Bruce Davidson on how he did Subway

[r.e.]

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog...y-photographs/

The NYC subway sure has changed.

[johnmsanderson]

great article, thanks. Davidson's work makes me nostalgic for a time in NYC I wish I could have photographed...

[dperez]

I enjoyed reading this. Makes me want to buy the book.

-DP

[Michael Alpert]

great article, thanks. Davidson's work makes me nostalgic for a time in NYC I wish I could have photographed...

I'm not sure if you read the essay to its conclusion. Davidson was mugged. He felt, with good reason, that he was working in dangerous conditions. It wasn't like East 100th Street, where he became known in the neighborhood. I lived in the Lower East Side in the 1960s. As far as I am concerned, only people who were not there could possibly be nostalgic about that terribly violent time, which lasted well into the 1980s. If you were poor, and sometimes even if you were not poor, The Big Apple offered you a lot of misery.

[johnmsanderson]

Heya,

I was born and raised in NYC, as well as my two sisters who are over 15 years older than me. I'm well aware of the history here. I remember the hookers and drug dealers on 42nd, I saw a guy get stabbed when I was walking home from school with my mother on 8th ave and 43rd, bleeding all over the place. I could go on. We didn't exactly grow up on Sutton Place. You don't have to remind me about what NYC was like. Of course those outside of big cities seem to have an xenophobia of the city than what actually exists -- goes back to white flight in the 50s/60s.

The thing Davidson's photos capture just strike a chord in me (as well as my childhood memories of NY) that I find visually striking compared to how antiseptic the subway can be these days. Yeah it was "more violent" during the 70's and early 80's but you make it sound like Baghdad. You'd think all those tall model looking women and old ladies in Bruce's photos would have avoided it altogether...

And don't be fooled if you think you can't get your camera jacked these days either. There is still incredible violence in the city as the capital investment is only going towards places where there is a clear return on the investment, as the poor are exploited to make room for people who can pay higher rent. Just sayin', don't fall asleep on certains lines after certain hours.

When did you skip town?

[r.e.]

I enjoyed reading this. Makes me want to buy the book.

-DP

You might also consider the three volume collection of his work that was recently published. Expensive, but worth it.

[r.e.]

I lived in the Lower East Side in the 1960s. As far as I am concerned, only people who were not there could possibly be nostalgic about that terribly violent time, which lasted well into the 1980s. If you were poor, and sometimes even if you were not poor, The Big Apple offered you a lot of misery.

Michael,

A friend who lived in the Lower East Side in the late 60s/early 70s told me at the time that it was a pretty safe area because it was run by bikers and nobody did anything without permission. Is that true?

On the other hand, about a year after he told me this, he wound up in an intensive care unit after being beaten within an inch of his life with a baseball bat. But I suspect that that happened, not because of random violence, but because he was at the time heavily into drugs and failed to pay some dealer on time.

I'm interested in what Davidson says about the technical side of these photographs. In particular, I'm surprised that he was using flash and that he suggests that the vast majority of the photographs, although not all, were taken after asking the subject's permission, which means that most of them are posed or close to it.

The new Magnum book full of contact sheets probably shows some of his work, and consequently what film he was using. I'm interested now in seeing what the film was, and what speed it was. And also what comes before and after the photographs that he selected.

[Michael Alpert]

Michael,

A friend who lived in the Lower East Side in the late 60s/early 70s told me at the time that it was a pretty safe area because it was run by bikers and nobody did anything without permission. Is that true?

On the other hand, about a year after he told me this, he wound up in an intensive care unit after being beaten within an inch of his life with a baseball bat. But I suspect that that happened, not because of random violence, but because he was at the time heavily into drugs and failed to pay some dealer on time.

I'm interested in what Davidson says about the technical side of these photographs. In particular, I'm surprised that he was using flash and that he suggests that the vast majority of the photographs, although not all, were taken after asking the subject's permission, which means that most of them are posed or close to it.

The new Magnum book full of contact sheets probably shows some of his work, and consequently what film he was using. I'm interested now in seeing what the film was, and what speed it was. And also what comes before and after the photographs that he selected.

1. "Is that true?" No, every kind of mayhem that you can think of (and mayhem that you probably would not think of) was there in force. Drugs were certainly a large part of the problem, as they are today. But, just as significant, open racism and Vietnam poisoned American culture in the 1960s. There was a lot of greatness in N.Y. at that time, but there was also a lot of fear. The statistics on murders and other violent crimes tell, more or less objectively, what the poorer neighborhoods were like. I eventually moved to an apartment in a building at the south end of the Village that, I was told, was owned by the Mafia. I did feel quite safe inside the building, and I always paid my rent!

2. Davidson's technique. It doesn't surprise me that Davidson used flash or that he asked permission. He used flash because he needed to, especially with color film. And earlier, when he was on East 100th Street, he always asked permission. His relationship with the people around him led to some great photographs. As much as I like the work of Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, and other street photographers, I question their insistence on isolating themselves from their subjects. Davidson's interaction seems more adult. Still, I am thankful that photography allows for a great range of techniques and working practices.

3. I recommend the three-volume retrospective set of Davidson's work, though I am not sure if it is still in print and what its price is. I bought a copy when it was first published and Davidson was attending a small exhibit of his work here in Maine.

[Tobias Key]

I'm not sure if you read the essay to its conclusion. Davidson was mugged. He felt, with good reason, that he was working in dangerous conditions. It wasn't like East 100th Street, where he became known in the neighborhood. I lived in the Lower East Side in the 1960s. As far as I am concerned, only people who were not there could possibly be nostalgic about that terribly violent time, which lasted well into the 1980s. If you were poor, and sometimes even if you were not poor, The Big Apple offered you a lot of misery.

I read somewhere that if you were black, under 25 and living in certain areas of New York in the late sixties, being called up to fight in Vietnam actually raised your life expectancy. Don't know if it's true but a pretty damning statistic if it is.

[dperez]

Thanks, I will look into that.

You might also consider the three volume collection of his work that was recently published. Expensive, but worth it.