What is this picture about?! - Robert Frank - Paris

[chuckroast]

As I mentioned earlier, my suggestion would be to ask Ute Eskildsen. According to the Steidl website (the book's publisher), she selected the pictures from this book with Robert Frank.



No. If you were suicidal, you'd start a discussion on stand development.

In French.

développement semi-standard tout comme Atget

 

[Laurent]

In French, there is a distinction of [noun...advective] placement (a literal modifier) vs. [adjective...noun] placement (a figurative modifier), which conveys a subtlety...

1. 'Voiture nouveau' is a 'new car', while 'nouveau voiture' is interpreted as 'a (typically used) car which is newly owned by me'
2. 'neige blanche' is 'white snow', while 'blanche neige' is interpreted as 'snow white'

I'll put my two centimes as a French native speaker.

You're right but we would say "voiture neuve" (voiture is female, and neuve is the female form of "brand new") for a brand new car, and "nouvelle voiture" (voiture is female...) for a new (to me) car.

Like Photrio for these discussions.

And I'd really like to get the meaning of these signs...

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's like his famous photograph "Political Rally, Chicago," with the man's face obscured by the tuba: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/265025 Who was the rally for? If it wasn't for the small ribbon on the man's lapel, we wouldn't know. The rally's theme wasn't the theme of the photograph.

Except... a large percentage of the contemporaneous audience would have known exactly what the (very) major political event in Chicago in August 1956 was, and why Frank would want to photograph there.

 

[MattKing]

Like Photrio for these discussions.

And I'd really like to get the meaning of these signs...

Yep.
Not the photographic significance of the image.
What the ##@?" signs mean!

 

[pentaxuser]

Yep.
Not the photographic significance of the image.
What the ##@?" signs mean!

Other than the significance, should there be any, of the signs, what photographic significance might there be? It looks a pretty ordinary photo to me and my Philistíne's brain. In a book or gallery nothing about it seems in any way special from a photographic perspective

Of course it might be that I have misunderstood what is meant by "photographic significance"

pentaxuser

 

[logan2z]

As I mentioned earlier, my suggestion would be to ask Ute Eskildsen. According to the Steidl website (the book's publisher), she selected the pictures from this book with Robert Frank.

Great suggestion, definitely worth a try.

 

[Laurent]

Yep.
Not the photographic significance of the image.
What the ##@?" signs mean!

For me at least the image itself is not very powerful, I love Robert Frank's photographs but this one does not work too much for me.

 

[Daniela]

@Daniela, my suggestion would be to ask Ute Eskildsen. According to the Steidl website, she selected the pictures from this book with Robert Frank. You could send an email to Steidl explaining your enquiry and ask for a contact email.

Thanks, Alex. I'm looking at the contact info and I don't know who it'd be best to ask...any ideas?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Thanks, Alex. I'm looking at the contact info and I don't know who it'd be best to ask...any ideas?

I'd start by the general mail address, detail the question, and see if they can answer. I've tried finding another contact for Ute Eskildsen on the web and couldn't find any. Hence my idea to go through Steidl.

 

[MattKing]

For me at least the image itself is not very powerful, I love Robert Frank's photographs but this one does not work too much for me.

The intriguing question being: Is that because of the fact we can't figure out what the words reference?
As I sort of posted earlier, text in a photo demands different things from the viewer than graphic elements.

Other than the significance, should there be any, of the signs, what photographic significance might there be? It looks a pretty ordinary photo to me and my Philistíne's brain. In a book or gallery nothing about it seems in any way special from a photographic perspective

Of course it might be that I have misunderstood what is meant by "photographic significance"

pentaxuser

By "photographic significance", I am referring to any of the elements of a photograph that can have relevance to its effectiveness as a communicative entity: the subject presented, the tonal relationships, the graphic elements, the colour(s), the size and shape and framing of the presentation/print, the context of how, when and where we view it, plus many more I'm sure.

 

[pentaxuser]

The intriguing question being: Is that because of the fact we can't figure out what the words reference?
As I sort of posted earlier, text in a photo demands different things from the viewer than graphic elements.


By "photographic significance", I am referring to any of the elements of a photograph that can have relevance to its effectiveness as a communicative entity: the subject presented, the tonal relationships, the graphic elements, the colour(s), the size and shape and framing of the presentation/print, the context of how, when and where we view it, plus many more I'm sure.

Thanks for the reply. It confirms my Philistinism for me My first and only reaction to most if not all photographs is: What is it all about and if I'm not prompted to ask that question it hasn't made any impact so I go no further

Only then the next stage may be to examine what it might be there to emphasise or detract from that ímpact d such as tones colours etc but often the impact or the question "what is it about" is all I am interested in

PS If you see that guy, David and he has a sling let me know. I am trying to avoid him. He may be a little lighter but in a fight that one stone might be fatal

pentaxuser

 

[snusmumriken]

I've tried searching for information since there are no captions in the book. Went through a lot of his work and nada.
Any info? It's driving me crazy

View attachment 380218

I've read through this thread, and now the puzzle is driving me crazy too. So thanks for that, Daniela! For pity's sake please tell us if you find out.

 

[snusmumriken]

Has anyone noticed that the placard holders are not actually marching, they are stood still? The most distant one has his placard on a sort of ladder affair. And they are all quite shabbily dressed, and dressed for a cold shift even though it's Spring (I think) - so I'm wondering whether they were all hired billboard guys.

 

[Daniela]

I've read through this thread, and now the puzzle is driving me crazy too. So thanks for that, Daniela! For pity's sake please tell us if you find out.

You're welcome! I e-mailed Steidl but have not heard back...yet!

 

[chuckroast]

I passed along the image to a friend who grew up in post-war Paris. His observations:

• The place may not be Paris. It does have a Parisian Grands Boulevards flair, but, contrary to what the lack of vehicles and the presence of chairs along the tree line would let you think, they are not pedestrian venues.
• The time is before or after WWII, by looking at the dress code.
• The men holding the posters are few and stationary since the posters are resting on the ground, ruling out some kind of meandering event. Therefore, it could relate to something going on in the adjacent store/building.
• A question mark (pun intended) is the upside-down question mark on the posters, which gives a Spanish flavor. The berets worn by the poster holders points to Bilbao in the Basque region. France does not have the monopoly on berets.

There has been a 1931 French movie called “Blanc comme neige” known as “Rato de hotel” in Spain. So, it may be some advertising a French movie in front of a Spanish cinema. If we nevertheless stick to Paris as the locale, there was another “Blanc comme neige” French movie in 1948 that was quite popular, featuring Bourvil, which has had quite a success.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I passed along the image to a friend who grew up in post-war Paris. His observations:

• The place may not be Paris. It does have a Parisian Grands Boulevards flair, but, contrary to what the lack of vehicles and the presence of chairs along the tree line would let you think, they are not pedestrian venues.
• The time is before or after WWII, by looking at the dress code.
• The men holding the posters are few and stationary since the posters are resting on the ground, ruling out some kind of meandering event. Therefore, it could relate to something going on in the adjacent store/building.
• A question mark (pun intended) is the upside-down question mark on the posters, which gives a Spanish flavor. The berets worn by the poster holders points to Bilbao in the Basque region. France does not have the monopoly on berets.

There has been a 1931 French movie called “Blanc comme neige” known as “Rato de hotel” in Spain. So, it may be some advertising a French movie in front of a Spanish cinema. If we nevertheless stick to Paris as the locale, there was another “Blanc comme neige” French movie in 1948 that was quite popular, featuring Bourvil, which has had quite a success.

We know very little about these photos. About the only thing we do know, however, is that they were taken in Paris between 1949 and 1952.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Shouldn't focus on the béret as clue. I counted at least twelve other photos in the book in which the béret was worn by a man. In only two or three do you see a man wearing a hat. Clearly, the béret was the popular head-wear in these post-war years.

For the record, the béret is not from the Basque region but originally from the Béarn region, right next door, and became popular throughout France from the late-19th Century on. What is called the béret basque is a particular style of béret. There are many types of bérets, all worn differently:

Jaques Prévert wearing a béret-casquette

Brigitte Bardot:

Philosopher François Hertel:

Writer Blaise Cendrars: