Olivia Foss

ARTH 287

Prof. Lyford

5/9/20

Bruce Davidson: East 100th Street

Bruce Davidson, born in 1933, is an American photographer known for photographing

various cities, communities and subcultures over specific periods of time. Since his instatement

as a member of the Magnum Photos Agency in 1958, by Cartier-Bresson himself, Davidson has

achieved notoriety as one of the most prominent documentary photographers. Throughout his

increasing stature in the public eye, Davidson has come to be recognized for his unique approach

towards creating imagery of people living in potentially disenfranchised communities, the

subjects of which are all too often rendered as invisible or undesirable. His most distinguished

photo essays include “Circus,” “Selma,” “Brooklyn Gang,” “East 100th Street,” and “Subway.”

Of these bodies of work, “East 100th Street” has stood out as a paradigm of powerful

documentary photography alive to the issues of social and political exploitation. ​Bruce

Davidson's project, “East 100th Street”, photographed over two years, from 1966 to 1968, hones

in on a single block of the lively, yet impoverished, East Harlem neighborhood of New York. In

accordance with Davidson’s primary intent to improve housing in the community, he asserts his

photographs as a personalized statement and observation of the East Harlem residents’ spatial

reality. Through a visual contrast of exterior and interior space, Davidson’s “East 100th Street”

prompts an authentic discussion of the human condition and social climate in Harlem during this
era as he conveys the social and political ramifications of the crumbling tenement buildings

inhabited by the streets residents. In “East 100th Street,” Davidson rejects the notion of

documentary media as a voyeuristic exploitation of underprivileged peoples, instead prioritizing

an equitably humane, intimate and respectable relation between photographer and subject.

Bruce Davidson’s “East 100th Street” puts an extraordinary emphasis on the personal

relationship between photographer and subject - even as he attempts to document authentically.

Davidson provides a fascinatingly intimate dimension between photographer and subject that is

rare within the realm of documentary and street photography. Documentary photography is often

defined by “the decisive moment,” a phrase coined by Henri-Cartier Bresson, which alludes to

the capturing of an event that is fleeting and spontaneous, where the resulting photo embodies

the true nature of the event itself.​[1]​ This spontaneity and candidness, the decisive moment in

capturing a subject often without their knowledge or consent, has played an essential role in the

development of documentary and street photography for many decades. However, more recently,

it is these very methods of photographing the spontaneous or true nature of reality that have

come under fierce criticism, begging inevitable questions of ethics and morality.

The most frequently asserted goal of street photography is to impact society through a

raw documentation of the current state of humanity and the world. In pursuit of this goal,

documentary and street photographers have often committed themselves to focusing on

disenfranchised and impoverished communities as their method by which they reveal the

underbelly of the human predicament in its modern and mostly urban state. In Martha Rosler’s

essay “In, Around and Afterthoughts on Documentary'', she critiques this method as she argues

for documentary photography as often giving the ​illusion​ of being based in morality and social
justice. Rosler critiques such documentary photography and the photographers who shoot it, as

often being driven - either consciously or unconsciously - by a voyeuristic tendency that

objetcifies and exoticises the subject. While Rosler acknowledges the importance of the

documentary images and the social and political reality they bring openly into discourse

“...simply by being photographed and thus exemplified and made concrete”, she asserts that the

predominant effect of this exemplification was a type of politically complacent and polite

reform.​[2]​ Rosler further maintains that such reform came nowhere close to addressing the

“...radical demands that [these] photos of poverty and degradation suggest…”​[3]​ Documentary

photography, as Rosler suggests, has become a medium which satisfies the aestheticized

curiosities of the privileged, upper class, instead of commanding the radical social and political

reform it deserves. It is this satisfaction of the affluent’s curiosities that has invited the use of the

term ‘poverty porn’ -- a phrase which suggests objectification, classifying the documentation of

marginalized and underprivileged communities for the sake of entertaining a privileged audience

for personal profit.​ ​In contrast to the methods of other photographers who specialize in the

uncontrived exploration of poverty, Davidson - for his “East 100th Street” project in particular -

spent a long period of time interacting with and establishing relationships between him and his

subjects. In doing so, Davidson, explicitly rejects this problematic aspect of documentary

photography, instead prioritizing a more honest relationship between photographer and subject.

Poverty porn, the photographic objectification of the impoverished layered with the

voyeuristic elements of secrecy and dissent, creates a skewed separation between photographer

and subject. This crude separation and its critique has established the primacy of the

photographer’s intention in determining the purpose and validity of a photograph. In Broderick

Fox’s “Documentary Media: History, Theory, Practice”, he discusses the implications of the

camera and the photographer's gaze within any environment. He states,

“By claiming to be professional documentarians, we must take great care with the sort of

license and authority we confer upon ourselves. If our camera happens upon certain

events with an accidental gaze, we must still consider the ethics...we must ask ourselves

what purpose recording it will serve...No matter how well-intentioned our sense of justice

or right and wrong may be, do we really understand the cultural and political implications

of a situation we are so ready to jump in to, imposing our world view?”​[4]

These thoughts of ethics and purpose were at the forefront of Davidson’s mind in photographing

East 100th Street. Upon embarking on this photographic journey, Davidson took every

precaution to ensure that, particularly as a white male, he was not exploiting the potentially

disenfranchised subculture of East 100th street he wished to record. Before photographing,

Davidson acquired the permission of the Metro North Citizen Committee, a committee revolved

around improving the Metro North area, revealing his intention to improve the housing condition

of the community- many of whom were living in decaying tenement buildings.​[5]​ However, it

would take more than a good intention and permission from the Citizen Committee for Davidson

to defend his project as more meaningful than poverty porn. The sincerity and validity of

Davidson’s project proved itself as Davidson dedicated two years to photographing the East

Harlem community, a time in which he established varying personal connections between him

and his subjects. In his attempt to personalize his commitment to his subjects, Davidson chose to

work with a large format camera on a tripod, therefore eliminating any facet of secrecy instead

prioritizing his subjects' consent.​[6]​ In an interview Davidson reports, ​“I didn’t want to be the
unobserved observer. I wanted to be with my subjects face to face and for them to collaborate in

making the picture.”​[7]​ This collaboration between photographer and subject is palpable in many

of Davidson’s East 100th Street photos and beyond this, many of his subjects were invited to and

attended Davidson’s opening show, even receiving free prints and later on full copies of the book

when it was published.​[8]​ Davidsons aim for East 100th Street, therefore, went far beyond the

trivial goals of poverty porn, instead proclaiming a sincere observation and capturing of a

community's true essence in a certain moment in time.

Davidson certifies East 100th Streets lively yet disenfranchised nature through his

juxtaposition of interior and exterior spatiality within his publication. Whether shooting indoors

or outside, Davidson accentuates spatial reality as an imposing force onto his subjects. In figure

(1) a young boy is pictured lying on a mattress amongst a mountain of trash between two

buildings. Even from a distance, one can note the child's gaze which is laid directly upon the

camera. The boy and the mattress on which he lies are given the most light as the rest of the

photo is ominously submerged in dark tones. The image reveals the piles of trash as a possible

playground for the child, urging the viewer to contemplate the nature of the boy's life outside of

the photo. The wide angle perspective in which the photograph was taken produces a non

euclidean spatial construction, alluding to a seemingly infinite nature of the garbage strewn ally

as Davidson reveals an all-too-real, yet uncommon perception of childhood. The garbage on

which the child sits is sharp and dirty, perpetuating a violent and danger filled reality

surrounding the child. Even though the photo is taken outside, presumably during the daytime,

there is very little indication of daylight as the absence of light and the prevailing dark, grey

tonality confine the child to the mattress on which he lies. It is through a reinforcement of dark
shades, even in exterior daylight, that Davidson asserts his individual view of the human

condition and accentuates the weight of the space in which his subjects occupy.

The imposing nature of the spatial reality in figure (2) is a dark and ominous presence.

Similarly to figure (1), figure (2) pictures a young child, awake, lying on a bed. Figure (2)

however, is an interior shot unevenly lit by one uncovered lightbulb which dangles dismally over

the room. The bright light of the bulb is solely matched by the child's shirt as the rest of the room

in contrast, is engulfed by varyingly dark shades of grey. The composition and angle of the shot

creates a sense of distortion that is further enhanced by the child's somewhat contorted body. The

direction of the corporeal figure elongates the photo by stretching directly opposite from the dark

left corner of the room. The cracked paint on the walls and ceilings and the rumpled bed sheets

intensify the desolate mood prompted by the child's position within the empty room. The

reflecting shadow of the lightbulb looms over the child and despite the distance between subject

and camera, the viewer is still able to make out the child's forlorn expression as they seem to

vaguely stare off into space. Although the child is the sole human subject in the room, the high

angle at which the photo is shot places the interior space at the center, relegating the child subject

as secondary, below the eye level of the viewer. This centering of the spatial reality emphasizes

the rooms emptiness and urges the viewer to personify its isolating character as the sheer weight

of the room seemingly presses the child to his bed. Davidson’s pessimistic accentuation of

interior space suggests his initial intent of using his photographs to improve housing for the East

Harlem residents.

The contrasting nature of the subjects at the foreground of figure (3) against the slowly

emerging and foreboding background continues to assert Davidson’s gently imposed view of the
space the residents of East 100th street occupied. Although an exterior shot, figure (3) resembles

a classic familial portrait. Pictured next to their dog and a bouquet of flowers an older woman

lies upon a younger woman, presumably her daughter. As the viewer is presented with this

image, their eyes are slowly taken along the trajectory of the landscape as it is split into thirds.

The blades of grass seem to spring out of the bottom frame, but as the viewers eyes move up

along the image the grass slowly disintegrates as it turns to dirt and rubble. A single trash can

stands amongst the sprawling litter, separating the women on the grass from the impending

emergence of East Harlem's residential housing as it is shrouded in darkness. In contrast to this

darkness, both women in the photo wear grand smiles. The younger woman's gaze is fixed on the

camera lense marking the presence of the photographer. The older woman shuts her eyes as she

is seemingly mid-laugh, her facial expression and gap toothed smile matching the playful energy

of her polka-dot skirt. The contrast of the jovial women amidst the dark, unstable landscape

further promotes Davidson’s subliminal message of the true nature of humanity. His photo

asserts the women’s perseverance and innate joy despite their littered and decayed surroundings.

In figure (4), Davidson sustains the ominous ambience which he repeatedly captures in

his photos of East 100th Street. The heavy weight of the empty space surrounding the mother

and child is ever present, however less palpable than figure (2) as the subjects seem to rise from

a kind of divine light provided by the whiteness of the bed sheet. More prominent than the depth

and weight of space, is the unflinching intimacy foregrounded by the interior's confined nature

and Davidson’s proximity to his subject matter. Although Davidson is not actually pictured in

the image, he allows his presence to be reflected in the subjects. Both mother and child, pictured

nude in their own home, gaze daringly past the camera seemingly at the photographer, their eyes
dark and their stares unpierceable. Despite the nudity of mother and child there is no

eroticization. Instead their nudeness seems emblematic of the stark walls which surround them.

Similar to the room, both mother and child are stripped down to their most simple forms, laying

bare the true essence of their humanity. Only the jewelry they wear reveals any character or

symbol of modernity as it shines brightly alongside the bed on which they sit. The range of

tonality within the photo translates to the conflicting themes of virtue and abjection as they

pertain to the human condition- a conflict asserted throughout Davidson’s “East 100th Street”

project.

The monotonous quality of figure (5) continues to prompt a discussion of the social and

spatial climate of East harlem. The photo pictures a young girl awkwardly bent over her

windowsill as she stares blankly into her bird cage. The bird sits perched amongst various

shrunken decor, its head turned in the same direction as the girl. The birdcage, as well as the

window screen it is propped up against, connotes a theme or state of imprisonment. The girl

stares into the bird cage as she seemingly contemplates her own confined nature. The similarities

between the geometric form of the bird cage and the window screen as well as their overlapping,

further allude to a comparison of the girl's life to that of the bird. The view from the window

leads only to the sight of the wall of another dreary residential building, reinforcing the limits of

the girls' surroundings. This photo lends its interpretation to the viewer as it possibly elucidates

the more abstract structures of poverty which imprison this girl within a certain life, within a

certain home. The wide, aerial angle at which the photo is taken as well as the close proximity of

the subject to the photographer cultivates an unnerving sense of enclosure. The contortion of the

girl's body as she bends over the window sill, her arms and hands entangled in one another, also
adds to the photos seemingly distortive reality. Through the use of perspective and subliminal

content, Davidson creates an implicit reality prompting an original view of the residents and

residential spaces which expanded throughout East Harlem at the time.

Bruce Davidson’s intimate observation of life on East 100th Street opens up the world of

a potentially disenfranchised community as he explores the social, political and spatial reality of

the East Harlem residents. Primarily, the juxtaposition of interior and exterior shots within

Dqavidson’s project enhance his initial intention of improving housing for the community as he

accentuates the true ominous and confining nature of East Harlem’s residential spaces.

Davidson’s recurring depiction of his subjects lying down, sitting or bent over within his

photographs reinscribes the power dynamics between his subjects and their spatial surroundings,

implying that the East Harlem residents are at the mercy of the decaying spaces they occupy.

Beyond spatial reality, Davidson’s “East 100th Street” reveals the multitude of layers behind

human nature as it depicts raw and authentic imagery. This authenticity prevails in all facets of

Davidson’s project as he places the importance of attached, rather than detached, observation at

the forefront of his work. His dedication to East 100th street and its residents proves itself

through the intimate relation between photographer and subject, a relation often obvious in the

resulting photos.
 Notes

1. Cartier-Bresson, The Decisive Moment, 384

2. Rosler, “​In, around, and Afterthoughts (on Documentary Photography)”, ​303
3. Rosler, “​In, around, and Afterthoughts (on Documentary Photography)”,​ 307
4. Broderick, ​Documentary Media: History, Theory, Practice, ​150
5. Genova, ​ “Bruce Davidson's East 100th Street: Harlem, 50 Years On • Magnum Photos.”
6. Genova, ​ “Bruce Davidson's East 100th Street: Harlem, 50 Years On • Magnum Photos.”
7. Davidson as cited by Genova, ​“Bruce Davidson's East 100th Street: Harlem, 50 Years On
• Magnum Photos.”
8. Coleman, A. D. “Two Critics Look at Davidson's 'East 100th St.'.”

Bibliography

Coleman, A. D. “Two Critics Look at Davidson's 'East 100th St.'.” The New York Times. The
New York Times, October 11, 1970.
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/10/11/archives/two-criitics-look-at-davidsons-east-100th-st-what
-does-it-imply.html.

Cartier-Bresson, Henri, and Tériade E. The Decisive Moment​. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1952, pp. 384-386

Fox, Broderick. ​Documentary Media: History, Theory, Practice​. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge,
2018.

Genova, Alexandra. “Bruce Davidson's East 100th Street: Harlem, 50 Years On • Magnum
Photos.” Magnum Photos. Magnum Photos, August 31, 2018.
https://www.magnumphotos.com/arts-culture/society-arts-culture/bruce-davidson-east-100th-stre
et/.

Rosler, Martha. “In, around, and Afterthoughts (on Documentary Photography).” ​The Contest of
Meaning: Critical Histories of Photography​, MIT Press, 1992, pp. 303–333.
 Appendix

Figure (1)

Bruce Davidson. USA. New York City. 1966. East 100th Street.
Figure (2)

Bruce Davidson. USA. New York City. 1966. East 100th Street.
Figure (3)

Bruce Davidson. USA. New York City. 1966. East 100th Street.

Figure (4)

Bruce Davidson. USA. New York City. 1966. East 100th Street.
Figure (5)

Bruce Davidson. USA. New York City. Harlem. 1966. Girl with a birdcage.