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

M

martin s

Well-known
Local time
1:57 PM
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
980
I have many photography books, many of which I like. I also have the seemingly obligatory copy of Robert Franks "The Americans" and I just bought "Looking In" as well. I'll try to keep the question simple, - I love Ginsberg and Kerouac - and I really do like photography, so why don't I like Frank? It's not dislike, either, it's just that I don't see why this book is so great. I do see that it was revolutionary in it's time, but is that it?

Please keep in mind, I'm really not trying to be an ass. Just curious.

martin
 
I kind of felt the same when I bought it (and still do I guess). But it is a classic and has some interesting historical aspects.
 
dseelig said:
It pointed out the hypocrisy of the times. David
Click to expand...

That, to a certain degree, but it's often more interesting to see yourself as an outsider sees you. I doubt that any American at the time could have shot that particular road trip because most of the things Frank found interesting in America would not have been considered "interesting". Consider the african-american man & his wife on the motorcycle, as an example; even had it been shot by an Amerian photographer it would have never been acceptable to exhibit it.

William
 
I went and picked my copy off the shelf and sure enough for me its still great. Somethings can't be explained but its all there espcially the humanity. Hey I can't stand Frank Zappa but others think different .

So many great images.....page 131, 149,11 so many even the last one in the book.

Just move on if its not for you.
 
In addition to taking pictures I also greatly enjoy photography books and seeing how other photographers created their images.

The Americans is one of my favourite photography books.

Why is that, for some of the reasons cited above. However more significantly the book and it's images really "speak" to me. It is how he captured his images, the emotion in the images, the story, the feeling and so on. The perspective (ie point of view) is often brilliant.

I can understand why not everyone feels the same way. To elaborate on that point let me give you names of two other photographers who are considered as icons and their images just don't resonate with me. Those are Eugene Atget and Walker Evans. I can see why people regard their images to be very good, but the style doesn't appeal to me.

So to some extent it is a personal thing. In other words what images speak to you personally..
 
It really is a landmark work in photography. There are many reasons why it's great, most of those reasons have been discussed and elaborated upon. I'm not going to try to rehash all the reasons. One could summarize it any number of ways, because there are many themes and point of views within the work. It's easy to view the book multiple times and get more out of it each time (or a slightly different reading).

For me, right now, I really enjoy the book because it is more than just a loose collection of photographs. I like the structure of the book, how it's broken into parts and themes. I also like that while the book contains some outstanding images that can stand on their own, a lot of the images are mostly successful within the context of the book (the old sum > parts). The concept that every image does not have to be a knock-down zinger and that individual images are stronger when juxtaposed with other images or when collected together thematically is useful to anyone who has tried to collate and bring a group of images together into a cohesive presentation.

Besides all the obvious and overly discussed reasons, 'Americans' is a great study for a photographer who might be interested in presenting their photographs, particularly in book form.

/
 
Ahem...now that you mention it, I have never found the book very interesting or exciting. But I was afraid to say so. Thanks for breaking the ice.

/T
 
I like how the book works as a whole, without many "iconic" images. Its a very thorough photo essay with a lot of depth.
 
To understand why it's great and why so many establishment photography people really hated it when it came out (it was even called "communist" but of course everything was), you have to understand the times, which is hard if you weren't there or haven't studied them. The book is a remarkable indictment of 1950s America; if you want to understand why all hell broke loose culturally/politically/socially in the 60s, "The Americans" is a good place to start.

It also broke down the gallery door for rough, snapshot-style street photography. It's hard to imagine Winogrand or Friedlander emerging if Frank hadn't cleared a path for them.

I'm going to see the show at SF MoMA tomorrow; I'll let you know if it changes my mind. :)
 
5:00 PM said:
I'm going to see the show at SF MoMA tomorrow; I'll let you know if it changes my mind. :)
Click to expand...

it's an excellent exhibit. Advice: Once you get into the 'Americans' section pay attention to the flow of the presentation of the photographs. It can be easy to skip the order if you're not following the count on the placards.

/
 
I enjoyed the show at the SFMOMA. Kerouac's intro drafts, the wall of rough prints and like Ray stated, it helps if you stay with the flow. I think Frank spent more time in certain places which felt more inspired in those locations than others. One of my favorite photos was of a shoe shine man in a Tennessee restroom surrounded by urinals. The photo looked like it was taken by an unnoticed outsider, but I wouldn't call it pedestrian. Somewhere it stated something like, his images are those that wouldn't be published in Life magazine (at the time). To those who are fans of Frank, I suggest seeing the exhibit. Also, I own the expanded edition of Looking In and think it was well worth the price.
 
I see these books, by the "masters" in two ways when I look at them. First is just the initial impact on ME, who I am, what I know... through MY filters. Somehere mentioned Walker Evans as someone they don't care for much. My initial response to him is the same.

However, there's the other just-as-important way of looking at the work of these people. They cut a path for us. Many of the things they did had not been seen before. These folk took big chances separating themselves from the tastes of the time. I sooooo appreciate that they did that. We are now freed up to take a MUCH wider look at our worlds. So, thanks Robert, Walker, and Eugene, and all the others that came before us. :)
 
What I find interesting about Robert Frank and "The Americans", is it lead to me to discover those "other" photographers who were also producing work during this time, such as Louis Faurer and William Klein.
 
It may not be a GREAT book Now
BUT at 'The Time' it worked and stirred Controversy.....

Perhaps in this Age
were All abit Jaded.... :)
just a Thought - Cheers-H
 
I would be careful about being critical of someones work around here. I recently in the thread '100 eyes' expressed my lack of enthusiasm for the photographers ability that were presenters. Here is what I got:

Sisyphus: You are arrogant and your comments are unwarranted (whatever that means).

Le Vrai Rdu: You are quite arrogant.

Pablito: You must be a superstar compared to the presenters.

And the most constructive by Robklurfied (R, you really should try to expand your vocabulary, words are power): I am by implication an anatomical part in the rectal area that is odoriferous.

Sounds familiar; attack your critics.
 
Last edited:
Even if you don't like the work in the book, maybe the style is not for everyone, don't miss the exhibit. It's one of the best photography exhibits, as it documents the execution of this body of work. Whether you like the result, it captures the methods and mindset that went into photograph taking and editing of that time.
 
charjohncarter said:
I would be careful about being critical of someones work around here. I recently in the thread '100 eyes' expressed my lack of enthusiasm for the photographers ability that were presenters. Here is what I got:

Sisyphus: You are arrogant and your comments are unwarranted (whatever that means).

Le Vrai Rdu: You are quite arrogant.

Pablito: You must be a superstar compared to the presenters.

And the most constructive by Robklurfied (R, you really should try to expand your vocabulary, words are power): I am by implication an anatomical part in the rectal area that is odoriferous.

Sounds familiar; attack your critics.
Click to expand...

God you're arrogant, John. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom