Elliot Erwitt on Robert Frank

[holmburgers]

I don't think this conversation has derailed. It's only gotten better... now we're getting somewhere I think.

 

[PVia]

Great thread, Thomas...you got everyone thinking but some folks don't want to think in another way, or are afraid to. As soon as one says that such and such is the pinnacle of photography, the art itself dies. Perfect negs, prints, sharpness etc are not the pinnacle of anything. Neither is grainy, blurry...there're all just expressions of an individual.

 

[Q.G.]

It's not the fact that he regards Frank as being superior to Adams that disturbs me (I can easily live with that), but the fact, that because of that superiority, he grants Frank and his own mind and therefore intention, while poor Adams has to content himself of only being able to balance a picture, denying him any intention.

Uhm... Do you know what the intention of Adams and his f/64 chums was?

'Balancing a print' is a good summation of all Adams ever wanted to achieve.
It was his new kind of aesthetics. His intentions never went any further than that.

The remark of Erwitt wasn't unkind or unjust. Nor incorrect.
Spot on, it was. Totally in line with what Adams c.s. were trying to do.

Focus on the "why". Ask why they (Frank, Adams, anyone) did something.
Then make up your mind about what you like and what you don't. And why.

 

[Q.G.]

The great thing is that Erwitt can say whatever he wants, and we can think whatever we want about what he says, if we listen to it at all. He is just a guy saying stuff when he really should be shooting, just like all of us.

Ah, no! I disagree.

We don't just need to be shooting.
We need to think about why we do what we do. Why we do what we do the way we do it.
Oh, and why other people should bother to look at the results of what we do.

 

[Mike Crawford]

Ansel Adams work is rather like Salvador Dali's painting, see it in a gallery at 16 years of age and it'll blow your socks off. If it's still your barometer of excellence at 40 you need to get out more.

Blimey, that sounds familiar. Well said.

 

[premo]

While we're at it, why not compare adams to weegee. If you look for his image of the frankfurter building fire, he composed it exposed it beautifully. It has an almost ethereal quality. I like his people pictures also, and they are even harsher city gritty stuff, I like it, but I don't care to try to do it.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I admire Erwitt's work a lot. But you have to see that he's an artist, not an art historian. His role is more of a critic. Critics tend to be more polarizing than having broad perspective of an art historian or curator. Rejecting an art piece because of technique is too easy. I love art because there are no right and wrongs.

 

[premo]

Amen to that statement Maine coon cat.

 

[Q.G.]

I admire Erwitt's work a lot. But you have to see that he's an artist, not an art historian. His role is more of a critic. Critics tend to be more polarizing than having broad perspective of an art historian or curator. Rejecting an art piece because of technique is too easy. I love art because there are no right and wrongs.

It appears that Erwitt is the better art historian though, seeing that he correctly names the intent of Adams and his groupmates, while people here seem to dismiss it as a snide remark expressing a dislike.
He does express his dislike, yes. But that is correctly based upon the artistic merit, the self proclaimed intent and aestheticims of Adams and the f/64 group.

 

[noumin]

As a reply to a previous post, I was saying that I find Erwitts' remark unfair against Adams and that he looks down on people who, in his eyes, only balance sand and sky in their pictures. It was about his behaviour not if he's wright or
wrong. One can still treat other people respectfully, even if he's not agreeing with them, call me oldfashioned.

But to return on what he's saying :

"Quality doesn't mean deep blacks and whatever tonal range. That's not quality, that's a kind of quality. The pictures of Robert Frank might strike someone as being sloppy - the tone range isn't right and things like that ..."

As a general statement, not specific to Robert Frank, yepp, there's nothing more to add to that

"but they're far superior to the pictures of Ansel Adams"

Well, that's how Erwitt sees it, but we're tolerant aren't we. We allow people to see that differently, don't we.

"with regard to quality, because the quality of Ansel Adams, if I may say so, is essentially the quality of a postcard"

If you can't stand up against someone, ridiculise him !

"But the quality of Robert Frank is a quality that has something to do with what he's doing, what his mind is. It's not balancing out the sky to the sand and so forth. It's got to do with intention."

Obviously he doesn't like Adams and he has a reason for that, that's ok. Other people may see it otherwise, and have a reason for that, that's ok too. But, who' s right now ?
Judging the ideas, intentions and achievments of one photographer as superior over another doesn't really lead us anywhere. It tells us more about the values of those who judge than on the qualities of the photographer concerned.
And what if the pictures of one photographer have an impact on me, but it's got nothing to do with the qualities or intentions of the photographer ?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Don't look at Adams, Erwitt, or Frank. Look within. Ask some questions about your own photography. Stir up some controversy about why you do things the way you do them. Think really hard about it. See if you can answer the questions you ask yourself and feel OK about it.

I took a long gander at how I spend my photography time. With seemingly endless discussions on internet forums, and face to face with other real life people, it seemed I didn't spend enough time just printing. Tired of the technical aspect of photography I just want to go make some prints.
The quote was also a sort of informal goodbye to the forums here and elsewhere. I might share some pictures in the gallery, but I think I'm done with the forums. Time to go focus on my own stuff.

Goodbye and thanks for all the fish.

 

[Q.G.]

Judging the ideas, intentions and achievments of one photographer as superior over another doesn't really lead us anywhere. It tells us more about the values of those who judge than on the qualities of the photographer concerned.

True. That is, it could be true.
But if you want to see the complete picture, you will have to consider not just that both photographers Erwit mentioned have a reputation, but also that photography is a medium, a way to express ideas, believes, raw feels, etc.
The intent of Adams was to show how beautifully he could say, ..., well: nothing (well, not nothing. But how beautifully he could show ... uhm... how beautifuly he could show etc.). Frank's intent was to show something he felt something about.

And what if the pictures of one photographer have an impact on me, but it's got nothing to do with the qualities or intentions of the photographer ?

What could possibly be wrong with that?

But it says nothing about the qualities or intentions of the photographer. And it doesn't mean that an analysis as the one given by Erwitt would be less acurate.

 

[Marco B]

I took a long gander at how I spend my photography time. With seemingly endless discussions on internet forums, and face to face with other real life people, it seemed I didn't spend enough time just printing. Tired of the technical aspect of photography I just want to go make some prints.
The quote was also a sort of informal goodbye to the forums here and elsewhere. I might share some pictures in the gallery, but I think I'm done with the forums. Time to go focus on my own stuff.

Goodbye and thanks for all the fish.

Good for you Thomas! I agree there is some point at which you've learned enough, and one shoot concentrate on the photography in its bare form instead.

I probably waist to much time here too...

Anyway, go out and do what you love most! Share some pics in the galleries if you feel like it, I for one have enjoyed your work whenever it passed by

 

[clayne]

At the risk of making a Frank v Adams comparison I think the reason it may have even been an issue in the first place is possibly because Erwit might have felt that the amount of photographic respect payed was disproportionally given to Adams whereas Frank, a man documenting social undercurrents, is debatably not given as much respect as he deserves in the grand scheme of things.

That's speculation - but I do notice that a lot of people obsess over minute details and completely miss the soul.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

At the risk of making a Frank v Adams comparison I think the reason it may have even been an issue in the first place is possibly because Erwit might have felt that the amount of photographic respect payed was disproportionally given to Adams whereas Frank, a man documenting social undercurrents, is debatably not given as much respect as he deserves in the grand scheme of things.

That's speculation - but I do notice that a lot of people obsess over minute details and completely miss the soul.

Clayne.

That may be the opinion inside the US. One opinion among many.

But if you cross the atlantic, the respect, praise and devotion.... All goes to Franck.

G.

 

[premo]

So, our friend with the bananas does'nt think adams saw, and then worked his medium to capture what he saw? Probably the most amazing thing I've ever seen on a forum.

 

[premo]

One of the problems with adams stuff is that it does not translate well on posters of the kind that come rolled up in tubes in big stores. And some of the digital repro's don't catch the tonality or "roundness" of his prints. In fact, I have not seen much digital work that has roundness----maybe the effect of short focal length lenses.

 

[Q.G.]

So, our friend with the bananas does'nt think adams saw, and then worked his medium to capture what he saw? Probably the most amazing thing I've ever seen on a forum.

The banana friend knows his art history, and the importance of the question our now departed friend asked. I also understand both.
:devil:

Tell us, Premo, why Adams did the things the way he did. Why someone like the other photographer mentioned by Erwitt, Frank, did things very differently. Why Erwitt himself did things not the way Adams did, nor the way Frank did.


You see, the probably most amazing bit in this thread to date has been your completely void, vacuous assertion that a photographer used his medium to do what he did.

 

[premo]

And that response is even more amazing. I'm not particularly enamored of Adams work, but I think he had his vision--and he captured it. This may be a difference of semantics--I've an aunt from Rotterdam who was upset when I said You rascal you. She looked it up in an English dictionary (the country), I was usinf an Americanism (You wascally wabbit,you).

 

[Q.G.]

Adams certainly had a vision. And he certainly 'captured' it.
Erwitt told us about it.

If in doubt, just dive into photo history and look up what Adams and his pals were trying to achieve. You'll find that their vision on what photography should be, the way they - keeping true to their vision - produced work, their aestheticism, agrees with what Erwitt said about Adams.

 

[clayne]

Also, I find it a bit funny how people are discounting the opinion of Erwitt as if he has no more right to speak it or validity in his words than they themselves do.

If one is accomplished or has demonstrated - than yes, to a certain extent their opinion does carry a bit more weight than any random Mountain_Dude_8x10_Shooter on the internet.