A picture that has always bothered me

Pray tell, who are the photographers w/"substance?"

Nh3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Well, don't forget that Erwitt is a big fan of the "Amusing Juxtaposition" school of photography, and this image is a perfect example of this. I don't think it's fair or reasonable to attach the idea that "men like women, women like clothes" to this image. Men like women, and Erwitt is making a wry comment on this, but I think his (comic, editorial) implication here is that the men are looking at a naked woman, while the woman is looking at Art. Clothes don't enter into it, except insofar as they are absent on the subject of the painting surrounded by the group of men.

Of course it's possible that this group was previously looking at the painting on the left, and Erwitt waited to shoot until they moved on to the next piece- it's impossible to know, and not worth our time to speculate on the myriad "could have been" scenarios. What we see is what Erwitt chose to photograph and present to us. I think Encinalense's statements about creation, interpretation, and the manipulation inherent in these acts are worth remembering when viewing work like this. I would also suggest that it's easy to see our own prejudices and preconceptions in the works of others- it's more difficult to try to step away from them, and see just what the author sees. I think your analysis of the Arbus photograph achieves this pretty clearly- but it looks to me like you've put more of yourself into Erwitts shoes when looking at his image.

Erwitt is as much a comedian who enjoys pointing out the absurdities of life as he is a serious, straight documentarian. I think he would be delighted to read this discussion; I bet he'd be thrilled to know this image stimulated so much angst, and I suspect he'd laugh his ass off at anyone attaching much serious social commentary to it.
 
Last edited:
mabelsound said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who cares about the vast gulf between other individuals when the differences between men and women are most that matters ? Not necessarily what I believe, but there is a huge body of classical and modern art based on this assumption.

At least Erwitt has pointed out a gulf between him and you as individuals ;)

Assume the photo was staged. Still a good photo, IMO, fun to see.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
How does Erwitt conceal the "manipulation" you speak of? The quote you use has to do w/his opposition to the electronic alteration of individual images, not the commonplace "manipulation" of framing, cropping, & editing. Who is being deceived or harmed by the "lie" that is inherent in every photograph?

I think your criticism would be better directed @ what you deem to be the "sentimental status quo" rather than a funny little moment caught by Erwitt's camera. Personally, I'm glad that not every one of his photos is an "arresting take on race & class" (how Marxist).

mabelsound said:
I should add that I don't inherently dislike manipulation. What I dislike is the apparent desire to conceal its existence.
Click to expand...
 
Don't know about manipulation; but I do agree that it exists in some form or another at times when we're out taking (or making) photographs. I know that you really didn't want to concentrate on the following item but it jumped out at me when I read your post.

mabelsound said:
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?
Click to expand...
This made me recall a couple lines from two different songs. U2's "The Fly"
Bono Vox said:
Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief
All kill their inspiration and sing about their grief
Click to expand...
and then The Barenaked Ladies' "It's All Been Done"
Stephen Page said:
And if I put my fingers here, and if I say
"I love you, dear"
And if I play the same three chords,
Will you just yawn and say

It's all been done
It's all been done
It's all been done before
Click to expand...
I don't think there is a truly original photographer, artist, poet, etc. left in this world. We're now well into the era where we're recycling things that have occurred and have been created in the past. Anything that suddenly is considered original can usually be traced back to some other form of art, once created, by some other artist; known and/or unknown.

Just how I see it - no one else has to buy into that theorem :D
Semisonic said:
Every new beginning comes from some other beginnings end
Click to expand...

Dave
 
Can someone embed the image or post it as a thumbnail? Wherever it is linked from it wont show up for me where I am right now.
 
furcafe said:
All great photographers, but I fail to see how their work is inherently more substantive. More serious &, in the case of Frank & Evans, didactic, yes.
Click to expand...

They cared about the human condition "as-it-is" and did not try to make pretty photographs of it and hide the suffering, misery and barbarism.
 
Last edited:
WoolenMammoth's reference to his art criticism class, however painful, should remind us again to consider the Goya -- the clothed Maja as an ironic (most likely) response to the shock at his life-sized contemporary nude. He was pressed to paint clothes onto the original -- or to manipulate that original image; instead, he created a new painting of the clothed Maja. In doing so, Goya perhaps meant to suggest something about the misguided or foolish propriety of his contemporaries. Or not. It's hard to know his point, exactly. But I agree with mabelsound that it's important to cultural and civic existence to engage in a discussion with other people about it.

The Erwitt photograph -- more than being a simple gag -- contains this whole history. It contains the ambiguity about Goya's response as well as the weird art-historical/museum convention of hanging or displaying the paintings side-by-side (and in order of a perceived narrative -- a narrative that says a lot about the inherent perspective: she's dressed, then she's not -- not in order of chronology!). Beyond restating an unfunny (and not necessarily accurate) cliche about the way men and women see the world differently, the photograph also points all the way back: were Goya's contemporaries onto something in their objection? Could they have been right? That the full-size non-allegorical representation of a naked woman might be a distraction? I'm not sure that's Erwitt's subtler argument, but I like thinking it might be.

All of this with apologies to WoolenMammoth, of course!
 
pesphoto said:
There is a place for both, dont you think? A little humor is a good thing?
Click to expand...

Surly, but there are far more effective mediums for humor than photographs. And also funny and humorous photos get boring by the second or third viewing.
 
pesphoto said:
There is a place for both, dont you think? A little humor is a good thing?

BTW...would you classify this photo by Erwitt showing us the human condition?
http://static.wallpaper.com/croppedimages/testuser5_may2007_magnum_am240507_1_WPaG9r_3dai5h.jpg
Click to expand...

That's a great photo but he did not need a lot of imagination or hard work to capture it.

Check out picture of the trolley in New Orleans by Robert Frank and you'll know what I'm getting at. http://updatecenter.britannica.com/eb/image?binaryId=69990&rendTypeId=4
 
Nh3 said:
That's a great photo but he did not need a lot of imagination or hard work to capture it.

Check out picture of the trolley in New Orleans by Robert Frank and you'll know what I'm getting at. http://updatecenter.britannica.com/eb/image?binaryId=69990&rendTypeId=4
Click to expand...

A great image by Frank...but none of us really know how difficult it was for him to get that or how difficult it was for Erwitt to make his. Is it a poignant photo or not? Maybe Frank was standing on a street corner and this bus happened by and he turned and took a quick photo.
 
Encinalense said:
WoolenMammoth's reference to his art criticism class, however painful, should remind us again to consider the Goya -- the clothed Maja as an ironic (most likely) response to the shock at his life-sized contemporary nude. He was pressed to paint clothes onto the original -- or to manipulate that original image; instead, he created a new painting of the clothed Maja. In doing so, Goya perhaps meant to suggest something about the misguided or foolish propriety of his contemporaries. Or not. It's hard to know his point, exactly. But I agree with mabelsound that it's important to cultural and civic existence to engage in a discussion with other people about it.

The Erwitt photograph -- more than being a simple gag -- contains this whole history. It contains the ambiguity about Goya's response as well as the weird art-historical/museum convention of hanging or displaying the paintings side-by-side (and in order of a perceived narrative -- a narrative that says a lot about the inherent perspective: she's dressed, then she's not -- not in order of chronology!). Beyond restating an unfunny (and not necessarily accurate) cliche about the way men and women see the world differently, the photograph also points all the way back: were Goya's contemporaries onto something in their objection? Could they have been right? That the full-size non-allegorical representation of a naked woman might be a distraction? I'm not sure that's Erwitt's subtler argument, but I like thinking it might be.

All of this with apologies to WoolenMammoth, of course!
Click to expand...

This adds a wonderful new layer of context to the image- I was unaware of the story of Goya's two paintings; thanks again, Encinalense!
 
drewbarb said:
Well, don't forget that Erwitt is a big fan of the "Amusing Juxtaposition" school of photography, and this image is a prefect example of this.
...

Erwitt is as much a comedian who enjoys pointing out the absurdities of life as he is a serious, straight documentarian. I think he would be delighted to read this discussion; I bet he'd be thrilled to know this image stimulated so much angst, and I suspect he'd laugh his ass off at anyone attaching much serious social commentary to it.
Click to expand...

The first statement above seems to sum it all up to me. If you don't like amusing juxtaposition, you won't like Erwitt's juxtapositions.

As to how he would react, I have no idea, but I like your supposition.

But somehow, this whole thread seems to me to be much ado about nothing. But to each his own.
 
Of course not; that's impossible. There are only degrees of manipulation and nuance, and I just think this one is over the top
Click to expand...
I really don't see how photographing what was actually in front of him could be considered manipulation, unless you are expecting him to only portray objective truth - which you say you aren't. (And if you don't expect him to portray objective truth, then why shouldn't he capture an amusing fleeting moment?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom