A reevaluation of Robert frank

I am quite familiar with Robert Frank's work in The Americans, as I own a copy, I'm less familiar with his other work.

I've always been fascinated with the parts of the United States that don't fall into the "celebrity" category, and have been traveling the backroads of this country since the mid-1970's. There is not a single scene in Mr. Frank's book that I haven't witnessed personally (I just don't have the photographic chops he possesses). I think it is a very honest portrait of a relatively unseen part of this country. And I appreciate that.
 
The OP has not reappeared to defend his thesis, but I see that the commentary has been pretty respectful and sincere, so I will add my thanks to all for that, and also add my 2 cents.

I'm not a huge fan of the photographers listed, although I don't dislike them either. I suspect they are not "talentless hacks," but I'm familiar with the term, because I have seen it applied to many of the photographers I do tend to like, photographers that I feel get short shrift in the grand scheme of photography.

For example, Ralph Eugene Meatyard. William Mortensen. Josef Sudek. Seiichi Furuya. Peeter Tooming. Evgeny Raskopov. Josef Koudelka. A disparate group of photographers, whose subjects were often grim or depressing, uncelebrated, and yet, I find myself very much impressed with their work.

Like music, I guess. I have been told The Beatles were "hacks." While I am not a huge fan personally, I *like* their music and recognize that they played a significant role in the development of popular music and rock-n-roll in the 60s and 70s. Just because I don't collect Beatles albums, that doesn't mean I therefore must consider them overrated hacks.

Same goes for photographers like Ansel Adams and Edward Weston who referred to William Mortensen as the "antichrist" and did everything in their power to exclude him from history (really, it was that personal for them), I don't hate their work. Not an especial fan of it, but I don't consider them talentless hacks either.

Ah well. Now that I've been thinking about the photographers I like, I guess I have to go look at some of their work again. Excuse me please.
 
Timmyjoe said:
I am quite familiar with Robert Frank's work in The Americans, as I own a copy, I'm less familiar with his other work.

I've always been fascinated with the parts of the United States that don't fall into the "celebrity" category, and have been traveling the backroads of this country since the mid-1970's. There is not a single scene in Mr. Frank's book that I haven't witnessed personally (I just don't have the photographic chops he possesses). I think it is a very honest portrait of a relatively unseen parts of this country. And I appreciate that.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Vernacular photography, or urban-realist, I tend to appreciate it. Frank never quite did it for me, but I very much know what you mean.
 
The only in person show I've seen of the mentioned photographers was by Robert Frank. I really liked the show (even though many were out of focus, but I should talk), they even had contact sheets with his choices marked by him. Of the three I have felt the Frank is the least quilty of using ugly people. Although, I did leave the show with a slight feeling that he exploited unfortunate subjects.

I'm pretty sure that is more than 140 characters.
 
I don't see Frank's work as only showing the bad or things that needed to be corrected.

He is certainly very attuned to racial issues but many of his photos look more neutral or documentary to me. I'm thinking his photos of the open road, a jukebox glowing in the corner, cowboys, people drinking martinis etc.

Even his more racially charged photos aren't cross burnings or lynchings but more factual shots of the segregation of the time. I'm thinking of the very famous (cover shot on my edition of the Americans) of the people on the bus. It's a wonderfully complex shot with each person broken into their own box and african americans at the back of the bus and the reflections in the upper window pane.

Is this ugly?

Is a photographer supposed to look away from this? Is this not worthy of representation?

The main feeling I get from Franks work is one of loneliness as a product of radical individualism. This is probably (putting on my amateur psychologist hat here) a projection of Frank's own feeling as an immigrant to a large foreign country.

Personally I don't find loneliness ugly or negative.

I guess I fundamentally disagree with the premise that he's showing ugliness. I would argue he's revealing the complex social structure of the country at the time without making a very obvious (or tedious) political argument. I think in the work is a certain admiration for the diversity and freedom of America along with an implicit criticism of some aspects of the social structure. All in all a very nuanced work taken as a whole.
 
DominikDUK said:
His personal taste maybe :rolleyes:
I am still missing the explanation why they are so great or why they are bad. Because Szarkovski said so some 40 years ago isn't a good reason. If we are honest we can talk about concepts, greatness all day long but in reality the only thing that matters is the personal opinion everything else is BS. That doesn't mean that the opinion towards an artpiece doesn't change over time as the persons worldview, maturity etc... changes. But if Hsg considers those artists inferior that's his view and is as valid as the opinion of Szarkovski etc.... Of course his opinion is only valid for himself.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to like it... but the use of "talentless hacks" is often a cop-out for those who cannot do or see photographically for themselves. It's easy to say that people only got ahead due to marketing or a curator's opinion. However, generally there is some talent there as well.
 
Jsrockit I agree the talentless hacks was a bit much.
Sevres babylone thanks for the link, Hsg might like Gordon Parks and Nan Goldin though. :)
 
Hsg said:
I was not a fan of Robert Frank, but then I bought into the hype and became his fan, that was until recently.

I've come to the conclusion that Robert Frank like his ilk: Winogrand, Arbus, Freelander, these are all merchants of ugliness.

Talent-less hacks who have got where they wanted to reach by nepotism and taking advantage of people's stupidity.
Click to expand...

You can certainly like or dislike whatever but some of the issues in The Americans that Frank was confronting were ugly. Racism and segregation are not pretty.

Having said that though, I do find a lot of his work beautiful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHtRZBDOgag
 
The fact is that there is a double standard in robert frank's work. On one level he seems to capture photos that depict racism and on the other hand he seems to be racist towards 'the americans'.


An honest photographer does not judge, he observes, only someone with a deep-seated prejudice judges.
 
Hsg said:
The fact is that there is a double standard in robert frank's work. On one level he seems to capture photos that depict racism and on the other hand he seems to be racist towards 'the americans'.


An honest photographer does not judge, he observes, only someone with a deep-seated prejudice judges.
Click to expand...

Photographing his vision of America of the mid 1950s is not racist.

Any more than him using a Japanese made Nikkor lens on his German made Leica III was being racist to Germans or the Japanese.


The USA, like Canada is made up of many different races of human beings, even in the mid 1950s.
 
Hsg said:
An honest photographer does not judge, he observes, only someone with a deep-seated prejudice judges.
Click to expand...

It is impossible not to judge... that's like saying an honest photographer does not think. Everyone has an agenda.
 
Hsg said:
The fact is that there is a double standard in robert frank's work. On one level he seems to capture photos that depict racism and on the other hand he seems to be racist towards 'the americans'.


An honest photographer does not judge, he observes, only someone with a deep-seated prejudice judges.
Click to expand...

I don't see judgement. I see a powerful body of work with some amazing images.
 
Hsg said:
The fact is that there is a double standard in robert frank's work. On one level he seems to capture photos that depict racism and on the other hand he seems to be racist towards 'the americans'.


An honest photographer does not judge, he observes, only someone with a deep-seated prejudice judges.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it racism, if an american born photographer would have made these photos would you have the same Problems as you have with Frank's work. He doesn't glamorize America like some photographers of that era did, but like I previously stated he wasn't the first to show another America. Just looking at my copy of the book I have to say that I have the feeling that he was in fact fascinated (in a good way) by a lot of things he saw so quiet the opposite of being rascist towards US americans. If he saw negative things should he have turned away because it doesn't show a great america.
 
I agree Dominik. I think that's what's gotten the book so much attention now besides the visuals. It was labeled by the McCarthy disciples at the time and didn't sell very well at first. A kinda Velvet Underground kinda thing. Influenced a generation of photographers but like that first VU record didn't sell well at first.

Bruce Davidson
http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K7O3RBXE104
 
I think it takes far more than honesty and a lot less than deep-seated prejudice for an individual to be above making judgements. A great thing to strive for but as we all seem to fail at it more often than not it seems a little less than honest to judge another by such lofty standard.

I always think of what my old secondary school History teacher used to say, "History may be written but it always needs to be interpreted." Times change the interpretation too.
 
airfrogusmc said:
I don't see judgement. I see a powerful body of work with some amazing images.
Click to expand...

Airfroggy, I was thinking about you in relation of OP bashing act on old Masters of Street Photography.

You know what street photography and regular photography is. You know both.
Street photography is not the same experience as with bimbo in the studio or with photography of old lady in retirement house.
You are one of those (few here and where) who knows from own experience what in street photography you have to have some guts to get close.
Winograd has it. And I think he is often gets bashed by those who doesn't understand what is required in street photography. They are judging it as Ansel Adams get up early, walk long, wait photography of perfect and static landscape with everything in the distance.

Or they might be in opposite and think it is only talented if pedestrians were smashed by flash and nothing else is in the picture. :)

Cheers, Ko.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom