phatnev
Well-known
I believe Frank was a disgruntled European with the disdain so often indulged in by Europeans toward the country that saved their bacon twice in less than forty years. America is certainly not a perfect place, yet it has been the freest, most generous, most exceptional nation in history. Resenting that, Frank set out to photograph every bit of ugliness and tawdriness he could find -- and then to present it as if it were the true soul of America, rather than a vicious lie.
This is adorable. I'm glad you've managed to grow old while drinking the Kool-Aid.
OP: There's lots of discussion to be had on the merits of those photographers' work, however you're going to have go a bit deeper than just throwing around accusations of nepotism and calling them "merchants of ugliness" and delve into the realities of modern art and journalism and the purpose of the photograph in the case of each photographer mentioned. The assumption that photographs are meant to be traditionally beautiful or even "beautiful" at all is just that, a huge assumption. You should reframe your understanding of each photographer by taking into account the context of their lives and work.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
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.
Who are your favorite photographers now?
nikonosguy
Well-known
Who are your favorite photographers now?
sounds like an Anne Geddes fan
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Absolutely gutted HCB isn't on the list !!!!
mfogiel
Veteran
If you think people who buy Frank, Friedlander or Winogrand work are stupid, what about people who buy this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYNDHAdhB0U ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYNDHAdhB0U ?
__jc
Well-known
Interesting and contentious premise by the OP.
I am particularly drawn to the question of Robert Frank's antecedent photographic legacy (I assume that's what the OP is referring to) as I am currently reading my way through the expanded edition of "Looking In", which is a scholarly re-examination of the events surrounding and accompanying the making of his seminal work "The Americans".
Frank is certainly a rarely gifted photographer and assiduously prepared for the making of the photographs that were pared down to the ones that comprise the book. Certainly he had important friends in his corner (Steichen, Evans) but his being granted the two Guggenheim fellowships that he used to shoot the project was most certainly a result of his well-prepared and methodical approach rather than any nepotism. His ideas were, after all, sound and in the tenor of the times.
His was an exploration of America and his views changed as he progressed his journey - how could they not? As a highly intelligent artist he was witness to much that he found shameful about the way particular groups in society were treated by those who held power over them: among those were workers and African Americans. His choice would have been the same that any of us would be faced with were we to undertake such a project nowadays - do we ignore something that is patently wrong in society and gloss over it, or do we include mention of these things that diminish the nation. In many ways his was a rather polite response, especially given that he was, at times, treated rather shamefully himself on the basis that he was a foreigner whose children had foreign-sounding names and he spoke with "colored folk".
As a document of a time and place it is invaluable but as a piece of art, proffering an "outsider's" view of his adopted country, it is priceless.
If you think that Frank, Winogrand, Friedlander (and please don't even think of mentioning Arbus in this context) and their "ilk" (well, pretty small sample size, that) are talentless hacks or merchants of ugliness, I strongly suggest that you educate yourself as to the nature of their work and just why they are so highly regarded. Sure, you don't have to share the opinions of others, but your own research might give you new insights into the quality of their output.
At the end of the day, coming onto a forum comprised of people who are interested in photography - sometimes immensely so - and blathering on - without presenting one skerrick of evidence to support your assertions - about why people who are icons of photography are simply taking advantage of other people's stupidity is, at best, bad manners. At worst it is bigoted arrogance.
I am particularly drawn to the question of Robert Frank's antecedent photographic legacy (I assume that's what the OP is referring to) as I am currently reading my way through the expanded edition of "Looking In", which is a scholarly re-examination of the events surrounding and accompanying the making of his seminal work "The Americans".
Frank is certainly a rarely gifted photographer and assiduously prepared for the making of the photographs that were pared down to the ones that comprise the book. Certainly he had important friends in his corner (Steichen, Evans) but his being granted the two Guggenheim fellowships that he used to shoot the project was most certainly a result of his well-prepared and methodical approach rather than any nepotism. His ideas were, after all, sound and in the tenor of the times.
His was an exploration of America and his views changed as he progressed his journey - how could they not? As a highly intelligent artist he was witness to much that he found shameful about the way particular groups in society were treated by those who held power over them: among those were workers and African Americans. His choice would have been the same that any of us would be faced with were we to undertake such a project nowadays - do we ignore something that is patently wrong in society and gloss over it, or do we include mention of these things that diminish the nation. In many ways his was a rather polite response, especially given that he was, at times, treated rather shamefully himself on the basis that he was a foreigner whose children had foreign-sounding names and he spoke with "colored folk".
As a document of a time and place it is invaluable but as a piece of art, proffering an "outsider's" view of his adopted country, it is priceless.
If you think that Frank, Winogrand, Friedlander (and please don't even think of mentioning Arbus in this context) and their "ilk" (well, pretty small sample size, that) are talentless hacks or merchants of ugliness, I strongly suggest that you educate yourself as to the nature of their work and just why they are so highly regarded. Sure, you don't have to share the opinions of others, but your own research might give you new insights into the quality of their output.
At the end of the day, coming onto a forum comprised of people who are interested in photography - sometimes immensely so - and blathering on - without presenting one skerrick of evidence to support your assertions - about why people who are icons of photography are simply taking advantage of other people's stupidity is, at best, bad manners. At worst it is bigoted arrogance.
bonatto
looking out
I guess it's work made by people who were not only curious about their own lives as well as others', but had the sensibility to do something with it. They took, for the most part, poetic images. If you don't like it, there's plenty other work to be looked at. I'm not entirely convinced that these photographers set out in the pursuit of fame, nor that their subjects or audiences are stupid.
calebarchie
Established
Don't waste your words, it's a fruitless endeavor 
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I like the work that Robert Frank did in the "Americans".
It was good work then and it is still good work now.
It was good work then and it is still good work now.
nightfly
Well-known
You should probably re-title the subject line to "I don't like Robert Frank (and several other well regarded photographers)".
That would be closer to the truth.
Re-evaluation suggests extended examination and carefully considered analysis which it doesn't sound like you did. You just decided you don't like them, which is fine.
Frank revealed some truths about America that were particularly visible to an outsider and that (as evidenced in the current presidential contest) we are still grappling with today. To still be relevant 50+ years later certainly speaks to some continued resonance of a work of art. There aren't a lot of photographers, no matter how beautiful their work, that can claim that.
I would say the current climate in the US makes Frank's work more relevant today than it has been in quite some time.
Ugliness by itself perhaps isn't worthy of note, but when the ugliness is used to force people to look at deeper societal fissures, it is a powerful tool, as is beauty if used as something other than ornament.
That would be closer to the truth.
Re-evaluation suggests extended examination and carefully considered analysis which it doesn't sound like you did. You just decided you don't like them, which is fine.
Frank revealed some truths about America that were particularly visible to an outsider and that (as evidenced in the current presidential contest) we are still grappling with today. To still be relevant 50+ years later certainly speaks to some continued resonance of a work of art. There aren't a lot of photographers, no matter how beautiful their work, that can claim that.
I would say the current climate in the US makes Frank's work more relevant today than it has been in quite some time.
Ugliness by itself perhaps isn't worthy of note, but when the ugliness is used to force people to look at deeper societal fissures, it is a powerful tool, as is beauty if used as something other than ornament.
DominikDUK
Well-known
Hsg thank you for starting the thread and discussion which is lacking two points: Why do you find them bad, and those who find them so great why do you find them so great. Saying others (curators, photographers, etc...) find them great is not a good reason, quite the opposite in fact.
I agree that not every single picture from the Americans is a masterpiece. Some are downright mediocre but the Americans has to be viewed as a series. Some of the pictures show ugliness but some others beauty. I also admit that it is sometimes overhyped Evans, Bourke White and others have shown the other side of America and the Americans years before Frank. But unlike Frank they didn't publish it in book form, this makes the American Special.
Regarding Winogrand again someone who covered the whole spectrum from great to mediocre and not to forget a lot of his work was published Posthumously. Editing is very important.
Diane Arbus is very different I give you that but is in fact showing you the viewer a mirror. I don't think she thought that the people she photographed were ugly. People who see the photographed only as ugly freaks show their lack of acceptance of difference. In that she is not a merchant of ugliness but a merchant of a different kind of beauty.
I agree that not every single picture from the Americans is a masterpiece. Some are downright mediocre but the Americans has to be viewed as a series. Some of the pictures show ugliness but some others beauty. I also admit that it is sometimes overhyped Evans, Bourke White and others have shown the other side of America and the Americans years before Frank. But unlike Frank they didn't publish it in book form, this makes the American Special.
Regarding Winogrand again someone who covered the whole spectrum from great to mediocre and not to forget a lot of his work was published Posthumously. Editing is very important.
Diane Arbus is very different I give you that but is in fact showing you the viewer a mirror. I don't think she thought that the people she photographed were ugly. People who see the photographed only as ugly freaks show their lack of acceptance of difference. In that she is not a merchant of ugliness but a merchant of a different kind of beauty.
Brian Atherton
Well-known
I've come late to this thread; I couldn't have put it better myself...
Thank you, nightfly.
You should probably re-title the subject line to "I don't like Robert Frank (and several other well regarded photographers)".
The would be closer to the truth.
Re-evaluation suggests extended examination and carefully considered analysis which it doesn't sound like you did. You just decided you don't like them, which is fine.
Frank revealed some truths about America that were particularly visible to an outsider and that (as evidenced in the current presidential contest) we are still grappling with today. To still be relevant 50+ years later certainly speaks to some continued resonance of a work of art. There aren't a lot of photographers, no matter how beautiful their work, that can claim that.
I would say the current climate in the US makes Frank's work more relevant today than it has been in quite some time.
Ugliness by itself perhaps isn't worthy of note, but when the ugliness is used to force people to look at deeper societal fissures, it is a powerful tool, as is beauty if used as something other than ornament.
Thank you, nightfly.
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
OP is simply trolling.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Interesting thread ... that the OP seems to have bailed on!
Out of the photographers mentioned I give the nod to Arbus ... her images have always smacked me in the face and made me think. Ugly? ... definitely not IMO.
Back to the puppies and kittens than!
Out of the photographers mentioned I give the nod to Arbus ... her images have always smacked me in the face and made me think. Ugly? ... definitely not IMO.
Back to the puppies and kittens than!
leicapixie
Well-known
I believe Frank was a disgruntled European with the disdain so often indulged in by Europeans toward the country that saved their bacon twice in less than forty years. America is certainly not a perfect place, yet it has been the freest, most generous, most exceptional nation in history. Resenting that, Frank set out to photograph every bit of ugliness and tawdriness he could find -- and then to present it as if it were the true soul of America, rather than a vicious lie.
A beautiful vision of United States.
TY Dave .
Sadly no longer quite true..
The political debates give pause for thought.
I am always happy about the years I lived State side.
Making negative statements about the USA,
are never welcomed, there, ever.
Robert Frank was never forgiven..
Winogrand earlier work was adventurous.
I dislike Arbus.
Frank made a great sad poem..
Frank was an alien in an alien place, alone and lonely..
To each his own.
Yet we all remember the "girl in elevator".
vbsoto
Established
Just flipped thru my copy of the Americans by Frank and only two or three images out of the entire volume strike me as having any shock value. So I don't see how the OP arrived at his assessment.
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.
And you have the credentials to judge based on what?
DominikDUK
Well-known
His personal taste maybe 
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.
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.
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
Lest I be dismissed as a Philistine, let me say that from the late '70s until his recent death I was a friend of the great Black Star photojournalist Don Rutledge. He was my sponsor when I joined the ASMP. Earlier in his long and distinguished career, Don made the photographs for the book Black Like Me. His guiding principle was that of Lewis Hine: "To show the things that need to be corrected; to show the things that need to be appreciated."
Frank, on the other hand, showed only the things that needed to be corrected. If he was able to find anything in America that merited appreciation, I fail to find it in his photographs.
Frank, on the other hand, showed only the things that needed to be corrected. If he was able to find anything in America that merited appreciation, I fail to find it in his photographs.
DominikDUK
Well-known
Thank you Dave for bringing Rutledge to my attention. They do have a very different background though. Still interesting work.
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.