williams473
Well-known
Amos,
I'll be interestd in hearing what you think about Evans in future posts - maybe not in this thread because it's getting so freaking long and people just aren't seeming to drop the politics.
I think Evans is one of those artists who is operating on a different plane - so much so that the average person sees some of his images and thinks, "so?" I must admit I find him challenging to "like" at times, so perhaps I should do some reading up on him and his work as well so as to appreciate it more. I've seen some of his work in "Now Let Us Praise Famous Men," but not much else. At first glance he reminds me of a sort of Norman Rockwell - got right to the meat of American culture in the 30's - you get a real authentic sense of the places he's working in when looking at the photos.
Thanks also for the link to those other photos Lange made of the "Migrant Mother." Man that is some powerful work! THAT is what I'm talking about when I mean photography at its best can change things.
I'll be interestd in hearing what you think about Evans in future posts - maybe not in this thread because it's getting so freaking long and people just aren't seeming to drop the politics.
I think Evans is one of those artists who is operating on a different plane - so much so that the average person sees some of his images and thinks, "so?" I must admit I find him challenging to "like" at times, so perhaps I should do some reading up on him and his work as well so as to appreciate it more. I've seen some of his work in "Now Let Us Praise Famous Men," but not much else. At first glance he reminds me of a sort of Norman Rockwell - got right to the meat of American culture in the 30's - you get a real authentic sense of the places he's working in when looking at the photos.
Thanks also for the link to those other photos Lange made of the "Migrant Mother." Man that is some powerful work! THAT is what I'm talking about when I mean photography at its best can change things.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I realize I've come into this discussion rather late; nonetheless, I think the question posed by the OP is essentially answered by an understanding of media in today's culture, since media is the channel through which photographic images are published (or, more to the point, not published.)
So it seems essential to understanding the issues posed by the question 'where are today's photographic dissedents' to therefore gain an understanding of contemporary media as a social and political institution; these systems exert control over the sources of media images allowed to be proliferated.
I think the phrase 'embedded media', borrowed from the most recent US empire building activities, sums it up nicely. To pretend that there is a vast gulf of seperation between what were once known as the 'private' and 'public' sectors is myopic self-dillusion; anyone who is genuinely paying attention can see that the handful of multinational corporate media conglomerates who control the flow of disinformation in the US are also intimately involved in the armaments and financial systems that fuel the empire-building activities. Like GE, as one example, who are a major defense contractor, multi-media and industrial conglomerate.
I think if you really want to 'rock the boat', so to speak, about current issues in our culture, and wish to do so using photographic images, you'll have to finance the operation yourself. Don't count on the established media systems to do so, unless there is also some parallel but independant interest that would be satisfyed by publishing your provocative images. I think they call that "being used."
I am reminded of the absence of images of deceased US servicemen returning from the front; even flag-draped coffins were verboten; apparently even the patriotic symbol of the flag isn't really patriotic enough to warrant interrupting the latest episode of "Survivor" in order to remind the populace that there is a war on, and their kids are dying.
What we may have failed to perceive is that the kind of media that permitted Walker Evans to wander around taking images of poor folk, on the government dole, is similar to the kind of media that today also uses photographic images for its own purposes of propaganda.
~Joe
So it seems essential to understanding the issues posed by the question 'where are today's photographic dissedents' to therefore gain an understanding of contemporary media as a social and political institution; these systems exert control over the sources of media images allowed to be proliferated.
I think the phrase 'embedded media', borrowed from the most recent US empire building activities, sums it up nicely. To pretend that there is a vast gulf of seperation between what were once known as the 'private' and 'public' sectors is myopic self-dillusion; anyone who is genuinely paying attention can see that the handful of multinational corporate media conglomerates who control the flow of disinformation in the US are also intimately involved in the armaments and financial systems that fuel the empire-building activities. Like GE, as one example, who are a major defense contractor, multi-media and industrial conglomerate.
I think if you really want to 'rock the boat', so to speak, about current issues in our culture, and wish to do so using photographic images, you'll have to finance the operation yourself. Don't count on the established media systems to do so, unless there is also some parallel but independant interest that would be satisfyed by publishing your provocative images. I think they call that "being used."
I am reminded of the absence of images of deceased US servicemen returning from the front; even flag-draped coffins were verboten; apparently even the patriotic symbol of the flag isn't really patriotic enough to warrant interrupting the latest episode of "Survivor" in order to remind the populace that there is a war on, and their kids are dying.
What we may have failed to perceive is that the kind of media that permitted Walker Evans to wander around taking images of poor folk, on the government dole, is similar to the kind of media that today also uses photographic images for its own purposes of propaganda.
~Joe
bmattock
Veteran
JoeV said:
I don't agree.
The O/P asked a series of 'why' questions with an implication that an answer must necessarily follow his line of reasoning.
There is an assumption there that photographers must be concerned with social critique - indeed, that society needs critiquing by photographers.
What his question does not allow for is an answer that contradicts his base premise.
It is very much like asking "Why doesn't anyone care about man-made global warming?" That question does not allow for the answer that some don't believe in man-made global warming. The question presumes that there IS man-made global warming, and we are simply choosing not to be concerned about it.
Now, I'm going to make a whole bunch of people mad here, but I have to say this - that's a very traditional left-wing style of thinking. The assumption - that if I don't care about your issues, it is because I don't care about your issues. The thought that perhaps I don't think your issues ARE issues is not up for debate.
My brother-in-law likes to ask me why Republicans are so evil and hate the planet so much. I can't answer him - first because I'm not a Republican, but second because the Republicans I know aren't evil and don't hate the planet. So how do I answer his question, since it allows no denial of the premise?
The O/P continued:
Well again, same issue. I can't discuss it, because the O/P has presented the 'fact' that we're heading down this road towards global imperialism as a fait acompli - it brooks no discussion. His only question is why I am not concerned about it. Personally, I'm not concerned about it because I think it's bullcrap.
Now the O/P bemoans the allegedly high murder rate as if photography a) could fix that, b) photographers can do anything about it, and c) that there is one answer to that.
Again - first the assumption that his statements are true, then the wailing and gnashing of teeth that we're not doing anything about it. No idea what a photographer is supposed to do to fix that.
The questions posed by the O/P were not properly addressed because he made an assumption that all photographers agree with his base premise. Once that is done, then we can discuss the hows and whys. I disagree with the base premise, as I do yours - global media disinformation campaign and so on. It's hogwash. But you state as it if were a given, and then pose questions that in order to answer, one must buy into your brand of media super-corporation disinformation nightmare. I can't do that, so I can't discuss your questions.
But I thought I'd let you know why.
R
ruben
Guest
williams473 said:
Hi Matt,
After reading this thread, I come back to you with hard questions:
Are you asking ?
Are you complaining ?
Or are you looking for a practical course of action ?
Cheers,
Ruben
R
RML
Guest
Want to make a difference? Join an org or group with clout.
There is an audience for social photography but you need to have access to that audience. And for access you need either the media or clout with the media.
There is an audience for social photography but you need to have access to that audience. And for access you need either the media or clout with the media.
williams473
Well-known
Bloody hell, I had to type this response in Word and paste it in here!
Too long!
The last three posts were really good – thank you Joe, Bill and Ruben for keeping on point – and leaving the venom out of your posts. I think I can respond starting from Ruben’s comments, working backward, because my reasons for posing the questions I did will help to address Bill’s concerns.
I am really asking, complaining and seeking a course of action all at once. On one hand, I was looking for like-minded photographers who might also feel as I do about the state of our country, and if they are interested in processing those feelings through their work. For me, photography is much more than just a hobby, and so I was running up the flag to see who might agree, and how they might feel.
I was complaining, because if I was completely satisfied with everything in this country, I wouldn’t really be motivated to change anything would I? To me, all change is motivated out of dissatisfaction with the ways things are. It could be as trivial as deciding to go on a diet or stop eating greasy foods because you want to lose weight – you see a problem and so it motivates you to go to the doctor. In my case, I am very concerned about my country and how we fit in to the World, and I am interested in changing it. Most of the time I just sit around and talk, like most of us do, about improving things, so I was wondering what a single, mass-media unsupported photographer could do to kick in and do my part to help. So that leads to seeking a course of action – and from what I read, most are finding outlets on the Web. I came to the conclusion from this thread that currently, as Joe points out, there is little chance you’re going to be heard through major media outlets, which is on one hand disappointing. But I also thought that it is somewhat noble to continue on anyway, and working for change through photography certainly can’t hurt anything. In fact, I might find the satisfaction I am seeking by converting the old American saying “all politics is local” to “all photography is local.” Maybe I can work on addressing social issues in Pittsburgh first – that is something I can certainly do. I am originally from Washington, DC, and that city always seemed a little too big and fractured to address photographically – I did a little there, but Pittsburgh seems just the right size. I hope that sort of answers your questions Ruben.
Bill, I think you thought out your points very well, but I don’t see how I can really be all inclusive when searching for an answer to my questions. To make an argument for anything, you have to pick a side. We could probably have an argument about each and every thing I find as motivation to change this country.
It’s true, I don’t allow for the notion that there is no need for social photography, because it is my opinion – it’s what I believe. You don’t agree – point taken. You will clearly not feel the need to pick up your camera to improve society. Fine.
How can a person have any opinion at all that doesn’t exclude other viewpoints? I’m not running a news network here where I am pretending to be objective – these are very subjective statements. A couple of the problems we have in this country are not really debatable – obesity for instance, is a quantifiable measure of exceeding the body mass index – it simply a recorded fact that Americans are more obese than ever. Americans as a whole do indeed watch a lot TV – the ratings system and surveys of satellite and cable TV broadcasts support that – the murder rates are not opinions – these murders are happening -- in my mind these are symptoms of a deeper problems in our culture and society. If I were to allow for your stance, which seems to be that these are not problems in America, then I wouldn’t have posted originally.
One thing you said I found really hopeless and sad was, “Now the O/P bemoans the allegedly high murder rate as if photography a) could fix that, b) photographers can do anything about it, and c) that there is one answer to that.” It’s true there are many answers to that problem, but I disagree that photography can’t aid in fixing these problems. Maybe not the kind of photography you’re interested in, but photography has proved in the past, time and again to be a major catalyst in prompting change.
To frame it within your context, take the famous image by Eddie Adams of AP showing a South Vietnamese general executing a VC prisoner. I have seen similar executions online and atrocities by all sides in our current engagements in the Middle East, but only after looking all over the Web for them. Thermal video footage of a US Apache gunship finishing off wounded Iraqi soldiers in the desert is one of the first media I consumed that turned me against the war, in addition to the videotaped beheadings, but that wasn’t available on CBS – I had to seek it out. But to keep it on photography, the Adams picture deeply moves me, not because I know exactly why they are executing this VC prisoner, which is probably debatable. It simply holds a single truth for me, and that is the cold brutality people are capable of. That VC, and that general for that matter were once birthed from a mother and had the potential to do many good things, and instead end up as they were. I’m not saying it’s wrong to fight wars when you have to, I just think people should understand how brutal it can be before they support it. That’s what photography did in Nam – pictures like the Adams image made Americans wake up, and start wondering why the Country was committed to fighting Communism in Vietnam. That image was part of a movement of ordinary Americans telling their government “no.” Course, I know your stance is that if I didn’t actually suit up and serve a tour in Vietnam, my opinion is not as valid as someone who did, so I accept that you probably refute the premise to begin with. But I really feel that the best images make larger, universal points – take that Adams image out of context, and what do you have? Is it a picture that makes me feel better about humanity, or worse?
So, photography can change things. Can I bring down the murder rate directly through photographing? Probably not. Can I make an image that through it’s intention maybe diffuses the hate that leads to war and murder? Maybe. Perhaps someone having someone else care about them is enough.
But clearly, you’re a pragmatist. If photography is just shooting pics of stuff, then the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence was just writing. I just can’t agree with that. What more power do I have in my own society? Even the power of the vote is suspect in this Country. What I can do: I can volunteer locally (which I do) and then, use the power of the camera to not only affect change, but record a record of things that the mass media is not free to record. If nothing else, adding Art to the catalog of the billions of other images out there can’t be bad.
I really don’t have anything to add about Joe’s post – I think he said it all spot on.
Too long!
The last three posts were really good – thank you Joe, Bill and Ruben for keeping on point – and leaving the venom out of your posts. I think I can respond starting from Ruben’s comments, working backward, because my reasons for posing the questions I did will help to address Bill’s concerns.
I am really asking, complaining and seeking a course of action all at once. On one hand, I was looking for like-minded photographers who might also feel as I do about the state of our country, and if they are interested in processing those feelings through their work. For me, photography is much more than just a hobby, and so I was running up the flag to see who might agree, and how they might feel.
I was complaining, because if I was completely satisfied with everything in this country, I wouldn’t really be motivated to change anything would I? To me, all change is motivated out of dissatisfaction with the ways things are. It could be as trivial as deciding to go on a diet or stop eating greasy foods because you want to lose weight – you see a problem and so it motivates you to go to the doctor. In my case, I am very concerned about my country and how we fit in to the World, and I am interested in changing it. Most of the time I just sit around and talk, like most of us do, about improving things, so I was wondering what a single, mass-media unsupported photographer could do to kick in and do my part to help. So that leads to seeking a course of action – and from what I read, most are finding outlets on the Web. I came to the conclusion from this thread that currently, as Joe points out, there is little chance you’re going to be heard through major media outlets, which is on one hand disappointing. But I also thought that it is somewhat noble to continue on anyway, and working for change through photography certainly can’t hurt anything. In fact, I might find the satisfaction I am seeking by converting the old American saying “all politics is local” to “all photography is local.” Maybe I can work on addressing social issues in Pittsburgh first – that is something I can certainly do. I am originally from Washington, DC, and that city always seemed a little too big and fractured to address photographically – I did a little there, but Pittsburgh seems just the right size. I hope that sort of answers your questions Ruben.
Bill, I think you thought out your points very well, but I don’t see how I can really be all inclusive when searching for an answer to my questions. To make an argument for anything, you have to pick a side. We could probably have an argument about each and every thing I find as motivation to change this country.
It’s true, I don’t allow for the notion that there is no need for social photography, because it is my opinion – it’s what I believe. You don’t agree – point taken. You will clearly not feel the need to pick up your camera to improve society. Fine.
How can a person have any opinion at all that doesn’t exclude other viewpoints? I’m not running a news network here where I am pretending to be objective – these are very subjective statements. A couple of the problems we have in this country are not really debatable – obesity for instance, is a quantifiable measure of exceeding the body mass index – it simply a recorded fact that Americans are more obese than ever. Americans as a whole do indeed watch a lot TV – the ratings system and surveys of satellite and cable TV broadcasts support that – the murder rates are not opinions – these murders are happening -- in my mind these are symptoms of a deeper problems in our culture and society. If I were to allow for your stance, which seems to be that these are not problems in America, then I wouldn’t have posted originally.
One thing you said I found really hopeless and sad was, “Now the O/P bemoans the allegedly high murder rate as if photography a) could fix that, b) photographers can do anything about it, and c) that there is one answer to that.” It’s true there are many answers to that problem, but I disagree that photography can’t aid in fixing these problems. Maybe not the kind of photography you’re interested in, but photography has proved in the past, time and again to be a major catalyst in prompting change.
To frame it within your context, take the famous image by Eddie Adams of AP showing a South Vietnamese general executing a VC prisoner. I have seen similar executions online and atrocities by all sides in our current engagements in the Middle East, but only after looking all over the Web for them. Thermal video footage of a US Apache gunship finishing off wounded Iraqi soldiers in the desert is one of the first media I consumed that turned me against the war, in addition to the videotaped beheadings, but that wasn’t available on CBS – I had to seek it out. But to keep it on photography, the Adams picture deeply moves me, not because I know exactly why they are executing this VC prisoner, which is probably debatable. It simply holds a single truth for me, and that is the cold brutality people are capable of. That VC, and that general for that matter were once birthed from a mother and had the potential to do many good things, and instead end up as they were. I’m not saying it’s wrong to fight wars when you have to, I just think people should understand how brutal it can be before they support it. That’s what photography did in Nam – pictures like the Adams image made Americans wake up, and start wondering why the Country was committed to fighting Communism in Vietnam. That image was part of a movement of ordinary Americans telling their government “no.” Course, I know your stance is that if I didn’t actually suit up and serve a tour in Vietnam, my opinion is not as valid as someone who did, so I accept that you probably refute the premise to begin with. But I really feel that the best images make larger, universal points – take that Adams image out of context, and what do you have? Is it a picture that makes me feel better about humanity, or worse?
So, photography can change things. Can I bring down the murder rate directly through photographing? Probably not. Can I make an image that through it’s intention maybe diffuses the hate that leads to war and murder? Maybe. Perhaps someone having someone else care about them is enough.
But clearly, you’re a pragmatist. If photography is just shooting pics of stuff, then the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence was just writing. I just can’t agree with that. What more power do I have in my own society? Even the power of the vote is suspect in this Country. What I can do: I can volunteer locally (which I do) and then, use the power of the camera to not only affect change, but record a record of things that the mass media is not free to record. If nothing else, adding Art to the catalog of the billions of other images out there can’t be bad.
I really don’t have anything to add about Joe’s post – I think he said it all spot on.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
The mass audience sees photographs that were published. Even if they were self projects of the photographer they went through the filter of being chosen by an editor and assembled by an art director. They in turn had to follow the guidelines of the publication. The publication had to keep both their readers and their advertisers happy. If the photos were shot on assignment that sequence of events was in mind from the git-go!
It's really only since the internet that the average photographer has much chance of reaching an audience interested in their social commentary, and that is still highly dependent on the text that goes along with the photos. Many photographers aren't the greatest of writers, and even great writers might lack the skills of working with the right "key words" and formatting them within the text to attract a search engine such as Google.
So far I've not heard of a search engine that can pick out images of guns from digital files, nor tell a sniper from a target shooter to a guy hunting rabbits. That requires words. Likewise, search engines presented with photographs aren't able to tell a well dressed woman with her two spit-'n-polished youngsters walking down the street past a row of newly restored 19th century townhouses in a regentrified neighborhood from a welfare mom with her two unkempt kids walking in front of dilapidated three story tenements of the same age.
There's no sense in commentary if nobody is going to see it. Unfortunate, but true. A lot of what got published during the heyday of the picture magazines like Paris Match and Life was chosen because the "search engine" of the mid-twentieth century was what would grab attention on the magazine rack at the local drugstore. Dynamic cover photos that made you want to pick up the magazine and check out the article. As you flipped through the pages other photographs in other stories would vie for your attention.
Today? You're more likely to go to Google and type in some key words like Iraq, execution, war, and see what comes up. It may be text, it might include some photos, but no guarantees.
It's really only since the internet that the average photographer has much chance of reaching an audience interested in their social commentary, and that is still highly dependent on the text that goes along with the photos. Many photographers aren't the greatest of writers, and even great writers might lack the skills of working with the right "key words" and formatting them within the text to attract a search engine such as Google.
So far I've not heard of a search engine that can pick out images of guns from digital files, nor tell a sniper from a target shooter to a guy hunting rabbits. That requires words. Likewise, search engines presented with photographs aren't able to tell a well dressed woman with her two spit-'n-polished youngsters walking down the street past a row of newly restored 19th century townhouses in a regentrified neighborhood from a welfare mom with her two unkempt kids walking in front of dilapidated three story tenements of the same age.
There's no sense in commentary if nobody is going to see it. Unfortunate, but true. A lot of what got published during the heyday of the picture magazines like Paris Match and Life was chosen because the "search engine" of the mid-twentieth century was what would grab attention on the magazine rack at the local drugstore. Dynamic cover photos that made you want to pick up the magazine and check out the article. As you flipped through the pages other photographs in other stories would vie for your attention.
Today? You're more likely to go to Google and type in some key words like Iraq, execution, war, and see what comes up. It may be text, it might include some photos, but no guarantees.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I think it is naive to think that photography can do all sorts of honourable things like end wars and poverty.
There is a more sinister agenda at work here that has a DNA quality to it.
Hats off to you for trying.
There is a more sinister agenda at work here that has a DNA quality to it.
Hats off to you for trying.
BigSteveG
Well-known
It has to matter
It has to matter
to you. In the grand scheme of things, it's all that really counts.
It has to matter
to you. In the grand scheme of things, it's all that really counts.
williams473 said:
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
memphis said:
See there, Kanye... President Bush loves Black people...
Now, that was tongue in cheek, an image can have many meanings and can easily be used to manipulate ---
I wonder how history will remember this prez Bush?
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I guess that the school kids will look at their history book and discover eight pages marked "THIS PAGE DELETED".
jslabovitz
Member
What about working with nonprofits or other larger organizations?
What about working with nonprofits or other larger organizations?
It seems that the primary dynamic of this discussion is attempting to resolve how an individual photographer can interact with and influence the public; that is, "make a difference."
I'm not sure it has ever really been possible to do this as an individual photographer. Go look at many influential photographers, and you'll see that although the photographer him/herself had motivation, passion, and drive, the fact that their work was effective came through some sort of association.
Look up Lewis Hine (I just did) on Wikipedia: he worked for the National Child Labor Committee, the Red Cross, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, among others. Dorothea Lange, as we know, worked for the Farm Security Administration. Look at all the photographers who have been members of Magnum; that organization was formed, in part, to help its members make a difference, photographically.
There are several organizations active now that encourage and support "difference-making" photography. Blue Earth Alliance is a nonprofit I'm familiar with, based in Seattle. In addition to promoting the photography they support, they also help photographers get grants and other funding to produce work that might otherwise not be done. From their site:
The Aftermath Project is another one:
Here are a bunch of others:
Tonight, I'm going to see a lecture in Portland (OR) by Joel Preston Smith, who'll be talking about his experiences documenting the war in Iraq. Here's a guy who *has* been a soldier, as well as a photojournalist. He's created a slideshow of his images, and has been making the rounds presenting it and talking about his experience. He's also written a book (published by Nazraeli Press).
Although publishing on the web is certainly a reasonable thing to do, remember that just putting up a gallery will probably accomplish about as much as throwing a bunch of prints around at your local coffee shop. If you're serious about certain issues, find websites that specialize in those issues, and get them interested in showing, writing about, or supporting your work. Edward Burtynsky, who's done those incredible "landscape" photographs documenting the destruction caused by mining and oil extraction, is working with WorldChanging. To me, that's a lot more effective than a pretty website.
Finally, I have to close with a personal suggestion for the OP. You said you live in Pittsburgh. I presume that you know of Eugene Smith's monumental work in attempting to document your city? It might be interesting to research that, perhaps following up or rephotographing certain places. In other words, tie your current work with his past work. Just a thought.
--John
What about working with nonprofits or other larger organizations?
It seems that the primary dynamic of this discussion is attempting to resolve how an individual photographer can interact with and influence the public; that is, "make a difference."
I'm not sure it has ever really been possible to do this as an individual photographer. Go look at many influential photographers, and you'll see that although the photographer him/herself had motivation, passion, and drive, the fact that their work was effective came through some sort of association.
Look up Lewis Hine (I just did) on Wikipedia: he worked for the National Child Labor Committee, the Red Cross, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, among others. Dorothea Lange, as we know, worked for the Farm Security Administration. Look at all the photographers who have been members of Magnum; that organization was formed, in part, to help its members make a difference, photographically.
There are several organizations active now that encourage and support "difference-making" photography. Blue Earth Alliance is a nonprofit I'm familiar with, based in Seattle. In addition to promoting the photography they support, they also help photographers get grants and other funding to produce work that might otherwise not be done. From their site:
The Aftermath Project is another one:
Here are a bunch of others:
Tonight, I'm going to see a lecture in Portland (OR) by Joel Preston Smith, who'll be talking about his experiences documenting the war in Iraq. Here's a guy who *has* been a soldier, as well as a photojournalist. He's created a slideshow of his images, and has been making the rounds presenting it and talking about his experience. He's also written a book (published by Nazraeli Press).
Although publishing on the web is certainly a reasonable thing to do, remember that just putting up a gallery will probably accomplish about as much as throwing a bunch of prints around at your local coffee shop. If you're serious about certain issues, find websites that specialize in those issues, and get them interested in showing, writing about, or supporting your work. Edward Burtynsky, who's done those incredible "landscape" photographs documenting the destruction caused by mining and oil extraction, is working with WorldChanging. To me, that's a lot more effective than a pretty website.
Finally, I have to close with a personal suggestion for the OP. You said you live in Pittsburgh. I presume that you know of Eugene Smith's monumental work in attempting to document your city? It might be interesting to research that, perhaps following up or rephotographing certain places. In other words, tie your current work with his past work. Just a thought.
--John
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Al Kaplan said:
maybe less than eight pages will need to be deleted Al.
this president seems to lack a certain human quality about him
unlike this man of a few decades ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoNkwsAeXG4&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
xayraa33 said:
At least Bush isn't a serial rapist like the sleazebag he replaced.
See why we should't discuss politics here? And why does the owner of a business related site allow a portion of his potential customers to offended another portion? Inquiring minds want to know...
Hmmm...
goo0h
Well-known
williams473 said:Amos,
I'll be interestd in hearing what you think about Evans in future posts - maybe not in this thread because it's getting so freaking long and people just aren't seeming to drop the politics.
I'll just say briefly -- I hope -- that it would be worthwhile to look at more of Evans' work. I too for the longest time blew off Evans because I was overly familiar with the photos in "Let Us Praise Famous Men." However, there really is a vast amount of work this man did that I never really knew about until just recently. You need to try to look up "Walker Evans; The Hungry Eye" by Gilles Mora and John T. Hill. I wish I had gotten the hardback. The paperback is printed very nicely and the pictures are well done, but just way too tiny to fully appreciate.
Evans seems to be more methodical and meticulous, contrasting with Lange's more spontaneous approach. Initially he wanted to be a writer and then was hooked onto photography when he was over in France in the late 1920's. I think to some extent he remained a frustrated writer throughout his life. Many of his pictures "read" like a book. He was more "artistic" than Lange, which I don't think she'd be offended by since I think she viewed herself more as a documentarian. There's almost a lyrical poetry to Evans, while Lange is more raw and visceral.
I never knew Evans did so much street shooting. He did an entire series -- self motivated mind you -- in which he hid his Leica in his coat and took pictures of folks riding the New York subway. He wanted what he called snapshots of life. He was obsessed about the concept of the anonymous portrait. Average people, on their way to this and that. Some anxious, some sad, some tired. You get a glimpse of it all. A few are shown here, but the quality isn't too good:
http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/subway-portraits/
http://updateslive.blogspot.com/2006/09/many-are-called-ny-subway-photos-of.html
http://www.metmuseum.org/TOAH/hd/evan/ho_1971.646.18.htm
He also did a series of "anonymous portraits" in Detroit in 1946 that I rather like. He positioned himself opposite a blank wall that he used as an improvised backdrop. Then as people passed by on this sidewalk, he'd take a snapshot. I don't believe the camera was hidden for these, but I don't recall. Once again we see the daily faces of life. There's something deeply sincere about these glimpses of life. Some looked, some didn't, none seemed to hide themselves from his probing eye. There's something profoundly democratic about these pictures.
Which of these two do I prefer most? Hard to say. I guess Lange is my first love.
I discovered her pictures as a young college student almost by accident, and they've stuck with me since. However, after discovering more of his stuff, I'm learning to appreciate Evans more than before.The dust bowl days of the Great Depression was an interesting period photographically. With its dramatic landscapes as a backdrop, perhaps it lent itself better to documentary exposure than other catastrophes? Can you get such iconic photos as Migrant Mother when covering, say, the problem of homeless vets? Or perhaps vets with PTSD that either are not getting care, or having their benefits dropped? Perhaps modern issues can be more of a challenge to capture photographically, but I think it is possible.