A "new" discovery

[spb854]

I don't know if anybody has ever heard of this man, but
it seems his photography is becoming a very hot topic.

Check it out.

www.disfarmer.com

Steve

 

[JBrunner]

The work is very interesting. Unfortunately, The "limited edition prints"-"printed archivally from the glass negatives" are likely inkjet posters, unless somebody is making real paper in 8.5x11, or they are alt process, which I think would be mentioned. I'd be interested in a silver print.

 

[clogz]

I saw the exhibition of his pictures here in Rotterdam ( where? yes, there) some years ago. Pretty boring photos but....it showed a slice of life. A saving grace for all I know/care/understand. The man chose the name Disfarmer as he happened to hate life in a small Mid-West village/town.

Hans

 

[keithwms]

I was introduced to Meyer's/Disfarmer's work by a colleague about a year ago. Unfortunately I was told the story about his name and his reclusive nature before I saw his work, so I'm afraid that may have influenced my initial reaction to it, which was far from positive! It would have been better not to know that detail, and to see his work beside the kinds of portrait work that were popular at the time.

Not knowing what his contemporaries were doing at the time, I can't speculate on how innovative he really was. I suppose the most favourable take on his work is that he independently invented modernist portrait minimalism. His approach might come across as straight-ahead, conservative and dull now... but placed in historical context, I suppose that he specifically worked to reject the prevailing American portrait style, which (I guess) still consisted of heavily romanticized, idyllic studio scenes that gave no real insight into the lives of the subjects. He seems to have deconstructed that style.

What I find interesting are the few portraits in which the expression on the faces of the subjects shines through the rigid compositional style.

I do find it ironic that he changed his name; I think the plain, undressed honesty of the rural farm landscape is evident on the face of every single one of his portrait subjects. Why flee that?

 

[dpurdy]

To me this is an example of work that would never fly today. In my portrait work if I did plain jane dead pan photos like that I would never ever get a referral and have a hard time getting paid. It is too easy to do this kind of work to interest me.

IMAO

 

[Lee L]

unless somebody is making real paper in 8.5x11, or they are alt process, which I think would be mentioned.

I've made hundreds of prints on Kodak Polycontrast RC and Ilford MG RC 8.5 x 11 paper. It's produced to insert photos into reports/publications on standard US letter sized paper stock. It's also good for squeezing 38 exposures on a 36 roll onto a single contact print, and it's slightly closer to 35mm proportions than 8x10, good for printing full frame to get a small enlargement increase. Not sure about availability over time in fiber base. I seem to recall a Kodak non-RC 8.5 x 11 paper on thinner stock so that it handled more like typewriter/printer paper when bound into a report. I have a 250 sheet box of Ilford MG 8.5 x 11 in my darkroom now, ordered less than two years ago from B&H, so that's not a basis on which to judge whether the prints are silver gelatin.

Lee

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There used to be Azo in 8.5x11" for contact sheets. I think it was discontinued a year or two before Azo was discontinued in general.

Greenberg is a very respectable gallery, and they do have silver Disfarmer prints (usually in sizes that would have been printed on 16x20" paper), but if these are new, I suspect they are ($800) inkjets in that size, otherwise they would specify.

 

[Bill Mitchell]

Disfarmer is the ultimate "In" art photography joke.

 

[John Koehrer]

To me this is an example of work that would never fly today. In my portrait work if I did plain jane dead pan photos like that I would never ever get a referral and have a hard time getting paid. It is too easy to do this kind of work to interest me.

IMAO

At the time these were taken I think this was a pretty common style. The world was in the middle of a depression & many folks didn't have that much to smile about. Also in the locale these were taken there most likely wasn't a whole bunch of money to be spent on frivolous items like pitchers of maw & paw.

 

[JBrunner]

At the time these were taken I think this was a pretty common style. The world was in the middle of a depression & many folks didn't have that much to smile about. Also in the locale these were taken there most likely wasn't a whole bunch of money to be spent on frivolous items like pitchers of maw & paw.

I think the idea that you needed to wear a cheesy smile was something that came later, and had little to do with the depression. When I have made portraits of non Anglophiles, they have almost without exception struck a dignified or serious demeanor. I think the $#!* eating grin was born in America, about the forties or fifties.

 

[dpurdy]

I think there is some territory between blank looks and stupid smiles.

 

[Anscojohn]

I recall seeing his stuff many years ago in a photography magazine article after he was "discovered." The quality of the prints was wretched, but his subjects were poor and, IIRC, he charged them very little.

Now that he has been "discovered" it would be unseemly to condemn him for being inept. Now he is a genius. Sheesh!

 

[Chuck_P]

To me this is an example of work that would never fly today. In my portrait work if I did plain jane dead pan photos like that I would never ever get a referral and have a hard time getting paid. It is too easy to do this kind of work to interest me.

IMAO

With due respect, this is irrelevant, IMO. Why does this man's work have to be compared to anything that anyone is doing today? Much of today's stuff in the portrait arena, IMO, is just like JB Runner stated----full of @#$@! eating grins and fake looks because it looks cute or somehow appealing. It is not. As I viewed them, I found Disfarmer's portraits to be real and genuine, and containing a feel of sincerity.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Living in Arkansas all my life, and my rememberance of things from the 1950's, and my older relatives, I think this is just the way people looked, unless provoked to smile. So, in essence, Disfarmer was placing people in front of the camera and "not" forcing them to be something they were not, thus letting their own unaltered personality show thru. A lot of the dour expressions really are just shy people being put in unfamiliar surroundings.

 

[Shelly Grimson]

I agree with Chuck and Phototone. As far as portraits go they are "given" not just taken. These people presented themselves to the photographer as they are. No pretense or guile. I really think Disfarmer had profound respect for these folks and that's what I see in the pictures. If one looks at the work of August Sander one can see the same classical approach. I always wondered if they had seen each other's work whether they would see a kindred eye there. Avedon and Arbus always struck me the same way, each with their own approach. Its the honesty. I've had a lifetime of seeing portraits of famous people with milk moustaches or caught in mid-air etc. These portraits are grounded in the real existence of Americans of a certain place and social class with no BS attached. I admire Disfarmer for that.
My two cents.

 

[bill schwab]

Disfarmer is the ultimate "In" art photography joke.

I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about Bill. Could you elaborate, or share the joke?

 

[thebanana]

Remind me again why people are dissing this guy? WTF?

 

[JBrunner]

I'm certainly not dissing the guy.

 

[Ray Heath]

Remind me again why people are dissing this guy? WTF?

may be that one person's dis is another persons critical appraisal

Disfarmers images have a certain appeal but they are certainly not unique or particularly "deep"

 

[keithwms]

Remind me again why people are dissing this guy? WTF?

Maybe because he dissed the farmers

 

[removed account4]

in the early 1990s ( maybe 1992? )
i was living in a motel and there was a blizzard outside.
charles kuralt was doing his sunday morning show ...
an appalachian photographer from the 20s ( or maybe 30s ? ) was highlighted.
there were portraits of neighbors / locals, snippits of what it was like where he lived.
all shot on glass plates ... washed in the stream behind his house ...

the portraits were just like these.
formal, an showing people as they were.

does anyone know if he was the photographer that was highlighted ?

 

[pauliej]

This may have been before the smile was invented. Seriously, the photographer may have asked the subjects to be natural, and maybe they interpret this as a formal pose, like the guys pictured on money. Then again, what did people have to smile about back during the depression, after Wall Street sucked up all their money and FDR forced them to trade in their gold (if they had any left) for paper?

But, I digress...

Paul

 

[Jim Noel]

Disfarmer never meant for his work to be judged as "Fine Art". He basically was a small town photographer who photographed anything and anyone available. In other words, he was earning a living in the same manner as photographers then and now. His work is a valuable look into the life of that town at the time. Some of it probably does qualify as "Art" whether or not that was his original intent. His work, and that of all others, should only be judged against the original intent.

Look at the very early work of Ansel Adams - he photographed little league teams, school groups, weddings and anything else which would earn him dinner money.

 

[jgcull]

Oh yeah! I love the "man and woman with six children". Really nice stuff! Thanks for the link.

 

[Mr_Rocketkiller]

History makes heroes of men. Or, in Disfarmer's case, it took the passage of time for people to realize the genius or the unique nature of his photos. His style probably wouldn't be widely embraced if he were alive to today. Likewise, his photos probably weren't all that recognizeable or in demand in the era in which he took these pictures. The fascination, I feel, lays with trying to understand why someone would take portraits in a period of time where a) portraiture was still probably considered for the wealthy b) these "common" folk, in a period of Depression, were taking the time to be photographed in a formal manner. We have these seemingly mundane photos that at first glance seem quite "common", until you stop to reflect on thse people and the era they lived and you realize how uncommon this photogrpahy was. Whether you like his work or not, the fact that looking at these photos invokes a lot of questions about this time period, which you probably wouldn't have thought of if no pictures existed, is the genius of his work. Enough of my soap box talk

I think the $#!* eating grin was born in America, about the forties or fifties.

I remember watching a documentary that claimed Kodak came up with the #$@! eating grin. Of course, I can't find anything on the internet to back this claim, so I don't know how true that is.