What's so great about Franks 'The Americans'?

[mfunnell]

Returning to the original question raised by the OP -

I just reviewed my copy of the book, again. Keeping in mind the discussion presented in this thread, I tried to be objective, even skeptical, as I flipped through the pages.

[...]

Growing up in America in the 50's and 60's, the media and popular culture wanted us to believe that America was depicted by Norman Rockwell. In fact, America was depicted by Robert Frank.

Maybe, or at least in parts.

This thread also prompted me to go back and look through my copy, through my experience as an outsider having lived, visited and worked in the USA on and off since I was eight years old. What may have been shocking and controversial to (many) Americans was never shocking to me: when I first went there my father was a military officer on exchange and we socialised, all the time, with American officials who talked, on and off, about the differences between what America officially did and what they'd personally done and would be doing. (Not confidences breached, mind you, it was just something I knew and absorbed growing up around it - and it certainly wasn't unique to America.) I was also quite familiar with some of the reailties around me (for example, I was in the public school system in Montgomery Alabama in 1972: a circumstance where many realities came to find you, whether you wanted 'em to or not).

So I was never shocked by the difference between the "official" and "actual" realities of America. Rather, I've always found it somewhat bemusing that so many Americans don't seem aware there's much of a difference at all.

What has always struck me with "The Americans" is that Frank tried to show the sheer variety of Americans and the differences between parts of America, and mostly with what I see as affection, despite seeing it "warts and all". A sense of "this is bad", "that is wrong" but also "these are mostly good people, just trying to get by as best they know how".

It sort of reminds me of many an undergraduate discussion with those who choose to "hate America" or even "Americans" without ever having been there or known many (or any). Which Americans? From what part? Have you ever met any? How many do you know? New Orleans is not New York, is not New Mexico - and none of them are Washington D.C.

America is a big place. The USA has twenty times the population of my country, it has much more regional variation, has a very different history and many different people in it: good, bad, pretty, ugly and many just plain weird to outsiders' eyes (in ways that are different from our own weirdnesses).

What speaks to me in "The Americans" is the sense that Robert Frank tried to capture some of that and, to me, made a pretty good fist of it.

...Mike

 

[benlees]

I don't think Frank was looking for the subtleties of America. He certainly wanted to undress America but he was unfamiliar with it and knew it. Open contradictions were the order of the day for him. The primary goal was to create a photobook as a work of art, not necessarily a social commentary. As such, pretty pictures where all is revealed in the frame, a la HCB, was not at all what Frank was doing.

Frank was a European Jew so it seems unlikely he would be unaware of the ugly forms that racism can take, subtle or otherwise. He would probably agree that the subtle insidious forms of it are hard to capture in one photo.

 

[Papercut]

Not only was he aware because of his background and family history, he also personally had a negative and traumatic experience, precisely because he was a non-American Jew, at the hands of Southern law enforcement, in the middle of his trip. Just days before he took the photo of the New Orleans train car and a couple weeks before Rosa Parks took her heroic stand, actually. He was very angry and I doubt that he was overly worried about missing the "subtle" forms of racism and discrimination when terrifying forms relying on naked force were so obvious and commonplace.

EDIT: I guess I should have said that Rosa Parks took her "heroic seat" instead of stand 😉

Frank was a European Jew so it seems unlikely he would be unaware of the ugly forms that racism can take, subtle or otherwise. He would probably agree that the subtle insidious forms of it are hard to capture in one photo.

 

[Siluro]

Totally out of a happy coincidence, I happen to be travelling to the USA for the first time and also in San Francisco during The Americans exhibition at SFMOMA 😀

The exhibition is very well done, with work not just from The Americans but also some previous and later works as well. Having studied The Americans as part of my photography degree seeing the prints was great, but of more interest to me were the proof sheets, proof prints and various correspondence that went into making the work. There are large amounts of this material and it was amazing to witness.

My only criticism of it would be that the wall panel explanations (didactic panels) were a little...tame. Well, at least compared to my reading of the work. I would agree that Frank was highly sensitive to the subtleties of what he saw as the 'flaws' of American society at the time; a large theme running through the work is the contrast between minority groups and the ruling hegemony.

Regardless of what your reading of his work is, or how much you agree with the sentiment, an amazing work that is well worth making a pilgrimage for.

 

[Florian1234]

What an interesting read this thread makes.
When I had a look into that book first, last winter in Berlin, I was not very overwhelmed by the photos. Not even fascinated.
But there surely is a point to go through the book. Right now I plan to get myself a copy of the expanded edition.

 

[RayPA]

I don't think Frank was looking for the subtleties of America. He certainly wanted to undress America but he was unfamiliar with it and knew it.

I think you're mostly right, especially if one is to believe his grant application (which is part of the show, as are the numerous rewrites that I just glanced over quickly). IIRC, he seemed more interested in Americans in relation to the country's industrialization (somebody corroborate or correct me on this, please). That's a pretty wide stroke, and it probably was more of a blanket statement for: 'Give me the money and I'll come up with something.' 😀


/

 

[lawrence]

I remember first seeing The Americans when I was at college in the early '70s. It blew me away then and it still does. I don't think that it's necessary to consider the context in which the photographs were taken , equipment used etc. to appreciate these photographs -- they are, like all great art, primarily about the human condition and are therefore timeless. I'm not saying they are not a critique of America at the time -- they are -- but for me they transcend this. It was earlier said that "the mundane ones grow in expressiveness and meaning by the other images they are grouped with" but which are "mundane", may I ask?

I agree with Mike that these photographs show a great deal of affection for America. As Frank said: "I have frequently been accused of deliberately twisting subject matter to my point of view. Above all, I know that life for a photographer cannot be a matter of indifference. Opinion often consists of a a kind of criticism. But criticism can come out of love..." (US Camera Annual 1958 p.115).

 

[Papercut]

All I meant by "mundane" are the ones that are weaker, have a harder time standing on their own. Even though it would be simple to do, I'm not going to make a list because it would only be accurate for me -- everyone else would have a (more or less) different list. 🙂

My comment was trying to express how Frank's book is structured carefully in a way that images are placed together in ways that they gain in expressiveness and impact from each other (whole being more than sum of parts), and best digested this way, instead of looking at it as a collection of perfect images. It was an attempt to encourage those who find the images in the book less than inspiring to look for connections between the images, instead of focusing on the technical flaws, etc. of individual photos.

I agree entirely with you that the book is timeless, in the same way that fine literature is, because it deals thoughtfully with "the human condition".

It was earlier said that "the mundane ones grow in expressiveness and meaning by the other images they are grouped with" but which are "mundane", may I ask?

 

[RayPA]

When you see the show, be sure to see the video installation at the end of The Americans exhibit. It shows Frank destroying prints from The Americans by drilling through a bound stack with a power drill.

/

 

[Tuolumne]

When you see the show, be sure to see the video installation at the end of The Americans exhibit. It shows Frank destroying prints from The Americans by drilling through a bound stack with a power drill.

/

Why did he do that?

/T

 

[clayne]

When you see the show, be sure to see the video installation at the end of The Americans exhibit. It shows Frank destroying prints from The Americans by drilling through a bound stack with a power drill.

/

Ray, I thought those were work prints? Well, either way, he didn't put a drill through all of the negatives.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Miami is very much a multi-racial/ethnic place but we still have problems relating to one another because of language differences and a constant stream of new immigrants with various cultural backgrounds. It's not the America that Frank traveled.

Growing up in New England in the forties and fifties you could tell what town somebody was from because of their accent, and I mean places twenty miles apart. Now most people speak "television English".

 

[Michael Markey]

Sounds like I need to get a copy. He did a similar book on London and Wales I seem to remember.

 

[lawrence]

There are books on London/Wales, Paris and Peru as well as a couple of collections "The Lines of My Hand" and the earlier "Black White & Things". There's also some quirky other stuff like "Thank You", which consists of postcards and other correspondence from his friends and fans. I think all are worth seeing but The Americans is regarded as his masterpiece in still photography (the other places books were only published recently although the photos predate The Americans).

 

[RayPA]

Why did he do that?

/T

Ray, I thought those were work prints? Well, either way, he didn't put a drill through all of the negatives.

Yes. I think they were work prints, but I believe he intended some symbolism toward the work as a whole. As you probably saw, the bound and drilled stack is actually the final hung piece of the show.


/

 

[RayPA]

There are books on London/Wales, Paris and Peru as well as a couple of collections "The Lines of My Hand" and the earlier "Black White & Things". There's also some quirky other stuff like "Thank You", which consists of postcards and other correspondence from his friends and fans...

...also "Storylines". I have a 'quirky' one called "Come Again" that has a unique binding/presentation.


/

 

[Spider67]

Franks book is a benchmark for the work of others. In thze foreword for the photos of a young swiss photographer I found that Frank was described as "anti American". I thought "Hey wait a minute. From where does this verdict come?" I always wanted to post my question to the forum but thought that it would be an open invitation to trolling. So thanks for bringing the topic up!
.....When I compared his book "Paris" it was so much "nicer" even romantic. "The Americans" lacks those postcards moments. The problem I see: He has become one of the classics. He is put above discussion , so that a first reaction after all that praise and eulogy to his work often leaves some "underwhelmed" (just as free Jazz at first).
"I can do that also no big deal" would be a good reaction if really followed by trying to do it and seeing Frank diffrently then.

 

[vrgard]

Without entering into the larger debate of this thread, let me just say that Kevin (PaperCut) and I spent about three hours walking through the Frank exhibit at SFMOMA yesterday. And that didn't include going back in for another 30-45 minutes to view the proof sheets which we missed on our first viewing. I found the experience very rewarding and Frank's work excellent. While it was easy to question certain individual images on purely technical merit, there were many I thought excellent (read: could easily stand on their own) and the combination quite compelling. Further, one of the more interesting aspects that Kevin and I keep discusssing was the wide latitude for interpretation made possible by the detials and ambiguity of many of the images. Kevin made a nice comparison to classic literature that is similarly rich in interpretation. I found this showing as enjoyable and rewarding as I did the Friedlander show Ray (RayPA) and I attended at SFMOMA last year. None of my remarks are meant to say that you have to like Frank's The Americans just because I enjoyed the show. Yet I do strongly recommend attending if you can.

-Randy

 

[Blue Distagon]

Walker Evans hated it also when it was exhibited.

Where did you get that info ?

Nothing further from the truth, especially since Evans wrote Frank's Guggenheim recommendation letter which he later was awarded which funded the road trip that produced The Americans.

 

[kbg32]

Robert Frank knew exactly what he was doing when traveling to shoot "The Americans". After all, he was traveling on a Guggenheim grant.

Here is the story about his arrest - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/3673127/Robert-Frank-melancholy-and-menace.html

One has to look at history and the times that Frank was in when he made his imagery. His work on the "Americans" made many so angry that he had to have a French publisher print the first edition.