Frank Hurley's Photographs

[Andrew P]

Greetings

The National Library of Australia has an online exhibition regarding the Australian photographer Frank Hurley.

Hurley was a member of the Shackleton expedition and was also an official photographer for Australia in both WW1 & WW2.

There are some very good photos on display for those interested.

Just click on the Hurley link on the front page of the NLA website

http://www.nla.gov.au

Cheers

Andrew

[michaeldr]

Bringing this to the top again, as the Guardian’s web site mentions a BBC documentary tomorrow: BBC 4 at 9.00 pm., Frank Hurley – The man who made History

The article quotes Alf Howard aged 98 who worked with Hurley on a 1929 antarctic expedition and sheds new light on his techniques, including that Hurley was prepared to stage reconstructions if an incident was too quick for his lens.

Howard also thinks that Hurley used similar techniques in his war photography,

'The same thing applied to his war photography later. If he could get two bunkers into a picture and make a more realistic picture, well, OK.'

For the article go to here

As a fan of Hurley's I would be interested to hear any comments from Pals who manage to see the TV programme

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Jonathan Saunders]

Michael,

Not sure if you managed to see this programme but hope you did as it was well worth watching.

I found the central theme of the programme concentrated on Hurley's "composite" photograph techniques but these have been accepted as part and parcel of the man for sometime.

Personally I think his legacy is so great, particularly those photographs that survived from Shackleton's 1914-17 Antarctic Expedition, and the fact that he was always prepared to put himself in harm's way to get his raw material, that I cant help but think of Frank Hurley as one of the great pioneering photographers of the "still" picture in the first third of the 20th century and probably beyond.

Jon

[NIGEL]

He was a fraud !!! ---his photos of shakletons exp, were largely fake!!!!! and he tried the same in WW1 and they gave him the boot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jonathan Saunders]

He was a fraud !!! ---his photos of shakletons exp, were largely fake!!!!! and he tried the same in WW1 and they gave him the boot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think there are two issues here.

The first is undoubtedly the final version of many of his photographs were a merging of more than one image but he still had to be there to take the four or so images that were merged into one. He was the man who got himself into those positions. (Admitedly blowing up tanks in WW2 was probably not in the spirit of the photogrpahic pursuit but that stage of his career does not really interest me).

The other issue is that I would rather have my copy of Hurley's photogrpahic record of Shackleton's 1914-17 Antarctic Expedition than the alternative of having nothing at all.

[NIGEL]

OK. SIGNALS---I am in to photographer in an amateurish way meaning i am not very good but very interested in it.

He was down there with Shakleton to do a job, reporting back on what was going on. He was maybe the Television reporter of that era.

He faked the photographs to make them more sensasional, todays equiverlant of Peers Morgan i think it was of the Daily Mirror who instigated the faked photos of Iraqi Prisoners being tortured.

Hurley was going to be hugely famous for great pics of the expedition, and benefit financialy and other ways, just as the Dailey Mirror and its Editors would have if they had got away with what they were up to.

The only iffy part you could give him any leway on was that the equipment was big and bulky so he couldnt have taken snapshots, but then he should have done it another way and taken a different kind of photo---------This has nothing to do with the modern day enhancement of photographs for other purposes, Hurley set out to sensationlise his photographs for his own gains.

He tried to do the same in WW1 and they booted him out quite rightly because some idiot like him could cause untold damage by producing the wrong kind of photo as we have already seen this year, and i am not talking about censorship, just irresponsibilty of an individual who should be reporting an EVENT not making a make believe FILM.

He should take credit for his photography of enhansment of photographs and not trying to defraud------What do you want ? People saying you cant believe those photos in the paper, reports on the tele----- they are all set up.

[Auimfo]

Hmmm, seems to me that this topic has been covered before but nevertheless I'll wade in with my two cents worth.

Although Hurley did indeed use composite photography, there are many fine photos taken by him that did not - let's not forget this fact.

I don't believe that we can call his photos 'fake'. It was just a series of 'real' photos taken from the same place over a period of time and compressed into one image to portray what I believe is an accurate impression of a series of events. In a way, I see them as an exceptionally clever way to create a short film but by only using a single image.

I will admit that he did, on accassion, airbrush in a shellburst however considering where the photos were taken, it was obvious that an explosion of this kind would have undoubtedly happened at some stage.

Hurley's photos are outstanding. A true genius who saw that you couldn't accurately portray the Western Front in a simple single image.

Tim L.

[michaeldr]

Many thanks to Jon, Nigel and Tim for your comments on this

Hopefully the BBC 4 programme will get onto their world service TV schedule sometime and I can catch up with it

Who said the camera cannot lie?

Without the benefit of seeing the programme, I am inclined to go along with Jon and say that it’s way better than the alternative [nothing]. We have got used to generals being selective in their memoirs and to the dear old veteran whose memory plays tricks on him, so I suppose that we will have to view the photographic ‘record’ with a pinch of salt too.

Thanks again

Michael D.R.

[NIGEL]

But thats what i was trying to say in my clumsy way-------From a photography point of view--"great, most likely a pioneer "...........From a "on the scene television reporter type of his time recording actual events"----a fraud.

[michaeldr]

Sorry Nigel, but I think that fraud is too strong a word

The point which I was trying to make was that, like the general’s diaries and like the veteran’s memories, the truth is in there somewhere.

It is just not exactly the precise same way as the general would have us believe or as the old man remembers

Nevertheless, at the end of the day we have to use these imperfect diaries and memories and hope that by comparing several examples of each, we will eventually reach something near the truth.

The only problem with the photograph is that there are so few examples from which to make this sifting process. This does not mean however that they should be discounted out of hand.

Best regards

Michael DR.

[NIGEL]

Maybe so, these are our points of view, as nobody who was involved is around today to tell the truth, all we can do is assume and compare with what we know today

[Jonathan Saunders]

Nigel - obviously I would have to say Michael and Tim's views mirror my own.

Down in the Antarctic did Hurley set out to sensationlise his photographs for his own gains ... I wouldnt argue against that although I think it is missing the all important result - the legacy. I have an excellent photographic record of Shackleton's 1914-17 expedition on my shelf - all thanks to Hurley - the book also contains examples of the before and after comparisons and in that sense I have the benefit of both types of image.

Was Hurley a latter-day Piers Morgan? IMHO absolutely not. I dont see how you can compare one to the other and it also ignores the knowledge, work conditions and resources available to Hurley at the time. With regard to the Antarctic Expedition Hurley enhanced his photographs in the same way as a good storyteller may elaborate a factual story. Yes Hurley was hoping to benefit financially and professionally from the photographs - and in my view he deserved that benefit for his hard work in extreme circumstances - but what Hurley didnt do was purporsely inflame an already delicate political situation and endanger the lives of British servicemen. I cant draw the parallel you offer. Also Hurley was pioneering a sensationalism of a harmless image, in no way was he trying to manipulate an image to cause, say, embarrassment or compromisation to an individual or make a political statement. His work in this period just cannot be comapred to the manipulation of photographs conducted by the popular press today and particularly the disgraceful work conducted by Morgan and the Dailly Mirror.

With regard to his WW1 photographs - Hurley merged real photographs. To some extent the result of his merging process was in truth, more accurate than his raw materials. Was this irresponsible - IMHO no! I think he was actually doing a service to the public by trying to show how it really was but was thwarted by finding it impossible to capture an image that portrayed the truth.

I remain grateful that Hurley did what he did but of course these are only my views and I respect your right to have opposing views.

[Auimfo]

Ditto what Signals just said.

Tim L.

[NIGEL]

I wasnt going to add any more but i will clear a few things up.

I never meant by any way that there was anything wrong with his photographer in any place, just what he tried to do as the expedition and WW1.

He wasnt given the boot cause he was a bad photographer or that he had taken true inmages of what was going on ( as i heard a few months back on radio 4 that there is a huge amount of still and movie film which was never shown for a number of reasons ) so Hurley wasnt singled out for that reason.

But on the 2 places in question he altered his photographs for gain and sensasionalism if that is the word, why, we can only assume that he failed to get the ones that he wanted, so he made them up. thats like making a story up , faking an antique, telling lies, i dont care what you call it, he basically tried to decieve.

Whether he was as bad as Peers Morgan well he probably never got the chance, but it was still wrong to do what he did and at the time pretend it was something else.--------but like i said he isnt here to explain, so we can only make our minds up on what we know

[Guest bonza]

I don't think that Hurley is any more guilty of Fraud than the producers of any music album or film in which literally thousands of takes are merged into a single track or production.

Was Hurley's motive personal benefit? Having read some of the trials & tribulations he endured in Antarctica, particularly in refusing to destroy all his glass plate images as ordered and losing potentially life saving objects instead, and actually going into battle with the AIF, I sincerely believe not!

British High command had forbidden the AIF to accumulate a photographic record of the War, even forcing confiscation of Battalion & Private cameras. Thank God for the rebel spirit of some individuals, but in particular Thank God for Hurley.

To compare him with the recent shameful episode is an affront to him and to the men whose story he was portraying.

[Auimfo]

Ditto what Bonza said.

God, this is making it easy on my typing fingers.

Tim L.

[NIGEL]

OK Guys-----good maybe great photographer all agreed, but faking pictures is ok by you then----------so when the first manned space ship goes to Mars, and the on board photographer sends photos back to Earth with little green men running round on them because otherwise the landscape was featureless and makes loads of money and becomes super famous for filming the first Martian-----then thats perfectly acceptable by you then ? Sorry lads you keep missing this point and you havent said or explained why you think it is acceptable to do what he did

[Jonathan Saunders]

Nigel,

I dont want to fall out with you on this but I think your missing the point actually.

To put a slightly different slant on your example, if this photographer on Mars saw little green men but didnt get them in the frame so to speak, but put a reasonably accurate representation of them in his photograph, then I think that would have some educational benefit, shall we say similar to an artist's impression.

With regard to him making lots of money and world wide fame, then if he had been brave enough to go to Mars, I certainly wouldnt begrudge him anything.

Getting back to Hurley, I have nothing to add to what I have already written.

I hope this answers your question.

[Auimfo]

Nigel,

You seem to have made our point for us. Hurley would never have added any 'little green men' to the picture unless he'd actually photographed or at least seen them.

It's more the case that he would have taken separate photos of 'little green men' and 'purple people eaters' and then composed them into one photo to give an overall image of what Mars was like.

I think your constant use of the words 'fraud' and 'fake' is done so a little loosely and entirely unfair. I can understand your point of view as did CEW Bean, who was of your opinion (even though I don't agree with either of you) however perhaps 'compose' would be a better choice of words.

The dictionary (my old pocket oxford) lists fake as:

make plausible; contrive or tamper with in order to deceive; counterfeit

and fraud:

criminal deception; dishonest trick

Now, although you can argue that his photos are tampered with, there is no supporting evidence of any deliberate deception, criminality nor dishonesty in any of his work or the way in which he intended it to be viewed. Nor can they be said to be conterfeit as all the images were 'real' and not reproductions.

As I said, I respect your point of view and would not expect you to alter your views but perhaps you could consider being more critical rather that accusatory of Hurley's work and intentions.

Damn - you actually made me think this time and now my fingers are worn out!!!

Tim L.

[Guest bonza]

Nigel

Rather than degenerate into an argument over who is missing points and who is making ridiculous comparisons, I would like to restate my observations.

I personally regard Frank Hurley to be one of Histrory's greatest Story - Tellers.

His equipment was photographic. By today's standards, it was extremely primitive & cumbersome. It actually recorded on the spot events for the benefit, not of Hurley, but of the interested persons of his and future generations. I acknowledge the understanding of conditions in Antarctica, the Western Front and the Australian Light Horse campaigns in the Middle East, that have been available to all from his efforts.

Might it be a coincidence that Haig chose to send Kiggell to check out the front line at the precise time that Hurleys pictures of the mud along the Menin Road first surfaced?

The other story tellers of those momentous events include diarists, historians, lettter writers and novelists. Their medium was words. But which words? Which events did they choose to record, and which spin or slant was put on those events.

Which among those are you prepared to attack with accusations of Fraud?

Had there been little green men in any of his spheres of involvement, undoubtedly Hurley would have recorded them for us. He never stooped to fabricating any picture purporting to be of events which did not exist, and I am unaware of any shots which were not taken at the stated location.

You have made one statement with which I can agree; to the effect that we should form judgements on our knowledge. Might i respectfully suggest that you expand your knowledge on this parrticular topic.

[NIGEL]

I give up !

[Graham-McAdam]

Too late to say this, but the film was on BBC4 again last night (29th). It was fascinating - look out for its show on BBC2 sometime. He did produce some great images, but they would never have given him a job in Magnum, would they?

[Guest bonza]

I give up!