Care to explain how the book is too contrived and commercial? I think the aesthetic was the complete opposite of what was considered commercial at the time. Also, isn't thinking of the people as charecters instead of as people just your take on the book based on your experience in life? I mean, the book, dumbed down to its simplist form, is simply about the people who ride the subway at the time. I ride the subway every day (as you may as well) and you see all types of people (and yes, some are charecters). I think his book did ok to show this. It's hard to get to know people from chance encounters on a subway.
And I believe the flash had more to do with removing the flouresent subway light than a filter, but I could be wrong.
Damaso
Photojournalist
Glad people enjoyed the read. Even more happy people are having fun talking about the good old bad days in NYC!
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
In the eighties I weighed about 135 pounds and at 5'10" I looked very much like a drug addict, specifically a speed freak.
In the LES I would get asked if I wanted to buy drugs constantly just walking along, but when I said, "No thanks," I'd get a real hostile look because all of the sudden my identity changed because I shifted from drug addict to a no good artist in their minds. Seemed to happen on every corner.
Cal
In the LES I would get asked if I wanted to buy drugs constantly just walking along, but when I said, "No thanks," I'd get a real hostile look because all of the sudden my identity changed because I shifted from drug addict to a no good artist in their minds. Seemed to happen on every corner.
Cal
gdmcclintock
Well-known
Of course my opinion of Davidson's Subway is based on my experience, that is to say, subjective. Commercial because the subjects are subtracted from their environment (by the flash?) and presented as characters, much like models in a fashion shoot, dumbed down stereotypes for mass consumption.
Somewhere in the book Davidson talks about the filter he used.
Somewhere in the book Davidson talks about the filter he used.
Ok fair enough. It's good to see a different opinion. I never viewed the work as made for mass consumption.
gdmcclintock
Well-known
Magnum photographers take pictures for mass consumption. It is their raison d'être. This is not a value judgement, just a statement of fact. Sometimes the mass consumption effect infects the aesthetic quality of the work; this is what happened to Subway I think.
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
I had somehow missed the bit where he said it was 1980, so it sounded kinda like a spoiled rich kid from suburbia on his first subway ride. 
This cracked me up too:
"..and asked if she could slip back into her mood undisturbed."
This cracked me up too:
"..and asked if she could slip back into her mood undisturbed."
DNG
Film Friendly
WOW, That guy had balls!.... the way he tells his story, it is hard to put the "book" down... even though many of his photos where by permission, he still managed to get great captures....
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
There was some funky stuff going on in NYC, particularly in bad parts of town, all the way through the 1980's crack epidemic. But there was a lot of other stuff going on in the city too. I suppose that Davidson was searching for the grim underbelly of the city. I reacted the way I did above, because I never felt the sense of peril he expresses in my daily commutes. To the contrary, the main time I ever felt at risk in the city was when there was no one around. No witnesses = danger. A cab driver was in an impossible position in those days as the nature of his job kept him isolated and a fare with nefarious intentions could ask to be taken to a spot of his choosing. But if you weren't looking for trouble, you learned a certain wariness (like the woman Davidson approaches who claims to have a "6th sense" for danger). This came out as a certain "don't be a victim" streetsmart sense: don't flash wads of cash, don't dress in flashy clothes, don't be drunk and passed out in public, etc. I think a lot of these rules were internalized by those who grew up there, and had to be learned by transplants and out-of-towners. In fact, most of these rules still apply, in my mind at least, for a big urban area like NYC. But what I question is that the sense of threat necessarily translated into actual danger. Not all of the places that had bad reputations were dangerous to those who knew how to navigate them; and many of those places (Times Sq., Thomkin's Square Park, Washington Square Park, Lower East Side, Alphabet City, Washington Heights etc.) have since been reclaimed by ordinary folks just living their lives.
Ben
Ben
I Love Film
Well-known
Oh, pshaw. I worked on Park Ave South in the 1970's, where the hookers turned tricks right in "Smilers" Deli while eating stale Mac and Cheese to keep warm. 3am coffee from the spigot in the back and free seltzer at the Belmore Cafeteria.
I could tell you stories that would make your hair stand on end and then you'd wet your pants. I shot photos for a book on the worst elements of Times Square.
I took the subways with a camera every day of the week. This guy Davidson tries to make himself out like some explorer in Deep Dark Africa.
Riding the subways was the way to get somewhere, that's all. I took plenty of pictures too, better than Davidson's by far.
I could tell you stories that would make your hair stand on end and then you'd wet your pants. I shot photos for a book on the worst elements of Times Square.
I took the subways with a camera every day of the week. This guy Davidson tries to make himself out like some explorer in Deep Dark Africa.
Riding the subways was the way to get somewhere, that's all. I took plenty of pictures too, better than Davidson's by far.
I Love Film
Well-known
PS: How about that Mudd Club?
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
Hey, Ilovefilm: Do you have more images like that? I'd love to see them. I'm very interested in vintage subway graffiti.
[/QUOTE]
DNG
Film Friendly
Considering he was not a Street Photographer... he did OK... it was his fame and connections with Magnum and other writers from his past that made this book popular IMO...
When I read he asked permission to take a picture on a Subway, I had a good chuckle...and he was loaded up gear in many dangerous Subway areas of his time.
Me, I might of picked a cheapish f/2.8 WA and cheap 35mm (or maybe a Olympus SP with 400 loaded) that could be stolen or broken, and I would loose minimal gear... NO bag either, just cargo pants loaded with film. He knew the days he wandering into bad area's, and weird times...
But, I still give him his 15 minutes... he dared to do something totally out of his normal life style...
When I read he asked permission to take a picture on a Subway, I had a good chuckle...and he was loaded up gear
in many dangerous Subway areas of his time.Me, I might of picked a cheapish f/2.8 WA and cheap 35mm (or maybe a Olympus SP with 400 loaded) that could be stolen or broken, and I would loose minimal gear... NO bag either, just cargo pants loaded with film. He knew the days he wandering into bad area's, and weird times...
But, I still give him his 15 minutes... he dared to do something totally out of his normal life style...
I Love Film
Well-known
I have quite a large number of them, but they have to be dug out of old boxes full of un-labeled negatives, scanned and tweaked in Photoshop. A daunting task, considered the huge mess in my apartment.
If I do embark on such a project, I'll pm you when I intend to post them. Don't hold your breath, sorry.
(this guy had a big ur-beeper. It kept beeping and he put on a big show of checking it, in his sporty "jogging" outfit)
If I do embark on such a project, I'll pm you when I intend to post them. Don't hold your breath, sorry.
(this guy had a big ur-beeper. It kept beeping and he put on a big show of checking it, in his sporty "jogging" outfit)
[/quote]Hey, Ilovefilm: Do you have more images like that? I'd love to see them. I'm very interested in vintage subway graffiti.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I see this 180 degrees differently. I am very familiar with the work of only about half the Magnum photographers and have only met a few personally. But I get the distinct impression that they photograph only what they personally want to photograph and rely on Magnum to seek out that niche that appreciates what they do. They certainly are not members of Magnum for the money as it is a very high overhead organization.
No problem that your personal opinion and mine differ.
JayM
Well-known
Thank you for posting this. I was never that interested in the book because I didn't understand the context of it exactly. I'm more interested in it now.
Having seen Bruce Davidson in some video interviews etc, it's kind of amusing to imagine him on the subway creating these photographs.
Having seen Bruce Davidson in some video interviews etc, it's kind of amusing to imagine him on the subway creating these photographs.
gdmcclintock
Well-known
Perhaps both views are correct. There is no reason that one's personal work cannot appeal to a mass market.
Yet, I can ask anyone I work with (about 200 people) and not one of them will know this work. Mass consumption, to me, entails some sort of mainstream appeal.
It may be made in order to be sold in some form, but so is Ms. Kahane's work then (and most other photographers whose work is liked by galleries, magazines, and book companies). Just because he is on Magnum doesn't mean he is well known outside of certain circles. Are we saying he would not make any of the photographs he made if he could not sell his work? We have no way of knowing that.
gdmcclintock
Well-known
Jonas
Established
I really enjoy reading about your experiences in the 60s, 70s and 80s in NY. Please share pics if you got them and can. Most interesting thread in a while for me.