all photos ~ (embiggenable)
BACKGROUND: Last entry I mentioned the book, FRED HERZOG ~ MODERN COLOR. If you have not heard of Fred Herzog, you have not heard of the photographer who is considered to be the first practitioner-beginning in 1953-of street photography, in color no less. I purchased the book a week ago and, without exaggeration, I was struck to the ground by Herzog’s work. The book is at the top of my if-you-only-have-1-photo-book, this is the one to have.
THAT BACKGROUND WRITTEN, THE BOOK MENTIONED really helped clarify, for me, what it is that I see when I view a photograph that captures my interest and attention. That is, to be more accurate, the book and an experience I had showing some of Herzog’s photographs to my best friend, Robert.
Robert is attuned to art and the art world. Having spent most of his adult life living in Manhattan, he regularly visited many art museums and venues with a bit of an emphasis on photography (driven by me). Rarely was there a visit to Manhattan during which we did not go to photo galleries or see a museum-based exhibition. So, after I “discovered” Herzog, I was rather eager to share the work with him.
A couple days ago, at our weekly go-out-to-lunch date–he is retired and now lives about 10 miles away from my house–I was showing him some of Herzog’s photographs, especially those that really stuck me to the ground, I gradually became aware that what he was seeing at first glance was completely different from what I saw at first glance and that difference was not subtle…
…all he saw was the literally depicted referent and attendant literal detail. What I saw was the form exhibited in the photographs–that is to write that what was literally depicted was so inconsequential to my eye as to be nearly “invisible”.
As an example, consider Man With Bandage-
This photograph seems to have depth, lots of stuff receding to infinity. That is exactly how Robert saw it, declaring the picture had a lot of depth. To which I responded, “No it doesn’t. It’s flat as a pancake.” I pointed out that the photograph was a flat, 2D thing, as in, ya know, paper thin. Unable to deny that physical reality, we agreed to agree that the photograph exhibited the illusion of depth, an agreement that I considered to be an aesthetic victory.
At this point we got down to visual basics; he pointed out that he could see that the man, woman, and mailbox were lined up one behind the other. What I countered with was that, on the surface of the print, I saw 3 shapes next to one another. He came back at me with the all of the various lines in the picture leading his eyes to infinity. Be that as may how he saw it, what I saw was a number of straight and/or angled lines “dancing” across the surface of the print. He mentioned that he thought the picture colorful, the red mailbox especially so. On the other hand, I was whelmed–neither over or under–by the integrated field of relatively neutral grey-ish colors of the street, sidewalk, building to the left, woman’s coat, man’s pants, from which the relatively few more vibrant colors–especially the reds–scattered across the surface of the print emerge.
All of that written, here’s my point; Robert sees a street scene with much to offer the eye in a very literal sense. His eye can spend a great deal of time picking out / noticing–and I might add, enjoying–the numerous details depicted in the scene. It seems to me that he enjoys finding and gathering information rather than sensations. It is worth pointing out that this photograph along with many more–95% of the photographs in the book were made in Vancouver, CA–suggested to his sensibilities that the city was not a very prosperous place.
On the other hand, what I see, first and foremost, is an exquisite display of visual form–an organization of line, shape, color, tone, space , value–which draws my eye and sensibilities like bees to a honeypot. When, after I assimilate the form factor, I also see a photograph that can hold my eye and sensibilities in a literal sense, I know that I am seeing something special. Realizing that are many more Herzog photographs to view, I need to ask myself the question, “How much fried chicken can I eat?”
From what I have subsequently read since I discovered Herzog it seems to indicate that he did not have a particular axe to grind in the making of his photographs. It would also seem, deduced from some of his own words, that he was out and about “just” to enjoy, in the Walker Evans’ idea, the…
“capture and projection of the delights of seeing … the defining of observation full and felt.”
I would assume that Herzog was enjoying his picture making inasmuch as he toiled in almost total obscurity for the better part of 40 years, seeking neither fame or fortune from his work. Consider for a moment that he began his picture making endeavor in 1953 but did not sell a single print until 1970.
Re: no axe to grind - Herzog did admit to attraction and a certain affection for the quotidian vernacular of both the period’s architecture as well as the people who populated it. He also had also expressed a certain sadness(?) / regret(?) that what he had photographed had disappeared only to be replaced with a soul-less modern glass and steel environment. iMo, Herzog’s attraction and affection is evident in his photographs; his vision exhibits subtle and gentle observation. His work is very much in the mode of André Kertész who captured a vanishing vernacular Paris.
In any event, and all of that written, I can write that I do not have many regrets in life in photography. Nevertheless, I now have one regret that tops them all; the fact that I probably will never have the chance to see an exhibition of Herzog’s photographs.
OFF TOPIC Played golf yesterday with my grandson. He’s home from school for the summer and working in the Lake Placid Resort–45 holes–golf pro shop. Starting at 3PM we had the Lower Course, aka: The Links Course, all to ourselves. I was a member here for years and tried really hard to get him interested in golf but he and all of his time was consumed by elite travel hockey and, eventually, a year of play in Juniors. After a year in Juniors, he decided to skip a second year and go straight to college to play hockey. He was accepted to West Virginia University where he was selected for the hockey team but decided to play for the golf team instead. Surprised everyone cuz he had just taken up golf the year before. How he reached a level of play that got him on the team is anyone’s guess. Now we can’t get him off the course. FYI, I carded an 84 for my first round of the year.
playing from the rough ~ Olympic ski jumps in the background