NYT Robert Frank: New Orleans Trolley

No disrespect but I could not finish this NYT piece. A perfect example of what happens when you let an art critic loose on a 'hot' picture: conjecture and farfetched conclusions.
 
Out to Lunch said:
No disrespect but I could not finish this NYT piece. A perfect example of what happens when you let an art critic loose on a 'hot' picture: conjecture and farfetched conclusions.
Click to expand...


I agree that some of the interpretations went rather too far, but the basic premise of the article was very sound, IMO.
 
Wonderful. The presentation, taking us around the the photo and down to its components, was really well done.

I agree with a comment above, it's ridiculous that we have to still talk about problems like that, so many years after this photo. A couple of days ago I was watching Fassbinder's "Ali: Fear Eats the Soul", which is a film with similar themes, and I swear it was as relevant today as in 1974 when Fassbinder shot the movie.
 
Thanks for the link! I felt the 'art speak' was on point and interesting, and very tame (and short) compared to others things I've read. Gave me new insights into a great photo.
 
Thanks for the link, interesting how a photo can be seen and read, with an accurate look deep into its components. Well done and clearly explained.

And yes, I agree with above comments so sad it didn't change much in so many years.
 
While I enjoyed the images in the article, it again reminds me of those who seemingly read into an image more than what the photographer might have intended.

For example, I can see how the buttons on the man's shirt might remind the critic of a cross, and therefore suggest an historical connection with European Christian art; but as good of a photographer as Robert Frank was, I doubt he had those four buttons in mind when he snapped the shutter; he most likely didn't even see them.

Perhaps this is just my ignorance of formal art criticism, but I see a disconnect between the intent of the photographer, and the near-infinite stew of complexity available to the critic's imagination, post exposure. Sure, I can imagine that cloud over Half Dome might resemble a rabbit, but it does not follow axiomatically that Ansel had Lewis Carroll in mind when he made the exposure. Or Jefferson Airplane.
 
JoeV said:
While I enjoyed the images in the article, it again reminds me of those who seemingly read into an image more than what the photographer might have intended.

For example, I can see how the buttons on the man's shirt might remind the critic of a cross, and therefore suggest an historical connection with European Christian art; but as good of a photographer as Robert Frank was, I doubt he had those four buttons in mind when he snapped the shutter; he most likely didn't even see them.

Perhaps this is just my ignorance of formal art criticism, but I see a disconnect between the intent of the photographer, and the near-infinite stew of complexity available to the critic's imagination, post exposure. Sure, I can imagine that cloud over Half Dome might resemble a rabbit, but it does not follow axiomatically that Ansel had Lewis Carroll in mind when he made the exposure. Or Jefferson Airplane.
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree. Mr. Frank likely didn’t notice the buttons until after printing the shot- but maybe as part of the editing process he recognized it and it could have been a deciding factor in using it for the book (and for the cover.) That Walgreens W though...
 
ajtruhan said:
I agree and disagree. Mr. Frank likely didn’t notice the buttons until after printing the shot- but maybe as part of the editing process he recognized it and it could have been a deciding factor in using it for the book (and for the cover.) That Walgreens W though...
Click to expand...

This makes sense, I agree. It was a long and strong editing.
 
If you take the commentary as an explanation of Frank's decision process at the moment of triggering the shutter you will, with good cause, find the commentary overblown. If, on the other hand, you take it as a series of impressions of a visually literate person who comes to grips with a historically and aesthetically significant photo, there's less to complain about.


ajtruhan said:
I agree and disagree. Mr. Frank likely didn’t notice the buttons until after printing the shot- but maybe as part of the editing process he recognized it and it could have been a deciding factor in using it for the book (and for the cover.) That Walgreens W though...
Click to expand...

I agree. The observations about the "Walgreen's W" were the most tenuous. They were visually and explanatorily less well supported. The "white buttons" weren't quite as far-fetched, I think.
 
JoeV said:
While I enjoyed the images in the article, it again reminds me of those who seemingly read into an image more than what the photographer might have intended.

Perhaps this is just my ignorance of formal art criticism, but I see a disconnect between the intent of the photographer, and the near-infinite stew of complexity available to the critic's imagination, post exposure. Sure, I can imagine that cloud over Half Dome might resemble a rabbit, but it does not follow axiomatically that Ansel had Lewis Carroll in mind when he made the exposure. Or Jefferson Airplane.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. What you describe, trying to accurately discern the consciousness and/or intention of the artist is one approach. But only one. And often the least interesting one without venturing into projections and suppositions that say much more about the critic than about the artist.

Replace the word 'critic' with 'viewer' and you are getting to another critical approach- what bubbles up in your own stew of complexity when you look at an image? If a critic can get you thinking and you find your response and thinking expanded, then that's a good critic for you. If they simply annoy you and make you spend more time engaged with them than with the actual work of art, find another critic.

Photography can be particularly difficult to discuss. Two reasons jump out for me. One is that a photograph captures more than it is reasonable to expect the photographer to have seen- the four white dots, for example. Lee Friedlander's remark that 'photography is a particularly generous medium.' So trying to trace back to the artist's intention or consciousness at the moment of taking the image is going to be very disappointing in lots of photography.

The second reason photography is difficult to discuss is because it is a direct record of the world we live in, and it's hard to ignore this. Yet this can be very messy and convoluted. You get involved with valuations and aspirations and knowledge and experiences that no photo can be expected to contain.

If a critic makes looking at an art work richer for you then that is good criticism. For you. I am not concerned with academic standards of criticism. People articulating their resonances and thoughts and references can often clarify my own experience of an artwork. And often it only makes my head ache and my stomach turn. I have my own relationship with the Frank image, so the article let me revisit it, made me look at some things a bit more, made me cringe in places, shrug in others. But it was evocative without being domineering, so I'll give it a pass.
 
I have long admired this photo, but for different reasons than the critic proposed. While I have some small disagreement with his analysis of the strengths, it did confirm for me the complexity of the best photographs and how they have different meanings for different people. It's still a very strong and compelling image.
 
I had occasion to listen/read about this subject from/with Charles Paris when speaking about a critic, her take was (somewhat paraphrased):

Arthur Bulow has an almost postmodernist attitude to the test qua text, synergizing the kind of input to Robert Frank whose outreach goes beyond the microcosm of received and conformable educational data.

So his extrapolations from the atavistically protected corpus of images known conveniently as ‘The Americans’ come to represent a parallel but diverse textual statement.

She might be right.
 
charjohncarter said:
I had occasion to listen/read about this subject from/with Charles Paris when speaking about a critic, her take was (somewhat paraphrased):

Arthur Bulow has an almost postmodernist attitude to the test qua text, synergizing the kind of input to Robert Frank whose outreach goes beyond the microcosm of received and conformable educational data.

So his extrapolations from the atavistically protected corpus of images known conveniently as ‘The Americans’ come to represent a parallel but diverse textual statement.

She might be right.
Click to expand...

Nah. Agree or disagree with Lubow's take on Frank's photograph, his commentary does not have the vainglorious focus on language typical of post-modernism. Compare with the above (in bold), for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom