2010-09-11
Munkácsi's revolution (part 3 / 11)
The shining through of an uncredited artist
::::: the pioneer and the "newcomers"
History is always complex and hard to really grasp. When we think of Munkacsi's 'seminal' work at Bazaar we might practically see a whole era on the time line and an another one after that with the "new photographers". In reality it's not that clearcut. The first easily discernible era however could be from 1933 till 1936. An era that has Munkacsi's photo shoot with Lucille Brokaw for the Bazaar as its opening act, the "Demoiselles d'Avignon" in fashion photography. Munkacsi's revolution has arrived. A great moment - that due to the nature of fashion would be quickly followed by the next one.If we would like to have a picture of the next generation, of the 'newcomers' it is definitely interesting to
look at Louise Dahl-Wolfe, who's career was overlapping Munkacsi's at the Bazaar from 1936. Louise Dahl-Wolfe, a talented young woman with extensive background of art studies (6 years in San Francisco Art Institute) was already a photographer by 1933 when one of her photos appeared in Vanity Fair (this was still the "pre-revolution" Vanity Fair, before Carmel Snow's Bazaar with Munkacsi had reshaped fashion photography - and also this photograph was a wonderful socio-portrait taken in Tenesse). Dahl-Wolfe was only one year younger than Munkacsi and practically became famous of the same virtues as Munkacsi - 'a pioneer of fashion photography who went outdoors and used natural light - etc :)'. Richard Avedon regards both of them as his masters.
Dahl-Wolfe shot nude and swimsuit in the Mojave desert (1948) just like André De Dienes did with Norma Jane a few years earlier. Dahl-Wolfe got to Museum of Modern Art New York in 1937 just like Martin Munkacsi did - except that this was a different exhibition, organized by Edward Steichen (!) the big man, the great curator at MoMA NY who was actually the first to notice Munkacsi when he first arrived in the States. Almost needless to say non of these pictures showing at MoMA were fashion-photographs, Dahl-Wolfe's were of those portraits that she took in Tenessee back in 1932.
What's most interesting in Dahl-Wolfe compared to Munkacsi is however the fact that when in 1933 she was offered to join Vanity Fair's staff photographers and shoot celebrities at Conde Nast studios she said no, she said she preferred her own studio. So, instead of one big jump she took the stairs, she began to work as a freelance advertising- and fashion photographer in her own studio which obviously allowed her a much wider space to unfold her art.
Either ways, Louise Dahl-Wolfe worked for Bazaar as staff photographer from 1936 till 1958, made it to the cover 86 times and had thousands of pictures published 600 of which was color. She worked as long as she could physically hold her cameras. Looking at Dahl-Wolfe's photographs one will see what Martin Munkacsi was not, what he did not become: a creator of sophisticated beauty.
Munkacsi didn't actually create beauty but rather captured it. Didn't have those elaborated battle-plans (that could be sold to dry-minded marketing people) on how to achieve beautiful pictures but rather just went at it directly. For him beauty was just there and his challenge was to capture it not to create it. Fashion photography after him took the safe way of a yellow brick road with the plan- and concept-based beauty creation with sophisticated stylists and cutting edge hair & make-up departments which means that by the time planning and preparation has finished the photographer and her/his camera will be facing a piece of fiction, just like shooting a movie. The beauty of the picture now comes from the beauty that is pre-created for the camera, so the picture is actually made before it's taken whereas with Munkacsi the beauty comes from the beauty of the moment when the photographer caught sight of the beauty that is experiencing the beauty (that was actually there as a real part of life and not only as a tricky reminder or imitation of it - like models acting as if they were real girls at real terraces drinking real frappuccino).
Needless to say, the beauty-creation based image factory just like Stanislavsky method for cinema and theater - wasn't the best possible direction to go.
Looking at Dahl-Wolfe's pictures compared to Munkacsi's one will also realize that his greatest and most famous pictures date back to before like 1936 but most definitely before 1940. Also, Munkacsi's oeuvre doesn't seem to have well distinguishable periods in style or technique, he's like a prodigy doing "the same thing" ever since he started photography. And indeed he must have been a prodigy since he could be 'new' in Budapest, then 'new' in Berlin and 'new' in the US too - carrying the same torch of his revolution.
When we think of photographers "coming after" Munkacsi, we have to realize that several of them were already there during and before Munkacsi it's just that their active and art-historically appreciated period reaches beyond Munkacsi's - beyond the golden progressive 1930's.
Even Toni Frissell who born in 1907 was like 11 years younger then Munkacsi was already a professional fashion photographer by 1931. She worked for Vogue since 1931 - owing to Conde Montrose Nast personally (quite an acquaintance). She was a new generation even in terms of using Rolleiflex cameras and in an 1935 portrait we can see her with a Zeiss Contax I in her hand. She worked for Sports Illustrated (basically Munkacsi's territory) and in 1939-40 she showed her talent in color photography too (see that wonderful picture in a 1940 Vogue - link).
George Hoyningen-Huene was already there too before Munkacsi's revolution hit the Bazaar and America. He was actually famous of working
in huge studios using huge sets of lights to achieve his fine results. Static, studio photography - both of which exactly what Munkacsi was not, what Munkacsi's revolution went against.
Hoyningen-Huene was however untouched by Munkacsi's revolution owing to the fact that he had his own one - with Horst P. Horst. After the silent-film-like studio-portraits Hoyningen-Huene took a picture of Horst. It's outdoors, sunlit - the master of studio lighting reached the breakingpoint. It's sexi too - and it's a man's body - Horst's in 1931. They fell in love and their revolution resulted in Horst's becoming a photographer too.
Hoyningen-Huene however kept to studio photography and Munkacsi's revolution weltering outside those walls wouldn't really reach him. What's more, when the next era hit in with the war and revolutionary times were over Hoyningen-Huene's static, studio-lit style sort of took over and came back. In a 1940 issue of Bazaar there's a beautiful series by Hoyningen-Huene, it's beautiful, sophisticated, taken in a studio - and color.
Munkacsi's Bazaar changed into Hoyningen-Huene's, at this time he's more modern than our revolutioner.
It's sad to see how Munkacsi's revolution just became bygone.
These pictures are really beautiful, also quite familiar to our eyes, but if we look at his picture "6 Bathers" it'll right away remind us of Munkacsi's "Lovely autumn: the last warm rays of sunshine" and we'll be taken aback by the difference - it's huge.
* * * *
(could have been a studio shot too, but we have reasons to suppose it's outside: an earlier picture with the couple "on the beach" wearing bathing suits was taken on the roof the studio so even though the sea is not real it's already outside - BTW the male model is Horst)
* * * *
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Photographs linked and/or appearing in this article belong to Ullstein Verlag (Ullstein Bild) (Munkacsi's Berliner period), to the Harper's Bazaar and ICP.org (International Center of Photography) and F.C. Gundlach respectively.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
következő fejezet: Munkacsi's revolution : addiction & penetration to reality
a cikk fejezetei:
-JP-
2010-09-11