Paul Strand photo, "Young Boy."

[Richard Reynolds]

I am fascinated by how Strand made this photograph! I'm sure that someone in this forum has done simular work, and I'd like a hint as to what direction to head to achieve a simular effect.

[Curt]

Specifically what? It's a platinum print from a sitting done in France in 1951. The boy is staring directly into the lens. The background is a wall of weathered wood. The masters touch and decades of photographing people and places are what makes the difference.

Having seen the works, many prints, by Paul Strand I place him on the top of the list of the greatest photographers in the history of photography.

[Ken Lee]

"I am fascinated by how Strand made this photograph!"

Although it is sometimes shown cropped closely to the vertical, the whole photo is horizontal. (My memory may be off, but I seem to recall a giant banner hanging on the Philadelphia Museum of Art, with a vertical version of the portrait, when the Strand retrospective exhibit showed in 1971).

Based on the full image's aspect ratio of roughly 5:6, 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).

If we can find a similar subject, background, and lighting, and make a competent Large Format photograph - well exposed/developed/printed and toned similarly - we can make something vaguely similar. While the technical part is more readily attained, the artistic vision and inspiration are another matter entirely.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/StrandBoy1.jpghttp://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/StrandBoy2.jpg

[Greg Blank]

Paul Strand's work has influenced my own probably the most at the eariest part of my photo history. I saw his work in The National Gallery in 1990.The show in conjunction with the Aperture Foundation had a very impressive body of his work. Strand was a junior contemporary of Adams and Weston. Strand's earliest work to recall was done on factory made Platinum which in those days one could purchase just like silver papers. From what I remember he also did make his own paper for a time an then moved to utilizing silver papers. All of the images impressed me but I especially like the Landscape, and close up industrial shots. But his portraiture is fabulous also. The influence I took away was more relative obtaining the contrast and tonality of the prints. Obsessing on how to achieve that luminous quality and contrast range on a consistent basis.

[Curt]

"As a teenager, Adams decided to become a concert pianist, but by 1930, after viewing negatives made by east coast photographer Paul Strand, he chose instead a career in photography. His decision to become a full-time photographer contributed to the formation of a new vision in photography in the West."

Quoted in many periodicals and in Adams and Strands own books. He wasn't junior to anyone, he worked right through Alfred Stieglitz who showed his work in the gallery 291 and in his Camera Work. His film Manhattan was the first avante-garde film in America.

[MIke Sherck]

If I could find a combined exhibit of Strand, Cunningham and Weston, I'd have to bring my sleeping bag and Occupy the place. ;)

Living here in the Midwest as I do, I've seen some Westons on exhibit, a couple of Strands, but nothing from Imogene Cunningham. The local arts scene begins and ends with painters... *Sigh*

Mike

[tgtaylor]

"...and I'd like a hint as to what direction to head to achieve a simular effect."

I'm just speculating but he is a good looking kid and that no nonsense piercing look is probably his walking around face. When their paths intersected Strand, being the photographer he was, immediatly saw the potential for a strong portrait, got the kid to pose and probably coaxed him in maintaing that look if the kid started to wimp out in front of the camera.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gallery_alternative/show

[Brian C. Miller]

... and I'd like a hint as to what direction to head to achieve a simular effect.

Walk around. Look for interesting faces. Talk to people. Photograph them. Repeat until out of film.

Really, that's all that's done for photographs like these. Somebody will say yes. Just keep doing it.

[sun of sand]

Every time I see that photo I'm drawn to the clothing -particularly the undershirt and the wood with it's metal jewelry

If you look at everything in the photo
everything in it is very ornate
detailed
proud
the boy may be poor as dirt ..who really knows, who cares
the artisans who made the decorative iron
work eventhough its utilitarian
the boy is good looking with an ornate, I think, face
forehead and thin straight nose
lower eyelids
lips echo the wavy flowing hair
ribbed shirt or whatever knitted whatever it is
overalls


you can have a good looking boy or girl pose today in the same fashion and the clothes theyre wearing may look like tinkerbell puked all over em the fence or barn or whatever behind them is recently painted if it's even wood and not PVC the only thing it'll probably be decorated with is some Ikea looking BS finial that you can't include in the photo and the latch? It's an electronic keypad or some cheap .89 POS they took 45 minutes to screw in and it's still lopsided perhaps with a generic masterlock dangling from it

There isn't a whole lot of charm in todays world
todays Charm is Brand

[Richard Reynolds]

Thanks for all your replies. The thing I find so wonderful about the portrait is the sense of "otherness." The boy looks almost like he's constructed of metal; his skin looks metalic, his fierce gaze is riveted on the camera, perhaps this is what radiation would look like if it were visable. Another of Strand's photographs, "Mr. Bennett, Vermont 1944," is quite simular and equally outstanding.

[Ken Lee]

That metallic look is one of his trademarks, you might say.

Here's (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/like/index.html#ps) another one.

[Heroique]

The boy looks almost like he’s constructed of metal; his skin looks metallic.


That metallic look is one of his trademarks, you might say.

A “riveting” photo indeed – but which attribute of metal here? (For carved wood was my first reaction.)

Shiny like aluminum? Or maybe new-minted copper?

Malleable like lead? Greyish like lead? Heavy like lead?

Tough like wrought iron?

Luminous like gold?

Smooth, cold, rusty, adamant?

[Ken Lee]

His warm-toned people sometimes look like Bronze, while the more neutral ones can look like Platinum - to me anyhow.

We are, after all, making our images out of Silver and other metals.

[Heroique]

I take so many pictures of trees, I see & feel the warmth of shaped wood!

Maybe the pine fence behind him suggests this to me...

[Jay DeFehr]

I think Peter Lindbergh liked it, too.

http://arttattler.com/Images/NorthAmerica/NewYork/MetropolitanMuseumofArt/Model%20as%20Muse/9.Kate-Moss-by-Peter-Lindbergh,-1994.jpg

[Heroique]

Plagiarism or tribute?

Perhaps a touch of unconscious influence?

And don’t let the pretty face distract you from these questions.

[Jay DeFehr]

I'd say tribute. I think the influence was conscious, given the styling of the hair, the overalls, the weathered wood, the androgeny; all the elements are in place. Very well done, I think.

[Mark Sawyer]

I suspect much of the effect came from the materials of the time, and Strand's mastery of them, coupled with the lighting and the texture of natural unwashed skin.

[Michael Kadillak]

Strand applied a second coating of platinum to purchased platinum paper and used the long scale of this medium to its fullest extent. Silver is just not the same as far as I am concerned. It does not have the trademark visual "glow".

[BrianShaw]

I'd say tribute. I think the influence was conscious, given the styling of the hair, the overalls, the weathered wood, the androgeny; all the elements are in place. Very well done, I think.

Wow, what a stunning tribute!

[Darin Boville]

Wow, what a stunning tribute!

Looks like a miss to me. The tribute could easily be used to sell perfume. I can't see Strand's being used in the same way.

--Darin

[Jay DeFehr]

Wow, what a stunning tribute!

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 DeFehr]

Looks like a miss to me. The tribute could easily be used to sell perfume. I can't see Strand's being used in the same way.

--Darin

In what way do you think Strand's image would need to be different to sell perfume?

[Darin Boville]

In what way do you think Strand's image would need to be different to sell perfume?

It would need to be quicker. The tribute sort of hits you right away. The androgynous yet still hot model, the tempting lack of shirt, the strap alluringly drooped onto her shoulder, the Man's height perspective. It's a "Do you want to fuck me?" shot. Hits you all at once and then there is no more. It's selling something (I thought maybe perfume--it has that look.)

Strand's takes longer and perhaps offers more. First you see the eyes and the difficult to interpret expression. You sort of see the farm-y nature of the whole thing. Then you notice the fabric of the shirt which looks sort of girlie, and then the androgyny of the whole thing comes into clearer focus. And for some reason you keep looking at the wooden fence.

The tribute girl looks like you've come upon her unexpectedly or maybe even cornered her there, vulnerable, willing. (Selling, in fact.) Strand's boy is more complicated and looks accusatory one moment, defiantly proud the next.

--Darin

[BrianShaw]

Wow, do you have a different perspective, Darin. I never thought of thinking thoughts like that!

Comparatively, I find Strand's boy to look embalmed.

[BrianShaw]

Comparatively, I find Strand's boy to look embalmed.

No offense intended, Paul.

[Heroique]

It was for Calvin Klein, back in the 90s...

If you ask James Joyce, this makes Peter Lindbergh a pornographer.

-----
James Joyce, in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, makes a distinction between what he calls “proper art” and “improper art.”

By “proper art” he means that which really belongs to art.

“Improper art,” by contrast, is art that’s in the service of something that is not art: for instance, art in the service of advertising.

Further, referring to the attitude of the observer, Joyce says that proper art is static, and thereby induces esthetic arrest, whereas improper art is kinetic, filled with movement: meaning, it moves you to desire, or to fear and loathing.

Art that excites desire for the object as a tangible object he calls pornographic.

Art that excites loathing or fear for the object he terms didactic, or instructive...

Say you are leafing through a magazine and see an advertisement for a beautiful refrigerator. There’s a girl with lovely refrigerating teeth smiling beside it, and you say, “I'd love to have a refrigerator like that.” That ad is pornography.

By definition, all advertising art is pornographic art.

(From Joseph Campbell’s book, Reflections on the Art of Living)

[Jay DeFehr]

Darin,

Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. You make a very good case for Lindbergh's image being better for its purpose than Strand's for the same purpose, but I don't see how that makes Lindbergh's a "miss". For me, it's a very skillful homage to the original image, alluding to its androgynous sexuality, and a play on Strand's "straight" photography. For me, it works on multiple levels.

[Jay DeFehr]

Heroique,

That doesn't surprise me at all, coming from Joyce. Art and advertising had a different relationship in his time. What would he say about art appropriated for advertising? Does the art become pornographic? I think that kind of intentionalism has had its day.

[Annie M.]

What I see in this classic photograph is much simpler than the imposed cultural narrative of androgynous sexuality that others here are seeing.

Strand has titled the photograph "Young Boy" and that is exactly what he is... a beautiful young boy from a very small agrarian village far from the cultural influence of Paris. He is actually iconic... the shirt is not 'girly' ... hand knitted undershirts are common in rural France, this and his coveralls appear to be handmade... probably by his Mother.

He is seated... look at the level of the door latch... purposely for the taking of his portrait. He is a young boy on the verge of manhood... he does not yet shave... he is being confronted by an adult with a camera in a situation that he may perceive as formal & important. I believe that he is looking at the camera with the intensity of what he believes it is to be a man... the iris of his eyes is dark and cannot be easily discerned from the pupil and adds to the power of his stare.

Naturally the photograph is a masterwork of light and texture... and I too adore the way the wave of his hair is the reiteration of the curve of his lip... but for me the power is that Strand captured the defiant stare of a "Young Boy" who wished to be taken seriously as a man.

[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).

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/StrandBoy1.jpghttp://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/StrandBoy2.jpg

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 (http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Strand-Essays-Life-Work/dp/0893814415)
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 (http://notesonphotographs.org/index.php?title=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.info/forum/showthread.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.

[r.e.]

"I suspect there are multiple contributing factors, many of which are not inherent in the photo."

D'accord.

At that time, the lab that did Lindbergh's work specialized in black and white. It was extremely influential and had important showings about once a month. Three or four years ago, it had to close. It has since re-opened, but I'm not sure about the economics. It was amazing to see what many regarded as the most important black and white lab in Europe (they also did Salgado's work, etc) disintegrate as a result of the changes that digital photography brought.

[Jay DeFehr]

r.e.,

The portrait thread you started, and linked above, is a good read. I enjoy reading others' thoughts on portraiture, my favorite genre of photography. My own thinking about portraits has changed a lot over the years, and continues to evolve. As I hinted in an earlier post I don't think there's any inherent truth in a portrait, and I don't think the photographer's intentions are important to anyone but the photographer. As for capturing an essence/personality/character, etc., I don't subscribe to that, either. But that's just me, and another discussion.

[r.e.]

r.e.,

The portrait thread you started, and linked above, is a good read. I enjoy reading others' thoughts on portraiture, my favorite genre of photography. My own thinking about portraits has changed a lot over the years, and continues to evolve. As I hinted in an earlier post I don't think there's any inherent truth in a portrait, and I don't think the photographer's intentions are important to anyone but the photographer. As for capturing an essence/personality/character, etc., I don't subscribe to that, either. But that's just me, and another discussion.

I think that we're on the same page.

I must say, I did a bit of a "Wow...OK" to see someone raise Lindbergh on this forum. Didn't expect that, and fun to see. The first time that I was invited to the lab that did his work, I saw and fell in love with a photograph that he made of Daniel Auteuil. I tried to buy a print, but there were various rights involved and it got too complicated. To this day, it is one of my favourite photographs.

[Jay DeFehr]

I think that we're on the same page.

I must say, I did a bit of a "Wow...OK" to see someone raise Lindbergh on this forum. Didn't expect that, and fun to see. The first time that I was invited to the lab that did his work, I saw and fell in love with a photograph that he made of Daniel Auteuil. I tried to buy a print, but there were various rights involved and it got too complicated. To this day, it is one of my favourite photographs.

When I took up photography in the 90s, I was inspired by many of the fashion photographers, including Lindbergh, who were doing beautiful B&W work. I would probably never have looked at Adams if he didn't write about the technical side of the craft. I never became an admirer of any of his work, and I find his portraits among the least interesting I've seen, but his writing provided me a foundation for learning the tech stuff. I haven't made many photos that don't feature a person, portrait or not.

I don't know the Daniel Auteuil photo; do you have a link?

[r.e.]

I don't know the Daniel Auteuil photo; do you have a link?

The only time that I saw it was at the opening/vernissage of a show at the lab that he used in Paris. This was 1996. Auteuil is in the rain, with a newspaper covering his head, can't remember whether it was Le Monde, Libération or Figaro, each of which has distinct connotations :)

The photograph reminded me very much of the one that Cartier-Bresson made of Giacometti in the rain at Alésia, which itself was taken maybe eight blocks from the lab and three blocks from where I lived.

[Jay DeFehr]

Well, that explains why it didn't show up in my search! What an experience. I hope I can visit Paris one day. I've thought of relocating there, but the commute is too demanding.

[Jim Galli]

Rumor has it the kid was smoking a cigar and Strand snatched it away seconds before the exposure.

Seriously, compare this to another icon, Winston Churchill's portrait (http://willsie.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Churchill.jpg) by Yousuf Karsh and the similarities are interesting.

Now how to accomplish that in the real world is way beyond my experience.

Also, for the OP, look through some of Disfarmer's portraiture (http://www.disfarmer.com/gallery/). He also used a simple common Goerz Dagor but likely on orthochromatic - ish glass plates.

Sometimes the temptation to drive the '39 pickup to some corner of Mexico and set up a studio with my Century camera and a Dagor is almost overwhelming. Trade portraits for taco's and dis-appear into the fabric.

No matter what anyone tells you, you will have to turn back the clock to accomplish this look.

[Annie M.]

Does anyone have Strand's book... I am interested in knowing what the text is below his photograph.

I have an old 12 inch Dagor... Maybe I should head over to France and try to find him... I imagine he is now in his seventies.

The human stare is very compelling... we are probably genetically predisposed to engage with it... like the photo of the stare of the young girl from Afghanistan with the compelling green eyes.

[Brian C. Miller]

Now how to accomplish that in the real world is way beyond my experience.
...
No matter what anyone tells you, you will have to turn back the clock to accomplish this look.

"Look directly at the lens, relax your face, don't smile, and don't blink!"

I have gotten a very similar look by having to stare at the lens for a one second exposure. When you tell someone to look at the lens and don't blink, the person must concentrate to not blink, and the result is an intense stare.

I don't think that the clock has to be turned back at all. Drive to various farms and ranches, introduce yourself, and photograph them in the shade against a wood building. Repeat until you run out of film. I don't think that Paul Strand was doing anything more than that. How many other photographs did Strand make for La France de Profil before that one and after it, on the same day? The same week?

If you want photographs of farm workers, stay away from the fashion runways.

[Ken Lee]

"Does anyone have Strand's book... I am interested in knowing what the text is below his photograph.

I have an old 12 inch Dagor... Maybe I should head over to France and try to find him... I imagine he is now in his seventies."

Strand Paul lived from October 16, 1890 to March 31, 1976.

He created several films (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0833271/) and books. I find it interesting that his books were created at age 60 and later - so there's hope for some of us :rolleyes:

Time in New England (1950)
La France de Profil (1952)
Un Paese (1955)
Tir a’Mhurain (1962)
Living Egypt (1969)
Ghana: an African portrait (1976)

[Annie M.]

Ken,

I was referring to the boy...

Maybe we should get Jay to go... he wants to see Paris...

I always cling to the fact that van Gogh did all of his paintings in a ten year period... yes there is always hope for everyone.

[Annie M.]

found him... half way down....

http://nicolebertin.blogspot.com/2011/06/le-journaliste-michel-boujut-rejoint.html

[Jay DeFehr]

Ken,

I was referring to the boy...

Maybe we should get Jay to go... he wants to see Paris...

I always cling to the fact that van Gogh did all of his paintings in a ten year period... yes there is always hope for everyone.

I would gladly accept the mission, but can't promise I wouldn't be distracted from it by more recent Parisians.

Regarding Brian's "Be still and don't blink" approach, here's one of my son trying to be still and not blink. It's 8x10 on APHS Ortho, EI 12, developed in 510-Pyro 1:500.

[Annie M.]

The story is very different than what I thought it to be and I am laughing to my sweet self...

http://www.julien-labruyere.eu/media/gondeville_legende_du_siecle__012411700_1719_11022008.pdf

short version.... big American photographer shows up... he is photographing the entire Grijalvas family... Claude wants to go fishing at his favorite place close to the mill on the river... he is frustrated at how long it is taking Strand to take the photographs... he wanted to leave... his father forces him to stay and have his picture taken like the rest of the family... he is furious...

so simple!

so Strand's iconic photograph is of someone who didn't want their picture taken... you have to love it!

[r.e.]

There is some great stuff on the internet about this.

Michel Boujut, who died last spring, was a well known French writer, critic and television personality. I remember seeing him on TV when I lived there. Anyway, he went searching for the subject of the photograph and wrote a book about it, published in 1998, called Le jeune homme en colère (The Angry Young Man): http://www.arlea.fr/LE-JEUNE-HOMME-EN-COLERE,503. While Amazon says that the book is currently unavailable, it looks like the Paris book/film/music megastore FNAC may have it, and there are plenty of used copies around. It also appears that a short film may have been made for Canal+ about Boujut's search.

It's not surprising that Boujut found him. Boujut had ties to Charente himself, and the town of Gondeville has a population of about 500. Interestingly, the essay by Charentais author François Julien-Labruyère (Annie M.'s link) suggests that the photograph was known in France as Le jeune home en colère before Boujut wrote his book: "Young man pour Paul Strand, Jeune homme en colère pour la nomenclature de son œuvre en français". It looks like Claude Grijalva, the young man in the photograph, was 17 at the time.

Boujut returned to the photograph in a post on his blog in Febuary, 2011, a few months before his death: http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/michel-boujut/210211/les-photos-nous-regardent

It's not clear from material on the net whether Boujut knew this for a fact, but he believed that the photo was shot with a 5x7 Graflex. It looks like his book contains lots of information on how Strand wound up in Gondeville (he went there with Claude Roy, himself from Gondeville and Strand's co-author of Le France de profil, the book in which the photograph appeared), the circumstances under which the photograph was shot and what happened to Claude Grijalva and the members of his family later in life.

If you read French, François Julien-Labruyère's essay is well worth reading in its entirety: http://www.julien-labruyere.eu/l-auteur/gondeville-legende-du-siecle-1997/

[Jim Galli]

I stand on my statement about turning back the clock. Where on God's green earth are you going to find a 17 year old boy who must do what his pa pa said to do, against his will, angry or not.

Great story, it adds to the picture.

[r.e.]

Great story, it adds to the picture.

François Julien-Labruyère's essay is fascinating. He seems to know his Charente cultural history cold, and he pulls together a lot of strings into a cohesive whole. The essay puts the photograph into a much broader social and cultural context than would occur to most people outside France. Great stuff on Strand, Roy, Michel Boujot and his father, Pierre Boujot, artistic and political movements, etc. Also, interesting comments on the relationship between Strand and Roy, and Strand's decision to go to Luzzara (he draws a comparison between the boy in Gondeville and the girl from Luzzara in the image below).

If you're ever in Cognac country, Gondeville is within spitting distance of some of the great Cognac houses :) And apparently Gondeville/Jarnac is also where François Mitterrand was born.

[Annie M.]

I found Julien-Labruyere's essay was a tough go with my high school French ... if anyone finds a translation could they post a link.

J-L .. site/in French http://www.julien-labruyere.eu/l-auteur/gondeville-legende-du-siecle-1997/

[Brian C. Miller]

I stand on my statement about turning back the clock. Where on God's green earth are you going to find a 17 year old boy who must do what his pa pa said to do, against his will, angry or not.

Happenstance. The photograph wouldn't have been the same if the young man had been relaxed and happy to have been photographed. But there are families, yes, even in first-world nations, where parents are obeyed. Not all the youth of the world are self-indulged and self-obsessed.

[r.e.]

I found Julien-Labruyere's essay was a tough go with my high school French ...

Well your High School French summary of what was happening when the photograph was made wasn't bad at all. A rather loose translation, but pretty close to the mark :) Great find.

[Bill_1856]

Paul Strand: Esaays on His Life and Work (http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Strand-Essays-Life-Work/dp/0893814415)
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 (http://notesonphotographs.org/index.php?title=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.

My apologies, Ken.
I away from home and my Paul Strand books, (a week in Key West, poor thing), and I just disremembered Richard Benson's quote.
Old age and an honest mistake.
Bill

[Jay DeFehr]

I stand on my statement about turning back the clock. Where on God's green earth are you going to find a 17 year old boy who must do what his pa pa said to do, against his will, angry or not.

Great story, it adds to the picture.

Jim,

See my posted photo of my 17 year old son obeying his Papa. Less angry, perhaps, but it certainly wasn't his idea to stand outside in his pajamas.

[r.e.]

In the context of this thread, the short essay that Michel Boujut wrote about the photograph three months before his death is interesting.

In English, I would render the title of his essay as The Photos are Watching Us. In the essay, Boujut argues that it is important to be true to the context and meaning of a photograph. The occasion for the essay was the decision by one of France's largest, reputable publishers to use Strand's photograph on the cover of a new novel by Phillipe Besson. Here is what the cover looks like: http://livre.fnac.com/a3101965/Philippe-Besson-Retour-parmi-les-hommes

Boujut was offended by this. Noting that Besson is himself Charentais, meaning that he should have known better, Boujut wrote:


Comment et pourquoi la photo de Paul Strand a-t-elle atterri là ? Se posant comme un cheveu sur la soupe. Car le jeune homme du photographe n'a strictement rien à voir avec celui du romancier: ni par l'époque, ni par l'appartenance sociale, ni par le look. Détournement d'une image, l'icône réduite à une tête de gondole.

In English:


How and why did Strand's photograph wind up on the cover of this novel? It is completely out of place. The young man in the photograph has nothing to do with the main character of the novel: nothing to do with the era, the society and the style of the time. The image has been hijacked and turned into a marketing gimmick.*

Boujut proceeds to talk about a Robert Doisneau photograph and the disconnect between the circumstances under which it was taken and the way that it was interpreted and used. He doesn't name the photograph, but it is unquestionably the one below. It is called At the Café, Chez Fraysse, Rue de Seine, 1958.

Boujut's tale of this photograph is quite brief, but it led me to have a look on the internet, where I found an article by Professor Terry Barrett called Photographs and Contexts that tells the tale in more detail: http://www.terrybarrettosu.com/pdfs/B_PhotAndCont_97.pdf

Apparently, Doisneau happened to be at Café Fraysse on rue de Seine, noticed the man and the woman in the photograph and asked to take their picture. They agreed. Eventually, the photograph appeared in the popular magazine Le Point as part of a spread on Paris cafés. Then it got hijacked. Without Doisneau's consent, it was published in a brochure on the evils of alcohol abuse, and then in a French scandal sheet under the title "Prostitution in the Champs-Elysées". And that isn't all. New York's Museum of Modern Art owns a print of the photograph, and its Director of Photography, John Szarkowski, wrote a book called Looking at Photographs: 100 Pictures from the Collection of the Museum of Modern Art. In the book, he talks about the photograph thus:


Most photographers of the past generation have demonstrated unlimited sympathy for the victims of villainous or imperfect societies, but very little sympathy for, or even interest in, those who are afflicted by their own human frailty. Robert Doisneau is one of the few whose work has demonstrated that even in a time of large terrors, the ancient weaknesses and sweet venial sins of ordinary individuals have survived. On the basis of his pictures one would guess that Doisneau actually likes people, even as they really are.

I didn't get that quote from Professor Barrett's paper, where he quotes only a couple of phrases. I got it from a current, active blog about photography, where in a 2010 post it is described as a "fantastic insight", although the author of the blog isn't quite sure whether to accept it: http://one125.net/post/323018076/at-the-cafe-chez-fraysse-rue-de-seine-paris

What is the truth? The man in the photograph was a professor at France's most important School of Fine Arts, located not far from the café, and he and the woman agreed to let Doisneau photograph them. Boujut says that the man was so embarrassed before his wife and colleagues, not to mention ridiculed and hounded, that he sued. Boujut says that he lost the action. Barrett thinks that he won. Either way, he lost, and in Boujut's view, so did the photograph.

Anyway, what I find interesting is that François Julien-Labruyère and Michel Boujut, working from a different cultural and historical understanding, approach Strand's photograph quite differently from those of us who don't share that understanding. It is also striking that this photograph was known in France, apparently before Boujut ran down the story of how it was made, as Jeune homme en colère. It appears that in France it is obvious that it is a photograph of a young man showing a little anger, yet not a single person in this thread, myself included, put that interpretation on it. Do the French see something that we don't, or is their interpretation the result of the title, in French, telling them how to interpret it?


*People who read French will know that my translation avoids being literal regarding some idioms that work very well in French, but rather less well in English. The first two sentences, translated more literally, read: "How and why did Strand's photograph land there? It sits there like a hair in a bowl of soup". The word détournement has been appropriated into English, but I translated it, losing some of its richness of meaning - the word denotes not just hijacking, but subversion, a kind of plagiarism - because it is not yet common in English. And a tête de gondole, which I translate as a marketing gimmick, is more literally the French phrase for a display at the end of a store aisle where the sales people put items that they want to highlight/push; in other words, it is premium display space. Why "head of the gondola"? Maybe because a display running the length of an aisle, with its often curved ends, looks a little like a gondola.

[Annie M.]

..."but for me the power is that Strand captured the defiant stare of a "Young Boy" who wished to be taken seriously as a man."

allow me to modify my interpretation...

... but for me the power is that Strand captured the defiant stare of a 'Young Boy" who wished to go fishing...

r.e.

Thank you for the additional insight into Boujut's essay...

"People who read French will know that my translation ignores some idioms that work very well in French, but rather less well in English"

It seems that is true of the 'translation' of the visual image into our own personal 'idioms' as well.

[Jay DeFehr]

r.e.,

It'a an interesting topic. I disagree with Barrett's premise that, "The meaning of any photographic is highly dependent on the context in which it appears". If he'd used interpretation, or reading, in place of "meaning", and influenced, or colored, or mediated, in place of "highly dependent", I'd be more agreeable. I think we fall into a trap when we pretend an image has a meaning, instead of is read as, the former of which removes the viewer from the dynamic.

[r.e.]

Thank you for the additional insight into Boujut's essay...

I'm going to buy a copy of his book. Having now read a few of his short pieces on the internet, he appears to have been a pretty good writer with some interesting ideas. I'm enjoying the material that has come to light as a result of you finding out that the kid in the photo was indeed identified.

I also find the history of Doisneau's photograph, and the fact that Szarkowski's comments about it were quoted on a photography blog as recently as 10 months ago (see the edit to my post), fascinating. In Barrett's essay, he says that he relied for the story on a piece written by Gisèle Freund, who I didn't know about, but who sounds interesting in her own right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gisèle_Freund

[r.e.]

See my posted photo of my 17 year old son obeying his Papa. Less angry, perhaps, but it certainly wasn't his idea to stand outside in his pajamas.

I'm willing to bet that that took a bit of cajoling. But he'll appreciate it in 20 years, right? :)

Jay, you've got to go to Paris. Just get on a plane and do it. Maybe not right now, though. Christmas is great there, except for the weather: cold, wet, windy. If you aren't into that (although frankly it may not be much different from Seattle), maybe wait for April/May :) June it can pour rain. July/August, avoid like the plague. Way too hot and way too many tourists.

[Jay DeFehr]

r.e.,

My kids were very patient with me, truth be told.

Paris is in the plans, but Russia comes first- March or April, I think. Paris might have to wait until 2013. It will give me time to bone up on my French. It's probably too late for my Russian, but Julia makes a beautiful translator.

[r.e.]

Paris might have to wait until 2013. It will give me time to bone up on my French.

When I first went to Paris, in about 1972, very few people spoke English. Now just about everybody, at least in the service business, does. It's really a matter of making an attempt, and showing respect/not being overbearing.

On my first trip to France, what saved me/gave me real access to the city, was that I was taken care of by a gentleman who co-wrote the Billie Holiday song Lover Man. He was a friend of my parents, an American serviceman from New York who went there during the war and decided to stay. That was a different era. These days, Paris is much more open, and getting by in English is very easy.

Whether Parisiennes, as distinct from the French generally, are a pain in the butt, well that's a different question. Like New Yorkers, they have rather a high opinion of themselves and their city. Lots of French people from outside Paris have about as much respect for Parisiennes as Americans who live outside New York have for New Yorkers :)

[Jay DeFehr]

I intend to rely heavily on the generosity of my hosts, while making a sincere, if hopeless effort to demonstrate my admiration for their language and culture. The strategy has served me well elsewhere. I find my French improves when I drink heavily and keep my mouth stuffed with croissants. At least it seems that way to me.

[r.e.]

I intend to rely heavily on the generosity of my hosts, while making a sincere, if hopeless effort to demonstrate my admiration for their language and culture. The strategy has served me well elsewhere. I find my French improves when I drink heavily and keep my mouth stuffed with croissants. At least it seems that way to me.

You're in, you're a natural. One caveat. Not sure that it is a good idea to be drinking wine at the same time as you are eating croissants. There's a bit of a time of day issue there. Maybe try an espresso, or a café crème, with the croissants? OK, if you want to go for it, a glass of champagne :)

[Jay DeFehr]

Not sure that it is a good idea to be drinking wine at the same time as you are eating croissants.

It will be ok, because I plan to frequently insert, "No soy de aqui".

[r.e.]

It will be ok, because I plan to frequently insert, "No soy de aqui".

In France, not sure that No soy de aqui is the best phrase.

Try Je suis un étranger. :)

The tricky part is real life pronunciation. It's "shwee AtrangA" :) shwee = je suis = I am. The word "un", meaning "a", gets dropped in real life. AtrangA = foreigner.

But if you want to be proper, or very pointed, as distinct from colloquial, you can also say Je swee un AtrangA" But that ain't what you'll hear 95% of the time.

French doesn't work like Spanish. In many ways, it's more like English. Words get run together.

[Jay DeFehr]

I think no soy de aqui makes my point pretty well.:D

[r.e.]

I think no soy de aqui makes my point pretty well.:D

I suspect that a lot of people in France, in Paris and especially in the south-west, will know what it means :)

But you know, if you're reasonably laid back, you won't need that phrase.

[atlcruiser]

My trick with the French has always been to speak my southern English very loudly. :)

[Annie M.]

Richard...

Here is a clip of Richard Benson discussing Strand... Benson is a master printer and did the limited editions for Aperture Foundation and some of Strand's portfolios in Strand's darkroom in France. The clip refers to gravure however there is a nice bit about Strand's varnishing & printing style.

Also, the Strand archive is at Aperture Millerton, the second link will take you to the blog where you can see some entries about Strand... posted in the Work Scholar trip thread the archivist is holding one of Strands cameras.

Good wishes for your quest for excellence... Annie

http://www.benson.readandnote.com/videos/art-photogravure

http://www.aperture.org/exposures/?tag=paul-strand

[BrianShaw]

I think no soy de aqui makes my point pretty well.:D

My foreign language skills are rusty. Does that mean "I am not here" or "I don't want to be here"?

[Wayne Lambert]

It means "I'm not from here."

[BrianShaw]

... :o

[Wayne Lambert]

The "de" in this case means "from." Aaah, the details of language...have tripped me up for years...