A reevaluation of Robert frank

Ko.Fe. said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. Every type of work presents its own challenges. I have an affection and respect for all that do what they do well. Frank did what he did very well. The Americans is a great piece that captures a specific period of time.

America in the 50s was in a great growth period but not all were along for the ride. Most media and many others were trying to sell the idea that everyone was doing exceptionally well. Many were clearly not. I would argue that those like Frank and Davidson had great courage to go against the flow.

Love this trailer and words by Meyerowitz and pretty much explains why I am so addicted to the streets.
http://www.traileraddict.com/everybody-street/trailer

Great movie BTW
 
Photographers and their work are informed by their experiences and Frank's experiences during his travels were what some Americans experienced on a regular basis. He was as much an outsider as were some of his subjects.
 
Frank, Friedlander and company are a lot like Larry Day, an artist that is in the Corcoran in Washington, D.C. Only difference is that Day drew sketches and painted. The others photograph.

Hollins refers to him as an "Ironic Realist".
https://www.hollins.edu/museum/exhibits/publications/

I believe as the waves of PC wash over the world, these artists will be viewed no different than Van Gogh or Matisse, as it will become illegal to make photographs like they took, hence the intrinsic value.

So sad the world today. At least I have my original Larry Day 24 x 36 sketch "Garden Party" safely tucked away.
 
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...

Wow. Listing some of my favorites. Reevaluate yourself. It's fine if you don't dig their work, but you should look at photography with a bit more wonder and a lot less cynicism. Just my opinion.

Also. You are underestimating how much talent and hard work it takes just to get into situations where you can photograph strangers outside of passing them on the sidewalk.
 
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...

Wow.

A double standard? Is that the same as showing two different perspectives?

He depicts racism. That's a documentation of history. That's good.
Not sure "American" is a 'race.' It's a collection of races. But, whatever — if he was 'critical' of America (at that time?), he should have been. What's the problem? America was/is fraught with social issues. Not being native-born, he should have ignored them? The man chose to live in America when he had options. I'm not seeing hate there.

"An honest photographer?" What the hell is that? Every photographer inherently has a unique perspective and point of view. And, that is going to be illustrated in the work. What you choose to shoot. When you shoot. The angles you employ. The matter you select and exclude. That's all selection, and it's all a visual bias. And, even by those standards, who's to say Frank wasn't honest? Is anything you've seen not representative of truth? Perhaps you have a limited set of experiences and don't recognize his work as being factual.

"only someone with a deep-seated prejudice judges."
Who's feeding you this BS? EVERYONE judges. If you're not constantly 'assessing' you're dead or oblivious.
 
Some of my favorite photographers: Frank, Winogrand, Friedlander…well, I reckon I’m just stupid though, or at least I am according to the apparent Donald Trump of RFF.

God bless the perceived ugly, how soporifically trite photography would be without it.
 
nightfly said:
...

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?

...
Click to expand...


Absolutely!

Parts of our world are pretty damn ugly, I don't set out only to show those things, but I certainly won't shy away from showing them because somebody might not like what they see.

Sometimes we need our faces rubbing in it, in the situations that we become comfortable with overlooking, or ignoring, sometimes we need to be confronted with the things we choose not to think about because it's easier not to.

Photography as a medium is truly excellent at this, as well as showing joy and beauty.
I wouldn't restrain my vocabulary to only positive words, why would I do that with my photographs?
 
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...


You better rethink that last statement. As photographers, we all make choices. What to look at, when to trip the shutter, black and white or color, what images to print. No one is without prejudice. Even on the most basic level, "I do not like Marmite.". That is a judgement, choice, and can be misconstrued as "prejudice". Or vice versa.

prejudice |ˈprejədəs|
noun
1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience: English prejudice against foreigners
• dislike, hostility, or unjust behavior formed on such a basis: accusations of racial prejudice.

choice |CHois|
noun
an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities: the choice between good and evil.
• the right or ability to make, or possibility of making, such a selection: I had to do it, I had no choice.
• a range of possibilities from which one or more may be selected: you can have a sofa made to order in a choice of over forty fabrics.
• a course of action, thing, or person that is selected or decided upon: this CD drive is the perfect choice for your computer.

Your dislike of Frank, Winogrand, Friedlander, and Arbus, prejudice or choice? Or something else entirely??
 
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...

Unless I've missed something, of the names mentioned above I don't think any of them lived a ritzy lifestyle. All were passionate about photography...period.
 
Wow! I've got to get some books into the recycling bin. I had no idea that 5 hardbacks by Robert Frank (3 different copies of The Americans), copies of Garry Winogrand and Freelander (or was that Friedlander???) were so off the chart of quality.

This probably means that my (very) many copies of William Eggleston, Danny Lyon and Bruce Davidson hardbacks should be headed there also. I'm going to have to spend several weeks going through my library to make sure that I have converted my impressions to someone else's standard of artistic judgment.

I'm so glad I don't have to put any effort to it.

:p
 
@ hsg: thanks for pointing this work out to me. It has enriched my morning; impressive photographs.
@ everyone else: thanks for your considered opinions. I would have skipped this thread if it hadn't been for those, as I assume forcefull statements lacking an explanation to be (the equivalent of) trolling. In this case I would have missed out.
 
I bought 'The Americans', I looked through it, enjoyed it and hoped that one day my photos would be considered as important. I then closed the book and loaded some film.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom