Bruce Davidson: Illuminating the Outliers

By Alexandra Martin

Bruce Davidson, Brooklyn Gang, 1959, 1959.

The men and women in Bruce Davidson’s photography are gritty, uninviting, and most of all captivating. Currently on view at the de Young Museum in San Francisco, Bruce Davidson: Gifts to the Collection showcases several series of his photography that spans his career beginning in 1958 till 1998. Davidson was born in 1933 in Oak Park, Illinois. He is most famous for documenting the lives of New York City’s social outliers with a blunt attitude. The subjects narrate the photo which speaks to Bruce Davidson’s humanistic style and is supported by his bold composition. Bruce Davidson’s work dissolves class boundaries giving the viewer access to the dirty, ugly, raw lives of outsiders.

Bruce Davidson, Cafeteria 1973, 1973.

While filming a short film in 1972, Davidson was introduced to a Jewish cafeteria on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Walking into the space the viewer greeted by three gentleman captured by Bruce Weber for his series Cafeteria (1973). The man in the flat brimmed hat stares down the camera while sitting alongside a gentleman who is pulling away. The man’s demeanor is completely off-putting but focused on the photographer’s lens. Davidson captures a rhythm between the three men that creates space and propels the man forward into the viewer’s space.  

Bruce Davidson, Cafeteria 1973, 1973.

Much like Manhattan Transfer, Cafeteria is a collection of narratives within New York City. Individualism is so engrained in the New York Culture, despite being in a shared space, the public spaces are still popular for lone visitors. As a series, each photo speaks to Bruce Davidson’s mission to provide a comprehensive view at the lives of his subjects. As a Jew, Davidson said the experience in the cafeteria brought him “closer to unseen and forgotten worlds,” an ethos reflected throughout his work.

Untitled. Times of Change 1962.

Bruce Davidson has an ability to capture the facts while bringing forth complex emotional responses to human suffering. He documented the Civil Rights Movement from 1961-1965. In this time, he traveled throughout the south and photographed protests, freedom marches, as well as the mundane. From this series entitled, Time of Change, one image draws major similarities to the room Bigger and his family inhabit in The Native Son.

Bruce Davidson, Trickem Fork, Alabama. Time of change, 1965.

While documenting the March for Voting Rights, Davidson was traveling along Route 80 between Selman and Montgomery, Alabama. Titled Trickem Fork, Alabama this photo captures a parent and child living in squalor. The pair are illuminated by the doorway that is reminiscent of religious iconography. They are placed in the center of the photograph and their surroundings make up most of the image. T. he walls covered in newspapers, dingy furniture, and cramped quarters, starkly contrast the almost holy portrait of this family. Bigger Thomas’s mother was a fair woman who genuinely worked to make her children’s lives better.  As a black person, their living standards are far from what most would consider acceptable, yet goes unnoticed and unchanged.

Bruce Davidson, East 100th street 1970, 1970.

One of Bruce Davidson’s most famous series, East 100th Street (1970), focuses on an extremely impoverished East Harlem neighborhood that he spent over two years working with. In assimilating for such a long period of time, Bruce Davidson is able to cultivate personal relationships that allowed him to photograph intimate moments that are normally unavailable to the public eye.  Davidson captures naturalistic portraits of the forgotten and neglected members of society. The candid nature of his photography acts as a critique to the circumstances these people live in. In the above image, the girl is only wearing underwear that does not appear to fit while standing on a fire escape. Her innocent yet troubled expression beckons the viewer to investigate her poor circumstances.

Bruce Davidson, East 100th street 1970, 1970.

Bruce Davidson focused much of his career on telling the stories of the socially alienated communities. In the summer of 1959, Davidson followed a street gang called the Jokers and developed a series entitled The Brooklyn Gang (1959). While Davidson was 26 at the time, the average age of the gang was 16 years old. The series optimizes teen angst amidst the containment culture in America at this turning point in history.

Much like Holden Caulfield, these teens recoil from mainstream society and operate outside of it. Davidson’s documentation of these teens who act like adults give us great insight into the attitudes and behaviors of the emerging counter culture. In the above photo, we are visiting with two gang members on the beach at Coney Island in Brooklyn. The teens stare down the camera with disgust, as if the viewer just reminded them they had responsibilities. Their restlessness and boredom while in their youth is off-putting and depressing, which speaks to the same teenage angst J.D. Salinger is working through.

Bruce Davidson, Subway 1980, 1980.

Before exiting the exhibition, Davidson’s most critically acclaimed work comes from the Subway (1980) series are on display. The high contrast between the cold subway train and the warm colors on the people of the subway brings life to these people and the culture they represent. The gentleman featured are tough and unapologetic, the perfect symbols of the New York City subway system in the 1980s. While they never intimidate, their idiosyncrasies still live on in the people who dance, sell, and ride the New York City Subway system.

Bruce Davidson, Subway 1980, 1980.

Bruce Davidson’s honors men and women that society ignores. His work is a timeless critique of society’s discrimination and dismissal of people that are poor, different, or of color. The people Davidson introduces all regain a sort of agency and are in control of how their life and circumstances are presented to the public. They are not pitiful and sad; they are presented with dignity and respect. Much like the writers of the time, Davidson captures reality, not an idealized cliché while giving voice to alienated communities.

Chicago

By Tong Zhang

My friend came to visit me from Boston. She had bugged me to take her to see a musical for over a year. I could finish this writing assignment and watch a musical! Totally not miserable. Since everyone like “The Humans” so much, I decided to take her to see “Chicago”.

Chicago is a musical written by John Kander. This musical is based on a real-life story and trail by Maurine Watkins back in 1926. The concept of this show is to mock the criminal justice system. Housewife Roxie Heart planned to sleep her way to the top of celebrity. However, things went wrong when she slept with Fred Casely who promised her a big break at the next show. She killed him and ended up in prison with some mankillers who treated them wrong. In prison, she met her hero, the famous double-homicide and nightclub performer Velma Kelly. They both had Billy Flynn. He was the lawyer who extorted women prisoners for living. His plan was to make his clients celebrity, which Roxie was obsessed with. Eventually, Roxie realized that beyond fame, her life was also on the line.

The first realization I had was to treat my future girlfriend well, I don’t want end up dead like those guys. That was actually my first time of musical experience. I was surprised that I didn’t fall asleep. This musical was as addictive as intense and as unforgettable as any show I have ever seen. The musical got me thinking because the media’s fascination with the criminal celebrity and its entanglement with the juridical was unbelievable. What made Roxie a women who refused to be a housewife but decided to pursue her dreams? Was the growing independence and freedoms of women or the greed of being famous?

    

  

Living in New York

By Xincong Chen

In recent days, I have been to Met to view famous paintings. In fact, I must admit I really have no talent in appreciating artworks. So while I was viewing in the museum, I was unable to understand most of the paintings in the museums. However, when I found those exquisite paintings which was created by the artist Edward Hopper, who was born in Nyack, a town located on the west side of the Hudson River, I felt so familiar to those special paintings because those paintings were created according to the New York City in around 20th century.  I discovered that those paintings lively represent the view of New York City in the past as I learned from the books. Those old buildings built by the bricks, the tiny small apartment, the streetlamps and lots of details of the paintings show us a comprehensive view of the great city. What’s more, those characters in the paintings were really typical working class people.

First, I found that most of the characters were those working class people from their clothes and living states. In the first painting, the background was dark. We could see a girl who was naked and looking out of the window, it seemed like she was lost in the city. Living in the tiny apartment, alone, this girl maybe had lots of sadness in her heart. It was normal at that time because in that period, people who were not born in New York City, they all had dreams to come to this city. However, reality was so cruel that not every one could be successful. This might be the reason that why she was perplexed. Similarly, the man who was in the last picture, who seemed like not happy. He was looking at the view far away from him. He might be an apprentice that was studying some craft skills. This explained why he wanted to look the view far from him because in his working place there was even no window there. He really wanted to move to those center place. We could find American dreams in their mind because in the city like New York City, people all had chances to be successful. They all hoped to achieve great careers.  

Second, it was so obvious that among those paintings, we could only find white people. It also could be explained in that special era. As we all knew, though President Lincoln liberated the south and aborted the slavery, black people and white people were still not equal in the society. They lived in different places and black people was segregated by the white people. So, in the second painting, in the café, there were only white people there which also very precisely describe what the real situation was at that time.

Looking at those paintings really impresses me a lot because they tell the stories that that people tried their best to achieve their dreams in America. I  believe that the stories will repeat and never stop.

Wise Man Say: "Ask Not For Seconds, For You Shall Only Get Thirds. Ask For Two-Fourths, Instead, That Always Fools 'Em." Wise Man Fluent In Basic Fractions.

By Josh Ptak-Pressman

A few months ago, I had the privilege to see Allegiance in theaters with its original cast. I say “privilege” and not “pleasure” because in all honesty, it wasn’t that great, but that’s besides the point. For those not in the know, Allegiance is a musical starring Japanese-American George Takei of Star Trek fame about the experience of several people either born in Japan or to Japanese parents, living in America during World War Two, facing anti-Japanese discrimination and having to suffer through the unjust internment of all Japanese people living on the West Coast. As far as musicals are concerned, it’s not bad, sporting a great cast and some nice numbers, but the writing is definitely subpar and the plot pretty bare bones. As it relates to our class of Class And American Culture, I see Allegiance as something of a mirror of Manhattan Transfer:  The former takes place on the West Coast during the early Forties, the latter in New York in the Roaring Twenties. One is fairly optimistic with some perhaps overly patriotic tones, the other written by a bitter communist with a bone to pick. A toe-tapping musical versus an all-over-the-place modernist text. Most importantly, the focus of this post, is that Allegiance is largely about race in America with a little hint of economic class, whereas Manhattan Transfer is by and large a book about social class with some suggestions of racial conflict. While it’s perhaps unfair to compare the two head-on, on the basis of their analysis of early twentieth American society alone, Manhattan Transfer is a lot more stinging and arguably a lot more accurate. Allegiance arguably not enough of either. Between the two, I believe there must be a balance of criticism that fairly and truthfully considers both the negative aspects of American society and the positives, without being biased in either direction for whatever purpose.

The main problems with Allegiance are that they dilute the tragedy with convoluted plots of true love and family drama and that it manages to both make the experience seem worse and bleak than it really was yet at the same time make the people experiencing it more hopeful and patriotic than they really were, giving it a very sentimental “proud to be an American!” feel even when a true critique of the Japanese internment camps would emphasize the anger and disillusionment felt by people coming out of the camps. No one would think to make a Holocaust story that ends in anything more than a somber, grim acceptance of a cruel reality, so why wouldn’t the same hold true for internment camps on the other side of the war? George Takei himself lived through the internment camps as a young boy, so it confuses me that the musical paints a picture of such unquestioning faith.

On the other hand, John Dos Passos was a Harvard graduate who travelled all over Europe during his youth, yet has almost nothing good to say about the American society that gave him such luxuries. In Manhattan Transfer, the happiness people feel is portrayed as shallow and meaningless, with a character’s understanding of the world around them inversely related to how happy they are. White, wealthy, educated people such as Dos Passos himself feel unfulfilled and lacking in purpose, drifting around New York aimlessly. But the fact that they can do so is a luxury few enjoy, the speciality of the idle rich. Had they the tiniest understanding of what a minority, be they black, Asian, Catholic, Jewish, etc. faced at the time, they’d never complain again. Yet Dos Passos does. The son of a trust lawyer thinks himself worse off than a man who lived through the Japanese internment camps. Perhaps oppression is a state of mind. Or perhaps those with privilege construct self-imposed tragedies on themselves, what one might call “first world problems”, to shield themselves from accusations of privilege and that those at the bottom of society, be it socially or economically, downplay the severity of their suffering as to feel less crushed by the weight of their hardships. In that sense, these stories tell us that while physical oppression is forced upon by others, mental oppression is self-inflicted.

The Humans

By Leilei Liu

“The Humans” is a play written by Stephen Karam, and is currently playing at the Laura Pels Theater. This comedy-drama features a dinner scene of a typical middle class family gathering at a younger sister’s new apartment in Chinatown, Manhattan, on a Thanksgiving night. Brigid’s new apartment is old and noisy. It only contains one broken window on the first floor and a dark basement. The only stairs are located on the far end of the stage. The setting of the stage is interesting, because it is the cross section of this dark duplex. It allows the audience to watch two stages at the same time. The family that includes Brigid’s parents, older sister and her grandmother, who took the train from her hometown to visit her. The beginning of the gathering is heart-warming and hilarious. They talk and joke while preparing for dinner like a normal family. But as an audience, it is not hard to predict that there will be a breaking point for this family, but I could not anticipate its the cause.

During the show, I could not stop comparing it to “Manhattan Transfer.” Obviously, both stories happen in Manhattan. A country girl from Pennsylvania comes to New York alone in hope of pursuing her dream. After years of school, Brigid cannot even find a decent job in the city. In order to live in the city, Brigid and her boyfriend have to move into this tumbledown place, in which there is always something broken, and pretend they are pleased with the place. All the unhappiness arises because of money. Brigid’s father was forced to retire with no pension, because he was caught having an affair at his workplace. Brigid’s mother has to work extra hours to make more money. The family has to sell its lake house to pay the mortgage. Brigid’s grandmother needs extra care, but the family cannot afford to hire a nurse to take care of her. Brigid’s sister is out of a job. Brigid cannot find a job either to pay back her student debt. After revealing all the secrets behind this family, the heartwarming dinner turns into a scene full of conflicts and chaos. Brigid is accusing her dad, and asking him he he could do such a disgraceful thing. Brigid’s sister is crying because she broke up with her girlfriend and is out of the job. But from my point of view, the essential reason for all these conflicts is money. Similar to “Manhattan Transfer,” many characters in the book reflect how capitalism affected them. Bud ends his life because he cannot make any money in the city. Blackhead is corrupted to make more money. Dutch Roberson spends twenty years in prison for stealing money. It is all about money. In “The Humans,” all the characters are under great pressure because of their economic status. Each individual feels unsafe and unstable in the society. And to no one’s surprise, all this pressure reaches a boiling point, and explodes in the end. An interesting thing to add on this point is that Brigid’s boyfriend is named Rich. He is already 38, but he is laid back, and seems to have no worries at all. He has no work and is still in school. He dreams of being a social worker in the future. He seems to be in a totally different world that that of Brigid’s family, and does not need to worry about reality or the future. Well, of course this is all because he will have a trust fund when he turns 40 in two years. How ironic. 

Regarding the performances, each actor is excellent at developing his or her character on stage. The character Erik, Brigid’s father, is a complex figure. He is a typical American father who is a huge fan of baseball. He drinks beer and comforts his daughters when they are experiencing sadness. He appears strong and caring for his family. But he is not. After working in a private school for 30 years, Erik was discharged from his position because he had an affair. All of a sudden, he had no pension, no work, no income, nothing. I think he is a total bastard, who is not responsible for his family. After he has the affair, his wife has to work even harder to make money for the family. As a man, Erik needs the woman he betrayed to make up for his faults. I cannot understand him, and dislike this character. However, at the same time, he is still a good father. He cares about his family in every way. He says he still loves Brigid’s mother. He is real person.  And he is a complex person. I do not think I can use a simple word like good or bad to describe him. This character reminds me of many similar characters that I have encountered this semester, such as Holden Caulfield and Bigger Thomas. Holden is a complex kid, too. He says he hates the society and people. But he behaves in the exact he does not approve. Bigger accidentally kills Mary and feels guilty. But he later burns the body and finds excuses for what he did. When I first read these books, I found it hard to understand why those characters would do things that contradict themselves. After watching “The Humans,” I kind of understand that people are complex. It is hard to define a person using good or bad.

Lastly, I want to specifically talk about the setting of the stage, which I think was is brilliant. The cross section of the duplex apartment divides the stage into two parts, the upstairs and downstairs. They are connected but independent at the same time. For audience, we can watch both stages at the same time. However, for the characters, they can be whispering secrets upstairs that need to be hidden from the downstairs. The characters can cry or show their real feelings upstairs when everyone else is downstairs. The stairs connecting both levels is a pathway where characters have to hide their feelings and fake their smiles to face the family. I think it is an excellent way to express the individuals’ emotions and push the story forward. 

The MET

By Natalia Rosario

Over the weekend – on Friday to be exact-  while choosing what to do or where rather where to go for this writing assignment I felt as though I had hit a creative wall. Literally crossing things out of a list as to what to write about, like, I know class systems are real, it’s clearly a “thing” in today’s society but how can I find a place where its overwhelmingly present enough for me to be able to spew out words for. So, it would be wrong for me to say that going to Starbucks and simply people watching wasn’t a front runner on the list but I ultimately ended up going to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Initially, I chose the MET because I thought I’d be able to observe the types of people attending the opening of a new exhibit ideally. But, when I went there was no new exhibit opening so I wasn’t going to see interesting people like explorers from Australia or England or wherever that I could write about or so I thought. It was a typical day at the museum at least from my prospective of what typical day at a museum consist of. But there were somethings that upon entrance hit me right away, 1. there were a lot more children than I expected and I got a moment to ring up some conservation with one the chaperons for these children. We got to talking and she told me she was a 6^th grade teacher for Bronx Early College academy a Public / Charter school and that her class was able to go to the museum for FREE. I thought that was incredible because I associate places like museums to before the “big spenders“and by that I mean these places that typically house a lot of priceless heirlooms and things of that nature are not typically free or open to the public. 2. In order to get into the museum as a regular person recommended fee is $15 for students but please notice that I wrote RECOMMENDED once you get in the museum you can pay literally any amount you want that is over 0.00 so if you pay 1 cent that’s absolutely fine.  

That small notion got me thinking because it’s almost as though the Museum itself or rather the people running the museum recognize that this place houses all kinds of items that are probably vital to a college students final research paper, or a trip to this establishment is vital in helping mold a young 6^th graders mind as to what else has gone on around the world that he/she is a part of. Be able to inspire or provide a different prospective as to what is art give visual to what art was then and the common themes coursing through each painting be it from the same era or not. So, for a place as a big and recommended for a well-rounded educated person to visit as a museum to be practically free to anyone who wants to go is almost like the class system placed in society to be used as a way to differentiate between people doesn’t exists to the museum. The museum only sees people that want to benefit from the experience of being inside. 

The Tenement Museum

By Meredith Malloy

The Tenement Museum offers a multitude of mid 19^th to turn of the century story based experiences of the one thousand plus immigrant residents that have resided at 97 Orchard Street in the Lower East Side of Manhattan. I participated in the Hard Times tour, which tells the stories of a family that is lead by simply that ‘hard times’. I would say this exhibit is a true depiction of how a woman’s identity is shaped in accordance to that of her husband and never really independent of her husband until she no longer had a choice. The modernist literary pieces displayed how character identities were shaped during the same time that Natalia Gumpertz life in America was created. Here’s what I have found.

The story of Natalia, a young lady from Prussia, immigrated to New York City’s lower east side which at the time is a German-Jewish community. She found her husband, Julius, in this neighborhood, settled in 97 Orchard and the two had four children. The six member family lived in a three room apartment and had their share of troubles. While Julius worked several odd jobs nothing lead to stability and the family needed to rely on religious based charitable assistance several times throughout the years. Eventually the burden of being unable to adequately care for his family began to be too much, Julius up and disappeared, leaving his family behind and having to fend for themselves. With the sudden absence of her husband, unemployed and inexperienced Natalia had to figure out how to survive and keep her children clothed, fed and sheltered. Luckily soon thereafter, Natalia was able to receive enough charitable assistance, that lead her to receive a foot pedal sewing machine allowing her to become a dressmaker, which resulted in a stay at home business for herself making clothes for those in the neighborhood.

The story of Natalia Gumpertz’s family resonated closely to me to the modernist times in literature. The story of a young girl migrating from her homeland to a foreign land, is the epitome of what the modernist movement portrayed. Each piece had to do with the characters finding their place within their community in hopes of building a better life for their family. I would say the story of the Gumpertz family shares elements of Manhattan Transfer for one. Similarly to that of the fictional character Jimmy, husband and father, Julius can’t take the his life in New York and decides to leave. I found it ironic that even though Jimmy and Ellen divorce and there was knowledge amongst all, he seemed to have no shame is traveling far far away from New York leaving his family behind without any further thought or consideration as did Julius. I began to wonder if there was a trend among men at this time that would leave their family behind with no resources due to the pressure of not being successful as they once set out for.

As well, I felt of Natalia as I did Janie from ‘their eyes were watching God”, although Janie did not have the same story of a husband that left, she did want to find her own identity and I wondered if this was the same for that of Natalia. Hearing Natalia’s story, she seemed to have been the one that kept the family together, even when Julius was present, however she was restricted by the identity of her husband as was Janie with Jody. Once Jody died, Janie got to move on a live a life as she truly hoped for, even though she hit a few bumps in the road in the end she seemed well at peace. Even though Natalia’s husband disappeared, she was able to make a fulfilling life for herself and her family even able to leave her family an inheritance upon her death. No longer overshadowed by her husband’s identity or even lack of achievement, Natalia was able to go on and give her family a life that many would have hoped for during this time.