Web references:
Journeys and crossings, the Library of Congress
This web site contains 2 very good videos:
(1) About the FSA collection
The video provides a brief summary about the images - in total 170,000 negatives and 75,000 prints were received from the FSA team. During the 1990's all of these negatives were digitised and catalogued and put online making them freely available worldwide. Since the images "are the work of government employees" they are free of copyright.
The video also briefly explains the roll and handover between the three administrations involved in the documenting of American life in the early to mid 20th century: the Resettlement Administration (RA), the Farm Securities Administration (FSA) and the Office of War Information (OWI).
(2) How to use and navigate the collection
A description of how to use and find you way around the digital images taken by the FSA photographers. How the previously unprinted images are catalogued and referenced as neighbouring images (ref Making Sense of Documentary by James Curtis) enabling the researcher to understand (and see) how the photographers approached their tasks and each particular photo-shoot.
The Library of Congress
This link takes you to the online reading room for all of the images by the FSA/OWI photographers. The catalogue is vast, but the search facility is good in that you can build your search a word or a number at a time. However, you have to have a reasonably good idea of what you're looking for - so start wide, check your results, then narrow/refine your search. There are some fantastic 'untitled' images.
FSA Photographers
Arthur Rothestein (1915 - 1985)
Theo Jung (1906 - 1996)
Ben Shahn (1898 – 1969)
Walker Evans (1903 – 1975)
Dorothea Lange (1895 – 1965)
Carl Mydans (1907 – 2004)
Russell Lee (1903 - 1986)
Marion Post Wolcott (1910 - 1990)
Jack Delano (1914 – 1997)
John Vachon (1914 – 1975)
John Collier (1913 – 1992)
New Deal - background
The Roosevelt Institute - The New Deal
Yale University - The Great Depression by Joyce Bryant
Sunday, 16 March 2014
Street photography
Exercise 21 - asks us to choose one of the weekly projects
from the "Street Photography Now Project" (2011) and build a small
portfolio (of five) B&W images and post them on our blog.
I selected:
These are my images:
I selected:
These are my images:
 |
| 1. Gazebo |
 |
| 2. Coffee |
 |
| 3. Church |
| 4. Mirror |
 |
| 5. Dancing |
Sunday, 9 March 2014
Humphrey Spender
Style
Whilst Spender was publicly educated and thus considered an outsider when it came to the working class town of Bolton; he had sufficient skill with the camera to record the daily activities, effectively peoples private lives, with empathy and sensitivity.
Themes
All things and activities that communicated the every-day way-of-life of the working class inhabitants of Bolton.
Ethics
Spender and the other photographers recognised that in order for this project to have any worth, the necessary observation had to take place surreptitiously, otherwise any recorded activity could not be guaranteed to be genuine (rather than artificially influence because of the camera). This concept of candid photography is well know and reasons well understood by street photographers today, however, the MO project took recording to a whole new level - hundreds of people were recruited to 'spy' on the towns folk and record everything - behaviour, conversations, reactions. So whilst Spender may well have acted ethically as an individual in terms of the images he made, he obviously had no scruples that Bolton became a lab-rat-town.
Purpose
Specifically, Mass Observation was a social research organisation founded in 1937, the aim of which was to create an 'anthropology of ourselves'. In Bolton, a team of paid investigators went into a variety of public situations: meetings, religious occasions, sporting and leisure activities, in the street and at work, and recorded people's behaviour and conversation in as much detail as possible. The material they produced is a varied documentary account of life in Britain.
Other references:
Mass Observation - recording everyday life in Britain
The Humphrey Spender Archive Online
Whilst Spender was publicly educated and thus considered an outsider when it came to the working class town of Bolton; he had sufficient skill with the camera to record the daily activities, effectively peoples private lives, with empathy and sensitivity.
Themes
All things and activities that communicated the every-day way-of-life of the working class inhabitants of Bolton.
Ethics
Spender and the other photographers recognised that in order for this project to have any worth, the necessary observation had to take place surreptitiously, otherwise any recorded activity could not be guaranteed to be genuine (rather than artificially influence because of the camera). This concept of candid photography is well know and reasons well understood by street photographers today, however, the MO project took recording to a whole new level - hundreds of people were recruited to 'spy' on the towns folk and record everything - behaviour, conversations, reactions. So whilst Spender may well have acted ethically as an individual in terms of the images he made, he obviously had no scruples that Bolton became a lab-rat-town.
Purpose
Specifically, Mass Observation was a social research organisation founded in 1937, the aim of which was to create an 'anthropology of ourselves'. In Bolton, a team of paid investigators went into a variety of public situations: meetings, religious occasions, sporting and leisure activities, in the street and at work, and recorded people's behaviour and conversation in as much detail as possible. The material they produced is a varied documentary account of life in Britain.
Worthiness and philanthropy were the twin engines of the ethos of Mass Observation, which was very much an organisation of its time: left-leaning and optimistic, but with a tendency to view the working class as a kind of exotic species to be studied under an anthropological microscope. From an article in the Guardian "The way we were..." by Sean O'Hagan (21-July-2013)Whilst the reasons for this recording activity were allegedly altruistic - understand the people in detail, thus truly understand their issues and one is better able to create appropriate solutions. Nonetheless, there was no communication with the population prior to the instigation of the project, as such it is perfectly reasonable to question the intention of the research organisation regarding the use and the lifespan of the data/information gathered.
Other references:
Mass Observation - recording everyday life in Britain
The Humphrey Spender Archive Online
Making sense of documantary
Exercise 20 - read the article 'Making Sense of Documentary
Photography' by James Curtis.
Curtis contextualises the work of the FSA photographers within a tradition of early 20th century documentary and touches on the issue f the FSA photographers methods and intentions. What is you view on this? Is these any sense in winch the FSA photographers exploited their subjects?
Curtis defines documentary photographs as "conscious acts of persuasion" with the most accomplished photographers having "a fervent desire to let images tell a story". Interestingly he doesn't say 'tell the truth' or 'tell a true story'.
Whilst there were 11 FSA photographers who worked on the project, Curtis only mentions 4 in his paper, namely, Dorthea Lange, Authur Rothestein, Walker Evans and Russell Lee. Lange, he mentions only en passant, when discussing the numerous images taken by each photographer and the governments requirement for all images to be submitted. The importance of these collective images being that the photo-shoot can be viewed in its entirety, thus it is possible to interpret the thought-process (methodology) of the photographer in developing the images. On this basis, Curtis is very critical of the other 3 photographers providing specific examples (images) where they have clearly staged their images to ensure they deliver the necessary information required to justify the passing of the New Deal Reform Bill.
The examples chosen by Curtis clearly demonstrate that the individuals in the images have been exploited, either directly - the Mexican family being subsequently portrayed as dirty, sickly and unfit to look after themselves; or indirectly - Christmas dinner in Iowa, where the family unit was manipulated to communicate extreme poverty.
In summary:
With only this paper from Curtis it is difficult to know whether he thought all of the FSA work was deliberately corrupted to push the New Deal through; or whether he particularly objects to just the 3 photographers mentioned. As part of my research into the FSA I will be reviewing the images in the Library of Congress. (At this moment in time, it is proving quite difficult because the site faults out on the second page...)
Curtis contextualises the work of the FSA photographers within a tradition of early 20th century documentary and touches on the issue f the FSA photographers methods and intentions. What is you view on this? Is these any sense in winch the FSA photographers exploited their subjects?
Curtis defines documentary photographs as "conscious acts of persuasion" with the most accomplished photographers having "a fervent desire to let images tell a story". Interestingly he doesn't say 'tell the truth' or 'tell a true story'.
Whilst there were 11 FSA photographers who worked on the project, Curtis only mentions 4 in his paper, namely, Dorthea Lange, Authur Rothestein, Walker Evans and Russell Lee. Lange, he mentions only en passant, when discussing the numerous images taken by each photographer and the governments requirement for all images to be submitted. The importance of these collective images being that the photo-shoot can be viewed in its entirety, thus it is possible to interpret the thought-process (methodology) of the photographer in developing the images. On this basis, Curtis is very critical of the other 3 photographers providing specific examples (images) where they have clearly staged their images to ensure they deliver the necessary information required to justify the passing of the New Deal Reform Bill.
The examples chosen by Curtis clearly demonstrate that the individuals in the images have been exploited, either directly - the Mexican family being subsequently portrayed as dirty, sickly and unfit to look after themselves; or indirectly - Christmas dinner in Iowa, where the family unit was manipulated to communicate extreme poverty.
In summary:
With only this paper from Curtis it is difficult to know whether he thought all of the FSA work was deliberately corrupted to push the New Deal through; or whether he particularly objects to just the 3 photographers mentioned. As part of my research into the FSA I will be reviewing the images in the Library of Congress. (At this moment in time, it is proving quite difficult because the site faults out on the second page...)
Sunday, 2 March 2014
Assignment 2 planning (part 4)
Continuing with my depression...
My research and conversations, have highlighted a number of recurring elements relating to feeling depressed; I have select eight elements that I believe will enable me to build a portfolio to fulfil the requirements of the assignment brief, in that, "individually have a narrative and convey a specific idea".
I want to create a set of images that portray depression from the sufferers point-of-view, at the same time as enabling non-sufferers to put themselves in the other persons shoes. In order to develop my image ideas I have been sketching (scribbling - I apologies in advance because I'm no artist) down my thoughts.
My initial focus has been on what I believe are the easiest images to create and enable me to form a more open dialogue with M about depression.
My eight elements are, in no particular order:
This is not necessarily my final image for 'no future', there are a couple of options I'm working on, but along the same lines. I also need to check with my tutor as to whether captions are acceptable or whether the image is supposed to speak for itself. For M they speak form themselves, for others they may need some explanation.
I'm also debating whether the images should include the back of the individual suffering from depression, rather like we (the viewer) is looking over their shoulder and seeing what they are seeing; or whether the images should be their direct view. My original thought was to include the individual, but in 'no future' I think this might dilute the message. I need to think about this some more...
My research and conversations, have highlighted a number of recurring elements relating to feeling depressed; I have select eight elements that I believe will enable me to build a portfolio to fulfil the requirements of the assignment brief, in that, "individually have a narrative and convey a specific idea".
I want to create a set of images that portray depression from the sufferers point-of-view, at the same time as enabling non-sufferers to put themselves in the other persons shoes. In order to develop my image ideas I have been sketching (scribbling - I apologies in advance because I'm no artist) down my thoughts.
My initial focus has been on what I believe are the easiest images to create and enable me to form a more open dialogue with M about depression.
My eight elements are, in no particular order:
- Isolation - unbearable loneliness
- Black dog - everything getting on top of you
- No future - unable to see anyway forward
- Bars - imprisoned in your own thoughts
- Stuck - bone weary tiredness
- Frustration - because you can't do anything to change the situation
- Self medication - alcohol and drugs to get away from your negative feelings
- Everyday tasks - easy jobs become impossible
 |
| Scribble 1 for 'bars' and 'no future' |
 |
| Scribble 2 for 'stuck', 'isolation' and 'everyday tasks' |
 |
| No future - it's like a nice clear day and then it's not; I could see and feel and understand and then the greyness starts to seep in. There's nothing I can do to stop it, it gets bigger and bigger and bigger until it takes over completely and everything slows to grey. |
This is not necessarily my final image for 'no future', there are a couple of options I'm working on, but along the same lines. I also need to check with my tutor as to whether captions are acceptable or whether the image is supposed to speak for itself. For M they speak form themselves, for others they may need some explanation.
I'm also debating whether the images should include the back of the individual suffering from depression, rather like we (the viewer) is looking over their shoulder and seeing what they are seeing; or whether the images should be their direct view. My original thought was to include the individual, but in 'no future' I think this might dilute the message. I need to think about this some more...
B&W portraits as a documentary strategy (part 2)
In summary:
Sander's seven archetypal categories fitted his purpose in terms of filing and grouping; at the same time as suiting a very sensitive and dynamically changing Germany. The "Last People" is undoubtedly the most telling, unfortunately, it is possible to imaging the Nazi's reviewing Sander's images of these people whilst looking to round up their next victims. In terms of categorisation, I would suggest that they were probably flexible enough for Sander's alter as required, particularity when you consider the sub-categorisations within.
The exercise asks us to make comparisons with contemporary artists such as Zed Nelson. Nelson's categories focus upon employment or hobbies and whilst fox hunting is controversial its less offensive than the 'last people'. The style of imagery is very similar, an individual or small group in their uniforms but removed from their environment and thus decontextualised. The variation in engagement between the sitter and the photographers appear to be about the same.
Referring back to exercise 17 and Meadow's bus trip, its interesting to think that his most successful images and those that were revived, were the ones of people taken in front of a blank wall. Perhaps context is genuinely only of use when the viewer has an ability to fully understand that context. I'm not exactly sure what this means about our ability to deconstruct images - perhaps denotation is in and connotation is out...
Sander's seven archetypal categories fitted his purpose in terms of filing and grouping; at the same time as suiting a very sensitive and dynamically changing Germany. The "Last People" is undoubtedly the most telling, unfortunately, it is possible to imaging the Nazi's reviewing Sander's images of these people whilst looking to round up their next victims. In terms of categorisation, I would suggest that they were probably flexible enough for Sander's alter as required, particularity when you consider the sub-categorisations within.
The exercise asks us to make comparisons with contemporary artists such as Zed Nelson. Nelson's categories focus upon employment or hobbies and whilst fox hunting is controversial its less offensive than the 'last people'. The style of imagery is very similar, an individual or small group in their uniforms but removed from their environment and thus decontextualised. The variation in engagement between the sitter and the photographers appear to be about the same.
Referring back to exercise 17 and Meadow's bus trip, its interesting to think that his most successful images and those that were revived, were the ones of people taken in front of a blank wall. Perhaps context is genuinely only of use when the viewer has an ability to fully understand that context. I'm not exactly sure what this means about our ability to deconstruct images - perhaps denotation is in and connotation is out...
In the American West
Exercise 19 - read 'In the American West' by
Richard Bolton and write a 200-word reflective commentary on its relevance to
documentary practice.
Then look at the work of Charlotte Oestervang in 'Appalachia' (Foto8, Vol6:No1, June 2006).
Richard Avedon (1903 - 2004) - fashion photographer, people photographer, documentary photographer.
Bolton's paper reviews the creation and the impact of Avedon's project and subsequent book "In the American West" with regards to influencing the views and beliefs of the general public. He then takes this concept a step further and examines the knock-on effect and the more worrying move of the corporations, both commercial and governmental, to utilise imagery to sell services, products, politics, etc, etc.
Fundamentals discussed by Bolton are:
1. Avedon was a fashion photographer, rather than a documentary photographer, and approached the documentary project with fashion-eyes.
The final images were very stylised, stark and sometimes shocking in their presentation of form and very controlled in terms of the information maintained for onward communication. Effectively. Avedon systematically striped away every piece of extraneous information to decontextualise the image, thus leaving the viewer only the 'surface' of the individual to use in forming opinions.
Bolton believes Avedon deliberately selected the more unusual looking characters to photograph, thus enabling him to emphasize ugliness, awkwardness and the general bad taste of the American West. This photography captured and magnified the exact opposite elements of his fashion photography; Avedon had become an anti-fashion photographer.
2. Avedon's fame not only enabled him to gain assess to people and businesses that would otherwise be indifferent to the project, but also enabled the tightest control in terms of how the project was communicated AND in how the public were forced to received it...
The project was commissioned by the Amon Carter Museum and whilst PR was under their control the messaging and advertising was tightly controlled and any negative rumblings very quickly quashed. The level of editorial control exercised by Avedon was unprecedented for the time. It is generally accepted that you can't please all of the people all of the time, especially when it comes to art; however, in this case the feedback for the exhibition were unanimously glowing, that is, until the limit of Avedon's (and ACM's) reach was exhausted.
So, in summary: A photographic project, by a famous photographer, purported to be documentary, but where the images (by the photographers own admission) are his artistic representation of reality, receives universal documentary acclaim in the mass media!
Bolton is, quite rightly, troubled by: (1) this the degree of control over the media and (2) the medias ability to influence the views of the wider audience. Its hardly surprising that the project sponsors and other business-savvy individuals latch-on to this incredible power to manipulate.At the end of the day, people find it difficult to remember words - but a powerful image, skillfully created remains locked in the mind.
3. Fundamentally Bolton believed the project (Avedon) exploited the people he photographed.
A number of individuals (sitters) were interviewed about their involvement in the project and (allegedly) all of them found it a positive experience and appreciated being included; some even stated that it had given their life new meaning. Whilst this is all good propaganda, it doesn't make the situation less exploitative. This is especially the case if:
When Avedon was challenged about exploitation, his response was as follows: "To say it in the toughest way possible and the most unpleasant way, what right do Cezanne's apples have to tell Cezanne how to paint them?" If we set aside the obvious ego and arrogance of Avedon at this point (put it down to a marvellously successful exhibition!) one must seriously examine the real reason for this project. Avedon, having been seriously ill, had a brush with mortality and (allegedly) wanted to give something back to society; to do something meaningful for the community; hence working with "the common people" rather than the rich, influential and famous.
Avedon tried to justify his approach to this project by explaining that the only way to influence big corporations was to bring them a realistic reminder of humanity (his stark, sterile, stylised photographs). Thus they would understand that there were problems in the world and could then re-focus their advertising to actually address those problems directly. "As an advertiser, one should try to make the statement - I respect your life and I think my product can make a difference and help you."
Bolton finishes by saying: "it would not be oversimplifying these remarks to say that Avedon is advocating using workers alienation to sell them product that come from the very system that caused this alienation." Bolton believes this project was just an experiment to trial an alternative advertising approach.
In summary:
Personally, when I look at Avedon's American West images I find them interesting (possibly, morbidly interesting), but I am at a genuine loss as to how they helped the people or the development of the American West. On the other hand I can absolutely see how they furthered Avedon's career and business. It would be nice to think that Avedon donated (some/all) the proceeds of the book or his exhibitions to development charities in the American West.
By comparison, I find Oestervang's work in 'Appalachia' equally as interesting, but much more striking because they maintain their context - the rural surroundings and the obvious under-development (poverty, by my standards). Nonetheless, the children look cared for in terms of clothes and cleanliness, but are a little over-fed. (Without wishing to offend) the disconcerting element of these images is the apparent inbreeding. Despite this, Oestervang's images do not have that harsh, over-processed feel about them and as such I find them more believable.
As Bolton stated in his paper, it little matters whether Avedon's subjects are common people or actors, he treats them like actors regardless. It would be interesting to know which set of images better represented 'realistic humanity' to the 'big corporations'.
Then look at the work of Charlotte Oestervang in 'Appalachia' (Foto8, Vol6:No1, June 2006).
Richard Avedon (1903 - 2004) - fashion photographer, people photographer, documentary photographer.
Bolton's paper reviews the creation and the impact of Avedon's project and subsequent book "In the American West" with regards to influencing the views and beliefs of the general public. He then takes this concept a step further and examines the knock-on effect and the more worrying move of the corporations, both commercial and governmental, to utilise imagery to sell services, products, politics, etc, etc.
Fundamentals discussed by Bolton are:
1. Avedon was a fashion photographer, rather than a documentary photographer, and approached the documentary project with fashion-eyes.
The final images were very stylised, stark and sometimes shocking in their presentation of form and very controlled in terms of the information maintained for onward communication. Effectively. Avedon systematically striped away every piece of extraneous information to decontextualise the image, thus leaving the viewer only the 'surface' of the individual to use in forming opinions.
Bolton believes Avedon deliberately selected the more unusual looking characters to photograph, thus enabling him to emphasize ugliness, awkwardness and the general bad taste of the American West. This photography captured and magnified the exact opposite elements of his fashion photography; Avedon had become an anti-fashion photographer.
2. Avedon's fame not only enabled him to gain assess to people and businesses that would otherwise be indifferent to the project, but also enabled the tightest control in terms of how the project was communicated AND in how the public were forced to received it...
The project was commissioned by the Amon Carter Museum and whilst PR was under their control the messaging and advertising was tightly controlled and any negative rumblings very quickly quashed. The level of editorial control exercised by Avedon was unprecedented for the time. It is generally accepted that you can't please all of the people all of the time, especially when it comes to art; however, in this case the feedback for the exhibition were unanimously glowing, that is, until the limit of Avedon's (and ACM's) reach was exhausted.
So, in summary: A photographic project, by a famous photographer, purported to be documentary, but where the images (by the photographers own admission) are his artistic representation of reality, receives universal documentary acclaim in the mass media!
Bolton is, quite rightly, troubled by: (1) this the degree of control over the media and (2) the medias ability to influence the views of the wider audience. Its hardly surprising that the project sponsors and other business-savvy individuals latch-on to this incredible power to manipulate.At the end of the day, people find it difficult to remember words - but a powerful image, skillfully created remains locked in the mind.
3. Fundamentally Bolton believed the project (Avedon) exploited the people he photographed.
A number of individuals (sitters) were interviewed about their involvement in the project and (allegedly) all of them found it a positive experience and appreciated being included; some even stated that it had given their life new meaning. Whilst this is all good propaganda, it doesn't make the situation less exploitative. This is especially the case if:
- People don't understand that they are being exploited - they may not be socially aware or sufficiently experienced or even emotionally mature enough ti understand
- They don't care - everybody deserves their 15 minutes of fame; thus the individual is even more easily manipulated because of a misguided personal agenda.
When Avedon was challenged about exploitation, his response was as follows: "To say it in the toughest way possible and the most unpleasant way, what right do Cezanne's apples have to tell Cezanne how to paint them?" If we set aside the obvious ego and arrogance of Avedon at this point (put it down to a marvellously successful exhibition!) one must seriously examine the real reason for this project. Avedon, having been seriously ill, had a brush with mortality and (allegedly) wanted to give something back to society; to do something meaningful for the community; hence working with "the common people" rather than the rich, influential and famous.
Avedon tried to justify his approach to this project by explaining that the only way to influence big corporations was to bring them a realistic reminder of humanity (his stark, sterile, stylised photographs). Thus they would understand that there were problems in the world and could then re-focus their advertising to actually address those problems directly. "As an advertiser, one should try to make the statement - I respect your life and I think my product can make a difference and help you."
Bolton finishes by saying: "it would not be oversimplifying these remarks to say that Avedon is advocating using workers alienation to sell them product that come from the very system that caused this alienation." Bolton believes this project was just an experiment to trial an alternative advertising approach.
In summary:
Personally, when I look at Avedon's American West images I find them interesting (possibly, morbidly interesting), but I am at a genuine loss as to how they helped the people or the development of the American West. On the other hand I can absolutely see how they furthered Avedon's career and business. It would be nice to think that Avedon donated (some/all) the proceeds of the book or his exhibitions to development charities in the American West.
By comparison, I find Oestervang's work in 'Appalachia' equally as interesting, but much more striking because they maintain their context - the rural surroundings and the obvious under-development (poverty, by my standards). Nonetheless, the children look cared for in terms of clothes and cleanliness, but are a little over-fed. (Without wishing to offend) the disconcerting element of these images is the apparent inbreeding. Despite this, Oestervang's images do not have that harsh, over-processed feel about them and as such I find them more believable.
As Bolton stated in his paper, it little matters whether Avedon's subjects are common people or actors, he treats them like actors regardless. It would be interesting to know which set of images better represented 'realistic humanity' to the 'big corporations'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)