Some photographs present the viewer with several levels of complexity and enjoyment. Some ask far more questions then they answer. This image by Paul Strand is one IMHO: The Family, Luzzara, Italy, 1953.
This was not a "found" image. Strand meticulously arranged the subjects for this composition. I always wonder what Strand saw in this group to take the time and effort and what they thought about his interest in them. Why did he pose everyone they way he did? For my self, even in a book reproduction, it is hard not to spend a great deal of time with this picture, pondering its faces and possible symbolism. I find lyricism and tension both and a dozen other ideas.
What do others think?
__________________ "Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
Robert Adams
As you say, Jim, a masterclass in composition, achieved through communciation with the subjects (possibly across a language barrier). This picture should be printed a million times at postcard size and distributed to every photography student in the world - this might put an end to "documentary" work in which the subject stares blankly and apathetically at the camera and looks bored stiff. Strand seems to have been adept at this type of work - he must have had some kind of zen quality!
I like this picture for the composition and the feel of it but, as someone who has "posed" hundreds of groups I find this has a "you look here, and you look here" kind of feel to it. It seems a bit contrived on where the people are looking.
To some it may seem "more natural" than everyone looking at the camera but to me it still has that contrived feel, mainly because there is no real reason for the subjects to be looking where they are looking.
However I do like the compostion, clothes attitudes etc.
Michael
__________________
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
I quite like it but it's not my favourite Strand photograph by any means.
I agree with Michael it has a contrived feel about it. Contrivance can work, but somehow doesn't quite for me here.
I can't help thinking of the Gordon Parks photograph we discussed recently of the lads on the street which had people in different sorts of poses, but they were natural and struck by the people themselves, the whole seemed so much more spontaneous and, for me at least, more 'truthful'.
well.. I'd THINK that PS was familiar w. psychic lines... which we "read" into figures on the picture plane (extending along each person's line of sight to whatever it appears they are looking at)....
I feel this device plays a great part in what keeps the eye of the viewer bouncing back into and over the image...
Other than that, sure.. the intelligent use of repetition of forms, of emphasis by location, variety, contrast (the old woman) .. .
But... I'd feel almost as confident saying that these things did not occur as conscious decisions, but by conditioned reflex... with enough training... composition becomes autonomous for the most part...
Unfortunately - after having the "directorial" hand exposed in this picture (by Michael) I too feel like it's fairly contrived...
__________________ Madness: is not all it's cracked up to be.
Last edited by Pastiche; 10-08-2006 at 01:33 PM.
Reason: spelling
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
The best criticism I've read of this image is that it doesn't show any Italians known to mankind. A family like this sould be talking, shouting, pouting, gesticulating, etc, not looking like they were all drugged or at a funeral. Strand was a dour, taciturn man -- perhaps this is the ultimate example of the addage that the images of great photographers are always of themselves, not of their subject.
There is a good bit of interesting footage of his time in this village in the biographical DVD "Under the Darkcloth."
Strand was a dour, taciturn man -- perhaps this is the ultimate example of the addage that the images of great photographers are always of themselves, not of their subject.
I'm sure it's not an absolute, but do you not think that the personality, psyche, experience, prejudices etc that we all have, are not often present or subconsciously illustrated in the photographs we take.
Michael
__________________
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
Cate,
I've read Richard Avedon mentioning specifically that all his images are self portraits .... which is probably where the "adage" comes from....
If you define self portrait narrowly enough, I'd say, yes, every image we take is a for of self portraiture... but it really depends on how narrowly you are willing to define self portrait...
__________________ Madness: is not all it's cracked up to be.
Last edited by Pastiche; 10-08-2006 at 05:10 PM.
Reason: itz tha spelin tha's rong....
I have never seen a bad or poorly seen photograph by Paul Strand. I have noticed after looking at his photographs over the years that there is something about them that seems consistent. It is like he was told about the saying that you should compose then move in closer. Nothing is "clipped" but he seems to fill the frame with only the important image information he was seeing.
Discuss A Paul Strand Photograph 
Linear Mode
