- This topic has 5 voices and 13 replies.
-
Posts
-
This photograph is worthy of thought/discussion on a number of levels…http://masters-of-photography.com/images/full/bourke-white/b-w_living.jpg
Well it seems you have a number of poor African Americans Standing in line for what looks to be food. I would say that photographer was in the right place at the right time.
I've seen this one in one of my history books. It's a very famous picture. It's also a favorite picture used by New Left Historians. They are always looking for the inequality angle.
Well at that time there was quite a bit of inequality between the races.
Yes of course, but the New Left uses imagery like this picture to illustrate how capitalism failed and that more controls in the ecomomy were necessary....which of course are just euphemisms for socialism. 😉
Oh I know, in the end propaganda-hmmm- it seems I've heard that word used in conjuction with socialism as well.
I think it's interesting but can see how it could be used for the wrong socio-political purposes. Perhaps we are supposed to presume a line of poor African Americans see their “American reality” contrasted with that of a beaming white “American reality”, complete with happy family, kids and dog in back, driving along in their car. “World's Highest Standard of Living” is then contrasted against the realities of poverty, suggested by the people standing in a line. This is supposed to be irony, or perhaps biting sarcasm.To me it's interesting because of the typical 50s-esque advertising which was awfully optimistic and positive-sounding in those days. Nowadays this could likely result in criticism of American culture...I could foresee this coming from the "New Left", as Donnie calls it.If someone thinks the criticism of culture or times (via the photograph subject) is merited, however, I would like to know why. What should the photo have looked like? Should the people in the ad not have been smiling? Should they have looked glum and dour? Then it wouldn't have been a very good ad! Should it not have said "Highest Standard of Living"? But this might not have been true - a standard of living is relative to that of other countries, so generally the poor who live in rich nations are "better off" than the poor in poor nations.I guess I would like to hear some criticisms that New Left historians would make about society using the photo.
I know this might sound a little 'out there' but whats the history of this photo? Does anyone know anything about the photographer? It wouldnt be the first time something like this was staged.
http://www.distinguishedwomen.com/biographies/bourke-white.html; try this for a start, or this one: http://www.photo-seminars.com/Fame/MargaretWhite.htm.She's very much a product of the time and her work is right up there with Dorthea Lange and Ansel Adams.Cheers,Wally
This picture is definitely taken out of context and misused on purpose. It's also like the famous picture of the Frenchman crying as the Nazis parade down Paris…..the Frenchman is not crying because the Nazis have overrun his nation; he's crying because he is greeting the Nazis as liberators and is joyful at the prospects of the Third Reich as a new beginning. Vichy France didn't just happen overnight….many collaborated with Germany because they agreed with what they thought Hitler was trying to do.
This picture is definitely taken out of context and misused on purpose. It's also like the famous picture of the Frenchman crying as the Nazis parade down Paris.....the Frenchman is not crying because the Nazis have overrun his nation; he's crying because he is greeting the Nazis as liberators and is joyful at the prospects of the Third Reich as a new beginning. Vichy France didn't just happen overnight....many collaborated with Germany because they agreed with what they thought Hitler was trying to do.
When I taught photo (and yearbook) I learned that the copy with the picture is awfully important too; without copy the photo is like television with no sound... this is how the yearbook publisher put it in one of their "how to" lessons for the kids. Seems to apply very well here and in the example you mentioned.Wally
This picture is definitely taken out of context and misused on purpose. It's also like the famous picture of the Frenchman crying as the Nazis parade down Paris.....the Frenchman is not crying because the Nazis have overrun his nation; he's crying because he is greeting the Nazis as liberators and is joyful at the prospects of the Third Reich as a new beginning. Vichy France didn't just happen overnight....many collaborated with Germany because they agreed with what they thought Hitler was trying to do.
I know which pic you are referring to Donnie...are you kidding? If not , I wish I had a scanner, because the pics you are talking about is in my "Posters of WWII" book, with the Frenchman crying because the Nazis DEFEATED France, not "Liberated" it from the 3rd Republic (IIRC the # of French Republics).Vichy France...don't hear much about that anymore...I saw in one of my catalogs all the newsreels/propaganda films produced by Vichy France from 1940-1944..bet that's an interesting watch 😉
back to the original pic…you may call it "ironic", but I'd like to know when and where it was taken, and under what circumstances.. "there's always more than meets the eye" 😉
I think this is the Frenchman photo:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Frenchman_weeps_as_the_French_troops_leave_Toulon,_June_1940.JPEG
