29.05.09
Elliott Erwitt Interview
The classic journalists' 'test' for their recording equipment is to ask "What did you have for breakfast?" With the eminent, famously drole documentary photographer, Elliott Erwitt, that invites a deadpan, almost dada-esque reply, and I got it.
"I had good company," he answered.
Erwitt's answers are typically staccato, often minimal and make you smile. His animation lay in the photographs. His most recent book of work, "Untitled" contains many previously unseen and published in, many of images of dogs ' a subject matter which he is well known for covering.
I start out by asking if he has a dog.
Yes, of course I have a dog! I have a dog called Sammy. He's 14 years old, he's a Cairn terrier, so he's quite obstinate; he's a Scot. And he's very nice.
Is this the dog imitating the owner or the other way round!
No. I think he's his own person.
As an on-going project, is your study of dogs a way of documenting the relationship between animals and humans?
I don't start out with any specific interests, I just react to what I see. I don't know that I set out to take pictures of dogs; I have a lot of pictures of people and quite a few of cats. But dogs seem to be more sympathetic.
I mention Dogs partly because I wonder if you might be photographing the Barrack Obama's dog?
I'm invited to go in for it, but I don't have a plan at the moment. I'm not in the White House these days. But I used to be, years ago when I was accredited to the Kennedy White House. At that time, I was working with Peter Sallinger as a photographer/reporter team, and for Magnum photos, my agency. It was exciting then, a very, very young White House and a lot of fun. I think everything's more serious now.
Have you thought of photographing Obama?
Well, I did go to the inauguration and I did take some pictures. Some were published on-line by Newsweek and distributed by Magnum. I was quite lucky, I had a very good position - for the actual inauguration, I was not more than 100 yards away from the event, and I went to some of the balls and of course, saw them dancing.
2009 is a busy year for you - with two books due later this year.
Yes, one on the city of Rome and the other under a pseudonym. My "Rome" book dates back 50 years, and many of the pictures come from the trips I've taken over the last 50 or more years. Consequently they're on film. Recently, I've gone back three different times to bring it up to date a bit. Rome is eternal but the people change, the cars change, the popes change - that's why I have to go back.
How do you approach a city like that - do you plan something particular or just wander and watch?
I just wander around. Having been raised in Italy myself, in Milan, I have a particular affinity for the country. I come at least two or three times a year - Italian is my first language. This book is just random pictures of Rome - there is no shortage of books about Rome but this will be more personal, there'll be monuments, there'll be Coliseums, of course, but there'll be people, life!
People are your main interest?
The manifestation of people, whether it's actual people or what people do, it's the same thing.
How do you see the changing attitudes over the years to approaching people to photograph them - or do you do it secretly?
I never ask permission. Why would anybody ask permission...that means just sticking somebody in front of a camera and say, "Look here!" and go "click, click, click". That's not photography.
Have you ever had any comeback from people who objected?
Sued you mean? No, not yet - I'm working on it! In France, it's become quite dangerous to take pictures of people in the street because there's some law which allows them to sue you. It could happen in America, but only if the pictures you take put the people in a compromising position. If not, then you're pretty clear, but the thing is that if they don't know they're being photographed they don't have anything to say, do they?
What about this anonymous book?
This is quite different from anything I've ever done: it's a big colour book. Why anonymous? Well, it's not porn! But some people might think it is. Not that the pictures are tacky or anything, but porn can be quite un-tacky. It's about pictures, a sort of a send- up of the art scene in photography, that's what it is essentially. I'm just having fun and taking pictures that are, at least, if nothing else, amusing and entertaining. It's called "The Art of André S. Solidor."
Why did you feel you had to have a pseudonym when we'll know it's you, won't we? Are you playing with us?
Yeah. You probably will know - and there'll be an 'aka' under the pseudonym.
You often seem to be having fun with your photographs, do you find it a playful medium or have you turned it into one for yourself?
Well, I'm not a serious photographer like most of my colleagues. That is to say, I'm serious about not being serious.
One of today's main discussion points amongst photographers is about the use of digital photography; do you use digital cameras?
I do use digital cameras - but only for assigned work; for my own work, I don't.
A digital camera is a lot more practical and more convenient than film when you have to deliver a project. But digital manipulation is something else. In 'real' photography, of course, it's an abomination, but when you're selling automobiles or cornflakes, it's perfectly ok. "Real" photography is about what is; the special thing about photography is what you see, not what you conjure up. That's quite foreign to photography in my view.
There are 'real' stories, documentary stories, deep and affecting, which have almost certainly been retouched. Is that any different from doing it in the dark room?
Well, that's legitimate.
This kind of manipulation of photographs is nothing new, it's just easier now and anybody can do it. It was not quite as radical before because it was more difficult and quite expensive, but it was going on all the time, particularly, in fashion, advertising and product photography. But it's the changing of pictures - when you're trying to pass off manipulated pictures as real pictures, that's when it's objectionable.
Certain photographers - for instance, Mary Ellen Mark and Vanessa Winship -are determined to stay with film and develop in dark rooms; are they an endangered species?
I do the same: everything I do comes out of my dark-room or my production. It's really how you use what you do that counts - not the tool.
Elliott Erwitt was speaking with Sue Steward
To see Elliott's work visit elliotterwitt.com or magnumphotos.com
- Average Article Rating 2 Stars
-
Your Rating
Login Required!
Sorry - You must be a registered user & logged in to rate this.
Login | Register
Back to Categories