Night and Fog

Night and Fog brings to the views attention how these victims were dehumanized and stripped of everything we've come accustomed to. It shows how they were humiliated, exploited, and tortured and how no one interjected. It plays off of so much emotion from the viewer, but in a way that is different. The viewer is expected to be as emotionless as the Nazis and viewing it from what their intentions and actions were. Watching it makes you wonder how the Nazis could live with themselves or would even create something so evil.

Jasmine.

Night and Fog

How do the objectives of the films differ? 

In Triumaph of The Will, the objective was to show the German nation that Hitler could restore it's pride once again after WWII and the Versailles Treaty. At this time Germany had just lost WWI and lost much of it's wealth and power. Triumph of the Will tried to restore that pride in Germany by using Hitler as a sign of strength and tenacity.

In Night and Fog, the objective was to show the viewer how horrific the Nazi's truly were. This was the first documentary of the Holocaust so Night and Fog had to bring the public attention to the Nazi crimes and their methods of trying to wipe out entire races of people.

How We View Films

While both films Triumph of The Will and Night and Fog Are in regards to the German Nazi party, each film differs in the message they portray to the audience. In Triumph of the Will, Leni Reifenstahl used her filming techniques to glorify the Nazi party and make it seem that they would rescue Germany from their state of dismay. By positioning the camera slightly below Hitler, it makes us, the audience; view him as dominant and above everyone else. Night and Fog gives us the straight facts of the Nazi party and the aftermath that transpired after their rule. Night and Fog shows us a mix of Nazi footage and what they filmed on their own. Ironically, which I took it as very factual without that gray area like Leni Reifenstahl's film had. Both Triumph of The Will and Night and Fog use music as a way to add to the impact of their films. When watching Triumph of The Will the music reminded me of the early Walt Disney movies like Cinderella and Snow White, with that very dreamy beautiful music. With the opening scene, with the clouds and airplane, in conjunction with that Disney like music we would think that what were about to watch is going to be in fact beautiful. And that it was, when thinking about the time period and context that the film was being displayed in. But when we take into consideration Night and Fog and compare the two, we realize that Triumph of The Will is not beautiful and is frightening because we know what really went on when the German Nazi’s had power. Night and Fog and the clips they show are truly heart wrenching and touch our emotions. As many people in class said, after watching, it made it feel like their stomachs were in knots, which I definitely felt as well. When taking into consideration if the filmmakers of either film are successful, we have to think again about the context they were being played and the time period they were released in. Triumph of The Will and Leni Reifenstahl truly reached her goal of glorifying the Nazi party and making it seem that with their help, Germany could turn around and become prosperous once again. And Night and Fog shows the truth of the Nazi party and how they were tyrants of Europe for years. When watched and discussed back to back, each movies original meaning changes.

Slightly biased

How does "Night and Fog" deal with the feeling of guilt? Does the film exploit the audience's feelings? For instance, does it exploit the audience's feeling of outrage and sorrow?

Of course Night and Fog exploits the audience's feelings. I'm not sure if there can be a relatively normal response to the imagery in the film. Parts of the film were perhaps more obviously sardonically mocking Triumph of the will, in sort of a gruesome, ironic way. The subject matter being dealt with is revolting. Reading about it is one thing, but seeing footage provokes a pretty much immediate response. The way most of us were taught history angers me; we know the important facts and dates but not the surrounding story that puts everything in context. The film obviously makes us horrified and guilty for previous ignorance. I don't think people know how to deal with such explicit imagery. It's one thing to talk about it, but this pushes EVERYTHING that was going on in our faces. It isn't bad, it's one way to force everyone to become aware of it. There's so many complexities and atrocities and intricacies involved in the planning of concentration camps and Hitler's overall plan which unveiled in the film. None of the soldiers or Nazis claim responsibility, and the film ends on that note: then who is responsible? It's a pretty heavy bomb that is dropped on us while watching. It's good we all now know, but it was hard to stomach and watch it. The overall feelings we are left with are outrage and sorrow. I felt incredibly depressed and cynical and outraged, which meant it's objectives were completed. The film's intention was to get that reaction out of us, however, I don't know, we will all forever remember the scenes, but it gave us little or no hope to grasp onto. I'm Jewish so I know the history quite well but typically my family and extended family, we don't incessantly mourn about the Holocaust. The inhumanities and atrocities happened, but out of the whole thing created a stronger protection and sustainability for Judaism and stronger sense of dignity about the religion. The film almost makes it about pity and sorrow and outrage, and I think it would've been more effective if it left the audience on a lighter (close to impossible but maybe achievable) note. It is something to be outrageously offended and sickened by, and something no one should forget, and something we should learn about, but the film did exploit audiences feelings. 

Triumph of the will response

Triumph of the will is tricky. It's made grippingly beautiful with all sorts of camera shots and angles and light each with extreme precision. The techniques Leni used make it seem like a documentary, however, in my opinion, it is somewhere between that and a propaganda film. It can't be one without being the other. It has too much nationalism and personality to be a documentary. Yes generally documentaries are biased, but usually they present the sometimes self righteous filmmaker's opinions in seemingly objective ways. Triumph had more life in it, which is where the propaganda aspect shines through. Watching it closely the intricacies are impressive. She uses light brilliantly; she makes Hitler into a sex symbol and a God. She makes him larger than life, and it puts his initial position in perspective. Germany was feeling super shitty about World War one, and they were starving. In fact one of America's better moments was when we fed Germany, forgetting politics and remembering humanity. Anyway, Hitler was basically a call from the heavens and the Germans were all relieved when he stepped up, not knowing his sociopathic insane wretched insane envisions of the world. It's a disturbing movie because of the portrayal of something everyone, and I repeat everyone agrees upon: The Holocaust was atrocious, and Hitler is evil; the portrayal of the Nazis and Hitler make them shiny and brilliant and harmless and prideful and powerful and majestic. The movie is between propaganda and documentary, and it's remarkable to say the least. 

I seriously cannot think of a good title.

The objectives in Night and Fog, and Triumph of the Will, both differ yet also resemble each other because each one wanted the audience to learn something. In Triumph of the Will, it was that they wanted the audience to learn more about Hitler, his relationship to the people, and how much influential power he had not only over his people, but his army as well. In Night and Fog, I feel like the objective was to make the audience learn about what was really going on, what Hitler really was doing. The objectives were a little bit of the same, but the emotions that come about as a result of these two films are completely different. For Triumph of the Will, an audience member watching this when it first came around would probably feel good about Germany. They would feel as though something good is going to come out of this, and they would not have a negative thought about Hitler at all. For Night and Fog, someone watching it when it first came around probably cried. They probably were shocked to discover the truth. I know that even now watching Night and Fog, I felt like it had just recently happened, not 70 or so years ago. The emotions that come from this film are just so overwhelming and depressing. Triumph of the Will, wanted to show people that they did a good job in supporting Hitler, and Night and Fog wants to show people what came from that support.

Sarcastic

The film, Night and Fog is almost making fun of Triumph of the Will, or at least calling it to attention. While Triumph of the Will creates this beautiful imagery and scene of Germany, Night and Fog parallels it with similar images of German countrysides, but then shows that even the most beautiful and innocent things can lead to disaster and massacre. Resnais intentionally juxtaposes beauty and disaster immensely in the film. The soundtrack really made me nauseous while the image was focusing in on these bulldozers cramming bodies of skin and bone into mass graves. I will indeed never forget the film because of that. I've never been so disgusted.  This is undoubtedly the objective Resnais wanted to accomplish. If he were to put a typical horror soundtrack over the images, we wouldn't think twice, but he wanted to emphasize that Nazis and a good portion of the Germans actually wanted this and thought it was the right and beautiful thing to do. Night and Fog, to me, was the sarcastic version of Triumph of the Will.

Triumph of the Will and Night and Fog

Triumph of the Will and Night and Fog show many differences.

The idea of Triumph of the Will is to brainwash the people into thinking that Hitler is going to make everything OK.  To make a better country.

Night and Fog is more of an in your face documentary, about what Hitler created and goes in depth into the Nazi concentration camps.

In Triumph of the Will the director had a certain style that was very real and very appealing to the eye.  The shots of the airplanes flying through the clouds are all beautiful shots, making this movie a beautiful movie. 

In Night and Fog the footage was very raw, a lot of the documentary had pictures of the diseased and dead, showing a more brutal and real side to this event in history.

Night and Fog exploits everyone who, contributed and worked in these camps.  These men and women are explained and described as evil.  The audience gets a feeling of hate I think towards these people.    

Blog Question: Night and Fog

Answer/discuss one or more of the following questions:

How do the film techniques in “Triumph of the Will” differ from the techniques used in the making of “Night and Fog?”

Specifically, how do these films employ the use of music, camera angels, edits?

How do the objectives of the films differ?

How does "Night and Fog" deal with the feeling of guilt? Does the film exploit the audience's feelings? For instance, does it exploit the audience's feeling of outrage and sorrow?

How does the film contribute to the film? Does it take away or contribute to the filmmaker's goal? Was this a typical film soundtrack? Why/why not?

The Movie "Triumph" from a outside perspective without knowing the future is a beautiful movie. The cinematopgraphy was very well done and obviously she knows whats she doing with a camera. not knowing that Hitler was a bad person, she made him look as you said before, "God Like". She glorified him and made him look extremely important. But knowing what i know, the movie mad my stomach sick. How could someone make someone like Hitler look like a "God" It was difficult to watch. I dont know if i could watch more than we watched in class without getting more upset.

Propaganda

At the time Triumph of the Will was made, despite Riefenstal claiming it was a documentary, the film was pure propaganda. A documentary wouldn't have painted Hitler and the Nazi party so gloriously, and would have used much different techniques. For example, camera angles would be at eye level rather that from below Hitler, and music would probably be almost non existent. However, today we can look at this as a documentary because we can learn from it; we know the extreme repercussions of such powerful propaganda. 

Insight

The techniques used by Leni R., seemed like they were all trying to show that Hitler was not a bad guy. I feel like the purpose was to give insight to people who doubted him, and show them a different perspective. The way the music kept building and building to when Hitler finally arrived. The way they showed him coming down from a plane, probably was symbolic to the fact that he was compared to a God back then by the people, and that he was coming down from the Heavens. Almost every single camera shot that focused on Mr. Hitler, put him at a taller angle than the camera. This was to show how much more power he had. That he was above everyone. That he was more powerful than the people, and even the person making that film. It showed his superiority. Sometimes the way the light hit him, it made it seem like he was glowing. Almost like that of an angel. They showed clips of the crowd frequently, to show how much Hitler was worshiped and adored. They probably also did this to show how anxious the crowd was for his arrival. They wanted to show other people that the people of Germany loved this man,and that he was going to do great things for Germany. They probably wanted to show people outside of Europe that Hitler was great. During WWII, Hitler invaded different countries and took over, he made treaties with different political leaders, and he wanted them to believe that he was doing a good job, and that what he was doing was right. By glorifying him in this movie, it shows how much power he has. Having said that, this video might have also been like a threat to other countries, like, "Look how much support I have and look how big my army is, don't mess with me." I think that people genuinely thought of Hitler as a good guy, even Leni. She used all the techniques of lighting, camera angles, and music to glorify Hitler and his ways. I actually don't think this movie was scary in any way, I found it really fascinating to watch actual footage from back then. It was so weird and sad to think about how much these people loved him, and then consider the fact that he was probably responsible for most of their deaths later on.  

Music, Camera Angels, and Edit

This films use of music, camera angels and the way it was edited effected the way it was presented to the viewers.


The triumphant music was a major build up, in presenting the arrival of Hitler. The very beginning of the film you see these breathtaking sights of the clouds and the music made everything seem as if it was alright, not even alright but bringing a sense of hope that this wonderful person in this plane can bring such dramatic change to Germany. 

The camera angels also played a large role in this film. The camera angles were very low facing upwards towards Hitler, giving him more of a powerful and significant demeanor. There were also shots which would circle Hitler from one side to the other giving the film viewers the idea that this person up on the podium is a very important figure who will create change. He, to the German people, was very idolized. The people of Germany looked up to him as if he was super human, so the angels had a great impact in that sense. 

The way this film was shot and put together was very beautifully done that it's almost scary that we actually have the power to create this image and disguise this masquerade to then evolve into something that appears beautiful to the senses, but behind the senses is a whole other story. 

triumphant

       Although its definitely arguable whether Triumph of The Will is a documentary or a propaganda film, I would consider it more a form of propaganda. Leni Riefenstahl's technique was to create a documentary style film with persuasive elements.  She did this through her glorification of Hitler and the idea of a unified Germany.  Although she is recording actual events that happened, she goes beyond that with her effective camera angles, music, and narration or lack thereof.
       Her camera angles are often shot from below which makes Hitler seem superior and even a bit god-like.  Also she tends to let light shine directly on Hitler, giving him an almost heavenly appearance. Her incorporation of positive music sets the mood, especially in the opening scene we saw.  It sounds patriotic and triumphant. Riefenstahl also didn't include a narrator.  There are probably two reasons for this, one being the effectiveness of the speeches given at that time. In one scene that we were shown, the speaker speaks of Germany and Hitler as though they were getting married! He says they'll be together through the good and the bad and many other things that suggest a bond between Hitler and Germany.  In another scene, Hitler is speaking to youth in a very aggressive manner.  Both of these are examples where the speaker is very passionate. In scenes like these, Riefenstahl doesn't really need further narration, and she uses the camera angles to set the mood.  The other reason why she did not include narration might be because it would not allow the films luring elements to be subliminal. I think that's what primarily separates this film from an average documentary.  Although this film does contain reality, its lack of narration leaves room for the viewer to make out what he/she sees. And in this case, if the viewer was watching in the past, they would probably glorify Hitler as much as this film does. 

“Triumph of the Will”

“Triumph of the Will” at the time of its release was a propaganda film. While it was documenting Nazi rallies at Nuremburg, it was severely biased towards the Nazi party. While most documentaries are by nature biased, This film portrayed Adolf Hitler as a god figure. Shots taken from below him make it seem he is above the rest of the german people, and the use of music makes him appear to be a savior. During the scene where Hitler is at a ceremony, the person introduces him says, "You are Germany! When you act, the nation acts, when you judge, the people judge!" He goes on to say how the people of Germany will be with him through the good and bad, almost like Germany is marrying Hitler. As Hitler is flown in to Nuremburg, there is a shot of him getting off the plane and everybody acts as if he is a superstar. Everybody is going crazy, and it reminded me a lot of Beatlemania where people would go crazy when the Beatles landed in their city. The film obviously was portraying the Nazi party and Hitler as good rather than bad, but to such an extent that it makes the film a propaganda film rather than a documentary. To make this a documentary, Leni Riefenstahl could have shot the scenes without bias. This means filming Hitler in a way that does not make him look like a god, as well as filming the Nazi party in a neutral light, rather than a super positive one. I suspect if Leni Riefenstahl had done these things she would have been killed, so I understand why she filmed the movie as it is.

Propaganda!

From my POV, in the film Triumph of the Will by director Leni Riefenstahl, there are copious camera angles that portray Hitler in a way that is godlike and beautiful. The idea of making any political figure is not dangerous, literally, but the repercussions of such actions might be viewed as such. But what is to be done? Communities could not choose exclusively political figures that are ugly. The movie not only makes Hitler seem attractive, stern, and kind, but also portrays the German villages and country as beautiful; Hitler is metaphorically married to Germany midway through the movie and so there is another connection of beauty made in Hitler's direction. But as I said before, making political figures beautiful is not dangerous in itself, it is the actions they commit once they have been put into a position of power.

Triumph of the Will is most definitely a propaganda film. By definition, propaganda is "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation,etc." The film is openly for Hitler. The idea spread by the movie is that Hitler is the most beautiful, godlike, stern, smart, and loving individual Germany has ever laid eyes on and he is the greatest and most fit man to rule. I would not, however, argue that this movie is not a documentary. It seems that all of the things that happened in the film were merely being documented and if there were any cuts or extra scenes added, they appeared to be just for the aural aesthetics and clarity. I don't think that it would have been possible to make this film a documentary and not a propaganda film. There is always a hint of bias anywhere in any creative product. The only way would have been to have it be made by a filming and editing robot. In my opinion, every film is made to spread an idea about something. Every film is therefore, by definition, a propaganda film.


-Matthew

The way it was

From the way that we are watching the film, I consider “Triumph of the Will” to be a documentary. If we were German citizens during World War II, then I would label this a propaganda film. However, for the purposes of us watching this film for education, it would be a documentary. While documentaries typically have a narrator, this film is not the typical run of the mill movie so I don’t expect it to meet the unspoken requirements of a documentary. The film glorifies the Nazi movement, tricking the German public that the Nazi’s were actually about spreading good rather than evil. Little tidbits, like Leni Reifenstahl lowering the camera angle below Adolf Hitler’s face and showing how the public goes crazy when Hitler acknowledges them, shows how powerful Hitler’s presence was even though he was not in complete power yet. It's also amazing to think of all the edits that Leni went through, combining live with filmed footage. The music that was chosen really added to how "beneficial and great" that Nazi movement will be, while in reality we all know what truly happened. And While I don’t agree that the movie makes the Nazi movement look “beautiful”, I think it does portray a positive outcome of wealth and prosperity while the people of Germany were very weak and susceptible and just wanted their nation to prosper like they did previously. The potential repercussions of this misguided vision would be what happened in Germany. The public was taken by surprise as to what the Nazi’s were doing and were so scared  to be killed than rebelled and basically let nature take its course. So many innocent people were killed, while it all could have been prevented. 

Blog Assignment !

For Monday, (for full credit) I want you to post on one or more of the following questions:

Describe the film techniques that Leni Reifenstahl uses in Triumph of the Will.

Specifically, how do these films employ the use of music, camera angels, edits?

Some people argue that “Triumph of the Will” is a propaganda film while others argue that is a documentary because it was made up of “actual” footage of the Nazi Nuremburg rallies. How would you categorize it and why?

If you argue that "Triumph of the Will" was a propaganda film, then what could Leni Riefenstahl have done differently in order for this to be a documentary? Would it have been possible for this to be a mere documentary and not a propaganda film?

Many people argue that “Triumph of the Will” aesteticized politics: it made the Nazi movement look beautiful. Does it make the Nazi movement look beautiful? Is this dangerous? Why?

This film is also good launching point for two of the questions that we will discuss in Unit 3: Manifesting Vision:

What are the potential repercussions of misguided vision?

What are the potential repercussions of misguided action, or of inaction?

CITY LIES

Sifting through the pictures available, I am drawn to one that says “City Lie” in western style lettering. The original sign must have said “City Life” since there is a large gap where it appears an extra letter should be. The words are arranged on two wooden boards parallel to one another mounted on a grey wall. They have neon coils inside of them visible because the red facing has been shattered off the surface There are only a few jagged edges of the original red letter-front present.

I believe that this piece is making a statement about society and popular belief. Within the cultural metropolis that is a city, there is an attitude or vibe that comes along with it. For example, they say the people of New York never sleep and that southerners are laid back. The photograph, to me, aims to destroy these notions by knocking out the F in life to say “City Lie”.

I believe that the photographer was trying to imply that we should follow personal intuition and go against the grain of what is normal or popular. 

American Teenager

Described: I see a photo with a somewhat hi-resolution; there are no pixels to be seen. But they're obviously all there. There is a man, most likely in his early twenties, holding a skateboard and standing in front of a grey wall. The wall is colored a darker grey in a rectangle around the upper left half of his torso, including his face. The picture is from the waist up, for a portrait feel, I assume. The man has a buzz cut, two earrings, one on each of his lobes, and then an additional on his cartilage. He has blue eyes, a shaven face, and bleach blond eyebrows. He is wearing a bright blue-green wristband and has a tattoo on his opposite arm that is not in the viewer's complete sight. He is also wearing what looks like a cotton or cotton blend maroon and baby blue plaid long-sleeve shirt with a white crew neck underneath. The skateboard he is holding across his chest with crossed arms has clouds and a hand outlined in blue on it. It has a dark graphic on the bottom, but it is indistinguishable.

Analyzed: It doesn't seem like the artist wanted the photo to be visually appealing or unappealing for any particular reason. The photos, as I read, were intended to create character. The main interest in this photo and rest were the facial expressions, posture, and wear. But, however unintentionally, the skateboard creates movement as a line through the photo from the bottom to the top and then leads into the top of the rectangle. The colors are bright and for lack of better words; go with each other. The skateboard is roughed up and looks like it has been used quite a bit. The composition is centered around the torso and face to exclude as much posture information as possible, I suppose. This is to make the viewer focus on less to get the same amount of information.

Interpreted: The artist created the photo(s) in an effort to create these characters for a project. I believe the object was to see how much you can know about a person without actually meeting or knowing the person.  He does a lot of portraits like these for what seems like the same purpose, but in much different situations and social climates. In another he chose to do all of the photos in black and white for what I assume is an effort to create some sort of mood. In this photo, in particular, I'd interpret the man's facial expression as anxious or scared, but confident. He is not detached from pop culture, because he has a tattoo, wristband, and plaid shirt, which are all signs of a hipster. He is holding onto his skateboard as if it is the only thing he has left. I get this feeling because it is across his chest, instead of to his side, in one hand.

This is good. It definitely achieved the objective and I feel like I know the character in the photo. The colors are stimulating and the facial expression and posture paint a picture (or photo hah).

Accomplishment

I chose A Girl With School Medals 1988. I see in this picture a fence, a wall, a window in the background. From the look of things, I just get a vibe that this might not be in a good neighborhood. That was my first thought. I then notice all the medals she has on her shirt and how proud she looks to have them there. To me, she seems to be saying, "You said I couldn't do this. Well, look. I did." I think that the artist did the things he did such as, the black and white color of the image to show the condition of the neighborhood she lives in, or as a symbol for something else. It creates the mood of the image. I get the feeling that it is an old picture, just based on the black and white color. 1988 is not exactly old however, that is not what I'm trying to say. I just think that the black and white color really is a key part to this image. Like I said before, I think this picture has something to do with stereotypes. If it is actually in a run-down neighborhood like I imagine, then I feel like this is supposed to be this girl showing off her accomplishments. She proved that she was capable of such things, whereas most people don't look at the people from bad neighborhoods and think that they will go anywhere in life. This photo reminded me of Our America, because of the breaking stereotypes theme. I really like this picture. I also assumed right away by her clothing that her medals were athletic medals. I realize now that, that might not necessarily be true. She could have won medals for a number of different things, such as music, debate club, quiz bowl team. Anything. Whatever her medals are for, what I am taking from this photo is that someone put her down. Someone told her she would not make it, but she was able to prove them wrong. She won those medals and shut them up. I enjoyed this photo a lot. It reminded me of my own situation in life. I am trying to be a performer, and am constantly told that I will not make it. I want my chance to win my medals and prove all those negative nancys and debbie downers out there that it is possible.

Dawoud Bey

"A Boy on his Bike, 1989"
Dawoud Bey
Street Portraits

1.) In this photo, there is a young man posing on his bike while a young girl standing behind him with pieces of paper in her hands, both of them standing on a sidewalk. The photo is in black in white with the young black man in the foreground while the young girl is in the far right corner. The man is dressed in a white t-shirt with a large graphic design on its front with jean pants on. There are houses in the background lining the sidewalk were both of the subjects are standing. The houses seem to be brick.

2.) In the photo, the houses and the sidewalk create leading lines which helps focus the attention on the young man on the bicycle. He is the largest subject in the photo and is also the most clearly focused subject. He looks very internally hurt which is expressed through his facial positioning and his eyes. Beneath his eyes their is a deep pain that you can see gnawing away at him.  I think all of these aspects the photo had and they way Bey decided on shooting it contributed to the overall expression on the boys internal pain.

3.) I think Bey choose to shoot this portrait of the boy on his bicycle because the image conveys a strong sense of conflict and woe. The young man is exerting both of these qualities by his facial expression. This could be attributed to racial conflict since the young man is black, however i didn't come to that conclusion when i saw it. To me, this portrait was taken because it exerts such a quinine feeling of conflict of woe.

-Alex Cumming

Smile

 http://www.dawoudbey.net/


In this photo I see an older man working at a diner.  He is wearing an apron and is smiling at the camera.  The photo is in black and white.  I can see the creases in his face all of the wrinkles show his age.  There is a woman sitting down at the table to older man is wiping.  She has a cigarette in hand wears a sun hat and does not face the camera.  Behind both of these people is another man who wears glasses but is in the dark so we can't see any of his features besides his glasses.  The diner these three people seem to be in is not the cleanest looking or the nicest.  

I like the fact that the artist shot this picture in black and white film.  Black and white tend (for me at least) to bring out the reality in a scene in a film or a photograph.  Because its not the beautiful colors we're looking at anymore but what is actually going on.  I just get more emotion out of black and white film. 


 In this photo the older man, he is ok with his job because he is happy with it.  Maybe he is the owner, or a chief or just a bus boy either way he is happy and really that's all that matter in life. This happy older man is the key to this photo.  He looks to be in a rusty old diner, but his smile lights up the room.  One can relate this to the question do we make our environment.  In this case, sure the diner is not appealing to ones eye, but the good energy this one man brings to the diner makes it look like a nice place to eat. 

This is a great photo, because of the smile. 

Youth Community of Chicago

Dawoud Bey Photographs
Character Project
Mike, Chicago

In this photo there is a young caucasian man hugging a skate board in his arms. He is wearing a light blue rubber band on his left wrist and earrings on both ears. He is also wearing a white t-shirt under his purple and turquoise plaid button up. His eyes are as blue as the rubber band on his wrist. The hair on his head is sun kissed blonde and the hair on his face is white. His right forearm has a tattoo that is unclear because of the way he is hugging the board.

This man is standing in front of a concrete white wall.

The board design has a cloud on one end and a yellow hand reaching up on the other.

This is one photo out of the artist Character Project. This project is of different people in Chicago. The one photo I chose is Mike. All of the photos are taken with a different person/character in front of the same background, white concrete wall. No person in this Character Project are the same. Each are very unique in they're own way.

I believe the background was chosen to give a simple/plan light to the colorful study. (the study being the character, the person in the photograph)
Dawoud Bey is known for his color portraits of adolescents.
I feel that he was showing the viewer the diversity of the youth in Chicago.
Bey has said, “My interest in young people has to do with the fact that they are the arbiters of style in the community; their appearance speaks most strongly of how a community of people defines themselves at a particular historical moment.”


I enjoyed looking at all the photos as a whole. I believe they are attended to be this way. I thought his photos were a great depiction showing the youth community of Chicago.

Dawould Bey photooo

I chose a photograph under "character projects" captioned "Aoife, Chicago."

1.) Describe: The subject is a girl probably in her early 20s. She's bleach blonde with a short, neat bowl-ish haircut. She's wearing a red polo shirt with all the buttons buttoned. She's standing in front of a biege wall with a couple of sparse black marks. She's seemingly pale and has dark, shaped eyebrows and green made up eyes. She's got a funny expression on her face; as if she's about to smile, but her eyes reveal that she's kind of amused and a no-nonsense kind of person. She's stylish.

2.) Analyze: The artist makes everything surrounding that bright red shirt toned down. Everything around it is biege, or blonde, or tan, or off-white, or black, or minimalistic, like two black circles at the end of the shirt. It makes the shirt pop. Also because she's pale and wearing eyeliner with bleached hair her eyes pop out more. Also it's a very geometric photograph. There are lines everywhere; across her forehead, around her arms. Everything seems definitive and bold.

3.) Interpret: Well this photo was a part of a series of photographs called "character projects" so they all are character portraits of the essence of who each person is. All the photos are very candid and look like an accurate reflection of who they are. This photo in particular is bold, it's descriptive from the facial expression and way the girl is standing. She's giving off a warm look but at the same time looks like someone to fear and admire. She looks like she could've been misjudged; a lot of the characters do. I think the artists intent was to create beauty in each of the photographs by capturing their true personalities in their facial expressions. All of their faces are very truthful! He's telling us a lot about the people through the way they are standing and their faces. The girl in the red shirt is standing with her elbows crossed and one hand on her neck, as if she's covering something up or a little timid. I think the artist is making a point about how we often misjudge people based on appearance and how inaccurate our initial perceptions are. With another project he did, "class pictures" all of the artist statements from the students and their stories are not at all what I would've guessed from looking at them. We have to remember each person is walking around with insecurities, with a story that we don't know just by looking at them.

4.)Yes it's good, it's good because it shows her in her truest form, and the use of simplicity gives it more emphasis.

in a stoop

The image i chose to discuss is A Girl and a Boy on A Stoop .The photo is from 1989.
The photo is black and white. The scene is a sidewalk in front of a brick building, There are two people on the stoop in front of the brick building. To the left sits a little boy with a serious look. In the foreground to the right, a girl leans back  on the stoop. She also has a serious look, and boyish clothes. Her hair is up and back, and she appears to be a bit tense.  The stoop they're in looks cracked and aged. The background consists of cars, trees, and more stoops.
The artist's technique is effective in this picture because of his skill to blur the background and focus on the subject's of the piece. It appears that only the stoop and the people are focused, and the background becomes almost artificial.  There are good contrasts that cast deep shadows on the boy and girl's faces and clothes.  the horizontal lines in the girl's top create a better sense of movement The photographer also does a good job managing his space considering he is using two subjects.  Sometimes when photographers or any artist defy the rule of odds the composition becomes boring and symmetrical, but Bey does good work in keeping depth and asymmetry.
Considering that the artist included this photo in "street portraits" suggests that the subjects live in a poverty-stricken area or the dangerous "streets". Besides the serious looks and the stoop's condition, there aren't many direct suggestions that they might live in poverty. Since the girl's clothes are baggy and her exposed face is somber she appears to look older than she might really be.  She also appears unhappy.  The boy is most likely her little brother, since the age difference is huge.  He also shares the serious glares that his sister does, but with a bit more worry.  In my opinion there is a suggestion here that this girl is the primary caretaker of this child, because they are alone.  But overall I think the point of this photo is that the subjects are on the street and not happy about it.
I think the photo is a good one.  The artist uses a good composition and good movement.  He uses black and white to emphasize the seriousness of the faces, and the photo in general. The exact meaning of the photo isn't direct, which is okay because it makes it more interesting for the viewer.

“A Woman at The Parade.”

1.) I chose the picture titled, “A Woman at The Parade.” This is a photograph taken in black and white, I see an African American woman wearing a white jacket, grey top, necklace and her hair is dark and short and is nicely put together. She is standing behind a sign which states, “do not cross,” and behind her you can see an old building with a European style in it’s architecture in it’s large pillars and doorways. The buildings behind her seem to have graffiti on them. 

2.) In analyzing the image I noticed that within this photo actually being in black and white it displays both the light and dark aspects (both good and bad) within her society and community. 

3.) I feel the artist chose this photograph because he wanted to express to his viewers different lifestyles and living conditions. I felt that the artist wanted to display how not every community isn’t always going to be like the one you may have grown up in, or maybe someone has grown up in a community similar to the one displayed in this photograph who is viewing this piece of work and can relate to it. 

4.) I do feel that this is a good piece of art, it is a dark photo displaying different types of community. Showing how a community that was once clean and beautiful within it’s architecture and how over time communities can change and develop into something different and maybe even abused.  

Broken

1.       In the photograph titled “A Young Woman Between Carrolburg Place and Half Street”, I see an African American woman who appears to be between the ages of 15-17 standing in a deserted alleyway. She’s wearing a rib knit tank dress with no bra and a sort of sandal shoe. Behind her is a large tree, to her right is a broken down chain link fence and to her left, there is a very tall wood plank fence.

2.       By including the poverty stricken background in this image it gives us the tools the audience needs in order to figure out who the female in the picture is. If she was in front of a giant mansion we would only assume that she lived there and that was her house, but since she is in front of a dilapidated surrounding, we can only assume that this is her community and environment. What she’s wearing and how she presents herself are also other indicators of who this woman is. The story behind why she isn’t wearing a bra might simply be the fact that she can’t afford one or that she has to choose between undergarments or actual clothing, which in the end actual clothing that you can wear in public becomes more important. The cobblestone ground that she is standing on also gives us the sense that where she is from is not a new place but is quite old, which adds to that lower middle class aura around this photo.

3.       From what I can see, Dewoud Bey, centers his work on the African American culture and people. Each picture addressing a different issue or concern relating back to community. This work in particular is to display how poverty has affected the girl in the pictures life.

Yes, this work is good. When I say good, I mean the image effectively portrays the mood and tone that the audience receives when studying this image.