Chris101
summicronia
There seems to be a bit of confusion between appreciation and 'liking'. The latter is not necessary for the former if one is able to view the work in the big picture. As long as one limits oneself to liking or disliking a work, or an artist, then one will have difficulty appreciating why and where they fit into the larger cultural scene.
Frank's work is important. Being on the cutting edge at the time of making always gives import to works of art. That the images hold up to the cynicism of time, gives The Americans power. Whether one 'likes' them or not.
Frank's work is important. Being on the cutting edge at the time of making always gives import to works of art. That the images hold up to the cynicism of time, gives The Americans power. Whether one 'likes' them or not.
I don't think it was a complete social survey... I think the thing was that the photos showed another side of the US not seen in the media of the day. To be honest, I never even felt like it was that negative.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I don't feel it negative either... I don't feel it's too critic with racism or other things either... I feel it simply descriptive... From a far position... I don't feel (much) sadness after looking at it... I feel it honest, clear, clean... Just like being there...
Cheers
Juan
Cheers
Juan
lawrence
Veteran
I believe it was intended as an antidote to the sentimental and simplistic 'Family of Man' type of photo essays that were popular at the time. It is a 'sort of social survey' as you say but Frank was by the mid '50s somewhat disillusioned with the United States -- he even got arrested in Arkansas as a suspected communist, just for taking pictures! His view is certainly that of an outsider but sometimes outsiders can see more than insiders...
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Well, I have always liked The Americans. I pick up the book a couple of times a year and find the intensity of Frank's vision always leaves me energized. The images themselves also take me out of myself, which is what I think art is supposed to do. Much of this has to do with personal taste of course, but a collective judgment over time that a body of work is worth encountering does hint at "greatness." Shakespeare may not be to your taste, for instance, but he has spoken to the generations. And Frank may not be to a particular viewer's taste, of course, but I think he has had something to say to viewers between the moments that he clicked his shutter and now.
Ben Marks
Ben Marks
ully
ully
Mostly uninteresting stuff.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I was watching the Human Traffic series unfold as it was originally posted to the web. At the time, as now, I thought it an extraordinary body of work. Mike Johnston -- a critic of much deeper experience than my own -- later agreed. (Reichman's assent -- unlike Johnston's -- certainly does not help the situation, but you take your intellectual allies where you can get them, I suppose.)
Doesn't mean those who think the work mediocre are wrong -- everyone's entitled to an opinion or three -- but it does mean that serious people can disagree, and that we casually dismiss a major body of work at our peril. The Americans, of course, is a case in point.
Doesn't mean those who think the work mediocre are wrong -- everyone's entitled to an opinion or three -- but it does mean that serious people can disagree, and that we casually dismiss a major body of work at our peril. The Americans, of course, is a case in point.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Last edited: