Bruce Davidson: A Lifetime with Leica

jippiejee said:
But he does say this himself when asked how he could document these gangs so well:

"A: I think got in with them because I had a Leica. It was small, it was quiet and discrete, and it was simple. I would take pictures of them and then I would bring the pictures back to show them. I didn’t judge them. I wasn’t a social worker. I just photographed the mood of these teenagers — a street gang. "
Click to expand...

And? His series of pictures of the gangs is hardly his whole body of work, therefore Leica not his main camera of choice, it was just a camera that was appropriate for that situation (imagine that, just a tool, huh..), let's not make a feather into a hen here. There is a reason why he didn't use Leicas when he shot his 6x12, 8x10 (etc etc) pictures...
 
It an interesting albeit advertising read. I do very much like Bruce's work (regardless of what he used to take it) It's his images I find interesting at the end of the day.
 
the use of a view camera was the whole point of East 100 street. He was told he was mad to go and take photographs there, but he just stayed for two weeks meeting people before he could come at their home and take photographs of them. And the subway shots were made with Nikon SLRs, and a flash.
However maybe the leica spirit is more than just a camera?
 
Haha almost every camera system is being touted as Mr. Davidson's choice for the subway series. Who cares?

When I read that bit on the photo with the armed guy pointing a gun at someone in the subway being staged, it made me feel like a child who just found out that Santa Claus is made up.
 
filmfan said:
Haha almost every camera system is being touted as Mr. Davidson's choice for the subway series. Who cares?

When I read that bit on the photo with the armed guy pointing a gun at someone in the subway being staged, it made me feel like a child who just found out that Santa Claus is made up.
Click to expand...

At Milk Gallery I heard Bruce Davidson explain that he was with two undercover detectives and that he wore three Leicas around his neck as bait as part of an undercover operation. Not sure if this can be called staged. Anyways at this point it does not mater: its a great shot either way.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
At Milk Gallery I heard Bruce Davidson explain that he was with two undercover detectives and that he wore three Leicas around his neck as bait as part of an undercover operation. Not sure if this can be called staged. Anyways at this point it does not mater: its a great shot either way.

Cal
Click to expand...

Yes, great shot either way but it has lost some of its icon-status to me. The guy with the gun was a cop and that makes all the difference in the world.
 
filmfan said:
Yes, great shot either way but it has lost some of its icon-status to me. The guy with the gun was a cop and that makes all the difference in the world.
Click to expand...

1. The gun was real, loaded with live ammunition, and being used in an uncontrolled environment.

2. Davidson volunteered to be used as bait, chum. And that was after he'd already been mugged and beaten up.

I don't think that you can call that "staged." The situation was very real and people could easily have died.

3. Davidson has never suggested that that photograph is something other than what it is.

Incredibly gutsy work leading to a fantastic photograph.
 
semilog said:
1. The gun was real, loaded with live ammunition, and being used in an uncontrolled environment.

2. Davidson volunteered to be used as bait, chum. And that was after he'd already been mugged and beaten up.

3. Davidson has never suggested that that photograph is something other than what it is.

Incredibly gutsy work leading to a fantastic photograph.
Click to expand...

Definitely gutsy. I believe it's a real cop with a real gun in the background, and a real crook in the foreground who has robbed the other cop.
 
I think Joel Meyerwitz gaining access to Ground Zero to document the event he called "Aftermath" says a lot about the fortitude and resources of someone of that stature.

Joel Meyerwitz basically used his influence to gain access to a "Crime Scene" via a Park Commissioner. Read the introduction from the book "Aftermath" for great inspiration.

Another shooter who shot 8x10 as well as Leicas. Also seeing color 4 foot by 5 foot prints of this work was stunning.

Cal
 
jippiejee said:
But he does say this himself when asked how he could document these gangs so well:

"A: I think got in with them because I had a Leica. It was small, it was quiet and discrete, and it was simple. I would take pictures of them and then I would bring the pictures back to show them. I didn’t judge them. I wasn’t a social worker. I just photographed the mood of these teenagers — a street gang. "
Click to expand...



There is another side of the coin.. (and a not so nice side..)

Many of such top photographers used to receive their Leicas for free.. (I wonder how many of them paid for them from their own pocket.) Some of them (W. Eugene Smith included) used to sell their used Leicas (or other cameras too) to students when they gave courses of photography, as they were always underpaid as being photojournalists and they were receiving some new cameras time to time as gifts. To believe that they could only be "doing" with Leica would be a sort of insult for them, what about the Nikon or Canon rangefinders then? The great majority of Life photographers were using Contax well into the '60s.

Decades later some of these old Leica "hands" are stilll supported by Leica in exchange of some small "promotional" favors.. For example, Elliot Erwitt; he turns on his flame thrower each time a digital camera is mentioned in his interviews however in the last appearance at Solms he was so glad to receive a nylon bag, inside an M9 with lens. (Actually I found he deserved it better than Seal's S2.)

Such photographers like Davidson are indeed the "columns" of the 20th century photographic temple and Leica is indebted to them a lot.. what was not so nice (IMHO) they "employed" him in a commercial as if to promote Leica. "Promote" him instead!
 
Who cares what he used... GREAT images!

Who cares what he used... GREAT images!

Thanks for posting the link to Davidson video. Always wonderful to hear from an artist about their creative process. I loved it!

Regarding what cameras he used (re: many posts in this thread): WHO CARES!! Bruce Davidson put himself in some amazingly difficult/dangerous situations to give a view into worlds many of us would otherwise never see (and certainly wouldn't venture into!). I for one am in awe of such photographic work, whether done with a Leica, 4x5, or P&S hidden in his coat. 🙂
 
BobYIL said:
"Promote" him instead!
Click to expand...

Isn't this also a two sided coin? When the clip was posted on the photography subreddit, nobody talked about the Leicas (which is more of an RFF obsession... 😉 ) but about his amazing scope of work. Young people might see his work for the first time now and buy his books. This was very much about him I'd say. Him, wearing a Leica cap 🙂
 
Although curious, I ultimately don't really care what sort of cameras he used nor (to a lesser extent) whether his shots were set up. I was really impressed and inspired by the quality of his photographs. Thanks for sharing.
 
semilog said:
1. The gun was real, loaded with live ammunition, and being used in an uncontrolled environment.

2. Davidson volunteered to be used as bait, chum. And that was after he'd already been mugged and beaten up.

I don't think that you can call that "staged." The situation was very real and people could easily have died.

3. Davidson has never suggested that that photograph is something other than what it is.

Incredibly gutsy work leading to a fantastic photograph.
Click to expand...

Yes but there is no more a sense of "the photographer could be next to have the gun pointed at him" since the guy with the gun was working WITH the photographer... that's all man. Don't stress it!
 
I think the point was that it was still a very dangerous situation. If things had gone wrong, which they do from time to time in undercover operations, Davidson might easily have gotten seriously injured or killed.

filmfan said:
Yes but there is no more a sense of "the photographer could be next to have the gun pointed at him" since the guy with the gun was working WITH the photographer... that's all man. Don't stress it!
Click to expand...
 
PKR said:
Other than Camera Brand.. There is a huge difference in working on a street corner with a tripod mounted plate camera and working with a small hand held camera. That was the point in much of the exchange. If you haven't tried both working experiences, it's a very different environment being on a corner every day with people getting to know you and what you are doing. Davidson also had free prints for his previous subjects. He became part of the community - a friend of sorts, not a threat.

Re: 8x10 vs 4x5 .. it's the difference in the size of the Billboard presented to the public, the 8x10 being more friendly and likely to bring more attention.
Click to expand...

I agree. Imagine a white man getting invited to take such intimate shots within a poor community like Spanish Harlem in the late 60's, to document the poverty that existed there. The community there grew to trust him.

I live in Spanish Harlem and about a block away from East 100th Street. The poverty that existed in 1969 is not as severe or pronounced today, but East Harlem remains a poor community and still 25% of the residents of East Harlem live in public housing. Also New York and the subways were not safe back then as they are today.

Bruce Davidson in his work was part of history and this adds to his legacy.

Interesting back story about one of the photos he took on East 100th Street of the pregnant naked woman: the subject expressed a wish to be a model and eventually the shot Bruce Davidson took became published in Vogue.

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