Originally Posted by LCSmith
I wonder whether I might be permitted to offer a dissenting opinion, without the objective of stepping on toes or taking away from SK's legacy as an artist. SK achieved more than any of us could hope to achieve with his art.
I think the value in these photographs is less as photographs, per se, and more as historical documents of New York City life -- valuable, to be sure; but may I venture to propose that the photographs are not in themselves anything special. If you were to swap the clothing, the buildings, all of the aesthetic markers of their era for markers of our own era, I might humbly suggest that responses to them would be much less enthusiastic. One may see the same sorts of photographs in any number of Flickr streams.
I agree and disagree; yes, we can see a lot of these kinds of images in today's flickr streams. Heck, I've taken similar modern images. And it's also important to remember context. Today's world gives us access to a huge range of photographic examples. We can see the best photography at the click of a mouse or swipe of a finger, and we can take images just as easily. We can even 'develop' images using filters and apps in our phones.
In the 40s, photography was expensive and cumbersome, and exemplars of the craft were far fewer in number, and much less available. Kubrick was 17 in the early 40s and was producing work that stood on the shoulders of the giants of that time.