My Daughter’s Question by Marc Davidson
We buried the remains of a family dog today. It must have reminded our four year old daughter Laurence of last summer when we buried my father’s remains.
Laurence has a vague understanding of death, or “going back to nature” as we have explained it to her; she knows Grandpa Davidson was in a building when a plane crashed and now he is back with nature.
But today was a new kind of question. A why question. A why question we didn’t know how to answer.
“Daddy, why didn’t the pilot watch for your dad?”
—
This diptych of my father’s remains are part of a long term project which began with an essay I did for David’s At Home Loft Workshop in September, 2008. David’s hope for us was to start an idea in class that we would continue after the workshop; an idea that would take us to the next level. My idea was Zero Ground, an essay on 9/11 and the identification and burial of my father’s remains who died in the World Trade Center.
The image on the right is my father’s identification card which was recovered from Ground Zero in December 2001. In June 2008, my father’s remains were identified using the latest DNA techniques and the image on the left is my brother Adam, holding a piece of my father’s rib.
And so, Zero Ground has led me to “Shared September”; a project on the effects of 9/11 which I am currently working on and hope to complete for the 10 year anniversary in 2011.
Website: Marc Davidson
I expect to find facts in factual photos. Here, I have no idea what I am looking at. When I asked my partner, same response. So my stupid question is what are we looking at in these two photos?
STOOP…
i thought it was clear, but maybe i should have Marc rewrite his caption….pictured are all that remains of Marc’s father who was in the World Trade Center on 9/11…the burial of these remains was obviously long after the attack since it took all those years for positive identification….
cheers, david
I’m sorry to be so obtuse but I still do not know what those remains are. What is it in the palm of the hand? What is that on the right? A bill of some kind? I’m not trying to be stupid on purpose. I really want to know.
STOOP…
in the left picture are the remains of Marc’s father…in the right picture is his father’s World Trade Center ID card which was in his pocket at the time of the attack…
Do you know what “STOOP” again you take my breath away by your insensitivity and UNintelligence- yes “STUPID” is really the only way to describe you…
EVERYONE in the ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD knows what happened when THOSE planes collided with THOSE buildings, unless of course you are under seven years old and living in some sort of vacuum… and even then the sounds of 911 STILL ring in our ears.
Who were the perps? Why, why, why and what about the whole chain of events and the lives and deaths of hundreds and thousands of people that followed?
Give me a break! Even if the photography is still developing a sense of style or visual language that may not be absolutely perfect, the words and the imagery combined give a clear and easily comprehended message…Why, why, why?
And yes you must be obtuse if you must literally sight an entire skelton as proof of existence…
DOH I don’t know, I reckon I give up at this point…
I remember your photographs shown previously Marc. The enormity of the attack on the World Trade Centre was such that actual photographs of the event and its aftermath sometimes fail to reveal to the viewer the horror of what they are seeing. They seem like stills from a film and therefore, somewhat unreal. Your photograph shown here is one of loss; personal loss.
From a photographic perspective, these two photographs work, but not as well as with the caption. How could they? It’s difficult to show what is no-longer there.
I looked at your website, Marc, and personally prefer (if prefer is a term suitable for such circumstances) photograph number two of your Zero Ground essay – the “Missing” photograph. Very poignant.
Best wishes to you and your family,
Mike.
wow…. already interesting conversation on this one… surprised by this a little…
marc. this one has been long long overdue amigo… this work is amazing…. i sat in my studio this morning looking at this for about 15 min in silence reflecting on this and taking in the deep emotion these 2 images have. along with the writing this is a very strong piece. let me say right here that i am proud to know you not only as a photographer but as a friend. this work is amazing marc. i hope we can catch up soon. hold your head high amigo… it looks great! i am very taken back by this… amazing…
I did not understand until I was told by DAH and you so I am that stupid. Thanks.
Touching personal photos, which puts them beyond critique.
MIKE R…
i agree #2 “Missing” in the essay is a better picture…but, this diptych depicts what was actually placed in the grave of Marc’s father….
EDITORIAL COMMENT:
STOOP/ALL:
This will be brief as I will write a longer editorial comment later. I have promised Marc to do this and will do so this afternoon. Let me briefly, from an editorial standpoint, ofer a talking point, point of reflection.
The diptych. The picture on the left side is a photograph of some of the bone fragment remains of Marc’s father. On the right hand side is a photograph of Marc’s father’s work ID. The ID was returned to Marc recently as part of the on-going recovery program. There are very few ‘physical’ remains left of Marc’s father: some bone fragments and ash, an ID, some papers. The confusion, or ambiguity, that has arrisen was something that Marc and I discussed previously. Given the anecdote about his daughter’s question after burying their pet, it is possible and not unreasonable to expect that some viewers may misinterpret the picture of the bones as those other than Marc’s father’s. Moreover, because of the non-explanatory nature of the description, it is easy to confuse or to ‘read’ this diptych.
As part of Marc’s investigation and continued project, he has added a dimension to this project that began in his work at David’s workshop. He is beginning to investigate: what constitutes a person’s identity and the memory of that. This is a particularly elemental question and given the out-sized identity that we all have with the events of that September morning as well as the photographic record of the event, Marc wanted to offer a different approach and offer something specific for readership, something that might, if possible, be able to cut through the opacity of all the “huge” language/ideas/identity/photographs that accompany this historical event.
In this sense, this diptych was meant to serve as a very simple doorway into the experience and identity of both that event (it’s historical impact) and the very real and painful struggle that the surviving members grapple with daily. These photographs are stripped of their ‘photographic’ aesthetic…they are NOT pretty pictures, or overly ornate images from Ground Zero, they are simple artificats. In many senses, the idea was to also make them as simple and as straightforward as the id picture itself.
How our ‘identity’ is reduced to such s small, simple and quite ordinary thing (piece of bone, piece of melted plastic) and yet our identities, the person we are, we were, is much larger and eternal than that.
I will write more later, as Marc has asked, but for now, this is just to serve as a way to clarify any confusion that may arrise.
2 pictures, 2 kinds of identification…..
and his daughters question.
all the best
bob
ALL
I apologize for the incomplete caption.
The image on the right is my father’s identification card which was recovered from Ground Zero in December 2001. In June 2008, my father’s remains were identified using the latest DNA techniques and the image on the left is my brother Adam, holding a piece of my father’s rib.
I hope this clarifies things a bit and I will write more later.
Thanks for your time with my image.
Marc
yes, yes, maybe rewrite the caption.
at the first instance i thought the bone was her dog’s remains.
not certainly insensitivity and i dont have the name ‘stupid’ to blame.
though it takes me 3.2 seconds to reread the whole thing, first hand read/look confusing.
if title said ‘9/11, davidson, laurence’ and no caption this would probably say more.
im not in any position at all to suggest anything but just saying stoop has a reason to be confused.
ps qualifier:
i was there the day before. right there. and ive never been back.
will be back someday
marc,
we posted same time.
my deepest prayers for your family’s peace.
marc.
for me the piece illustrates just how long you must have been waiting, along with other peoples relatives, to reach the conclusion of laying your father to rest.
for me by far the most emotional photographs of the event have come from the possetions which have been documented.
i also remember your piece from the workshop and was impressed by it.. somehow though this pairing is more striking for me.
good luck moving forward with the work and your family life.. and thanks for submitting.
david
ps – the caption information you have given just now above is important i think – thanks for sharing.
Marc, I’m glad you are continuing to explore this painful subject as a photographer. I know you will be exploring it as a son and father as long as you live but to bring your photographic eye to it, as you did during David’s loft workshop in 2008, is both courageous and potentially healing. This is the heart of what David means when he counsels us to dig deep and find a subject that is ours and ours alone. Even just this one image speaks volumes. I see in the open hand cradling your father’s remains, a willingness to be open to the pain of his physical and emotional loss and the truth of his essence never being lost. The picture of your father on his ID card shows the joy of the man, his smile as big as the world.
Thank you for being open to follow this thread wherever it may take you, for when you do so you carry all of us with you.
peace
Patricia
With the addition of the precise information, the diptych deeply moves me, Marc. I’m glad I was stupidly confused. I needed to read this: “The image on the right is my father’s identification card which was recovered from Ground Zero in December 2001. In June 2008, my father’s remains were identified using the latest DNA techniques and the image on the left is my brother Adam, holding a piece of my father’s rib.” Thank you!
i think people might have been a little harsh on Mr Stupid, as I am in agreement that combined with a concise and factual caption these images hold far more resonance. Its good that someone is prepared to question work…
Quick Editorial Follow-up:
As I mentioned, I will write an editorial response tonight, pluse let me saty that I think SToop’s question is an important one. I too think, particularly in light of the issues that this dipytch and this series is attempting to wrestle with and describe (more about that tonight), it is important that viewers know that this is a photograph of the father’s rib bone (extracted from the site) and the father’s work id. If this is a confusion, it must be articulated well enough that the reader understands. Part of the power of the work (more about that later tonight) comes from it’s simplicity and ambiguity. In a sense, the ‘conceptual’ nature of the project. Rarely, have we been afforded a perspective of the family member photographing or detailing the event and/or struggle. Most of our visual imformation and documentation of 9/11 have come from phtoographers/journalists/investigators…who shot on the day or returned or photographed families and their aftermath. I have talked to Marc extensively about the importance of THE ARTIFACTS…and this is part of that work. The photographs, also, need to be like artificts as well: simple, clear, not aesthetizied. Anyway, i’ll write more later tonight…
but we should not get upset if it was unclear. This should be clear and understandable.
Thank you for asking for a clarification.
all the best
bob
im happy it’s been posted, Mark. im looking forward to seeing more of it. despite all the difficulties, it’s an important investigation. it also challenges you as a photographer. how to photograph memory? how to convey the loss when there is so little left. im wishing you the best with the project :)
I looked. I saw. I read.
It needs more time. I went back. I read again.
I dwell on “Daddy, why didn’t the pilot watch for your dad?”
The brief passage is embroidered with detail. People, give it time.
The diptych is interesting and absolute. Strange, but i got the visuals before i got “Daddy, why didn’t the pilot watch for your dad?”
We all need time.
MARC – i am so sorry for your loss. this is truly a lovely and personal project. I look forward to seeing it on the 10th Anniv. Can you tell me more about the image from your website of the memorial in the home? Whose home is that?
EDITORIAL COMMENT:
“They talked a minute longer, then went to their designated tables without making plans to meet later. The idea of later was elusive.”–“Falling Man”, Don DeLillo
I must say that it is with a heavy heart that I write this editorial comment. I am surprised that the work has elicited a small and tepid response. I do not judge the readership for that for I think the truth is that two very strong and polar responses are at play with this work and both of those, antipodes of one another, are so strong as to evoke silence: the weight of history and personal loss and the aesthetics of what constitutes a ‘good photograph.’ I shall try, as an editor, as a photographer and as a friend to write something lucid and simple in celebration of this remarkable pairing but also try to offer a doorway through which the readership can approach and appreciate this image and it’s evocation. Earlier tonight, I was reading Blind Spot (for those not familiar with this magnificent photography magazine, I suggest you take a peek some time) and looking at the work featured this edition, most of which has to do with the conceptual idea of seeing, of ‘documentary’ work and it’s relationship to reporting of fact, blind or otherwise. Through the magazine runs the high-tension wire buzz of an argument that still see unreconciled by most photographers, and one I’ve tried for nearly the entire life of Burn to write about and to open a path toward: that the ‘appearance’ of a photograph, specifically it’s photographic value (beauty, tonality, composition, authenticity, etc) is paramount versus the ideas that an images concept, it’s idea, it’s value, the message it give us, is the more valued and more significant. In documentary photography (which still seems to make up the majority of work we publish here at Burn, but also what seems to be the predilection of most of the submissions and commentators), the idea of ‘conceptual work’ seems anathema, and we’ve seen that in many people’s reactions here as well. So, I am not so surprised when the reaction, or lack of reaction, has come with this particular photograph. This is not a judgment toward the readership, pro or con, but an observation. So, as both an editor at Burn and as a friend of the artist, I’d like to tell you a story.
Almost two months ago, Marc Davidson called me and asked if he could come over to our house and pick my brain. He’d been working on the idea of “Shared September” and was about to meet with a magazine to try and pitch the story to them. As part of the meeting, Marc was going to show his portfolio and so he asked if I could drop by and have a portfolio ‘chat/review.’ Marc and I had become close friends after returning from New York in October. After a couple of hours of talking and going through his portfolio, I tried to give him a tough and frank appraisal of what worked and what did not, with regard to both his portfolio and it’s presentation. We also spent a lot of time talking about “Zero Ground”: what worked, what did not, what was the best way to create a narrative in both individual pictures and sequentially. After all was said and done, we put the prints away and started to talk about his father, his experience of 9/11 and then entire ordeal, as well as the continual updates with regard to identifying his father’s remains, retrieving personal and identifying items from the site and the continued grieving process. Mark told me about some of the ‘documents’ that had been returned to him and he showed me his father’s Work ID card and I was stunned into silence. For a long time, I couldnt speak at first and my body ached and felt aspin, as if I was looking at my own father’s identification card. The entire emotional, visceral, intellectual and historical weight of that September moment as well as the power of my friend’s story and loss came to bear in that small, peeling-away, charred card. The entire event, and Marc’s story, which had always felt like such an abstraction to me, became manifest. No longer an abstraction, no longer an abacus of faces and names and dates and historic and political words, no longer an event or a horizon-distant loss, but there before me was a life and I was holding it in my hand, for a long time, the only piece of his father’s life that he’d been left with and there it was: some part of the entirety of his father’s vanishing, the voices and laughter and warmth and knowledge and hum, all of that, contained in that small stained white plastic card. Not an abstraction but flesh and voice and life and bone, there before us. I said to Marc: ‘you must photograph this card and use it. It is you father, as much as the bones and ash.”
For weeks, Marc and I talked about these documents (ID card, birth certificate, some papers) and the importance that they play in not only the life and story of Lawrence Davidson (Marc’s father), the story of Marc’s 8-year retrieval and reconciliation with the loss of the father he loved profoundly, but also at the heart of what he had wanted to do photographically, as testimony of his father’s life and the project he’d wanted to share with others about the loss and reconciliation. How does one reconcile personal, intimate grief with grief that is shared on history’s stage? Can this be accomplished through the out-sized hunger of documentary photography? Each time I would meet Marc, I asked him to talk to me about the project and tell me more stories about his dad and the years post 9/11. With each story, in became increasingly clear that a ‘traditional’ documentary approach could not suffice, nor did it speak to the story of Marc’s life and what he was after. We have come to know that event and the events after, the years awave, primarily through the prism of images: the work of ‘great’ photographers like Nachtwey and Towell and Franklin and Drew and Richards and Mertleman and on on and on and one….from the tv and video images to the continued photographic record from amateurs and photographers who have continued to document both the legacy of the event itself and the aftermath in the families’ lives. And yet, what about the artifacts. Not just the pictures of rubble and ash and bone-broken girders, not just exoskeletons of steel and glass just the placards of the missing and grieving, but what of the clothes and the shoes and the papers, a grounded-firmament of papers scattered like a great-plain of seed and sand, the badgest and shoelaces, the wrist bands and name tags, the emails and extension memo’s, the parking passes and metro cards, the ties and rings and bracelets and rubber bands, the coins and collars, the cufflinks and sock stitchings, the flaxseed of hair and the nails filed that, miraculously, showed up next to poured and flamed concrete. Who speaks of this things? Who speaks of the minutae of the living that goes bereft when the living have left their loss to us? We consider history and death on a scale set large by constellations, when it is just as true that our lives are large because of all that infinitely small detail which scatters and snakes it’s way into life. Can you know see the largess of the left simply in the small, dog-eared turn of a corner in a plastic card, set aflame thousands of degree that will not relent: the face remains, uncharred, though the life and building came down. How do we begin to speak of this to others….
This photograph is not a conceit, though it is a conceptual contraption. Maybe it is the fact that these two photographs are not very ‘photographic.’ They are not ‘beautifully’ photographed. They do not subscribe to the fundamental principles of photography that most mark out and charter. The light is flat and lacks depth. There is nothing ‘ambiguous’ or confusing or metaphoric. They are two simple reproductions, ID’s if you will. The aesthetics of the ‘photograph’ have been removed. They in fact become artifacts as important and as elemental as that rib-bone, as the work id. These are not ‘photographers pictures.’ They are something more profound. They are extant documents that remain alive the person that once was. they are real and not artifice. They are reproductions, for all to see, of the ‘document’ of the living. Their photographic properties are not what make them powerful as photographs. Their power lay in what they represent, what they stand for, what they contain. In this sense, Stoop’s reaction, once it was easier for him to identify what was going on, makes sense. This photograph is not about ‘pretty documentary photographs.” Instead, they are powerful, insightful documents that have allowed us to understand what happened on that day to both this specific man, Lawrence Davidson, and this particular photographer, Marc Davidson, and for each of us that try to manage the abstraction of grief and history to the personal artifacts of a life and of an identity.
This is conceptual work because it is not the ‘photograph’ per se that is important but what is being photographed. I sometimes think that in all our hunger to aestheticize and produce imagery that we forget (pick up a family album) that the story inside the image is as important. In conceptual photography, often, it’s the ideas that matter, it’s the power of the story that yields the photographic revelation and excitement. This pairing accomplishes that for me: in a starker and harsher and more profound way than most of the beautiful photographs taken on that horrendous day. How to capitulate a life?
This evening i looked at Jim Goldberg’s work in Blind Spot, a documentary photographer who works this same terrain: document and conception. If anything, I think we need to look at this work in that light: work that asks us to evaluate a photograph not only on it’s ‘photographic’ property or characteristics but what it allows or teaches or offers us. The power in this work, like Larry Towell’s TRAIN OF THOUGHT, is in the story that is told through photographs of objects. That also people may have a difficult time offering a critique over a picture that contains so much grief, is understandable. But please know, as I know Marc personally, that you should not be ashamed or fearful of not liking or getting or even feeling this work. It is a very personal statement. I know Marc would be the first one to appreciate all points of view, including dissenting reaction.
Sometimes photographs are only photographs. Sometimes they are more than photographs and sometimes they are simply vapor. For me, the power and importance of this diptych, I hope, for the readership, is to give the audience a different view to think of the events of 9/11, to think of the idea of coming to terms with how we cope with loss, sudden loss, of how and what things, what objects of our life make up the person we are, tell us about who we are, allow for us to gather and to reshape.
I am thankful that Marc has shared this with us. We are, indeed, plastic and bone, but we are so much more, eternal and etched out inside the life and lines of everyone of whom we are a part, even when we are forever apart.
To document. To retrieve. To hold fast, even when we have so little left….
bob
goldberg’s pictures.
larry towell, chain of thought
powerful..
personal…
can’t wait to see more of this series…
so sorry for your loss,
so tragic…
keep going…
I imagine this to be healing for you..
your story…
your loss…..
let the images speak,
for they are LOUD
and they are your voice….
**
keep on truckin:)
**
thought you might appreciate this humor… when I 1st saw these images and the title, I thought, is that a joint and some currency?? Hope that made you smile, and once again, it reinforces to look deeper!!!!
**
Hi Bob,
These are indeed powerful and emotional pictures when you know the story, by themselves without explanation there is a big question mark and they do not say much.
As you have explained in you post above, you know Marc and his story intimately and have been moved on a personal level by the story. We as viewers do not have this luxury of knowledge. To you it is clear what these pictures are saying, to us the viewers without sufficient explanation there is a picture of a scrap of bane and an ID card.
For me this is something that has come up a couple of times on Burn, the editors obviously have a knowledge about the photographer/working methods/background of a picture or essay. To the viewers the story behind the image has been unclear. One strong example to me was Panos’s photo in the hotel room. I didn’t get it, but it came out in the wash that Panos had spent alot of time in hotel rooms being bored, so his photo was an expression of that. You editors knew this so the story of the image was clear to you. For me as a viewer the message wasn’t clear.
I guess there it is the same issue whenever you walk into any gallery, if you don’t know the history of the artist you cannot fully appreciate the work, unless the message is clear, through either the images or a description of the work.
I hope you don’t take the following as sour grapes just because none of my submissions have been selected. I love burn and hope I can contribute to its ongoing success. This is an observation and you will be able to tell me if it is true. It seems to me there are an awful lot of images and essays shown that are by people who have been on workshops, helped out on workshops and are friends of the editorial team, I know these are fertile grounds for great images and this is probably whom you get most submissions from, but to me some editorial credibility is lost because of this. Take for example the In protest by Yalda, great photo but a bit ambiguous (and deserves to be published on Burn for these reasons), when I read the description it became clear, but for me editorial independance and credibility was compromised by David’s editorial note and subsequence postings on what a hard worker Yalda was.It made me wonder if it was because of her help and hard work that helped this image get posted. This is just an observation and feeling, please correct me if I am wrong. Does there need to be a declaration of interest?
Sorry to Marc for wandering off on this tangent, Extreemly brave of you bring these images into the open and explain them to us.
regards
ian
Bob,
I really appreciate your approach: “I shall try, as an editor, as a photographer and as a friend to write something lucid and simple in celebration of this remarkable pairing..” It feels like we sometimes miss this dialogic assumption in our comments.
I find images like this (as Tommy says) take time – they challenge our sense of connection rather than express it – and so they challenge the preconceptions of what a ‘good photograph’ should look like. I can appreciate the craft of beautiful tonality, composition etc and it feels like here I am responding to a style – and I know such devices and interpretations of what is ‘aesthetic’ come and go.
Ian’s point about the need for story and context is excellent; how much ‘description’ do we need and how much are we content to put the work in to develop our own? Here we are talking, I think, about managing meaning – and I find this a much more interesting conversation than (as in some of the responses to previous images) how much Photoshopping has taken place.
Marc’s work has inspired me to work more in the confused, viscerally uncertain, disorientating, questioning end of our critical spectrum.
I like his image.
I’m certain the photos are meaningful, but the problem for me is that they are extremely personal. I’ve lost both of my parents, and photos of them and pieces of them (in the things important to them that they left behind) have great meaning to me. But they mean little to other people. It takes too much explanation, too much history, to infuse emotion (if that is even possible) into them for other people. More, as Steve pointed out, than most of us are willing (or able) to invest in such an image.
As I said initially about this photo, it is very hard to comment on such a personal image. Which is why I suspect the image hasn’t drawn much comment. I’m not sure I want to personalize everyone’s pain and personal loss, which is what this photo asks us to do. Loss is universal, but this loss is very personal.
Ian:
First, let me say that I DO NOT choose the work published here. Only David decides what is published. Actually, I do not even see all the submissions. I write editorials (and in the future, essays/dialog starters), contribute work, write photographers who I think would be great to have here to generate discussion (they’ve been published already and continue to come in), but ultimately nothing is published here based on whether or not I know the photographer or not. I encourage people i know to submit. I write photographers I do not know, but ultimately this magazine is David’s vision. I agree with what he’s published, but my vision is very different. One thing David and I share, besides friendship, is a very eclectic and wide taste. :)) So, please do not think that I suggest work to Burn (i.e., David) because of my relationship with the photographer. I do only if i feel the work has merit or brings to the table something else that hasn’t been here. As has been true for the entire life of Burn, i’ve been a cheerleader and have tried to offer readers a different perspective and a WAY to view work that they may not readily applied.
I actually do not think at all that my familiarity with this story has any bearing on my reaction. I think that a reader definitely needs to have familiarity with and an appreciation with and probably acceptance for conceptual work, the nature that the idea trumps the image. In a sense this is a didactic working, though I’m not sure if it’s any less didactic than conventional work. One of my closest friends (based in Japan) will soon show work here, which is at the opposite end of the spectrum: also about historical devastation. The problem with showing work like this is that the audience will a) find it uninteresting photographically (because it’s power is not in it’s appearance or it’s photographic qualities) or b) too personal (hermetic) and unassailable because of it’s personal and grief-ridden nature. That is why I suggested it to David, because i felt it challenged Burn….not because Marc is my friend. there is a lot of work of his that i tried to encourage him not to submit, including the original Zero Ground. I continually run the risk of being accused of favoritism, but if you knew me you would know that just isnt the case. The same is absolutely true of David. He doesnt publish anything that anything that he doesn’t believe in photographically. And he grants no one favors based on friendship, it’s all merit-driven. I know, i’ve known him for a while now. So, i accept your criticism, it comes with the job i guess, but please know that it doesnt work that way.
Your observation about ‘insider knowledge’ is a legitimate concern. The problem is, I would argue, is that it has to do with the nature of how different people read different work. I’ve have only 3 friends whove published work here and I think i’ve met 1 or 2 others. That is 4 or 5 out of how many images and essays? And yet, i work very hard to try and read or react to the work. This is a more difficult problem: reaction and ability to react to work. Each work is an individual entity and each person comes to work in their own unique way. It is true that, maybe, knowing the ‘story’ behind the story helps, though i would argue that it doesnt really. It connects you, on a human level, but it does not allow you to determine (for yourself alone) whether or not a image or story is substantial. When i first saw Panos’ hotel photo, i DID NOT know it was Panos’ until i drafted a comment and read the others…i thought, what the hell ;)))….I just spent a week with the Magnum dudes and made a close and new friendship: Mark Power. I didnt know him at all and yet his work spoke to me profoundly, from Shipping Forecast to Superstructures to the work in Poland and his new project…i spent a lot of time talking with him, drinking with him, has it changed my relationship to the pictures? I dont know. I dont like them ‘more.’…but i do like him a lot….
Ian, i think it comes down to taste, familiarity other things. No doubt, you have legitimate concerns about a viewer’s relationship to work constituting a working angle. It DOES help that I know that picture contains marc’s dad rib and the id that was recovered at Ground Zero. Should this have been more clear in the beginning? Maybe (i still say no, but I understand Stoop’s and David’s concern for lack of ‘clear’ information). But even after my long explanation, did it change your feeling about the image? Most likely not…and that too is the irony about what i’ve been doing here at Burn and before that at Road Trips. I am actually not sure at all how much my writing or opinions or views or ‘insight’ (i use this word very very lightly ;)) ) has convinced anyone, ultimately…..it probably has not….
anyway, you do raise important points and I value them alot and please know that I do not consider your thoughts and post as ‘sour grapes’ at all….I will take a LOT more condemnation shortly and i guess that will come with the territory….but imagine, waking up with a pocket full of 30 photographers website/portfolio cards….and i dont even make the editorial decisions….it’s about perception Ian…aint that ironic ;)))…
and i would say only this: keep submitting :)))….and please know that every decision David makes he does autonomously and not based on whether he knows the photogrpaher or not (the vast vast vast majority of people published here were unknown to him and did know know DAH and certainly were not his workshop students: if they were, we’d published 5.0000 images by now ;)) )…hope that makes sense? :)))
Steve: thanks so much :))
cheers
bob
Jim:
I think that is a fair, honest and legitimate approach. I actually agree 100% and Marc and I spoke about that on the phone last night. I think it hasn’t warranted alot of comments is because of a) the personal nature of the work (father’s bone, id card), b) the nature of the pain/huge even (death of parent, 9/11 in a non-outsider non-direct documentary project) and c) it’s root in Conceptualism (the idea more important than the photographic appearance.
this is the risk of the diptych and the reason ultimately we published it: that it is powerful and we thought it would give the audience something to contemplate. Like Katrina, there are few tragic disasters that have been as photographed as 9/11….and yet, this image and this project as it will continue is different. That is why i react so strongly to it. And i think your insight about others silence is true.
That is the risk of doing personal work. For me, the personal is the universal…..but, we rarely, it seems to me, celebrate that. I guess our collective nature.
thanks for the insight
Bob
very powerful
enough to bring me back to where i was almost 8 years ago
i have not been back
no one likes to speak of sorrow much more so imagine someone else’s sorrow.
i hope marc and whoever has had such a loss
would not think of this silence as indifference.
there is nothing to say in these instances
no matter how much we jar the head and the heart
there are no words that can be spoken
enough to convey thoughts and sympathy through the web
Okay, I will try this again.
The first thing I thought of was that old essay by John Szarkowski in Mirrors and Windows… in it he gives us the idea of photographers exploring the contours of internal, personal meaning, or finding it, outside themselves, as the world presents it.
I thought that this piece, attempts to bridge, or reconcile these two great photographic impulses. The right side, the “window”, states a fact. This man lived. The left side, the “mirror”, creates a metaphor for the resilience of memory (the same dna that identified that fragment runs in that hand, a biological memory. It is a piece of a rib, held by a man named Adam.), of family and the fragility of life, something we all deny, until we can’t anymore.
I was here in New York the day Marc’s father died, and I, too saw the work of the great ones (Bob, you forgot Meyerowitz and isn’t it Mermelstein you’re thinking of, not Mertleman?) and I thought the only photographic document that came close to how that experience felt was Here is New York, by Peress/Traub, et al, and everyone in NYC that participated. I think the pros may have tried too hard, the events may have outstripped their grace and skill… only the relentlessness of a thousand witness snapshots could say what they could not.
And this piece, by showing us these two small objects, shows us something of the continuing enormity of the events of that day.
Bob, thank you so much for considered reply. I
understand there are issues and you guys have an extremly difficult time deciding what to do. It is difficult to portray my thoughts through postings, the nuances of face to face talking don’t come across.
I want to reiterate that what you guys are doing here is incredible. This site/organisation/home/inspiration will certainly be a major force for photography in the future.
There will always be a certain amount of conflict when you work as a curator/editor in that inevitably you will be more familiar with some works than others, so an understanding of the “behind the scenes” story making is inevitable. Also you can only show/expose the work that you have come into contact with.
I just want to say that Burn is an amazing achievement and I respect that and the integrity of you guys doing all the work in the background. There have just been a couple of times when a little question mark has popped into my head, I needed to have confirmation that, that question mark should not be there.
I am not on the whole cynical, so if I felt it, others might feel it, and that needs to be banished for the good of Burn.
regards
ian
MIKE….
curator Szarkowski’s “Mirrors and Windows” should be required reading/viewing for all photographers…thanks for bringing it up….it is the first book i have on my reading list for all students….
will i see you in new york this week?? i should be at the Powerhouse signing on thursday evening..or just stop by for a chat….
cheers, david
DAH
thank you for the opportunity for showing this work
BOB
thank you for helping me “see” that this is about identity
STOOP/GRACIE/BEN
your comments are totally valid and no offence was taken. the caption isn’t as descriptive as it probably should be but i was trying to move beyond the clinical tag of “rib fragment and ID card”. captioning is something i struggle with and thank you for bringing it up.
LISA
spoke with bob…no worries…
MIKE R
this diptych is the beginning foray into the conceptual aspect of this project as it relates to identity but i hear you; at this point, i’m also really drawn to the more traditional documentary images from my essay as these were more straight forward, “easier” to make. the conceptual view is going to be more of a challenge photographically and personally but i’m trying to push myself in new directions.
GINA
thank you. the image you are referring to is actually of a “family room” set up on the 20th floor in a building overlooking ground zero. it is a room filled with things that family members have left for their loved ones.
WENDY
thanks and you did make me smile. i’m waiting for that question in about 10 years…:)
JIM
loss is obviously universal. for me, personal loss became public and i think in a small way we all lost something on 9/11
MIKE
“Adam and the rib”…never occurred to me until you mentioned it…
ALL
thank you for your kind words. since 9/11, life has moved forward and i’m blessed with an amazing family of my own.
my father lives through them.
i am happy to answer any specific questions here burn or through email. thank you again for spending some time with my images.
IAN…
i can think of only a very small handful of photographers who have been published on BURN who i have ever met or known in any way…i haven’t actually counted, but i am guessing a solid 90% are unknown to any of us…and out of the dozens of photographers who have been published here, i think only 5 of them have ever been in one of my workshops…most of the “familiarity” you sense has come directly from my relationships with the photographers right here on BURN and from mentoring BURN readers “behind the scenes” which i do all the time…you, in fact, are in line for such editing and discussion…
i always ask (beg) the photographer to please please put all pertinent information necessary for understanding the photographs published here…some do, some don’t….i often will do this several times and often to no avail…this is an exhausting process…..to make every single published entry fit a particular information “style” would require one full time person to just stay on the case…photographers are notorious for just not giving editors all the caption information they need…however, in most cases here the photographers do jump in on the discussion and eventually tell us all we would like to know…and , of course, different people want to know different things…
in the case of Marc, who i do know, i just sensed he did not want to say any more….this is after all very painful territory….i leave personal pain alone…..i am sure you understand….
JIM…
i think any representation of 9/11 is way more than a personal loss….we all have personal losses which are not represented in the media…surely, you can see that Marc’s “personal loss” reflects even now an international deep deep tragedy the outcome of which is not yet known….as i “personally” watched both towers come down from about 15 blocks away , i knew immediately that life for all of us had changed for at least several generations….
cheers, david
To all,
Not wishing, in any sense to follow Marc’s comments with a further summary of this thread, but I simply wanted to express my appreciation of the image AND the very thoughtful conversation it has provoked. I’m not a New Yorker, have never visited Ground Zero, am blessed to have my parents still on the scene AND I have learned a lot about both photography and our human condition from this dialogue.
I am grateful to all who have contributed.
Mike :)))
You are totally on target! :)))….nothing for me to add :)
yes, it was Mermelsteing that I was thinking of …and for the life of me last night I couldn’t think of how to spell jeff’s name (even though i tried google) :))…my brain is dead tired ;)))…and of course Joel’s magisterial work too…so happy to see your input here! :))))..espcially the reference to Szarkowski :)))
thank you so much :)))
very tired :))
cheers
bob
MARC…
we were publishing simultaneous..i did not see your comment as i was writing mine…thank you for allowing your work to be published on BURN… i know it was not easy for you….and i look forward to helping in any way i can with your long term work….
the discussion here has been quite good i think…
many thanks for your hospitality in Toronto….and you know my doors are open for you anytime….
cheers, david
Marc :)))
it’s been a real pleasure…as a photographer, a colleague, a reader, and above all, as a friend…it’s been my pleasure…we’re very happy and proud of you amigo…
running
b
David,
thank you for your response and clarification of the editing/curating process.
It was with huge reservations that I posted my queries about Burn as you are all such a positive force, I am not doing it to be difficult or gain notoriety.
All question marks have been erased:-)))
Marc sorry for the interuption to the thread
Ian
David,
I agree with you about photographers being the worst at getting info sorted, I am one of the biggest culprits:)))
Ian
“I am surprised that the work has elicited a small and tepid response.” I’m not; what do you say? What can you say? Grief, pain, loss; all things look small in the presence of death, and criticism looks especially insignificant. A man has died, slain by fanatics for whom he was the Other, a cipher devoid of any right to existence that they had to acknowledge. Years later, some small portion of what used to be a living man is identified and the family buries that small sliver, and then a child asks a simple question, a question we do not know how to answer. How do you explain to a child that there are men so driven by hatred that they will do anything to destroy the object of their hatred, including kill themselves? An innocent asks, what is evil, and the best most of us can do is shuffle our feet uncomfortably and say, not now, dear, you’ll understand when you’re older.
As some sort of ‘memento mori’ for the family of the victim, this, along with some words is quite poignant. as a photographic diptych however it does not work for me at all. Jim said earlier that because of the personal nature of this piece it was ‘above critique’. I could not disagree more. a critique of an image should not be seen as an attack on the authors grief, nor as a sign of disrespect. it is after all an image, and one that has been ‘released’ into the wild, it must surely then stand, or fall, solely on its merits as a photograph no?
John
John :)))))…i agree 100% and believe that photography, if we are photographers and this is a photography magazine, MUST be discussed…and must be critiqued…as i wrote above, and talked about with Marc, I worried that people would NOT comment on the work because they felt, as Akaky has expressed, that words were useless….but the truth is that this photograph/diptych is NOT about Marc’s grief or personal history but his photographic attempt to reconstruct what the loss was, the identity of his father, the importance of artifacts in the face of vanquishment, etc….i can tell you I personally, as a photographer, appreciate your candor and words, as I am sure Marc will do. The diptych is NOT photographically pretty or particularly well-photographed (it’s intent), so the question: does the pairing of the images, does the idea work to create something richer than the piece as a photograph?…if not, then it failed…
you familiar with Steven Sebring?…the photographer and filmmaker…you’ve seen his work on photographed objects, inspired by working with Patti Smith on his film??…trying to get at the identity of a person….it’s true the pictures are more ‘rich’ photographically: light, exposure, for example…the question for Marc now, as both my wife and i suggested to him is this:
can he photograph the objects in a way that retain photographic power as well as the power of the juxtaposition of ideas?…that’s his goal now…
http://www.melbournefestival.com.au/program_media/3438/Childhood-Dress.jpg
thanks john :))
Akaky:….my sentence wasnt meant as a condemnation of people’s silence, surely not…for i understand that well…but that, as photographers, when a photographer asks or hopes for feedback and receives little from a photographic community its a personally stinging thing….and that is what i meant…but, by the way, language and words do help grief and help in the process of assurance…no one understands that better than you do…
running
bob
Hi John! :))…
first let me say that I agree 100% (and strongly believe) that photography, if we are photographers and this is a photography magazine, MUST be discussed. We are a community, a photo magazine and adults and part of practicing our work is the hope and consideration that we will have the opportunity to discuss it, and to receive good and critical and thoughtful feedback/critique: both positive and negative. In this sense, your contribution is important and valuable.. As photographers we need critiqued, we need community, if not in the working, then in the exhibiting, enhancing, developing…
…as i wrote above, and talked about with Marc, I worried that people would NOT comment on the work because they felt, as Akaky has expressed, that words were useless….but the truth is that this photograph/diptych is NOT about Marc’s grief or personal history but his photographic attempt to reconstruct what the loss was, the identity of his father, the importance of artifacts in the face of vanquishment, etc….i can tell you I personally, as a photographer, appreciate your candor and words, as I am sure Marc will do. The diptych is NOT photographically pretty or particularly well-photographed (it’s intent), so the question: does the pairing of the images, does the idea work to create something richer than the piece as a photograph?…if not, then it failed…
you familiar with Steven Sebring?…the photographer and filmmaker…you’ve seen his work on photographed objects, inspired by working with Patti Smith on his film??…trying to get at the identity of a person….it’s true the pictures are more ‘rich’ photographically: light, exposure, for example…the question for Marc now, as both my wife and i suggested to him is this:
can he photograph the objects in a way that retain photographic power as well as the power of the juxtaposition of ideas?…that’s his goal now…
http://www.melbournefestival.com.au/program_media/3438/Childhood-Dress.jpg
thanks john :))
Akaky:….my sentence wasnt meant as a condemnation of people’s silence, surely not…for i understand that well…but that, as photographers, when a photographer asks or hopes for feedback and receives little from a photographic community its a personally stinging thing….and that is what i meant…but, by the way, language and words do help grief and help in the process of assurance…no one understands that better than you do…
running
bob
Probably the aesthetic void of images makes them easily overlooked and passed over…………..like the discarded paper blowing in a dusty suburban street……… important as it has been, one can make as much or little of it as they feel necessary.