I think Hargreaves’ photo series is interesting. The pictures definitely are different. It shows you the different interests people have. I’m shocked that celebrities really request these things to have backstage, like its really in contracts and it has to be brought to them the exact way they asked. Some of them are things that shouldn’t even be edible without being mixed in something. “The cornstarch or the I can’t believe it’s not butter”, really??. I would like to know what is it that they’re doing with it. Some of these foods could just be their favorites or comfort foods. I agree with him when he says that the requests show something about their personality that words don’t.

The reading confused me even more. In the beginning I was convinced that the picture was staged because of how the soldier was positioned. It didn’t look that real as if he really got shot. Just the whole positioning of his body and the gun. If you pay attention to the background of the photo it doesn’t look as if it was during a war. I feel as though you would see bodies or rubbish laying around. What stands out to me the most is the fact that Capa thought to capture a great photo he needed to be there. He needed to be in the presence of the war. He risked endangering his life to capture a photo. That alone shows me some proof it might be real. I’m still indecisive on whether to believe if its real or not. Regardless if its staged or real, Capa has a big name in the history of photography.

Robert Frank’s collection of 83 photographs in book titled “The American’s”, is an interesting look at how he personally viewed his country. In his collection, photographs of poverty, racial division, and banal day to day life of Americans were depicted. I do find his photographs to be artistic because there is meaning behind every single picture. I don’t think Frank took these photographs for us to understand why he took them, i think they were meant for his personal understanding of what was going on around him. He wanted to understand the whos, whats, wheres, whens, and hows. Like stated in the clip of the Exhibition by curator Peter Galassi, Frank wanted to understand his people. A perfect example is the photograph of the White-American baby being held by the African-American woman. Frank wanted to understand how could a mother trust this black woman with her child but completely disregard the same black woman in public. Frank photographed pictures of the everyday lives of Americans which seem rather boring. In the photos these people rarely make eye contact nor smile, mainly because they were taken off guard. It was also stated that Americans weren’t content with how they viewed themselves which i think is still a present day issue. We as Americans are too wrapped up in our everyday lives that if and when we are photographed off guard we might even seem a bit unhappy much like the photographs in Franks book.

The infamous photograph of the fallen soldier during the spanish civil war has raised many questions of authenticity. According to Richard Whelan, he claims that some may argue that the photograph is in fact a fake. While others would argue that it is indeed a factual photograph. In the article Whelen brings about possible scenarios that could have taken place before, during, and after the picture was taken. While the arguments may be convincing and even questionable, i honestly do not think it matters if the photograph was a fake or not. It wouldn’t be the first time a photograph is staged. Photographers have been doing it for years and still do. During this time, this photograph was so necessary. It was an “inside look” into what war was. It was an eye opener for many. These people during this time have never seen anything like it and it truly became a phenomenon. A part of me wants to believe that the photograph was staged but the other part of me doesn’t think it should matter if it was or wasn’t. The photograph did exactly what it was suppose to; show something that no one else could see unless they were there. The article had some supporting evidence of authenticity but even some of the evidence was questionable. We will NEVER know.

Robert Frank’s photographs weren’t among those that many others would consider art. His photographs were very simple. They captured every day life in the 1950s. Compared to other artists, it lacked excitement and spark. Honestly, who would be interested in a photo of men sitting at a pharmacy? However, as one looks through his photographs, you realize that there’s more to them than expected. At first glance, it’s just a photo of a bus with people on it, but then you realize the color of their skin and the division on the bus. Even if it isn’t as strong as Capa’s photographs, it still sends a clear message about America. I find that Frank’s work is artistic. Art has a different meaning to every individual, and I think being simple is artistic. Why not let people think? A picture’s worth a thousand words, right?

After watched the videoclip, I don’t think Robert Frank’s photos are artistic. It includes 83 simple, basic photos. His theme on his work only African and white people. I believe its kind of political. However, i really enjoyed when i was looking his photos. We can understand that how American’s view changed since that time, his photos and his style inspired many photographers. He made his photos beautiful, if you can only understand what his mean. 

After I watched the video, I do not think Robert Frank’s photographs are artistic at all. He captured so many Americans with no political message. All he had done is photograph people the way they are, without changing or staging anything. Very pure photographs of the Americans. Maybe, Robert Frank didn’t find any happy person to photograph or people were really struggling back in the days. He just did what he loved to do, capture streets, people and understand the Americans. I found Robert Frank is a unique photographer with a pure style.