I just picked up a copy of Robert Frank's "The Americans" - reissued on the 50th anniversary of the original French edition. I tried to get hold of a copy of one of the original imprints for several years, but either they were invisible or just too expensive. So I knew the book only by reputation - I don't think I had even seen more than a handful of the images, and out of context. I want to say something about this book, but not an ordinary critical review, there are plenty of those and perhaps not too much left to say about it. However for people who aren't aware of the book, here is a kind of potted history and summary of how the important points that are usually made about it.

The book is a collection of 84 images, culled from over 20,000, that Frank shot on a two year road trip across and around the US, funded by a Guggenheim scholarship. A Swiss emigre, he had previously worked in fashion and editorial photography after coming to the US. Apparently he came to US with optimism and enthusiasm, but this withered in the face of what he saw as the sell-out to money and consumerism. "The Americans" is a wide ranging, bleak statement of this disillusionment. It was not well received. In an age of perceived prosperity and well-being after WWII, the vision didn't chime in with peoples notions of what America represented. From a photographic point of view the wonky horizons, blurred images, unconventional viewpoints and compositions were just regarded as sloppy and unacceptable, Even Walker Evan's work looks like Ansel Adams in comparison. Gradually however the book came to be regarded as a pivotal moment in photography. Frank showed people what he saw, and what he thought about what he saw. It's a very partial view, it is not objective documentary stuff. When Jack Kerouac wrote the introduction to the second, US edition, he constantly invokes poetry, and that is very telling. This book conveys the authors ideas in the same way that poetry does, and in a way that prose probably cannot. Concise, powerful - in need of contemplation and reflection.

I wondered why the book is reappearing now. Maybe just a celebration, but Frank himself was involved in the artistic production, and the presentation and recropping of some of the photos, so perhaps it is the final definitive version. The directors cut. A nice conspiracy theory would be that maybe it is time for another reappraisal of America in this fashion. Although there are enough commentators doing this, they generally try and argue the points rationally. Frank shows how to present an admittedly biased view while still retaining the power of argument. It makes people think, and doesn't make them immediately reach for words like prejudiced and one-sided, as they would do with a work of prose.

This is the new one, from Steidl.

And this was the original. Frank himself decided on the jacket design. I'm not sure how significant that is. Personally I prefer this one. It has a stark look that echoes the content.

Leaving the question of the USA aside, another reason I'm interested in the reappearance is that I believe this type of photography is as valid today as it was then. All it needs is the subject, the vision, the passion. I say this in an age when every second article about the genre seems to be concerned with "photography is dead" or "photography must find a new way of doing things". I don't agree. No-one says that poetry is dead. You just need to have something to say, a way of saying it and some genius.

There are plenty of people producing this sort of personal work of course. It just doesn't seem to hit the headlines. Ever since photography was co-opted into "Art" things have changed, and commercialism started to influence what is shown and talked about. This is maybe the way of the world, but I hope that photographers today look at the example, take heart and continue to use the camera in this way, which in my view is what makes photography unique

As a footnote, it is ironic to note that there is a Flickr group called "Photos in the style of Robert Frank". Quite apart from the fact that the idea betrays a total misapprehension of what his photography is about, it certainly informs the Zeitgeist. Especially if you read the comments, although I won't force you to do this.

Jane Bown is familiar to all readers of the English Sunday paper "The Observer", even if many people only recognise the subjects and not the photographers name. Mainly portraits, and perversely taken with an old Olympus OM-1. Somehow or other she doesn't seem to be as famous as other photo celebrities, but I think she should be. I like her approach, (in the mould of Cartier Bresson) and she has some nice quotes - "The best pictures are uninvited, they're suddenly there in front of you ... easy to see but difficult to catch. some people take pictures, I find them" - I can relate to that.

An unusual, surprising portrait of Orson Welles, found at New York Books

She's been around along time, and The Guardian has a piece about her by Germaine Greer, as an introduction to a new book and exhibition they are hosting - "Unknown Bown - 1947 - 1967".

In the last post I described how I quickly became disillusioned with my attempt to charge like a white knight through the ranks of images, casting "photographs" to the right and "non-photographs" to the left. One of the books I've been reading recently is Steve Edward's "Photography: A Very Short Introduction (OUP 2006)". If I'd read the first paragraph of his preface a while ago I'd have saved myself a lot of bother.

He writes:

"I must have been mad to agree to write this book; not least because the combination of 'very short introduction' with 'photography' seems like an oxymoron. The three or four standard histories of the medium are all huge volumes. The problem is simply that photography runs in all directions, permeating diverse aspects of society. Indeed it is difficult to find an area of modern life untouched by it."

Crucially for me he then goes on:

"The critic John Tagg once suggested that there was no single characteristic, or practice that represented the fundamental essence of the medium. Trying to account for photography as a whole was akin to attempting a history or a museum of writing: all that could be done was to trace the uses of photography (or writing) in the institutions in which it was put to work - the law courts, medicine, advertising, art and so forth"

Amen.

The book presents an excellent foot up for anyone wanting some ideas about how to start exploring the subject, history and philosophy of photography. It's a good series from OUP - not a "dummies guide" or "bluffers guide" but true introductions to weighty subjects by experts.

The latest issue of Lenswork arrived the other day. Nice portfolios as always, but I was interested in the editorial by Brooks Jensen. He talks about music and how to try and explain its meaning and value to someone who has no concept of it. What I liked was his explanation of why it was different from the other arts in that it isn't a direct symbol for something else. By contrast of course our understanding of photography and other visual arts is burdened or informed (depending on your point of view) by our own reactions to symbols. I don't mean metaphorical or allegorical symbolism, but if we see a picture of a child or a rainbow or a boat, our reaction is conditioned by our own experience and understanding of what is shown.

It's an interesting article, although I think he labours a bit with the scenario that he uses. You can read it in the free preview of the magazine.

Lenswork Issue 70

I haven't taken a photographic magazine for years - I remember the old days of the BJP and Amateur Photographer - but latterly I found most magazines to be  a bit consumer oriented.

Recently however I've been looking to subscribe to some more, and of course using the Internet to find them. (Ironic, eh?). I subscribe to a few other publications anyway, even if there are online versions/alternatives. I like something coming through the letterbox every now and again.

I recently received my first copy of Lenswork, (www.lenswork.com) a small, but beautifully produced little magazine. There are a few portfolios/profiles, a well considered editorial, and a tailpiece of snippets. A very well thought out formula. I like it.