Born Ascher Fellig, this photographer emigrated to the US in the infancy of photojournalism.He began his work at the age of 14 and had over a 50 year career encompassing various styles. He is best known for his work in Manhattan during the 30's and 40's, which is what I've chosen to focus on here. Working with no formal training, he operated with a 4x5 large format camera and flash.
Many of his images were taken at scenes he arrived at by listening in on police radio reports. He is the first to have ever done so, and made his name with the sensational images. He did not shy away from brutality and had no thought to decorum. The first name in what we now define as tabloid photography, the artist was not above staging documentary images, or contriving situations.
I personally do not care for him as a person, but think it's important to look at what he did to redefine photography's limits. And looking at his near imaginary ethics, photographers should evaluate and understand where their own ethical boundaries lie.
This last image is my first introduction to Weegee's work, and it has always struck me.
Behind the subject, hidden in the shadow of the background is a male, crouched down, peering over the shattered glass. The onlooker is almost completely obscured except for his eyes,yet it is he, not the injured boy or his faithful friend playing nurse, that is almost dead center in this shot.
Maybe he's another of the joyriding party who managed to get out of the crash without a scratch and is looking out to see if he can also walk away from the incident without repercussion.It's also just as likely that he is just an onlooker.
Here's the thing that makes this image so successful for me. In a sense, we are more disturbed by the onlooker than the injured boy. We think him at worst to have sinister intent, at best to just have a morbid curiosity. And then we rationalize, of course he should be hiding, he knows it's inappropriate for him to be staring at such a scene. And then we realize, we're doing the same thing. Looking at the crouched figure, his eyes are not pointed at the scene in front of him, but directly at the person taking the photo, and by extension, we, the audience. This third person in the image starts off representing a voyeur and in the end represents our own voyeurism. Just like the injured boy and his injuries are reflected in the side mirror of the stolen, wrecked car, the reflection of the audience is shown peering out behind splintered glass.
Maybe he's another of the joyriding party who managed to get out of the crash without a scratch and is looking out to see if he can also walk away from the incident without repercussion.It's also just as likely that he is just an onlooker.
Here's the thing that makes this image so successful for me. In a sense, we are more disturbed by the onlooker than the injured boy. We think him at worst to have sinister intent, at best to just have a morbid curiosity. And then we rationalize, of course he should be hiding, he knows it's inappropriate for him to be staring at such a scene. And then we realize, we're doing the same thing. Looking at the crouched figure, his eyes are not pointed at the scene in front of him, but directly at the person taking the photo, and by extension, we, the audience. This third person in the image starts off representing a voyeur and in the end represents our own voyeurism. Just like the injured boy and his injuries are reflected in the side mirror of the stolen, wrecked car, the reflection of the audience is shown peering out behind splintered glass.
I really enjoy your thoughtful commentary on this photographer and his work, especially your ideas about the last photograph. I appreciate the way you look deeply into the work and think about its multiple levels of meaning. It makes me appreciate the work much more than I would just examining it for myself.
ReplyDelete