which is not really a school I like.
sweathog
Well-known
So what if the image is manipulated? So what?
It makes us chuckle, and it does show one of the big differences between the sexes.
If Erwitt said "This is fact" then maybe we would have an issue. He didn't though, as do very few 'togs.
Erwitt is the master of the unimportant moment. That is how I described him once. His subject matter is inane, tongue-in-cheek, and doesn't purport to be anything else.
Ok, I should maybe clarify something before I get flamed. Erwitt is also a serious photographer, his subject matter very serious in some cases. However, this does not mean that that applies to all of his work. Even some of his more serious work, such as that photograph of Nixon and Kruschev is delightfully tongue-in-cheek.
So why get up in arms about one photograph? No photography, documentary or not, is completely honest.
It has been edited down to that selection, meaning that somebody somewhere has said that that photograph tells the message the strongest.
No photography is objective. Never.
It makes us chuckle, and it does show one of the big differences between the sexes.
If Erwitt said "This is fact" then maybe we would have an issue. He didn't though, as do very few 'togs.
Erwitt is the master of the unimportant moment. That is how I described him once. His subject matter is inane, tongue-in-cheek, and doesn't purport to be anything else.
Ok, I should maybe clarify something before I get flamed. Erwitt is also a serious photographer, his subject matter very serious in some cases. However, this does not mean that that applies to all of his work. Even some of his more serious work, such as that photograph of Nixon and Kruschev is delightfully tongue-in-cheek.
So why get up in arms about one photograph? No photography, documentary or not, is completely honest.
It has been edited down to that selection, meaning that somebody somewhere has said that that photograph tells the message the strongest.
No photography is objective. Never.
icebear
Veteran
Quote: [The main thing is that this picture, broadly put, is a lie.]
A photo is a photo, a frozen moment in time, nothing more, nothing less. All the stuff you're talking about is entirely your interpretation of what happend before (or after) the moment he pressed the shutter. Of course you might be spot on with your assumptions - but so what ???
Selecting a certain moment in time to press the shutter and selecting a frame thereby including/excluding certain things to be or not to be in the picture is certain kind of censorship by the photographer - but it definately is not a lie.
A photo is something that usually gives a message but it's not a written statement and it is subject to broad interpretation - therefore there can't be any absolute truth and one single correct interpretation. Consequently there can be no lie in a photo - unless it has been purposefully tampered with.
Just my $0.02
A photo is a photo, a frozen moment in time, nothing more, nothing less. All the stuff you're talking about is entirely your interpretation of what happend before (or after) the moment he pressed the shutter. Of course you might be spot on with your assumptions - but so what ???
Selecting a certain moment in time to press the shutter and selecting a frame thereby including/excluding certain things to be or not to be in the picture is certain kind of censorship by the photographer - but it definately is not a lie.
A photo is something that usually gives a message but it's not a written statement and it is subject to broad interpretation - therefore there can't be any absolute truth and one single correct interpretation. Consequently there can be no lie in a photo - unless it has been purposefully tampered with.
Just my $0.02
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I think the last thing planet earth needs is to have somebody pointing out, once again, the difference between the sexes.
And yeah, Erwitt is witty and wry, that's his schtick--but when he's great, he's showing us things about human nature that are NOT OBVIOUS--he's enlightening us, making us look at people in a new way. Here, we're just being shown something that every ****ty advertising photo ever taken has striven to show us.
My personal philosophy is that, although you can generalize somewhat about the differences between men and women, these differences are meaningless in the face of the vast gulf between individuals.
oscroft
Veteran
So are you saying that artists should only ever portray objective truth?
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Of course not; that's impossible. There are only degrees of manipulation and nuance, and I just think this one is over the top.
Nh3
Well-known
I think you're more annoyed with the gimmicky and sentimental voyeurism of post-HCB photographers than the photos themselves.
I hate to drag HCB into this but he pioneered a sort of feel-good, witty and well-composed style with no substance which has became a standard and it is still today. For example his picture of a starving child in the arms of his mother (in india) juxtaposed with a wheel and mother cropped out to get the composition right is the height of egoistical photography.
Erwitt belongs to the same tradition and although I find some of his dog photos amusing his huge ego always gets in the way of his pictures.
I hate to drag HCB into this but he pioneered a sort of feel-good, witty and well-composed style with no substance which has became a standard and it is still today. For example his picture of a starving child in the arms of his mother (in india) juxtaposed with a wheel and mother cropped out to get the composition right is the height of egoistical photography.
Erwitt belongs to the same tradition and although I find some of his dog photos amusing his huge ego always gets in the way of his pictures.
Encinalense
Established
At best -- at best! -- its apparent argument shows us something about our response to simplistic assumptions about such differences. If it elicits chuckling, for example . . .
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
what on earth does this do with you attaching your own personal baggage to a work of art that the artist never intended you to attach to it and THEN drawing some kind of judgement on the work based upon the baggage you've attached to it which has NOTHING to do with the work of art?
Sitting through art crit in college was as annoying then as this is now. If someone ever did this to one of my photos, or any of the things I create, Id be real bummed. Its completely and totally missing the point...
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Yeah, maybe. I like those photographers more than you do, I think, but this is not a thread of the history of photography that I love.
I should add that I don't inherently dislike manipulation. What I dislike is the apparent desire to conceal its existence. I DO quite like the painterly, heavily "produced" and altered photographs of Jeff Wall and Gregory Crewdson. They are all artifice, and are open about that fact. They're rather far in method and intent, however, from most of the RF heroes.
furcafe
Veteran
Exactly, & that's why I would also disagree w/mabelsound's characterization of the photo as "manipulated" in the same way as 1 where extra people have been photoshopped in.
Quote: [The main thing is that this picture, broadly put, is a lie.]
A photo is a photo, a frozen moment in time, nothing more, nothing less. All the stuff you're talking about is entirely your interpretation of what happend before (or after) the moment he pressed the shutter. Of course you might be spot on with your assumptions - but so what ???
Selecting a certain moment in time to press the shutter and selecting a frame thereby including/excluding certain things to be or not to be in the picture is certain kind of censorship by the photographer - but it definately is not a lie.
A photo is something that usually gives a message but it's not a written statement and it is subject to broad interpretation - therefore there can't be any absolute truth and one single correct interpretation. Consequently there can be no lie in a photo - unless it has been purposefully tampered with.
Just my $0.02
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Personal baggage? I'm arguing passionately because I care passionately about art. I certainly don't mind your disagreeing with my argument, but I don't understand why you're arguing against the intense discussion of a photograph. I mean, I care about it because I care about things, you know? I think art is important--to me, to human beings, to the meaning of life.
peterc
Heretic
Sometimes a photograph is just a photograph.