Paul Strand photo, "Young Boy."

[Jay DeFehr]

Annie,

That his shirt appears "girly" to us certainly is cultural, and it doesn't matter much (to me) if Strand, or the boy saw it that way, or not. I think the idea that there is some truth to the photo that overrules a viewer's interpretation is not a very useful one. We can speculate about Strand's intentions, or the boy's mental state at the time of exposure, or the origin of his clothing, and those speculations might color our reaction to the image, but any reaction to the photo is shaped primarily by the viewer's cultural perspective.

[Bill_1856]

[COLOR="Blue"][I]" it was probably made on his 5x7 Graflex camera (permanently masked to 5x6), with a 300mm Dagor lens (the only lens he used for decades).

I thought it was a 10" Dagor? Used same focal length on both his 5x7 Home Portrait Graflex and 8x10.

[Annie M.]

Jay... everything we perceive is shaped by a cultural perspective... I was just putting mine out there. Strand said he was attracted to faces with dignity... that is also a cultural perspective.

[Ken Lee]

Paul Strand: Esaays on His Life and Work
Print Making by Richard Benson, page 104 (emphasis mine)

"Strand adopted two cameras, the 8x10 inch view camera and the 5x7 inch Graflex, and he used these two machines, without variation or exception, from roughly 1920 almost to 1960 ... this camera, now a 5x6 rather than a 5x7, used one lens only, a 12-inch Goerz Dagor"

George Eastman House - Paul Strand/Technique (emphasis mine)

"In 1911, on his European trip, Strand used an Adams Idento with an Identoscope as a hand camera to produce 3¼ x 4¼ glass negatives. The contact positives were enlarged to 8 x 10 negatives and then prints made from these.

Following this period, Strand adopted two cameras, the 8 x 10 inch view camera (8 x 10" Korona view camera) and the 5 x 7 inch Graflex (4 x 5"? and 5 x 7" Graflex cameras), and he used them "without variation or exemption from roughly 1920 to 1960".

Strand always used a Graflex on a tripod to make instantaneous exposures. He put a mask on the camera back and the ground glass to alter the format to approximately 5 x 6 inches, which he felt, like 8 x 10, to possess the "right" proportion of a picture. This camera, now a 5 x 6, rather than a 5 x 7, used one lens only, a 12-inch Goerz Dagor.

In a later stage, Strand began to work with a roll-film camera in addition to the previous formats."

For what it's worth, I have several of his books - like Living Egypt, Tir A Mhurain, Un Paese - and from what I can tell, all the photos are either 5x6 or 8x10. The 5x6 images appear to have been made with a slightly long-focus lens, and the 8x10 images made with a normal lens. This would confirm the assertion that he only used a 300mm lens on those two cameras.

[Jay DeFehr]

Jay... everything we perceive is shaped by a cultural perspective... I was just putting mine out there. Strand said he was attracted to faces with dignity... that is also a cultural perspective.

Annie,

I apologize if I seemed confrontational. It interpreted your post as proposing there is a truth or meaning inherent in the photo, and we might be getting it wrong based on our cultural perspectives. Communication can be tricky. I enjoyed your interpretation.

[Annie M.]

The only absolute truth in that photo is that they were both there. The rest is all us.

No need to apologize... I know you are just discussing ideas.

[r.e.]

Agreed. It was for Calvin Klein, back in the 90s. CK used a lot of B&W photography in their campaigns. Maybe still do?

Jay, that photograph brings back some good memories. In the mid-90s, I moved to Paris, and the fellow who developed and printed Lindberg's work was one of the first people to welcome us to the 14th. He and his wife are good friends to this day. Spent a pleasant afternoon one day at the lab, watching him work with Lindberg's photographs.

I think that it is an interesting question why this is Strand's most famous photograph. It would be great to see the negative, or at least the negative printed as an ordinary contact. Is it the kid, with a little help from a thick head of hair and a good dab of Brylcreem? I'm inclined to thing that that is a good part of it, but also that a comparison between the negative and a print, whether made by Strand or Richard Benson, might show that much of the photograph's quality comes from the way that it was printed. There's some interesting info on the Eastman Kodak site about how Strand's photographs were printed, including the use of varnish. Maybe it goes with the Brylcreem?

[Greg Blank]

I actually found your take on the image rather enchanting-actually. & I sometimes wish more women would participate here, as it might make the place abit more classy and less confrontational in the long run. Sensitivity is a good thing for artists and it might just help some of the knuckleheads around here. In truth I did not notice the waves of the boys hair matching his mouth as you stated- looking at it that way I think makes sense. I also think if I had done the image it would be more just a matter of setting up the camera, and taking the photo on a subconscience level. That is not being certain of why I liked the subject as an image... which for me has merit in doing, also. After all what is that Castenda said of "Not doing"?

The only absolute truth in that photo is that they were both there. The rest is all us.

No need to apologize... I know you are just discussing ideas.

[r.e.]

As an aside, I'm surprised, given how iconic this photograph is, that the kid has never been identified. It's one of those photographs that makes one wonder, what happened to him?

Here's an older thread on The Art of the Portrait in which this photograph comes up: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=54831

[Jay DeFehr]

r.e.,

I always feel privileged to watch an artist I admire work. And seeing Lindbergh's work in such an intimate way would be inspiring, I think. And in Paris, no less!

Why that image is so highly regarded is an interesting question. I'm tempted to think the subject has a lot to do with it, but is the subject so remarkable? Technically, it's a simple, available light portrait of a young boy, but there must be piles of those. I suspect there are multiple contributing factors, many of which are not inherent in the photo.