HIST 697: Photography, History, and Historical Photographs

Points if you can see the person.

I truly loved the Errol Morris article that we read for class today. I remember last semester in CLIO I discussing how schools don’t really teach visual literacy – I know I didn’t begin learning how to read visual sources until I entered college, and then only in certain courses. These articles are deep visual literacy – Morris and his interviewees not only read the images as presented but investigate the history of the creation of the images and the changing meaning/uses/understanding of the images over time. This approach is deeply historical and should go far to prove that images are valid historical sources. And, just like any print source, they are biased, their creation is complicated and perhaps unknowable, and their legacies are unique, changing, and completely their own. Even their creators lose control over them.

Reading the article I initially had to laugh because my first reaction was, “Have these people ever known a photographer?” Anyone who’s ever known or been a photographer knows what a strange business making images is (and what quirky and dedicated people it attracts to do it well). The camera is an extension of the eye, and therefore it comes with all its same limitations and biases. I do a lot of nature photography, which initially to me seemed a pretty objective subject. But I also remember the day that I realized in order to take a good picture you don’t look through the camera and photograph what you see, you have to see the shot first, then look through the camera and try to recreate it that way. This in and of itself is a manipulation. What about that stretch of coastline do I want to capture? How to you manipulate the framing of the image, the focus, to convey that meaning? Should I include the little purple flower in the shot, or does leaving it in the frame add a bit too much life? Including it or not means moving the lens an inch, but its a different photograph either way. But I’m not manipulating the scenery. What if I include it in the shot but crop it out in post? What if? What if? Which picture is the “real” one?

In my own photography I found I liked desolation – huge sweeping landscapes dominated by overwhelming natural features, devoid of people. Most of my photography looks this way, but I was photographing at national parks, often crowded ones, though you’d never know it from the images I shot. The Pacific Ocean made me feel small, so I wanted my photographs of it to do the same – when people appear it’s one lone person photographed from a far distance to emphasize the isolation.

North Shore at The Great Beach, Point Reyes National Seashore, Point Reyes, CA. This image has been altered.

And that brings me to the issue of test shots. Dr. Petrik said it last class – don’t keep 500 pictures of seals when you only have 8 good ones. It’s so easy, especially now, to take a million pictures and pull out the 3 the hit capture that you wanted. The idea of a man moving around a skull a bit and playing with light and exposure doesn’t bother me. Because that’s what photographers so. I’m an amateur, but my friends who are professionals, dear god it can be tedious to be around them even when they’re not shooting in a studio. They’re not working for the FSA, but they’re mind’s eyes is equally active trying to document the world around them. A photograph is a memory of “physical reality,” but it’s also a memory of a mood.

At the end of the day “getting to the bottom of it” can become just as muddy as with any other source. Photographs are not objective representations of the truth, just as print is not. But this difficulty does not disqualify visual sources. Instead, it makes them deeper, richer, because as we explore their meaning, their construction, the change in that meaning over time, the way we remember them, we learn even more about history. Every step of the way teaches us something. We just have to learn to do the leg work.

<strong>I commented on Margaret’s blog this week.</strong>

About The Author

Claire

Other posts by

Author his web site

05

03 2012

0 Comments Add Yours ↓

The upper is the most recent comment

  1. Sheri #
    1

    You make a good point about treating images as we would any historical artifact by doing the legwork to discover the history behind the artifact. I am more familiar with paper documents because like images, paper documents were created to serve a purpose, to capture a moment in time, and to define how the memory of the moment will be remembered (at least from the perspective of a public document). Understanding the history behind the creation of an artifact is just as important as analyzing its significance within the broader context of the research question. I’m thinking of the researchers at the National Archives who supposedly manipulated a Lincoln document by changing a date in order to gain publicity for their research efforts (see article at http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/civil-war/2011/jan/25/archives-alleges-dr-lowry-altered-lincoln-document/ ). This manipulation served to enhance personal reputation at the expense of historical integrity and serves to remind us that manipulation can occur in many different media and forms. Here again, there is a difference in the manipulation happening at the moment of creation (like you selecting the vista you wish to capture with photography) or at the moment of historical analysis (when an image or document is “tweaked” to serve a new purpose). As historians, we do not own history, but we do influence its trajectory. Our ability to do this in a way that captures not only the mood of the moment (like in your photographs) but also the significance in a broader context reflects not only our ability to synthesize and analyze, but also to preserve and protect. Reminding ourselves of the importance of memory and mood that determined the original creation of a photograph, as you so brilliantly describe, should compel us to consider the moments leading up to the creation of the artifact as well as its significance after the fact.

  2. Geoff Cohrs #
    2

    It seems that this week most of us are on the same page, photographs are sources just like documents and should be treat as such. It’s also find to manipulate them in certain (justifiable and documented) ways to help you tell your story. You said it so eloquently when you said:

    Photographs are not objective representations of the truth, just as print is not. But this difficulty does not disqualify visual sources. Instead, it makes them deeper, richer, because as we explore their meaning, their construction, the change in that meaning over time, the way we remember them, we learn even more about history. Every step of the way teaches us something. [emphasis added] We just have to learn to do the leg work.”

  3. 3

    I totally agree with getting this notion of photographs somehow documenting an objective truth are you talked about. Last week I was annoyed at myself because I didn’t like the idea of using photoshop to alter historical photos, but at the same time I recognize these photos are so often staged are altered in order to create the image the artist wants. I really think there is no difference at all between moving your camera slightly to not include the purple flower or digitally altering a photo to take out the flower. I think the hard distinction to make is when does taking out that “flower” alter the picture to the point where you are hiding something on purpose because it does not fit in with what you want to communicate.


2Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Motivations and Memories « The Journey to Enlightenment: Making the Leap to the Digital Age 05 03 12
  2. Authenticity « To Luddite or Not to Luddite 05 03 12

Your Comment