Re: NY Times 100 years of pictures

[Fred Ward <fward@erols.com>]

As a result of numerous messages for the past few days on here as well 
as on some photography lists I read, I set out this week to get a copy 
of last Sundayıs NY Times. The magazine section was devoted to 100 years 
of pictures (50+ pages).

I have now looked through it all and read most of it. The text is by the 
Times picture editor. Since there has been so much on the NET this week 
about this magazine I thought it deserved some attention. 

About four comments come to mind:

It is wonderful to have that much space devoted to a single topic and 
especially satisfying to those of us interested in photography to find 
our favorite area of interest covered. 

Such coverage focuses attention on photography as an historical record 
and as an art form, and such recognition is beneficial.

I was brought up so short by an early comment from the author that it 
made me question the accuracy of her other statements and observations. 
In discussing the value and beauty of black and white compared to color 
photography she wrote that there were no high-quality color films 
available until the 1960s. This is completely absurd and brings to mind 
each generationıs dismay about younger generations and their belief that 
nothing of importance happened or was invented before they were born. 
The writer obviously either never saw or does not know about Kodachrome 
from the 1930s, the mainstay of long-lasting, high quality color film. 
Granted it was slow and a bit contrasty, but it made beautiful pictures 
that have not faded and are still in use today. 

The last comment refers to the many references on the NET this week 
about this NY Times document as if it contained the best photographs of 
the last 100 years or that it is a solid photographic documentary of the 
last 100 years through photography. Neither is the case. The Times 
magazine is, in my view, a collection of photographs that was easily 
available to the newspaper and which were made over the last century. 
(You may have already realized that the Times is celebrating its 100 
birthday in present form.) There is a vast difference here. Many of the 
pictures are good. Very few are great I feel. Most are simply old. The 
George Tames (bless his soul) photograph of President Kennedy in the 
Oval Office is one of historyıs memorable documents of JFK or of any 
other president. It should be there and was, most likely because it is a 
wonderful image and also because George was a NY Times staffer and the 
picture could be used free. Sam Falk was a good but not great NY Times 
photographer. There are far too many of his pictures, not because they 
are important or memorable, but because they are in the files and free. 
I personally admire Salgado and consider him to be the best or among the 
best few working photographers today. His image on the magazineıs cover 
is nowhere near his best. It is most likely there, as are others from 
one article of his, because he did the pictures on assignment for the NY 
Times. 

I mention all this not to diminish any credit due the Times for putting 
together such a large work on photography but to point out the realities 
of the marketplace. These are not this centuryıs best photographs or 
even a good cross-section of important images. They are apparently are 
what were conveniently and inexpensively available to the Times. Donıt 
look for many of the great names of this centuryıs photographers or for 
some of the familar or preferably unfamiliar work they did. This 
coverage is more like an album than 100 years of good of great 
photography. Itıs nice to have, but it could have itself been a 
collectorıs item.

Fred Ward