Robert Frank nailed it.

Eric Rose · Nov 7, 2014

http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...frank-americans-photography-influence-shadows

Great article. I generally have to agree with Wall, it's been done at such a high level no one will ever eclipse Frank and Evans. It doesn't mean there still isn't really good documentary photography being done.

I found Frank's discussion of the crushing mountain of images being taken today rather interesting.

cliveh · Nov 7, 2014

To quote: - "The Americans challenged all the formal rules laid down by Henri Cartier-Bresson and Walker Evans, whose work Frank admired but saw no reason to emulate". HCB never laid down rules, only his own style.

Vilk · Nov 7, 2014

the style of a master is the rule

snapguy · Nov 7, 2014

live

I lived through that era, Rolleiflex or Leica or Nikon in hand. The article is overstating the case. Some people only see the shadows and not the bright sunlight. They are both there.

ParkerSmithPhoto · Nov 7, 2014

"The Americans" isn't America, only one great artist's vision of the nation.

Photography attracts many dour and depressive personalities, such as Arbus and Frank. The danger is that looking at their photographs causes one to think dour and depressive thoughts.

That being said, I obviously love them both.

coigach · Nov 7, 2014

A wonderful photographer, 'The Americans' is one of my all-time favourites.

Pioneer · Nov 7, 2014

After all these years I still fail to see anything special about Frank. His only genius was that his own dour and dark personality happened to match the mood of a country. That period of time was full of people like Frank, he just happened to take some pictures. His fame, like so many, was the result of the media uproar, not because he had any talent.

But, to each his own.

Dan Daniel · Nov 7, 2014

Pioneer said:
After all these years I still fail to see anything special about Frank. His only genius was that his own dour and dark personality happened to match the mood of a country. That period of time was full of people like Frank, he just happened to take some pictures. His fame, like so many, was the result of the media uproar, not because he had any talent.

But, to each his own.

Media uproar?? Maybe you can explain what you mean. The book basically sank like a stone when it was released. And in the late '50s, 'the media' was nothing like the noise machine it has become. More like a media meow at best for 'The Americans' and mainly a media hiss.

And to say that fame is because of media uproar is tautological. That's pretty much what fame means since WWII- media figures.

And to say that the US was dour and dark in the '50s would strike many as a strange take on that era. Sure you had an underside bubbling along, but you also had Levitt Town and Oldsmobile and Groucho Marx and Eisenhower and strong unions. For whites, at least, the '50s was a decent time to be in the US, with a hopeful future.

The odds are that most any kind of image has been made at any point in photo history, limited by the existing tech- happy tintypes, dark albumen wet plate prints, etc. I'm pretty certain that with a little digging and editing there are many 'Robert Frank's of the '50s waiting to be found. Vivian Meyer is a good example of a different strand of photography at that time, and there are many more. Having been around 'art photography' since the '70's and taught at times, I an assure you that 'Frank' photos are being made daily around the world. How one person rises to 'represent ' is a complicated process. The critical dialogue around Frank has been going on since the book was published, and most of it has been far from any mdeia uproar.

Pioneer · Nov 7, 2014

I am certainly not a teacher and it is quite likely that you are right. But the "uproar" was adequate for the time to force him to go to France to get his work published.

Based on his success it would appear that mucking around in the mud and crud of a country's culture, taking really bad pictures of it, and then publishing the whole thing in a book, not only qualified him as an artist, but as a visionary trendsetter as well.

I have no doubt there are a lot of people trying to do this type of photography but I don't see them being hailed as a trend setter like Robert Frank was, or is.

And while I agree that Vivian Maier did some terrific street photography during this same general time period her perspective and her photographs were nothing like what I see in The Americans. She at least afforded a bit of dignity to the majority of her subjects, even though some were sleeping in the streets. As a rule this seems to be missing in most of Frank's work.

Just my opinion of course.

Anton Lukoszevieze · Nov 8, 2014

This article is basically the same as the 2004 one in The Guardian, nothing new there..... I love Frank's work, but in particular the later work and the films....

Xmas · Nov 8, 2014

Dan Daniel said:
Media uproar?? Maybe you can explain what you mean. The book basically sank like a stone when it was released. And in the late '50s, 'the media' was nothing like the noise machine it has become. More like a media meow at best for 'The Americans' and mainly a media hiss.

And to say that fame is because of media uproar is tautological. That's pretty much what fame means since WWII- media figures.

And to say that the US was dour and dark in the '50s would strike many as a strange take on that era. Sure you had an underside bubbling along, but you also had Levitt Town and Oldsmobile and Groucho Marx and Eisenhower and strong unions. For whites, at least, the '50s was a decent time to be in the US, with a hopeful future.

The odds are that most any kind of image has been made at any point in photo history, limited by the existing tech- happy tintypes, dark albumen wet plate prints, etc. I'm pretty certain that with a little digging and editing there are many 'Robert Frank's of the '50s waiting to be found. Vivian Meyer is a good example of a different strand of photography at that time, and there are many more. Having been around 'art photography' since the '70's and taught at times, I an assure you that 'Frank' photos are being made daily around the world. How one person rises to 'represent ' is a complicated process. The critical dialogue around Frank has been going on since the book was published, and most of it has been far from any mdeia uproar.

Lots of people emigrated...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee

dour and dark...

Dan Daniel · Nov 8, 2014

Pioneer said:
I am certainly not a teacher and it is quite likely that you are right. But the "uproar" was adequate for the time to force him to go to France to get his work published.

Based on his success it would appear that mucking around in the mud and crud of a country's culture, taking really bad pictures of it, and then publishing the whole thing in a book, not only qualified him as an artist, but as a visionary trendsetter as well.

I have no doubt there are a lot of people trying to do this type of photography but I don't see them being hailed as a trend setter like Robert Frank was, or is.

And while I agree that Vivian Maier did some terrific street photography during this same general time period her perspective and her photographs were nothing like what I see in The Americans. She at least afforded a bit of dignity to the majority of her subjects, even though some were sleeping in the streets. As a rule this seems to be missing in most of Frank's work.

Just my opinion of course.

OK, maybe I am reaching here, but would it be fair to say that Frank's disrespect or lack of positive presentation of so many individuals is troubling to you? That this might be the core of your problem with this whole style of photography?

Just want to be fair before I reply to what I am hearing. If I am close, it's an important issue.

Pioneer · Nov 8, 2014

Dan Daniel said:
OK, maybe I am reaching here, but would it be fair to say that Frank's disrespect or lack of positive presentation of so many individuals is troubling to you? That this might be the core of your problem with this whole style of photography?

Just want to be fair before I reply to what I am hearing. If I am close, it's an important issue.

That is probably a large part of it. From my perspective he drives around looking for and photographing the worst he can find. He doesn't seem to respect what he sees and really is not all that interested in the people and situations he photographed. He just pointed the camera, pushed the shutter a few times, shrugged his shoulders and walked away. Suddenly he is the best thing since sliced bread. Nonsense. There were a lot of problems with America, and a lot of people were photographing them.

He is compared with Walker Evans and I don't see any similarity at all between the two. Walker photographed the humanity in people. There have been many photographers who have documented people under terrible conditions. Lewis Hine is another. What he photographed unwrapped a terrible period in the industrialization of America. But he did it with photographs that showed the humanity in those children. They weren't terrible, they were doing the best that they could. Robert Franks couldn't be bothered and he's the one that gets showered with critical acclaim.

Pfft

cliveh · Nov 8, 2014

Pioneer said:
That is probably a large part of it. From my perspective he drives around looking for and photographing the worst he can find. He doesn't seem to respect what he sees and really is not all that interested in the people and situations he photographed. He just pointed the camera, pushed the shutter a few times, shrugged his shoulders and walked away. Suddenly he is the best thing since sliced bread. Nonsense. There were a lot of problems with America, and a lot of people were photographing them.

He is compared with Walker Evans and I don't see any similarity at all between the two. Walker photographed the humanity in people. There have been many photographers who have documented people under terrible conditions. Lewis Hine is another. What he photographed unwrapped a terrible period in the industrialization of America. But he did it with photographs that showed the humanity in those children. They weren't terrible, they were doing the best that they could. Robert Franks couldn't be bothered and he's the one that gets showered with critical acclaim.

Pfft

But Robert Franks did have his own unique style with far more human grit than Evans.

canuhead · Nov 8, 2014

Frank photographed what he saw and he didn't burnish it. Simple as that. I don't believe he had an agenda or preconceived idea, he just drove across America with a camera. That there was an undercurrent of tension that he felt and saw shows in his work. It is what is it.

I'd suggest reading this piece as well for further insight into Frank and his background. Imo, the Chronicle Herald profile dances circles around the Guardian piece.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/herald...t-frank-shares-stories-of-light-loss-and-love

Richard Man · Nov 8, 2014

The Cantor Museum at Stanford is having a show of Frank's work during "The Americans" period. I was expecting it to be similar to the touring show a few years ago where the entirety of the prints from the book was presented but this is quite different. Not many of the prints from the book are in fact there, but many many prints from the same period are, probably the "rejects" from the trips?

In any case, one of the greatest achievement of The Americans were the pacing and presentation of the images, and it's coming out loud and clear that what a wonderful editing he had done in the book.

erikg · Nov 8, 2014

Pioneer said:
That is probably a large part of it. From my perspective he drives around looking for and photographing the worst he can find. He doesn't seem to respect what he sees and really is not all that interested in the people and situations he photographed. He just pointed the camera, pushed the shutter a few times, shrugged his shoulders and walked away. Suddenly he is the best thing since sliced bread. Nonsense. There were a lot of problems with America, and a lot of people were photographing them.

He is compared with Walker Evans and I don't see any similarity at all between the two. Walker photographed the humanity in people. There have been many photographers who have documented people under terrible conditions. Lewis Hine is another. What he photographed unwrapped a terrible period in the industrialization of America. But he did it with photographs that showed the humanity in those children. They weren't terrible, they were doing the best that they could. Robert Franks couldn't be bothered and he's the one that gets showered with critical acclaim.

Pfft

Here is a take on Frank and Evans by someone who knew both photographers personally.http://www.americansuburbx.com/2010/07/theory-walker-evans-and-robert-frank.html

hoffy · Nov 8, 2014

Thanks for posting this Eric. It has certainly piqued my interest and I am currently seeking out a copy of "The Americans" to see for myself

Cheers

analoguey · Nov 8, 2014

I read about Robert Frank and ' the Americans' on Eric Kim's blog - he referenced two other books there, and that longer read was fun -mainly for the excerpts.

Dan Daniel · Nov 9, 2014

Pioneer said:
That is probably a large part of it. From my perspective he drives around looking for and photographing the worst he can find. He doesn't seem to respect what he sees and really is not all that interested in the people and situations he photographed. He just pointed the camera, pushed the shutter a few times, shrugged his shoulders and walked away. Suddenly he is the best thing since sliced bread. Nonsense. There were a lot of problems with America, and a lot of people were photographing them.

He is compared with Walker Evans and I don't see any similarity at all between the two. Walker photographed the humanity in people. There have been many photographers who have documented people under terrible conditions. Lewis Hine is another. What he photographed unwrapped a terrible period in the industrialization of America. But he did it with photographs that showed the humanity in those children. They weren't terrible, they were doing the best that they could. Robert Franks couldn't be bothered and he's the one that gets showered with critical acclaim.

Pfft

Have you looked at Evan's 'Many Are Called' series? Or the square TLR shots he did in Chicago? His 1920s and '30s 35mm work? Evans was not always a nice man looking for the dignity of his fellow citizens. By the time he met Frank, he was in his old-boy sinecure at Fortune. While someone like Paul Strand saw 'under the surface' and left the country, Evans stayed in the heart of the beast making empty essays for Henry Luce and friends. He was not a man of real integrity and conviction; only dilettante 'integrity' as long as it was convenient is more like it.

Frank was, as he himself says, about himself. And this may be what you react against, his place as a demi-god for the 'me' generation. Personally I can find a lot in 'The Americans' as an exploration of aspects of America. And I can respect and admire Frank's editing and pacing and presentation. But I'd agree with you on the dignity issue. His detachment is much more clinical than many want to recognize. This is where people like Strand or Helen Levitt or even Arbus kick his butt- as human beings engaged in a respectful dialogue of sorts with the subjects. The limit and sadness of what you see in Frank's work is that it requires 'others' to exist. They need 'squares' and patriotic people and people who wait in lines politely to show how they are rebels and unique and creative. Being trapped in such a dialectic is not sustainable, and requires the status quo to be maintained rather than providing any real alternative.

coigach · Nov 10, 2014

canuhead said:
Frank photographed what he saw and he didn't burnish it. Simple as that. I don't believe he had an agenda or preconceived idea, he just drove across America with a camera. That there was an undercurrent of tension that he felt and saw shows in his work. It is what is it.

I'd suggest reading this piece as well for further insight into Frank and his background. Imo, the Chronicle Herald profile dances circles around the Guardian piece.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/herald...t-frank-shares-stories-of-light-loss-and-love

Don't think there's ever a possibility of any photographer just photographing "what he saw and he didn't burnish it". Everything is edited, from choice of when to shoot, when not to shoot, how to compose, what to leave in, what to leave out. Think this is as true of Frank as any other photographer.

IMO Frank's vision of America is powerful personal vision, and an object lesson on how to sequence images to create a strong narrative...

Robert Frank nailed it.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency