A picture that has always bothered me [Archive]

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 07:24

OK, let me start off by saying that Elliot Erwitt is one of my favorite photographers, and I love the big "Snaps" book, which I look at all the time for inspiration. But there is one photo in that book that has always bugged me, and it is a good example of something about Erwitt that has always bugged me, and bugged me about other photographers as well. here's the pic, you've probably seen it before.

http://static.flickr.com/22/31473739_14eaf978bd.jpg

Now, if I had seen this moment, I have to admit, I would have snapped it too. But here's what bothers me. First, what the photo seems to be saying to us is, basically, "Men like women, women like clothes." Not to make too big a deal of this, but does an artist of Erwitt stature really have to recycle such a sentimental bit of status quo? By and large, I don't like any of Erwitt's men-and-women pictures, especially the ones of children made to look like adults (the dance contest winners one, for instance); these pictures seem embarrasingly mawkish, especially from a guy who has given us such arresting takes on race and class.

OK, that's not the main thing though. The main thing is that this picture, broadly put, is a lie. At the moment he took it, the men were indeed looking at the nude, and the woman was indeed looking at the clothed model. But, doubtless, the men were in front of the other picture mere moments before, or after. I don't argue that the nude wouldn't have particular titillating interest for those who like looking at naked women--god knows I'd linger a bit longer in front of that one myself. But the photo attempts to posit an amusing universal truth that is not, in fact, true. And I doubt seriously that, given the wide accessibility of images of naked women, those guys would be terribly turned on by the painting. Everyone in a museum is generally there to look at art.

Here's a short piece I found online about a book Erwitt put out in 1999:

When talking about a small note at the front of the book stating that none of the photographs had been electronically altered, a hint of steel enters his gentle voice: "I put that in all my books. I'm almost violent about that stuff -- electronic manipulation of pictures. I think it's an abomination. I reject it all. I mean, it's OK for selling corn flakes or automobiles or for taking pimples out of Elizabeth Taylor's face, but it undermines the thing that photography is about, which is about observation and not about manipulation of images."
The picture above is absolutely a manipulation, every bit as much as it would be if he'd photoshopped in a few extra dudes. I think it's odd that Erwitt could be so aggressively against digital manipulation when every photo is in fact manipulated in the framing--and here, I feel as though he has manipulated a scene in order to advance a false thesis.

My $.02. Pile on.

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 07:32

No, I'm not kidding. I suspect those people were moving through the galleries, looking at all the paintings, like most people do.

ampastoral

07-22-2008, 07:33

perhaps he took the shot because it is such an amusing instance of the "status quo." he knows the scene is so over the top that it looks staged. if i saw that, i'd never get the camera to my eye because i'd be laughing so hard and looking for everyone else with my vantage point to be doing the same. it's funny when people act the way we "expect" them to.

well, that, or maybe it's just about the male character closest to the camera...if i didn't see jeans sticking out of the bottome of that trench coat, i'd swear he was probably nude under there ;)

WoolenMammoth

07-22-2008, 07:35

why think so hard about it? Its a photograph, not the architecture for a revolution. Cant it be enough that it just looks cool? Thats about as far as it goes for me. Frankly, Id be pretty bummed if someone twisted one of my photographs into some moral ethical debate, thats not why I take photographs...

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 07:36

OK, here's another example of a manipulative photo. I have to confess, though, I love this picture.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2221/1527845252_1ed74a1614_o.jpg

If anyone here went to the big Arbus retrospective a few years back, you'll remember that the contact sheet with this picture on it was on display. And in every other shot on the contact sheet, this kid looks like a normal, healthy, cute kid just fooling around in the park. Only here does he look like a budding violent lunatic with a muscular disorder.

I think the reason I like it, though, is its intent--I feel that Arbus loved the fleeting moments of madness in everyone, the ways in which all ordinary people are weird, and that's a philosophy I hold dear. Whereas with the Erwitt, what's being communicated is a cliche.

Encinalense

07-22-2008, 07:38

I'm with you. But I'm not sure whether you're more bothered by the thesis itself -- which I agree (unless maybe there's more to Erwitt's argument, here) is little more than a sentimental gag -- or by Erwitt's failure to recognize the inconsistencies at play . . .

I enjoy the photo, however, at the level you're addressing it -- that is the image is suggestive of rich layers of creators and spectators and subjects and objects, not the least of which are the two implied creators -- Goya and Erwitt, each of whom is 'manipulating' material. At each stage -- including the stages of creation and viewing -- are implicit and explicit acts of creativity and interpretation. That is, every act of creation is also an act of interpretation, every act of interpretation an act of creation, no? Perhaps Erwitt is trying to get at that idea?

Or perhaps I shouldn't log on to RFF while I'm at work!

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 07:39

why think so hard about it? Its a photograph, not the architecture for a revolution.

Because I care about art, music, and literature with an insane passion, that's why. I think existence is brief and cruel, and I don't believe in a god or an afterlife, and think that art is the thing that makes life worth living.

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 07:41

sweathog

07-22-2008, 07:45

So what if the image is manipulated? So what?
It makes us chuckle, and it does show one of the big differences between the sexes.
If Erwitt said "This is fact" then maybe we would have an issue. He didn't though, as do very few 'togs.
Erwitt is the master of the unimportant moment. That is how I described him once. His subject matter is inane, tongue-in-cheek, and doesn't purport to be anything else.

Ok, I should maybe clarify something before I get flamed. Erwitt is also a serious photographer, his subject matter very serious in some cases. However, this does not mean that that applies to all of his work. Even some of his more serious work, such as that photograph of Nixon and Kruschev is delightfully tongue-in-cheek.
So why get up in arms about one photograph? No photography, documentary or not, is completely honest.
It has been edited down to that selection, meaning that somebody somewhere has said that that photograph tells the message the strongest.
No photography is objective. Never.

icebear

07-22-2008, 07:50

Quote: [The main thing is that this picture, broadly put, is a lie.]

A photo is a photo, a frozen moment in time, nothing more, nothing less. All the stuff you're talking about is entirely your interpretation of what happend before (or after) the moment he pressed the shutter. Of course you might be spot on with your assumptions - but so what ???

Selecting a certain moment in time to press the shutter and selecting a frame thereby including/excluding certain things to be or not to be in the picture is certain kind of censorship by the photographer - but it definately is not a lie.

A photo is something that usually gives a message but it's not a written statement and it is subject to broad interpretation - therefore there can't be any absolute truth and one single correct interpretation. Consequently there can be no lie in a photo - unless it has been purposefully tampered with.
Just my $0.02 ;)

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 07:51

So what if the image is manipulated? So what?
It makes us chuckle, and it does show one of the big differences between the sexes.

I think the last thing planet earth needs is to have somebody pointing out, once again, the difference between the sexes.

And yeah, Erwitt is witty and wry, that's his schtick--but when he's great, he's showing us things about human nature that are NOT OBVIOUS--he's enlightening us, making us look at people in a new way. Here, we're just being shown something that every ****ty advertising photo ever taken has striven to show us.

My personal philosophy is that, although you can generalize somewhat about the differences between men and women, these differences are meaningless in the face of the vast gulf between individuals.

oscroft

07-22-2008, 07:52

So are you saying that artists should only ever portray objective truth?

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 07:55

So are you saying that artists should only ever portray objective truth?

Of course not; that's impossible. There are only degrees of manipulation and nuance, and I just think this one is over the top.

Nh3

07-22-2008, 08:01

I think you're more annoyed with the gimmicky and sentimental voyeurism of post-HCB photographers than the photos themselves.

I hate to drag HCB into this but he pioneered a sort of feel-good, witty and well-composed style with no substance which has became a standard and it is still today. For example his picture of a starving child in the arms of his mother (in india) juxtaposed with a wheel and mother cropped out to get the composition right is the height of egoistical photography.

Erwitt belongs to the same tradition and although I find some of his dog photos amusing his huge ego always gets in the way of his pictures.

Encinalense

07-22-2008, 08:03

It makes us chuckle, and it does show one of the big differences between the sexes.

At best -- at best! -- its apparent argument shows us something about our response to simplistic assumptions about such differences. If it elicits chuckling, for example . . . :)

WoolenMammoth

07-22-2008, 08:08

Because I care about art, music, and literature with an insane passion, that's why. I think existence is brief and cruel, and I don't believe in a god or an afterlife, and think that art is the thing that makes life worth living.

what on earth does this do with you attaching your own personal baggage to a work of art that the artist never intended you to attach to it and THEN drawing some kind of judgement on the work based upon the baggage you've attached to it which has NOTHING to do with the work of art?

Sitting through art crit in college was as annoying then as this is now. If someone ever did this to one of my photos, or any of the things I create, Id be real bummed. Its completely and totally missing the point...

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 08:09

I think you're more annoyed with the gimmicky and sentimental voyeurism of post-HCB photographers than the photos themselves.

Yeah, maybe. I like those photographers more than you do, I think, but this is not a thread of the history of photography that I love.

I should add that I don't inherently dislike manipulation. What I dislike is the apparent desire to conceal its existence. I DO quite like the painterly, heavily "produced" and altered photographs of Jeff Wall and Gregory Crewdson. They are all artifice, and are open about that fact. They're rather far in method and intent, however, from most of the RF heroes.

furcafe

07-22-2008, 08:09

Exactly, & that's why I would also disagree w/mabelsound's characterization of the photo as "manipulated" in the same way as 1 where extra people have been photoshopped in.

Quote: [The main thing is that this picture, broadly put, is a lie.]

A photo is a photo, a frozen moment in time, nothing more, nothing less. All the stuff you're talking about is entirely your interpretation of what happend before (or after) the moment he pressed the shutter. Of course you might be spot on with your assumptions - but so what ???

Selecting a certain moment in time to press the shutter and selecting a frame thereby including/excluding certain things to be or not to be in the picture is certain kind of censorship by the photographer - but it definately is not a lie.

A photo is something that usually gives a message but it's not a written statement and it is subject to broad interpretation - therefore there can't be any absolute truth and one single correct interpretation. Consequently there can be no lie in a photo - unless it has been purposefully tampered with.
Just my $0.02 ;)

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 08:11

what on earth does this do with you attaching your own personal baggage to a work of art that the artist never intended you to attach to it and THEN drawing some kind of judgement on the work based upon the baggage you've attached to it which has NOTHING to do with the work of art?

Sitting through art crit in college was as annoying then as this is now. If someone ever did this to one of my photos, or any of the things I create, Id be real bummed. Its completely and totally missing the point...

Personal baggage? I'm arguing passionately because I care passionately about art. I certainly don't mind your disagreeing with my argument, but I don't understand why you're arguing against the intense discussion of a photograph. I mean, I care about it because I care about things, you know? I think art is important--to me, to human beings, to the meaning of life.

peterc

07-22-2008, 08:12

Sometimes a photograph is just a photograph.

furcafe

07-22-2008, 08:13

Pray tell, who are the photographers w/"substance?"

I think you're more annoyed with the gimmicky and sentimental voyeurism of post-HCB photographers than the photos themselves.

I hate to drag HCB into this but he pioneered a sort of feel-good, witty and well-composed style with no substance which has became a standard and it is still today. For example his picture of a starving child in the arms of his mother (in india) juxtaposed with a wheel and mother cropped out to get the composition right is the height of egoistical photography.

Erwitt belongs to the same tradition and although I find some of his dog photos amusing his huge ego always gets in the way of his pictures.

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 08:13

Sometimes a photograph is just a photograph.

I couldn't disagree more. ;-)

Nh3

07-22-2008, 08:14

Pray tell, who are the photographers w/"substance?"

Robert Frank
Walker Evans
Don McCullin

I could go on...

drewbarb

07-22-2008, 08:17

Well, don't forget that Erwitt is a big fan of the "Amusing Juxtaposition" school of photography, and this image is a perfect example of this. I don't think it's fair or reasonable to attach the idea that "men like women, women like clothes" to this image. Men like women, and Erwitt is making a wry comment on this, but I think his (comic, editorial) implication here is that the men are looking at a naked woman, while the woman is looking at Art. Clothes don't enter into it, except insofar as they are absent on the subject of the painting surrounded by the group of men.

Of course it's possible that this group was previously looking at the painting on the left, and Erwitt waited to shoot until they moved on to the next piece- it's impossible to know, and not worth our time to speculate on the myriad "could have been" scenarios. What we see is what Erwitt chose to photograph and present to us. I think Encinalense's statements about creation, interpretation, and the manipulation inherent in these acts are worth remembering when viewing work like this. I would also suggest that it's easy to see our own prejudices and preconceptions in the works of others- it's more difficult to try to step away from them, and see just what the author sees. I think your analysis of the Arbus photograph achieves this pretty clearly- but it looks to me like you've put more of yourself into Erwitts shoes when looking at his image.

Erwitt is as much a comedian who enjoys pointing out the absurdities of life as he is a serious, straight documentarian. I think he would be delighted to read this discussion; I bet he'd be thrilled to know this image stimulated so much angst, and I suspect he'd laugh his ass off at anyone attaching much serious social commentary to it.

ferider

07-22-2008, 08:20

My personal philosophy is that, although you can generalize somewhat about the differences between men and women, these differences are meaningless in the face of the vast gulf between individuals.

Who cares about the vast gulf between other individuals when the differences between men and women are most that matters ? Not necessarily what I believe, but there is a huge body of classical and modern art based on this assumption.

At least Erwitt has pointed out a gulf between him and you as individuals ;)

Assume the photo was staged. Still a good photo, IMO, fun to see.

Cheers,

Roland.

Nh3

07-22-2008, 08:20

Just to prove my point that Erwitt has a gigantic ego, watch this interview with him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh5p5Sx5qZg

furcafe

07-22-2008, 08:24

How does Erwitt conceal the "manipulation" you speak of? The quote you use has to do w/his opposition to the electronic alteration of individual images, not the commonplace "manipulation" of framing, cropping, & editing. Who is being deceived or harmed by the "lie" that is inherent in every photograph?

I think your criticism would be better directed @ what you deem to be the "sentimental status quo" rather than a funny little moment caught by Erwitt's camera. Personally, I'm glad that not every one of his photos is an "arresting take on race & class" (how Marxist).

I should add that I don't inherently dislike manipulation. What I dislike is the apparent desire to conceal its existence.

dcsang

07-22-2008, 08:26

Don't know about manipulation; but I do agree that it exists in some form or another at times when we're out taking (or making) photographs. I know that you really didn't want to concentrate on the following item but it jumped out at me when I read your post.

First, what the photo seems to be saying to us is, basically, "Men like women, women like clothes." Not to make too big a deal of this, but does an artist of Erwitt stature really have to recycle such a sentimental bit of status quo?
This made me recall a couple lines from two different songs. U2's "The Fly" Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief
All kill their inspiration and sing about their grief and then The Barenaked Ladies' "It's All Been Done"And if I put my fingers here, and if I say
"I love you, dear"
And if I play the same three chords,
Will you just yawn and say

It's all been done
It's all been done
It's all been done before
I don't think there is a truly original photographer, artist, poet, etc. left in this world. We're now well into the era where we're recycling things that have occurred and have been created in the past. Anything that suddenly is considered original can usually be traced back to some other form of art, once created, by some other artist; known and/or unknown.

Just how I see it - no one else has to buy into that theorem :D
Every new beginning comes from some other beginnings end

Dave

pesphoto

07-22-2008, 08:26

Can someone embed the image or post it as a thumbnail? Wherever it is linked from it wont show up for me where I am right now.

furcafe

07-22-2008, 08:27

All great photographers, but I fail to see how their work is inherently more substantive. More serious &, in the case of Frank & Evans, didactic, yes.

Robert Frank
Walker Evans
Don McCullin

I could go on...

furcafe

07-22-2008, 08:30

Yes, he has a huge ego . . . just like about every other famous photographer who ever lived.

Just to prove my point that Erwitt has a gigantic ego, watch this interview with him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh5p5Sx5qZg

Nh3

07-22-2008, 08:32

All great photographers, but I fail to see how their work is inherently more substantive. More serious &, in the case of Frank & Evans, didactic, yes.

They cared about the human condition "as-it-is" and did not try to make pretty photographs of it and hide the suffering, misery and barbarism.

pesphoto

07-22-2008, 08:34

They cared about the human condition "as-it-is" and did not try to make pretty photographs of it and hide the suffering, misery and barbarism.

There is a place for both, dont you think? A little humor is a good thing?

BTW...would you classify this photo by Erwitt showing us the human condition?
http://static.wallpaper.com/croppedimages/testuser5_may2007_magnum_am240507_1_WPaG9r_3dai5h. jpg

Encinalense

07-22-2008, 08:38

WoolenMammoth's reference to his art criticism class, however painful, should remind us again to consider the Goya -- the clothed Maja as an ironic (most likely) response to the shock at his life-sized contemporary nude. He was pressed to paint clothes onto the original -- or to manipulate that original image; instead, he created a new painting of the clothed Maja. In doing so, Goya perhaps meant to suggest something about the misguided or foolish propriety of his contemporaries. Or not. It's hard to know his point, exactly. But I agree with mabelsound that it's important to cultural and civic existence to engage in a discussion with other people about it.

The Erwitt photograph -- more than being a simple gag -- contains this whole history. It contains the ambiguity about Goya's response as well as the weird art-historical/museum convention of hanging or displaying the paintings side-by-side (and in order of a perceived narrative -- a narrative that says a lot about the inherent perspective: she's dressed, then she's not -- not in order of chronology!). Beyond restating an unfunny (and not necessarily accurate) cliche about the way men and women see the world differently, the photograph also points all the way back: were Goya's contemporaries onto something in their objection? Could they have been right? That the full-size non-allegorical representation of a naked woman might be a distraction? I'm not sure that's Erwitt's subtler argument, but I like thinking it might be.

All of this with apologies to WoolenMammoth, of course!

Nh3

07-22-2008, 08:39

There is a place for both, dont you think? A little humor is a good thing?

Surly, but there are far more effective mediums for humor than photographs. And also funny and humorous photos get boring by the second or third viewing.

Nh3

07-22-2008, 08:43

There is a place for both, dont you think? A little humor is a good thing?

BTW...would you classify this photo by Erwitt showing us the human condition?
http://static.wallpaper.com/croppedimages/testuser5_may2007_magnum_am240507_1_WPaG9r_3dai5h. jpg

That's a great photo but he did not need a lot of imagination or hard work to capture it.

Check out picture of the trolley in New Orleans by Robert Frank and you'll know what I'm getting at. http://updatecenter.britannica.com/eb/image?binaryId=69990&rendTypeId=4

pesphoto

07-22-2008, 08:49

That's a great photo but he did not need a lot of imagination or hard work to capture it.

Check out picture of the trolley in New Orleans by Robert Frank and you'll know what I'm getting at. http://updatecenter.britannica.com/eb/image?binaryId=69990&rendTypeId=4

A great image by Frank...but none of us really know how difficult it was for him to get that or how difficult it was for Erwitt to make his. Is it a poignant photo or not? Maybe Frank was standing on a street corner and this bus happened by and he turned and took a quick photo.

drewbarb

07-22-2008, 08:49

oftheherd

07-22-2008, 08:51

Well, don't forget that Erwitt is a big fan of the "Amusing Juxtaposition" school of photography, and this image is a prefect example of this.
...

Erwitt is as much a comedian who enjoys pointing out the absurdities of life as he is a serious, straight documentarian. I think he would be delighted to read this discussion; I bet he'd be thrilled to know this image stimulated so much angst, and I suspect he'd laugh his ass off at anyone attaching much serious social commentary to it.

The first statement above seems to sum it all up to me. If you don't like amusing juxtaposition, you won't like Erwitt's juxtapositions.

As to how he would react, I have no idea, but I like your supposition.

But somehow, this whole thread seems to me to be much ado about nothing. But to each his own.

oscroft

07-22-2008, 08:54

Of course not; that's impossible. There are only degrees of manipulation and nuance, and I just think this one is over the top
I really don't see how photographing what was actually in front of him could be considered manipulation, unless you are expecting him to only portray objective truth - which you say you aren't. (And if you don't expect him to portray objective truth, then why shouldn't he capture an amusing fleeting moment?)

WoolenMammoth

07-22-2008, 09:19

I dont know how many of you guys have spent long periods of time around established artists, but one of the common threads I can connect between every single successful artist is the constant railing on fans and/or critics who have approached them with the "I loved what you were trying to say when you did" or "When you put the meaning of X in Y" etc. The exact content of this thread is what is used for amusement over drinks. After being exposed to such similar reactions with artists working in at least four different mediums, I completely abondoned trying to "figure out" what artists are "trying to say" because its all nonsense, all you are doing is prescribing your own baggage to the work and viewing it through that filter instead of just appreciating it for what it is. What some artist was "trying to say" with their output is really none of my business. My impression of things is generally far cooler, I think if you guys hung out with your heroes and got the honest back story to your favorite works you'd be really disappointed. The fantasy I had about this or that was usually far more interesting than the real story when I finally heard it from the horses mouth.

Usually these types of discussions amount to two people arguing over what temperature the water was when what the artist was thinking about was a brick. yeah. So you spend all this time debating water and you never see the brick. And thats art criticism. wonderful.

lewis44

07-22-2008, 09:19

A photo is a photo, a frozen moment in time, nothing more, nothing less. All the stuff you're talking about is entirely your interpretation of what happened before (or after) the moment he pressed the shutter.

I agree with the above statement. Some people love a movie and some hate it, same goes with photographs or any other form of expression.
Lighten up.
Men and women are different and I like the difference.

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 09:23

BTW...would you classify this photo by Erwitt showing us the human condition?
http://static.wallpaper.com/croppedimages/testuser5_may2007_magnum_am240507_1_WPaG9r_3dai5h. jpg

Yes, I would! That's a really striking picture. It captures the mood of an era, and records one man's workaday humiliation. It's well composed, too, in my view--so it's both rigorous and moving, to me. It's true that other people captured similar images, so it isn't so "original," but I'm more concerned with emotional impact than originality.

I really don't see how photographing what was actually in front of him could be considered manipulation, unless you are expecting him to only portray objective truth - which you say you aren't. (And if you don't expect him to portray objective truth, then why shouldn't he capture an amusing fleeting moment?)

He should, and did. He can do whatever the hell he wants! I just don't like it.

It's manipulated in that he chose THAT MOMENT instead of one that might have characterized the scene in, perhaps, a more truthful way. Honestly, I don't know if he sat waiting for that pic to materialize, or if it was a chance capture, or whatever. I just think it's shallow, compared to his better stuff, and I thought it was worth discussing why I think so. But as for manipulation...if you see something that is not quite what you want...and then you wait for it to become what you want...then that isn't hugely different from turning it into what you want in post.

But again, I'm not suggesting Erwitt shouldn't take pictures like that, or even get what he wants however he wants to get it (after all, I'm perfectly willing to let Arbus, Wall, and Crewdson do that). I just thought it would be useful and interesting to discuss what makes a good picture, using that one as a springboard, since it's a picture that, as somebody pointed out on page 2, strikes me in a very personal way.

Also--and this isn't directed at you necessarily, oscroft--I'm kind of surprised that some of you are complaining that I'm making a big deal out of nothing. I mean, if you like art, it seems to me that the best way to express it, other than to make some art of your own, is to discuss and debate its merits. That's how you learn to appreciate it better, and to expose yourself to alternate viewpoints. Right?

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 09:27

I completely abondoned trying to "figure out" what artists are "trying to say" because its all nonsense, all you are doing is prescribing your own baggage to the work and viewing it through that filter instead of just appreciating it for what it is.

WM, there is no right way to look at a piece of art. The reason you figure things out is for yourself--to understand and deepen what it means to you. You keep referring to "baggage." But baggage is something that holds you back, something that weighs you down. I'm talking about bringing a life philosophy to my analysis of art--this is an approach that broadens my understanding both of art works, and of my life. And by listening to other people's philosophies (as in the title of this forum), I can expand my understanding of the world further still. So that life will be more interesting to me. So that I'll be happier.

Nothing is "what it is." It's ALL in the eye of the beholder. That's why it's fun to talk about it.

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 09:29

pesphoto

07-22-2008, 09:29

Seems to me like some people spend too much time looking at others work instead of getting on with their own.

...so what are YOU doing on a forum? Shouldnt you be out shooting?

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 09:36

...so what are YOU doing on a forum? Shouldnt you be out shooting?

I had been, and got my sorry behind rained on. So I thought I'd create a tempest in a teapot instead.... :D

lewis44

07-22-2008, 09:42

It's manipulated in that he chose THAT MOMENT instead of one that might have characterized the scene in, perhaps, a more truthful way.

Or in a way that YOU approve of.

The problem: You were not there, so you don't know if it stayed the same way for 1 second or 5 minutes.

You are seeing what you want and commenting on what you think, which is fine, but you inject your interpretations as "fact" without any knowledge of the actual circumstances at the time the shot was taken.

As I read your comments, you talk as if you were there and observed it first hand. If that's the case, I stand corrected.

anselwannab

07-22-2008, 09:49

Guy in the trenchcoat cracks me up, the sneakers just add to it. That is a one in a billion shot, to get that clear shot of the nude thru the group of men.

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 09:56

Or in a way that YOU approve of.

The problem: You were not there, so you don't know if it stayed the same way for 1 second or 5 minutes.

You are seeing what you want and commenting on what you think, which is fine, but you inject your interpretations as "fact" without any knowledge of the actual circumstances at the time the shot was taken.

As I read your comments, you talk as if you were there and observed it first hand. If that's the case, I stand corrected.

Like I've said over and over, I fully admit that I don't know how it was shot, and I never said anything about "fact." I absolutely have not been writing as though I was there--in fact, I've repeatedly admitted that I have no idea how it was done. I'm not talking about that. When I say "truth" I am talking about the spirit of the scene--whether here Erwitt has captured it. I don't think he has captured what's interesting about the way people are looking at those paintings, and what they might be thinking about them. Rather, I think he's chosen a possibly non-representative moment in order to make a clever, but ultimately empty, visual joke.

Honestly, I expect and welcome disagreement, that's why I posted this. But you're accusing me of saying stuff I didn't. Let me make this clear--to me, this picture is suffused with the probability that it is not a moment representative of the scene. Even if he didn't wait for it, though, the picture just isn't to my taste. I definitely admire Erwitt's eye--he saw this moment and grabbed it, and more power to him. But I think he's floating here in the sentimental end of the pool.

kbg32

07-22-2008, 09:58

Erwitt's image proves that ALL photographs lie in one way or another. Photographs can never be fact. Once a person puts a camera to their eye and trips the shutter, it is their vision that we are seeing. All that is true is the photographer's intended interpretation of what he/she saw.

rolly

07-22-2008, 10:02

This is an interesting thread, so thanks for being provocative, Mabelsound. Speaking of writers, I remember hearing E.L. Doctorow (Ragtime, Billy Bathgate and so on) reflect on knowing enough and knowing too much-- someone asked him how much research he did about characters and he replied that it was important to him NOT to know everything about a character. There had to be something he didn't or perhaps could not know. A balance of the useful and practical with the mysteriousness of experience, my own and the experience of others.

Tuolumne

07-22-2008, 10:02

I like it. It's funny. Never seen it before. You may disagree with what it says - that doesn't make it a lie. And how come no one has mentioned the guy in the back of the group with the dark rain coat doing...er...what exactly? Now there's a man who really enjoys his art! Lighten up. :D

/T

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 10:08

Lighten up.

Lighten up. :D

Never!!! ;-)

And rolly, I never heard that Doctorow quote. I like it--it makes sense to me. Art should have something ineffable about it, even to the artist.

Another thing I like to tell students is, if you set out to write something, and you know exactly how you're gonna do it, then do something else.

OurManInTangier

07-22-2008, 10:14

I've followed this thread with bemusement and amusement at different times. Essentially I agree with Mabelsound about the interpretation of 'Art.' We do, subconciously, and should, conciously, look at 'Art' with our own eyes, experience and processes to see its meaning to and for us, the viewer.

I have also been quite surprised by some of the comments that have transpired from this discussion around the idea that frivolity, absurdity, inanity and to use a nice English word, silliness have no place in photography, possibly even 'Art.' Surely life and the oft discussed 'Human Condition' include all of these as a part of a greater whole. Whilst the work compiled over the years by the likes of Don McCullin, plus others mentioned, is essential for us to learn, to try and adjust or to simply understand the darker, more unjust nature of Life, there must also be a place for that which expresses, demonstrates, celebrates and delights in the absurdities of the lives we create within the world that we have created.

I fully understand that this can and will be seen as trivial fluff by many, but the world is full of trivial fluff into which some people like to dive headlong into, simply as it is, as all things fluffy, comforting and pleasant. I have met many people suffering pretty horrendously with one thing or another, often it is the silliness of Life that has kept them going.

Simply my opinion from my experiences.

NOTE: I should point out that I enjoy taking silly, and often pointless, photographs of little things that make me smile. It helps to improve my life and, I believe the medical fraternity are on the verge of proving, is excellent for your heart.

:)

Encinalense

07-22-2008, 10:14

My day job is as a writer, BTW, and I recently told some writing students, on the subject of analyzing literature, "If you want the wrong answer, ask the author." I believe that very passionately. Art is made for personal reasons, and it's received the same way--different interpretations are inherent to artistic endeavor, and what make it so endlessly fascinating.

Oh, boy. WM would have waaay too much fun if I divulged my day job. It's probably enough to say: I hang out with artists, too. He's partly right, when we're talking about certain established critics, or schools of criticism, or the kind of critical activity generally whose relationship to the artist is like that of the remora to the shark (then again, perhaps that's unfair to the humble remora, who's just trying to get by). But when it's just us losers, where's the harm?

(Speaking of being a loser: I'm stuck in an office all day, today, YrDdraigGoch; but I did sneak out for a while to shoot a first roll on a newly-acquired Ikonta 523/B)

Matt White

07-22-2008, 10:14

They cared about the human condition "as-it-is" and did not try to make pretty photographs of it and hide the suffering, misery and barbarism.

Do you honestly believe that the 'human condition "as-it-is"' consists solely of " suffering, misery and barbarism"? Blimey, I thought this kind of po-faced, undergraduate marxism had died out sometime in the 1980s.

IMHO, one of the fantastic things about the 'human condition "as-it-is"' is the way that wit, beauty, love and many, many other pleasures persist and thrive. Protraying them is not some kind of shallow bourgeois deceit. It's essential to any rounded, honest picture of the "human condition".

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 10:19

I should add, I like silly things too. Though my sense of humor is more along the lines of social awkwardness and absurdity--I do indeed like Monty Python, and regard the LOLcat has a pop phenomenon of the first order. In fact, I have even made some LOLchickens. Here's some art for ya:

http://inverseroom.creotia.com/pictures/dontunderstand.jpg

pesphoto

07-22-2008, 10:21

Come on fess up Mabelsound the real reason you have an issue with this image is you just dont like having to stare at naked man butts.:D

Tuolumne

07-22-2008, 10:23

I think Wittgenstein gets the final word here:

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
1 (http://www.kfs.org/%7Ejonathan/witt/t1en.html) The world is everything that is the case. * (http://www.kfs.org/%7Ejonathan/witt/f1en.html)
2 (http://www.kfs.org/%7Ejonathan/witt/t2en.html) What is the case, the fact, is the existence of atomic facts.
3 (http://www.kfs.org/%7Ejonathan/witt/t3en.html) The logical picture of the facts is the thought.
4 (http://www.kfs.org/%7Ejonathan/witt/t4en.html) The thought is the significant proposition.
5 (http://www.kfs.org/%7Ejonathan/witt/t5en.html) Propositions are truth-functions of elementary propositions. (An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself.)
6 (http://www.kfs.org/%7Ejonathan/witt/t6en.html) The general form of truth-function is: [http://www.kfs.org/%7Ejonathan/witt/lcpbar.gif, http://www.kfs.org/%7Ejonathan/witt/lcxibar.gif, N(http://www.kfs.org/%7Ejonathan/witt/lcxibar.gif)]. This is the general form of proposition.
7 (http://www.kfs.org/%7Ejonathan/witt/t7en.html) Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

OurManInTangier

07-22-2008, 10:25

...social awkwardness and absurdity...

You'd love me. Absurd and socially awkward! Or maybe just an awkard prat?

drewbarb

07-22-2008, 10:35

When I say "truth" I am talking about the spirit of the scene--whether here Erwitt has captured it. I don't think he has captured what's interesting about the way people are looking at those paintings, and what they might be thinking about them. Rather, I think he's chosen a possibly non-representative moment in order to make a clever, but ultimately empty, visual joke.

Well, this statement is really the beginning and the end of your opinion, isn't it? Nothing wrong with your opinion- some will agree, others won't. This has been a great thread, BTW, so thanks for starting it. In a thread not long ago, someone asked about critique, and it got me thinking about how much I missed solid critique and discussion of our work as an art student in college. This thread reminds me of the frustrating and pointless aspect of critique- that we sometimes come to an impasse of differing opinions, and that often leads to heated argument, the answer to which is generally merely that "art is subjective (and we may have different responses to it)".

As for the absurd, I am all for it. I wish I could find a sort-of famous picture some of you may remember from another forum which would often come out at times like this: there would be a statement such as "I have no idea what you are talking about, so here's a picture of a bunny with a pancake on it's head", followed by, you guessed it...

EDIT: I found it....http://heresabunnywithapancakeonitshead.com/

Anyway, thanks all for one of the best threads here in a long time....

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 10:37

Come on fess up Mabelsound the real reason you have an issue with this image is you just dont like having to stare at naked man butts.:D

erm...on my computer they're wearing pants. Could it be my pop-up blocker?

williams473

07-22-2008, 10:37

Regardless of whether one "likes" the Erwitt photo or not is only important personally to the viewer - to debate the image with others means accepting it for what it is. To question a photographer's choice of angle, film type, format etc. is kind of rediculous - the negatives are fixed and the print is made - it's just not productive to question how it was made, or to place value judgements on the character of the photographer based on one image, one portfolio, or one experience at a show. People (especially other photographers) should be able to understand that yes, there are always a million other outcomes a photographer could have come up with, but the finished photograph holds the one and only image the photographer chose to become the final piece. Debate the one image and not the myriad non-images.

As in the Arbus photograph - one of her most famous - there is no "lie" about it simply because she chose an image someone feels was unlike all the others on a particular roll of film - she didn't draw the image up - the image was made from life. Editing one's negatives is part of the process - we shouldn't even be allowed to see the images she didn't use anyway - they are not the final work, and didn't express her vision - or she would have printed them. All we have is what's there as put forward by the photographer.

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 10:40

Well, this statement is really the beginning and the end of your opinion, isn't it? Nothing wrong with your opinion- some will agree, others won't. This has been a great thread, BTW, so thanks for starting it. In a thread not long ago, someone asked about critique, and it got me thinking about how much I missed solid critique and discussion of our work as an art student in college. This thread reminds me of the frustrating and pointless aspect of critique- that we sometimes come to an impasse of differing opinions, and that often leads to heated argument, the answer to which is generally merely that "art is subjective (and we may have different responses to it)".

I don't disagree, except with the word "pointless." You don't have to arrive somewhere profound in order to get something out of the journey. The most interesting questions, to me, have no answers. I mean, yeah, ultimately, it's just my opinion, but the point of debate is to see where other people are coming from, to challenge them, and more importantly to challenge oneself. Which I like to think we've done here!

Frustration is good. It means you've cut through the crap and gotten to the difficult part.

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 10:43

williams473

07-22-2008, 10:46

I don't disagree with any of that--I think I overstated my case using the word "lie," which is imprecise and intended to stir things up. Even "manipulation" has turned out to be a dirtier word than I thought...I mean only that artists are sneaky, they're performing a kind of sleight-of-hand, and whether you like them or not depends heavily on whether or not you're buying their act. It never stops being an act, though.

Yes - I agree with you that the simple acct of photographing anything is a manipulation of reality, and takes life out of context, but yeah, "lie" seemed a bit harsh.

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 10:49

EDIT: I found it....http://heresabunnywithapancakeonitshead.com/

Superb. Even the gratuitous apostrophe is echt internet-hilarious.

drewbarb

07-22-2008, 10:50

I don't disagree, except with the word "pointless." You don't have to arrive somewhere profound in order to get something out of the journey. The most interesting questions, to me, have no answers. I mean, yeah, ultimately, it's just my opinion, but the point of debate is to see where other people are coming from, to challenge them, and more importantly to challenge oneself. Which I like to think we've done here!

Frustration is good. It means you've cut through the crap and gotten to the difficult part.

Not to sound like a mutual admiration club (especially since my opinion of the Erwitt photo that started all this is different from yours) but I agree with your statement above. What I think is pointless in the critiques I was remembering is not the discussion itself (which is indeed valuable in and of itself, as the point of the whole exercise); what is pointless is carrying on with a argument when it's devolved to the point of "it means this!", "no, it means that!". When you get there, it's time to go have a drink.

WoolenMammoth

07-22-2008, 12:39

WM, there is no right way to look at a piece of art.

I certainly didnt mean to suggest that there was a right or wrong way to look at a piece of art. So long as you are cognisant of the fact the the way that you are looking at art places you in a laughing stock in the eyes of the artist who's work you are ilodizing, deconstructing or trying to make a paradigm, whatever, then you are free to look at things however you like. Believe me, its very amusing for the people on the other side of the glass, so to speak. The biggest error that most "scholars" who engage in this think is to overlook, in their arrogance, that they might be looking at things the wrong way. Only the artist knows his motivation, and without that information available to you it seems fairly pointless to drone on with some analysis about it.

Its a cool photo. It looks cool. Thats probably biggest compliment you can pay an artist as opposed to trying to impress him with some philosophical study of what he was trying to say that you have all wrong. Thats really what this all boils down to is just trying to impress with intellect, most artists I have ever known would much rather be appreciated for their output rather than "impressed" by how much thought their work provoked. I can only speak for my first hand interactions in life though and its a great big wide world full of all different personality types. We all need to laugh though, so carry on :)

WoolenMammoth

07-22-2008, 12:51

If I took the license to talk down to people there would be no question that that is what I was doing, Im a very forward and blunt personality. Certainly not my intention, anyway, thats something you do to someone face to face not behind a keyboard anonymously on the internet. There is no reward in talking down to someone if you dont suffer the slightest risk of getting hit in the face as a result :)

Im merely relaying my experience, with this activity, in the presence of the people who have created the work under scrutiny. What is suprising, I thought at least, was that the response from commercially distributed directors, musicians and photographers all echoed the same kind of comic pity towards these kinds of discussions. One would think it might be limited to some kind of stuffy academic circle, but you get the same cringe there as you get from a fan at a rock show spewing the same stuff. I think if more people realized how their own personal genius was being received, these discussion would elevate themselves up above from where they always get mired.

edit to add, when you guys show your work, dont you have to suffer the most ridiculous things being said to you? this is hardly something relegated to masterworks. I would think that all of us could share in the experience of some "genius" coming up to you having completely figured out your work trying to impress you with his cavalier analysis of some throw away snapshot you took and just threw in the show because it looked cool with the other 5 pieces you really wanted to show but needed some filler because the show called for six pieces...

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 13:00

So long as you are cognisant of the fact the the way that you are looking at art places you in a laughing stock in the eyes of the artist who's work you are ilodizing, deconstructing or trying to make a paradigm, whatever, then you are free to look at things however you like. Believe me, its very amusing for the people on the other side of the glass, so to speak.

Who gives a crap what the artist would think? Honestly? And I say this from long experience. I've published six books of fiction, have read many dozens of devastating reviews of them, been subject to all kinds of, to my mind, misguided questions about them. But it is my readers' right to think what they want about my stuff, and to interpret it differently from my intent. It may frustrate and disappoint me when they don't see it the way I do, but it's inevitable. And I would never consider a single one of them to be a laughingstock for failing to "get it." Never. Anyone who takes the time to form an opinion of me has my eternal gratitude, even if they hurt my feelings in the process. Maybe this discussion would piss off Elliot Erwitt, but I'm not here to impress Elliot Erwitt. I'm here to discover and analyze what I do and don't like.

You don't last long in art without a little humility, I think. Or at the very least, enough arrogance to float above it all.

Encinalense

07-22-2008, 13:03

So that's it? The point of expressive activity has only to do with offering something up for unreflective consumption? It's cool or not cool, and that's that?

That just isn't any fun. Before today, I had never thought about the photograph in question. I'm not sure I'd ever even seen it. I liked it more the more I thought about it, though. If that makes me parallel to a fan at a rock show spewing something, I guess I'll live with it. I mean, it's not worth it to me to live in fear of the "cringe" of the artist. I enjoy talking about it all too much . . .

drewbarb

07-22-2008, 13:07

E.E. would certainly be delighted with us for this.

Encinalense

07-22-2008, 14:08

Homer Simpson is more interesting, from an artistic point of view, or a social one.

Totally. Still, this discussion, to quote another of my heroes, is the kind of thing"that separates humans and robots . . . from animals and animal robots."

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 14:34

Totally. Still, this discussion, to quote another of my heroes, is the kind of thing"that separates humans and robots . . . from animals and animal robots."

With that in mind, has anyone yet managed to create a "hit photo" generator, like that hit-song-writing software the record industry is now using?

[rf geek]Yeah, it's called a Canon DSLR.[/rf geek]

Tuolumne

07-22-2008, 15:08

Nice thread -- but let's face it, this is a really trivial photograph, based on a Hallmark Card premise, not a photographer who is worthy of much more than a passing smile.

Surely you jest. I'm still laughing from looking at this photo. I've never laughed at a Hallmark card.

/T

Travis L.

07-22-2008, 15:28

The main thing is that this picture, broadly put, is a lie. At the moment he took it, the men were indeed looking at the nude,
and the woman was indeed looking at the clothed model. But, doubtless, the men were in front of the other picture mere moments before, or after.

So what your saying is that Erwitt waited for the "decisive moment" to snap this pic.......I thought that was the point.
I'm sorry but I don't get your argument.

All photographs rely on timing, often what we see in a still picture wasn't their seconds before, and is gone seconds later. Again THAT"S THE POINT.

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 16:10

So what your saying is that Erwitt waited for the "decisive moment" to snap this pic.......I thought that was the point.
I'm sorry but I don't get your argument.

All photographs rely on timing, often what we see in a still picture wasn't their seconds before, and is gone seconds later. Again THAT"S THE POINT.

Yep. But I don't like the moment he ended up with--I think what he wanted, and perhaps waited for, was irrepresentative of the scene in question--that Erwitt had chosen to make a shallow joke out of a more complex and nuanced scene, and I read this as a kind of dishonesty. I explained this in an earlier post, and kind of retracted the word "lie"; I agree now that it was too strong for what I was trying to say. I had used it to be provocative.

Obviously we all hope to capture the moment that we think says something important. What it comes down to is that I didn't like the little wink that accompanies this particular moment.

drewbarb

07-22-2008, 17:20

Yep. But I don't like the moment he ended up with--

OK, fine- no problem having an opinion, but don't think it's more than that.

I think what he wanted, and perhaps waited for, was irrepresentative of the scene in question--that Erwitt had chosen to make a shallow joke out of a more complex and nuanced scene, and I read this as a kind of dishonesty. I explained this in an earlier post, and kind of retracted the word "lie"; I agree now that it was too strong for what I was trying to say. I had used it to be provocative.

I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense- now you are being silly. You have no business speculating on the truth of "the scene in question". You weren't there; to make a comment about an image as being irrepresentative of the scene is not only arrogant but absurd. Every photographer exercises editorial perogative, both when we choose what moment to make an image, and when we choose what images to display. To say one is "lying"- I'm sorry, I'll retract that- "a kind of dishonesty" (whatever- same thing)- because of what they share is ridiculous.

Rick Waldroup

07-22-2008, 17:44

Yep. But I don't like the moment he ended up with--I think what he wanted, and perhaps waited for, was irrepresentative of the scene in question--that Erwitt had chosen to make a shallow joke out of a more complex and nuanced scene, and I read this as a kind of dishonesty. I explained this in an earlier post, and kind of retracted the word "lie"; I agree now that it was too strong for what I was trying to say. I had used it to be provocative.

Obviously we all hope to capture the moment that we think says something important. What it comes down to is that I didn't like the little wink that accompanies this particular moment.

This has to be the strangest thread I have seen here in a while. But this last statement is hilarious. What a bunch of bull****.

Travis L.

07-22-2008, 17:53

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 17:53

*sigh*

OK, look--this is beginning to make me wish I hadn't bothered expressing an opinion on this forum. I don't like this picture because I think it's a cheap little cliche. I don't think the difference between men and women is interesting, or worth making a photo about--it's the stuff of crap sitcoms and dickheads in bars. And I think it's very plausible that this scene was a coincidence--that, generally speaking, men don't cluster around nude paintings like a bunch of monkeys, and women aren't, generally speaking, prim little things who'd rather look at clothed models. It's a fleeting moment that suggests things are other than what they really are, and that's why it's dishonest.

Rick, I have been super patient and respectful of all the differing opinion here, but your response to my last post is weak as hell. Go ahead and debate me on the merits, I welcome it. But spare me the insouciant little turd of a response above.

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 17:55

I'm speechless.

Let's hear it, chief. Your studied response.

Rick Waldroup

07-22-2008, 18:07

tmfabian

07-22-2008, 18:14

such anger and hatred...soooo funny.

Listen, not everyone will like the same thing, not everyone will agree why they don't like the same thing...that's why it's called an opinion and not a fact, just say why you like it or don't, there's absolutely no point in attacking one another and getting pissy over something trivial like this. Amateurs the lot of you for dragging this thread to this level.

Nh3

07-22-2008, 19:02

No response is necessary from anyone. Just keep posting these long, mind numbing, ridiculous reasons as to why you do not like a certain photograph. Your own words tell everyone what they need to know.

That's your personal opinion and like all personal opinions it sucks big time.

I totally empathize with mabelsound and I'm also sick of Erwitt and many other dinosaurs of photography who refuse to disappear and let the new generation find their own way.

lewis44

07-22-2008, 19:29

Yep. But I don't like the moment he ended up with--I think what he wanted, and perhaps waited for, was irrepresentative of the scene in question--that Erwitt had chosen to make a shallow joke out of a more complex and nuanced scene, and I read this as a kind of dishonesty.

Here you go again, assuming what Erwitt did, based on your beliefs, not his. Again I say, you have no idea what his thought process was, only what yours is.
You have a right to your opinion of the photograph, but no right to tell us what he was thinking or doing or presuming what the motive for the photograph was.
So you don't like it, good for you, I like it because it shows the difference between men and women.

f/stopblues

07-22-2008, 19:50

*sigh*

OK, look--this is beginning to make me wish I hadn't bothered expressing an opinion on this forum. I don't like this picture because I think it's a cheap little cliche. I don't think the difference between men and women is interesting, or worth making a photo about--it's the stuff of crap sitcoms and dickheads in bars...

...And I think it's very plausible that this scene was a coincidence--that, generally speaking, men don't cluster around nude paintings like a bunch of monkeys, and women aren't, generally speaking, prim little things who'd rather look at clothed models. It's a fleeting moment that suggests things are other than what they really are, and that's why it's dishonest.

Okay, like.... I don't get it. It's a cliche and apparently a tired subject, but it's also dishonest because it's a unique scene to what one would expect to find?

So I should be finding compelling subjects and photograph them in the most ordinary, "honest" way possible. Is that the formula to a great photograph?

Be gone creativity! I cast thee to the bowels of hell, for thine honesty fails you!

mabelsound

07-22-2008, 19:52

antiquark

07-22-2008, 19:54

I don't like this picture because I think it's a cheap little cliche. I don't think the difference between men and women is interesting, or worth making a photo about--it's the stuff of crap sitcoms and dickheads in bars. And I think it's very plausible that this scene was a coincidence--that, generally speaking, men don't cluster around nude paintings like a bunch of monkeys, and women aren't, generally speaking, prim little things who'd rather look at clothed models. It's a fleeting moment that suggests things are other than what they really are, and that's why it's dishonest.

:p

Yes, it's like Erwitt had an opinion in his head, and he waited long enough for a scene to appear that fit his opinion. I mean, what is the probablity that gangs of men go to the art gallery to ogle classical nudes? I bet there was a strip joint a couple of blocks away, if they really wanted to ogle nudes, why not go there?

The picture just seems to be overly constructed around a lame idea.

Tuolumne

07-22-2008, 19:57

I believe Elliot Erwitt is on a number of greeting cards.

Buy them here:
http://www.phaidon.com/Default.aspx/Web/Elliot-tErwitt-Snaps-Greeting-Cards-9780714847634

But not Hallmark greeting cards.

/T

amateriat

07-22-2008, 21:56

I totally empathize with mabelsound and I'm also sick of Erwitt and many other dinosaurs of photography who refuse to disappear and let the new generation find their own way.
It's not EE, or other "dinosaurs" getting in the way of the "new generation" (whoever they are, and however you define "generation"). It's up to others to get out of their own way first, IMO, rather then blame someone better-known for not getting outta Dodge already. Erwitt's been at it for one hell of a long time. I've seen a lot of his work, and got the chance to meet him a few times quite a few years back. Images like the one being debated here (perhaps a tad pedantically), might not "date" terribly well, and I certainly like some of his work less than others, but the arguments tossed about here would seem to prove the work in question is anything but shallow. Doesn't mean you have to like it, or feel obliged to offer up a detailed synopsis of why you don't like it (although I'll admit being impressed by a few people here describing why they did like it).

Perhaps his work comes off to some as cliché because of the influence his work had on more than a few up-and-coming photographers over the last few decades. The same has been said about HCB. It ain't their fault, folks.

We've all got opinions. No need for brass knuckles, though. :)

- Barrett

jky

07-23-2008, 01:41

Wow... quite the discussion for a photo that I just thought was funny...
I must not be that deep... ;(

Avotius

07-23-2008, 02:18

welcome to photography, while you are here you might want to look up something called "people take pictures not cameras"

oscroft

07-23-2008, 03:09

It's manipulated in that he chose THAT MOMENT instead of one that might have characterized the scene in, perhaps, a more truthful way.
In one way I understand your point, but in another way I don't get it, because I don't see any necessary relationship between art and truth - a true scene taken a few moments earlier or later simply wouldn't be a photo worth looking at. (In reportage, sure, truth is vital, but not in "photography as amusing art", I don't think). But that is just my opinion, and if you prefer art that tries to portray the human condition truthfully, then I can see why that particular shot might not float your boat.

Also--and this isn't directed at you necessarily, oscroft--I'm kind of surprised that some of you are complaining that I'm making a big deal out of nothing. I mean, if you like art, it seems to me that the best way to express it, other than to make some art of your own, is to discuss and debate its merits. That's how you learn to appreciate it better, and to expose yourself to alternate viewpoints. Right?

Yes, indeed - and all my replies are really aimed at is understanding your opinion better, not denigrating it in any way.

oscroft

07-23-2008, 03:13

I think I've articulated pretty much everything I wanted to here, and then some, so I'll be taking my leave of the thread. I appreciate the intelligent rebuttals. But the rest is keeping my up late, chewing my fingernails. Damn you, internet.

Over and out.
By then. And thanks for offering us your opinion - I've enjoyed the discussion (though it's a shame some people found the need to be insulting towards the opinions of others).

furcafe

07-23-2008, 06:06

Amen, brother.

While I admire the passion of mabelsound & others who criticize the photo (though the criticism seems to boil down to "I would have taken a different/better shot") somebody had to do the cliché the 1st time around, & it's not really Erwitt's fault that these type of shots became a cliché. It's not like the so-called "dinosaurs of photography" (which would make an excellent name for an annoying indie band) are conspiring to keep the new generation down . . .

It's not EE, or other "dinosaurs" getting in the way of the "new generation" (whoever they are, and however you define "generation"). It's up to others to get out of their own way first, IMO, rather then blame someone better-known for not getting outta Dodge already. Erwitt's been at it for one hell of a long time. I've seen a lot of his work, and got the chance to meet him a few times quite a few years back. Images like the one being debated here (perhaps a tad pedantically), might not "date" terribly well, and I certainly like some of his work less than others, but the arguments tossed about here would seem to prove the work in question is anything but shallow. Doesn't mean you have to like it, or feel obliged to offer up a detailed synopsis of why you don't like it (although I'll admit being impressed by a few people here describing why they did like it).

Perhaps his work comes off to some as cliché because of the influence his work had on more than a few up-and-coming photographers over the last few decades. The same has been said about HCB. It ain't their fault, folks.

We've all got opinions. No need for brass knuckles, though. :)

- Barrett

mfunnell

07-23-2008, 07:26

This (below) I didn't know, on viewing the photo when mabelsound started this thread (I'd seen the photo before, but didn't know this, IMO, major part of the background). Just being told, and then going off to research the incident, was worth the price of admission:
WoolenMammoth's reference to his art criticism class, however painful, should remind us again to consider the Goya -- the clothed Maja as an ironic (most likely) response to the shock at his life-sized contemporary nude. He was pressed to paint clothes onto the original -- or to manipulate that original image; instead, he created a new painting of the clothed Maja. In doing so, Goya perhaps meant to suggest something about the misguided or foolish propriety of his contemporaries. Or not. It's hard to know his point, exactly.
Again, IMO, it is well worth knowing this. Just as knowing the political, and allegedly genological, circumstances of Scottish Kings in England is well worth knowing while reading Macbeth. Or the Catholic vs High Church vs Low Church arguments that were "in the wind" at the time the ghost was present in the opening scene in Hamlet.

I also much appreciate mabelsound's engagement with the photograph, whether I agree with her views or not.

I certainly hope her frustration with some of the responses to this thread is fleeting and that she re-engages with the discussion as I, for one, have enjoyed it even if, as has been said in another context, it is only good in parts.

...Mike

tomasis

07-23-2008, 07:31

http://static.flickr.com/22/31473739_14eaf978bd.jpg

Snap is a snap. I bet he had fun photographing. Like brainlessly. I dont think this photo is worth 5 pages discussion here. Sometimes one pick up that picture and publish after no much thoughts. Anyone have seen Hallmark channel? Just some fun for each thing :)

I checked his gallery. One thing I can notice that his works took whole life to photograph. If it was fun, seems so yes :)

I can see this picture as composition thing without involving logics there. So imagine those as unimaginable objects and it works still yet beyond context.

micromontenegro

07-23-2008, 07:51

This (below) I didn't know, on viewing the photo when mabelsound started this thread (I'd seen the photo before, but didn't know this, IMO, major part of the background). Just being told, and then going off to research the incident, was worth the price of admission:

Again, IMO, it is well worth knowing this. Just as knowing the political, and allegedly genological, circumstances of Scottish Kings in England is well worth knowing while reading Macbeth. Or the Catholic vs High Church vs Low Church arguments that were "in the wind" at the time the ghost was present in the opening scene in Hamlet.

I also much appreciate mabelsound's engagement with the photograph, whether I agree with her views or not.

I certainly hope her frustration with some of the responses to this thread is fleeting and that she re-engages with the discussion as I, for one, have enjoyed it even if, as has been said in another context, it is only good in parts.

...Mike

Sadly, said "fact" has been rebuffed by almost all modern Goya biographers, including vallejo-Nágera. The most plausible theory about how the Maja Vestida came to be is that the first known owner, prime minister Manuel de Godoy, commisioned it as a prank: he had them hanged one before the other and, in formal evenings, a set of pulleys was used to hoist the Vestida and reveal the Desnuda, much to the shock of present ladies.

It is also a recorded fact that the Inquisition questioned Goya about who commisioned him to paint the Maja Desnuda. We don't know his answer, or even if he issued one.

jan normandale

07-23-2008, 08:06

But not Hallmark greeting cards.

/T

now that's a classic "Ira" response ;- )

jan normandale

07-23-2008, 08:08

It's not EE, or other "dinosaurs" getting in the way of the "new generation" (whoever they are, and however you define "generation"). It's up to others to get out of their own way first, ....

We've all got opinions. No need for brass knuckles, though. :)

- Barrett

but that's where the fun is! ;- )

Dektol Dan

07-23-2008, 08:16

It's just another Norman Rockwell painting, but with less class because it's only a photograph. It has no poetry at all when compared with the Master of the Post, and it would have little value at all if it didn't have a Rockwell theme.

amateriat

07-23-2008, 09:43

Erwitt gets his Goya on...one more time.

http://mysite.verizon.net/bwbenton/Photo-not%20mine/ErwittBTS.jpg

(From Between the Sexes, a book that holds up a bit better than I expected it to.)

- Barrett

kdemas

07-23-2008, 10:35

To me this is really the fun thing about art. The original poster is truly bothered by this photo and the "misrepresentations" he feels it brings forward. I, on the other hand, find it to ba a fantastic "moment in time" without the broad implications the poster sees.

We all see through different eyes, what a great medium photography is that allows each person to "take something different" from a photo.

Fun stuff. Thanks for posting, I had actually never seen this shot and love it!

Kent

antiquark

07-23-2008, 10:44

Erwitt gets his Goya on...one more time.

http://mysite.verizon.net/bwbenton/Photo-not%20mine/ErwittBTS.jpg

Wow, that picture looks totally posed.

Maybe it's just me, but posed pictures aren't as appealing as natural or spontaneous pictures.

Chris101

07-23-2008, 15:31

I'm just wondering what the woman looking at the clothed Goya would look like naked.

amateriat

07-23-2008, 19:07

I'm just wondering what the woman looking at the clothed Goya would look like naked.
Actually, she looks really young...I wouldn't go there m'self...

- Barrett

Leigh Youdale

07-23-2008, 20:02

I'm dizzy trying to assimilate to B***S that's being thrown around over this!
So much navel gazing and so little factual information - opinions, assumptions, beliefs, "philosophy" - on it goes!
So Mabel doesn't like it? Tough! Get over it.
"Manipulated" - I don't care if he staged the whole thing. Better if he didn't but it's an amusing photograph anyway, and that's about all. Doesn't require a thesis or an existential debate.
As someone else said - "Sometimes a photograph is just a photograph".

Chris101

07-23-2008, 22:24

Actually, she looks really young...I wouldn't go there m'self...In my (admittedly sick, but not like that) mind, she's at least 18! :angel:

willie_901

07-24-2008, 12:46

The initial post complained about Erwitt's hypocrisy because he posed, i.e. manipulated, a photograph pre-acquisition, and at the same time, Erwitt is vocally critical of post-acquisition digital manipulation.

Because we have no prior knowledge whatsoever of how the photograph in question was taken, there are only two possibilities: Erwitt staged the photograph and is, in some sense, a hypocrite. Or, Erwitt was at the right place at the right time and recorded a natural scene with no artificial intervention on his part.

If Erwitt silently waited (maybe for hours) for an imbalance of viewers to occur - this is not manipulation. It is simply editing what the photographer (in this case artist) wants to portray by choosing when to press the shutter. This is no different than taking a photograph everytime a group of people congregated in front of these two paintings and selecting the one the photographer feels is most interesting.

There is only a 50:50 chance Erwitt is a hypocrite. Whatever one concludes, that conclusion has nothing to do with the facts and everything to do with the concluder's prior experiences.

So, without more information, only the observers' prior knowledge (experience) can determine whether or not Erwitt is a hypocrite. And that decision is completely subjective because none of us know the facts.

Paul T.

07-24-2008, 13:40

The picture above is absolutely a manipulation, every bit as much as it would be if he'd photoshopped in a few extra dudes. I think it's odd that Erwitt could be so aggressively against digital manipulation when every photo is in fact manipulated in the framing--and here, I feel as though he has manipulated a scene in order to advance a false thesis.

My $.02. Pile on.

It's good that we're discussing photos and not cameras here, and that you're promoting a debate.

But I think your point is pretty banal. The photo is neither faked, nor manipulated. You might say it's clichéd - in fact, he has captured people behaving in a clichéd way. But the agenda is not completely simplistic; for instance, we know which painting is the original, supposedly better one. Maybe the men are going for the superior artwork . Or maybe they're ogling the flesh. And by judging them, aren't we opting for a clichéd viewpoint, too?

A comparatively minor point, but if you work in the creative arts, I would have thought you'd had avoided copying someone else's copyright material.

cmogi10

07-24-2008, 14:59

so I skipped over this thread before, and now I open it and read the first post.

and I skip everything in the middle so I can ask are you serious???
(sorry if that's been asked before hah)

Rick Waldroup

07-24-2008, 15:44

so I skipped over this thread before, and now I open it and read the first post.

and I skip everything in the middle so I can ask are you serious???
(sorry if that's been asked before hah)

Yes, he is serious...... how freakin' wild is that?

After reading this thread, another member PM'd me this quote by Erwitt

"To me, photography is an art of observation. It's about finding something interesting in an ordinary place... I've found it has little to do with the things you see and everything to do with the way you see them.”

Encinalense

07-24-2008, 16:30

A comparatively minor point, but if you work in the creative arts, I would have thought you'd had avoided copying someone else's copyright material.

In the first place, I'd suggest that was fair use of the Erwitt piece. The discussion might have been a bit less lowbrow (though I admit laughing aloud a few times). But still.

Also: maybe don't assume that all creators share that restrictive perspective of copyright (http://creativecommons.org/).

Lawrence A.

10-28-2012, 15:49

I like Erwitt, too, but producing an image is about manipulation one way or another, chemical or digital. Ansel Adams, considered a "straight" photographer, sometimes burned in areas of a print several hundred percent of the exposure time to get the photograph he wanted and "saw". And it's long since been decided that "seeing" contains large scale psychological elements; it is not the mere mechanical absorption of "impressions". Prints don't jump automatically from the camera, whether it's a film camera or a digital camera. The information has to be "manipulated", one way or another. Even the choice of paper grade in traditional black and white photography changes the look of the presented image, and is thus a form of visual manipulation. The film, the sensor, contain information; there is no way around manipulating that information when you choose to make a print.