#davidsonsmith

With many photographers, their work seems almost intrusive, as if they are viewing their subjects through a museum case, or even capitalizing on their suffering. Bruce Davidson's consciousness of his photographic subjects struck me as softer and more humanitarian, especially when he goes back years later on his own time to find his previous subjects or even their descendants. This interview reminded me of Sissi Lu, a photographer I follow on Instagram who pairs each photo she takes of an older stranger with their response to the question "What would you tell your younger self?" From the insight in Bruce Davidson's interview, I want to ask: How can photographers (professional or amateur alike, doesn't matter) engage more with their subjects to bring out their personalities and livelihoods into the photo, instead of just producing intrusive or stiff stills?

Eugene Smith's way of working with light in relation to his subjects made a pretty big impression on me. I liked that he is a fan of using naturally available light sources as well as manipulating light sources to some extent to achieve images that can also be further processed when developing and printing. I particularly liked that he did not want to over-manipulate light to make the image too staged or devoid of softness of emotion, and that he did not prioritize perfect lighting over human happenings. The last section about using discretion in tragic situations and putting away the camera instead of manipulating any light to try to get any intrusive photograph stuck with me, especially after having read Bruce Davidson's interview first. Smith's thought process about how to compensate in what areas to capture all the textures and emotions in the Spanish village deathbed photo was also very illustrative for me. This example made me think: what other tools and techniques do photographers have at their disposal to communicate emotions and feelings beyond the strict lines of a photograph?

My notes on Bruce Davidson from Everybody Street read: “Bruce Davidson -- empathetic, sweet guy, metro.” Indeed, his interview is deeply endearing to me. He says, “It’s [the ability to connect with his subjects] is about trying to be a human being,” and later remarks that his camera was his buddy as a young boy. I love this very soft, good-natured, empathetic side to Davidson and appreciate that he dedicated so much of his career to documenting the civil rights movement. We are lucky to have such a gentle photographer imparting such a wonderful sense of sentimentality and human connection to his work. 

Bruce Davidson. Couple Kissing on Street, London, England, 1960.

I’m not as familiar with Eugene Smith but I thoroughly enjoyed his interview. He is extremely well-spoken; this quote from him stood out to me: “Here, let me just touch upon this: photography is still young, it is not yet far enough away from its beginning. I believe that photographers-and this is not the full carcass-are intimidated by the very ease of photography, as well as by its difficulties. By its difficulties, until they have the feeling that, well, since there are so many things almost impossible to overcome, let's just sidle around them, daring nothing, and go ahead anyway, along the accepted paths-some of the biggest names do-and let us rely on its other nature, that quality of easiness.” Unsurprisingly, he shows himself to be someone who reflected often and deeply about the implications and nature of photography. 

Eugene Smith, The entrance to a section of the Chisso Chemical Plant. Minamata, Japan. 1972

I like this image for the depth, and the fact that he uses the fence to demonstrate how he as a viewer was separated from the chemical plant, and by extension, how the chemical plant is blocked from access and from view with the fence. 

Questions: 

1. What does hard work mean to a photographer? We have discussed several reputable and successful photographers who have alluded to “what it takes” to be a good photographer -- what does this mean to you? 

Bruce Davidson had some interesting points about photography that seem to be common mistakes for photographers starting out. He points out the “constant photographic challenge of getting past the obvious.” Often beginner photographers taking pictures with their phone tend to take the classic shots of landmarks or framing the picture in a very stereotypical way that would commonly be seen on google images. Contrastingly, professional photographers find unique shots and show the beauty of everyday scenes. They try to not shoot photos of the most obvious views, and instead capture more interesting and unseen moments. One way that Davidson did this was not taking pictures of the actual sport game when at a football game. Rather, he took photos of the mood of the people around him and the atmosphere of the players in the locker room. As a result, he got shots that were likely less seen than the typical football game throws and touchdowns. 

Bruce Davidson, Yale Football, New Haven, CT 1954, from the series Yale Football

Bruce Davidson, Yale Football, New Haven, CT 1954, from the series Yale Football

W. Eugene Smith does not seem to be afraid of adding artificial light to scenes to help create better, more clear photographs. He argues that it does not necessarily take away from the mood since adding light to a dark room may make the subject more visible and seen by the audience. The same person in the same situation can have vastly different visual effects based on the lighting of the photo. Keeping the natural light may cause the scene to look more dark and gloomy than it actually appears in real life, so supplementary light may be needed to recreate the true image. He also has also experienced that some people do not find the added light intrusive, but rather prefer it over the previous lighting. Smith also made an interesting point that he sometimes finds a good scene he wants to photograph, but would wait until the weather is better on another day before getting the perfect shot. This seems to counter some of the more in-the-moment philosophies of some of the photographers from Everyday Street, such as Bruce Gilden. Gilden in particular took pictures of people on the street seemingly without much consideration of the background, weather, or lighting. Which method is more effective or preferred in the larger field of photography?

I like Bruce Davidson's idea of starting without preconceiving. We all expect to see certain scenes before actually going to a place. However, as our anticipations grow more specific, they eventually become restrictions that make us ignorant of novel subjects and perspectives. Bruce Davidson's project Subway takes me beyond my negative impressions on New York subway due to some unpleasant experiences. He sees New York subway as a chaotic and hybrid social equalizer, in contrast to the ordered and segregated world above the ground. People from different races and social status all get trapped together as the train enters the dark tunnels. That's when the endless possibilities come in. In Subway, the subjects are so random that one could never preconceive before the actual encounter.

Bruce Davidson

Subway Platform, New York City, 1980

Bruce Davidson

Subway, New York City, 1980

Bruce Davidson

Subway, New York City, 1980

I also enjoyed his earlier work Circus. It records the inner moments of dwarfs behind their physical mask and reminds me that they also have feelings.

Bruce Davidson

Jimmy Armstrong, 'The Dwarf', Palisades, 1958

I really enjoyed both interviews and found the contrast between the two really interesting. It was also fascinating to read that Smith served as a "hero" and an "inspiration" to Davidson even with their differences.

On one hand, I found Davidson's ideaology of photography to be more personal and intimate, offering a rather unique perception on his photos. I particularly enjoyed Davidson's perspective on taking photos until there is nothing left to be seen anymore. I find this approach of 'getting everything out of a subject' to be more intimate and personal than the common "shoot and leave" approach.

On the other hand, I found Smith's take on photography to be much less philosophical and much more technical. Smith discusses the value of lighting and how it is central to photography. I find it quite amusing, that if there is no light, the subject cannot be seen and hence there is nothing to be photographed. I appreciate Smith's resourcefulness, that in the absence of natural light, one can and should use artificial light and limit oneself. It would, however, still be worth acknowledging that the introduction of artificial light might inadvertently affect the overall atmosphere of the photo.

In the end, I wonder in what ways can the lighting of a photo impact the overall feel of a photo? When can we use artificial light as an extra source of light to mess with the message of the photo?

The Dwarf Palisades, New Jersey, 1958. Bruce Davidson Magnum Photos

The two interviews, one with Bruce Davidson and the other with W. Eugene Smith, were interesting to read and surprisingly very different. Bruce Davidson had a very personal outlook on photography and focused on his feelings and motivations behind his works. On the other hand, W. Eugene Smith’s interview focused heavily on the technical aspects of photography. Both were engaging but one part that especially stood out to me was that Smith was Davidson’s “hero” and inspiration. It showed that everyone has their own interpretation and style.

In W. Eugene Smith’s interview, he focuses on the importance of lighting. The first step in taking pictures is having some source of light. If he can’t see his subject, there is nothing to take and light must be added. He starts with his opinions and the usefulness of a variety of light types in photography, and continues by walking through his work process. He goes in-depth with his experience in altering lighting and even goes into how to change the aperture for certain scenarios. At one point, Smith is asked to give advice to beginner photographers who want to learn more about light. He said to go outside and take a walk on a bright sunny day with the sunlight in your eyes. This was very interesting, but also made sense, as I struggle to take pictures in direct sunlight and am not the biggest fan of the large contrast. I thus noticed during the recent film assignments that it is very difficult to actually capture the amount of light I want. 

Contrary to Smith, Bruce Davidson goes in-depth in describing the emotional motivation and personal stories behind some of his works. Davidson states that before he captures the image, it is a “blank canvas” and he “starts without preconceiving”. But when he arrives at his setting, he looks for the perspectives that people don’t think to capture. For example, he focused on capturing the tension and interactions amongst players instead of the game itself during a Yale football game; he entered New York in a “state of mind to be drawn into [a] black hole of reality”; he went to LA and took pictures of what Hollywood sign “sees” instead of the sign itself. Listening to Davidson’s stories behind his works really showed his love for photography and that he really enjoys capturing the images that he does. I also want to practice focusing on what it is that I want to take a picture of. I am one of the photographers for my group in one of my other classes this semester and I want to be able to capture the live emotions and create a story for our product design journey. 

“​​Baby chick in jar being fed deficient diet to determine which vitamins essential to its survival, Laboratories of Bacteriology at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana”, 1949

By W. Eugene Smith

“Carnegie Library - Oakland - A Consultation”, 1955-56

By W. Eugene Smith

“Martin Luther King, Jr. at press conference, Birmingham”, 1962

By Bruce Davidson

“Girl in underwear standing on fire escape, New York”, 1966

Bruce Davidson USA. New York City. 1980. Subway.

Bruce Davidson USA. New York City. 1959. Brooklyn Gang. 

W. Eugene Smith Fishing. Minamata Bay, Japan. 1972

W. Eugene Smith | Let Truth be the Prejudice Three generations of miners. A Welsh coal-mining town. Wales. 1950.

I appreciate Davidson's dedication in going back and reflecting on the photos, to not just shoot and leave. Because photos inherently breach privacy, taking as much value as possible and considering the impact of your work feels important. Davidson's emphasis that you should know what you do NOT want in a photo is helpful to me, because I often focus on the ideal shot I want to take but can't quite achieve.

Smith's take on adding light sources to take photos reminds me of photo editing. The philosophy of #nofilter argues against using any filters, usually on Instagram. Photo-editing can bring a photo closer to reality, or just closer to an artistic vision. I think that adding light sources can add or take away from the authenticity of the photo, depending on the photographer's intentions and use. Smith talks about sometimes needing to come back to retain the atmosphere, which I found interesting.

Bruce Davidson: Subway. New York City, USA. 1980

Bruce Davidson: Jimmy Armstrong, 'The Dwarf'. Palisades, New Jersey. USA. 1958.

W. Eugene Smith | Let Truth be the Prejudice 'The walk to paradise garden'. The Smith children Patrick and Juanita. USA. 1946.

W. Eugene Smith | Let Truth be the Prejudice US Marine demolition team blasting out a cave on Hill 382. The Battle of Iwo Jima. The Pacific Campaign - World War II. Iwo Jima, Japan. February, 1945.

↶*ೃ✧˚. ❃ ↷ ˊ- ↶*ೃ✧˚. ❃ ↷ ˊ- ↶*ೃ✧˚. ❃ ↷ ˊ- ↶*ೃ✧˚. ❃ ↷ ˊ-

Bruce Davidson and W. Eugene Smith’s emphasis on the subject of treating the people they photograph humanely, with respect, is a fresh and more agreeable perspective than many of our previous readings, which seemed to see photographed subjects as more a means to an end. “Too much in photography is shoot and leave” is a statement especially relevant nowadays when our social media is inundated with images of celebrities and horror stories, both local and abroad. And oftentimes, the best photographs are overlooked for the more pathos-inducing images. As Smith points out, “photographers too frequently make themselves obnoxious”, caring more about the image to be captured rather than the people or things involved in it. I find that I wholeheartedly agree with Smith’s opinion that a photographer’s role should either be that of an “unobserved observer” or “an intimately accepted participant”.