Weekly Discussion #34: "American Gothic, Washington DC" by Gordon Parks

[saintelmo21]

<p>Ladies and Gents,</p>

<p>I want to start off by thanking Fred G. for inviting me to start this week's discussion thread. I don't often make comments on the Weekly Discussions; but, I always follow them and find them very educational. This week I want to discuss Gordon Parks' “<a href="http://collection.corcoran.org/collection/work/american-gothic-washington-dc">American Gothic, Washington DC</a>”.</p>

<p>I grew up in New Orleans during the 1970s, and my mom introduced my to photography with a Pentax K1000 in 1983, which I still have (although it is no longer functional being thoroughly clogged with silt from Hurricane Katrina). Black Americans were struggling for positive identity in American society, and men like Gordon Parks were larger than life to young adolescents like me. He was a fantastic example of the American Dream: There are no limits except those which we place upon ourselves. For an African American to become such a successful photographer, filmmaker, and writer during the era of segregation is nothing short of extraordinary.</p>

<p>“American Gothic, Washington DC” was shot in 1942. Parks had gotten hired by the Farm Security Administration who's mission “was to enhance the public's perception of the federal aid programs for the destitute”. Parks had become friendly with Ella Watson a local cleaning woman, and posed her in an ironic imitation of the famous “American Gothic” painting by Grant Wood. I remember reading that Roy Stryker was absolutely stunned, not so much by the photo itself, but by the fact that this was the result of Parks' first assignment with the FSA. He wanted Parks to tone it down a bit, and sent him out with more specific instructions on what to photograph. He is quoted as saying, ““Well, you’re getting the idea, but you’re going to get us all fired.”</p>

<p>You can read more about Gordon Parks here: <a href="http://www.gordonparksfoundation.org/biography/">The Gordon Parks Foundation</a>. And, I invite you to share your comments about “American Gothic, Washington DC” or any of Parks other works.</p>

<p>Thanks!!!</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Wow. I hadn't seen that picture before. Clearly shows that photography as part of an open ended on-going conversation and across art forms.</p>

[Bill C]

<p>Hi, I think this photo is a great choice; it's one that I would have suggested if there were such a list.</p>

<p>I've always felt a sort of kinship with Gordon; I first learned some "sophistication" in the use of flash from his old book, <em>Flash Photography</em>. Years later, I found that we both started with the same camera, a Voigtlander Brillant. And I admire his humanity; there were times when he would not raise his camera to intrude on someone's dignity.</p>

<p>There is a story behind this photo, and his first trip to Washington, D.C., which can be heard from Gordon himself in this clip: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDEWN5k53yY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDEWN5k53yY</a></p>

<p>ps: on a different note, I wanted to say that I always read the posts in this series, although I seldom comment on them. And thanks to Fred G for continuing to keep this thing going.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Yet another good choice with plenty of food for thought!<br>

Parks was obviously a multi-talented and resourceful person, with strong determination which enabled him to overcome the racism and discrimination of his birthplace and the poverty of his family and go on to work for Vogue and Life magazine and direct the Hollywood hits Shaft and Shaft’s Big Score, being in many cases the first Afro-American to do these things.<br>

With particular reference to the chosen image, it is hard at this remove to imagine its original impact (Roy Stryker of the FSA apparently told Parks the picture could get them all fired). Furthermore, purely technically, there is little in the picture which would lead me to suspect it was a parody of the painting “American Gothic”, itself surely intended as a joke, with Grant Wood portraying his sister and dentist as American pioneers, with clear instructions to look as mournful and tight-lipped as possible. Parks’ picture is not overtly satirical - Government departments inevitably have flags on the wall and cleaning ladies, a certain proportion of whom are likely to be black – from what I can see, Parks dealt more effectively with this subject in the picture series of the cleaning lady, Ella Watson, which he subsequently did for Life.<br>

I ask myself why he did not sharpen the satirical point of the picture by basing it more closely on Wood’s painting, for example with two cleaning ladies with a mop or broom between them and a building in some way evocative of the Wood painting behind them. To call this Parks picture his signature image seems excessive, although I freely admit I have no way of gauging its impact when it was made and first shown in 1942. Thanks once again to E. Short for the contribution!</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Very fine choice for the weekly discussion. Much can be said about Mr. Parks, his life and his career that are an inspiration for others. The photo is I think very successful and its dark tones (model, clothes, broom and mop) are well chosen to portray the state of African Americans. I particularly like the format and use of the elongated vertical bars (stripes) of the flag, with the stars far above in the upper left corner, that suggest the steep ascent of any African American to a position of respect in the society in 1942.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>I haven't seen thos photo before and had I not seen the title first it would not have reminded me of the painting. It is a very strong photograph in any case and was exactly the kind of thing needed to start making people feel uncomfortable and made them start to think. Genius.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>First impression is both socio-political/cultural and photographic. I see so many unnecessary or non-expressive uses of depth of field. Here, I find the depth of field incredibly effective and moving and narrative, as it adds dimension both visually and to the story being told. The background is not blurred just because a camera can do it. It's not just because it looks cool, because it shows a proficient use of camera and lens, or because it looks a little more artsy than were the whole scene in focus. And it's not blurred just because it makes the subject stand out, though it does that well. Here, the depth of field says to me that the flag and what it represents is elusive, partly illusion, partly dream, partly real. The America it stands for hangs in the balance. The broom is as far as we'd come up to that point and, to an unfortunate extent, it's as far as we've come even beyond that point to the present. What's haunting about this image is that it's both historical and contemporarily relevant, showing what it was like, helping to move us forward at the time, and now showing us both how far we've come and how far we haven't. For me, this photo is a document and much more. It very much is and also very much transcends what it was at the time. It is a photo that is still living. It evokes memories and also addresses my country today. That flag and what it represents is <em>still</em> a blur. The woman's face needed to be partially in darkness and needed to have that cold and captivating stare, and it still does need to be that way, not just in paying homage to Wood's painting but as something to reckon with on its own terms, which any good homage will do. I wish I knew what to tell her. The photo stirs in me more than empathy. It also stirs a longing, like an unrequited love.</p>

[tholte]

<p>If any of the viewers here like this image by Gordon Parks, they should get his book "Half Past Autumn, A Retrospective". It is full of great images that really illuminate his ability to capture a wide range of subjects. His color work is as good as his black and white in my opinion. I was able to meet him and have him sign a copy of this book when he was here in Milwaukee years ago, shortly before he passed away. I have always felt that him and Roy DeCarava were never truly appreciated by the art world as much as they should have been, most probably because of the color of their skin. I am hoping that this topic will spur more interest their work.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Miss Ella is standing in front of the representation that "all [people] are created equal," holding the tools, and wearing the dress, of those Americans not allowed for so long to reap the benefits of the American Dream. Parks' image tells this story powerfully, without pulling any punches. By means of clear focus, darker tones, and the light on her face, he affords her the dignity that American society as a whole would not allow. She stands with pride and also with a glimmer of hope.</p>

<p>Once in a while, I am reminded of my experience when I moved to south Florida in 1958. I saw two sets of drinking fountains and two sets of bathrooms. A family friend who accompanied me to a public attraction was not allowed entrance because her skin was darker than mine. And, on a different but related note, I saw the sign next to the entrance of the Kenilworth Hotel stating "No dogs or Jews allowed." All of us need such reminders from time to time, and I am grateful to E. Short for this.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<p>I've seen wonderful photos by Gordon Parks - Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, Ingrid Bergman, poverty in Rio, etc.</p>

<p>I understand the message that this week's photo selection was trying to convey, but in my opinion some of the technical elements distract from that message. The shadow on the side of the woman's face, for instance. Perhaps is has some symbolic meaning, but to me, it just seems like lighting that didn't effectively tell the story. There are other details, but I won't belabor the point.</p>

<p>I hope that this contrasting viewpoint will be taken as a critique not of Mr. Parks, but only of the execution of this one image. Mr. Parks did amazing work throughout a long career, and I fully appreciate his skills and his vision.</p>

 

[ellis_vener_photography]

I think the dramatic light on Miss Ella is perfect. It sets her off from the background, and the theatrical lighting on the flag

works to the photographs advantage as well.

[James G. Dainis]

In my opinion, the Rembrandt lighting is a poor choice for this dark skinned person. Some fill light should have been added to the left. One could say that the depth of field was deliberately selected to throw the flag out of focus and put more emphasis on the woman but the mop is also out of focus which, with the lighting, gives the impression of a poorly executed photo.

 

At the time that this photo was taken, the Civil War had been over for some 77 years. In our time, WW II has been over for about the same period of time. There may have been as many Civil War veterans alive back then as there are WW II veterans alive today. I feel that in 1942 many white Americans would have looked with pride at this photo and remembered the sacrifices that had been made under that flag so the woman could stand before it, not a slave, but a free woman.

[cyanatic]

<p>I have no technical remarks to make about this photograph. If I had any, Fred G. has already made them for me. I am very familiar with this particular photograph and can only say that I consider to easily make a short list of the most socially significant American photographs.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Well, you’re getting the idea, but you’re going to get us all fired.” </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This had me laughing. I never knew Stryker said that to Parks. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Gordon Parks made most of his money in the Fashion Industry believe, it or not, not shooting controversial pictures like he did while working for the FSA. I did a Photo essay on his life when I was back in school and was taking a course in Photoshop 101.</p>

<p>He definitely did some god work good enough to get assignments in the Fashion Industry while working in St. Paul Minnesota and New York city, but in my opinion most of his pictures were not the type to be found in Museums and Art Galleries.</p>

<p>During the twilight of his photographic career and when he was free to shoot the pictures that we wanted to shoot, that is when he 'bloomed' as a photographer and his photos took on a more mystical and artistic tone. There where also a lot of macro shots and special effects in those series of pictures.</p>

<p>His stay in Washington DC was short because he found the atmosphere there politically overwhelming, so he fled to NYC where he continued his work in the Fashion Industry which lead to other endeavors such as film and music.</p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>1942...what a dramatic time in the history of America and the World! White men were dying like flies on the battlefields of Europe and in the stinking, unheard of swamps of the South Pacific, how DARE Parks pose a photo of an insignificant char woman in front of the American flag with a mop and a broom...there were earth changing events taking place daily, and no one of any consequence whatsoever was paying attention to the Black hired help...This was how it had been in our country for over two hundred years through the revolt against our British masters to the brutal Civil War; but, Parks paid attention because he had that insatiable curiosity which Stryker required of all of his photographers and he believed that every one counts....or no one counts.<br>

<br />Yes, maybe the lighting is off a bit. And, maybe he could have had the mop more in focus.....but really the impact of the photograph is not affected by minutiae. It is a pictorial fanfare of the forgotten man.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Parks, in his critique of the USA made in <em>American Gothic, Washington D.C</em>.<em>,</em> raised the issue of racial inequality during a war in which our enemies propagandized against the USA for its racial inequality. For example, Japan represented itself as an Asian nation liberating Asian territory from white supremacist imperialists. For me, that Parks spoke up at that time speaks to Parks' courage and strength of conviction.</p>

[billangel]

<blockquote>"Parks, in his critique of the USA made in American Gothic, Washington D.C., raised the issue of

racial inequality during a war in which our enemies propagandized against the USA for its racial inequality..."

</blockquote>

I grabbed an un-posed shot during the time of the Vietnam War that could be said to have touched upon similar

themes. See:

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/206945">Member of Cleaning Staff of the Smithsonian

Institution, Washington DC (1973)</a>

[michaellinder]

<p>Well said, Mr. Short. Parks was a documentarian, <em>par excellence</em>. But he also was much more than that.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I think our impression and understanding of the picture is much effected by reading the story about it. I wonder if the effect would be anywhere near the same if we just viewed the picture without knowing the background and photographer.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>I wonder if the effect would be anywhere near the same if we just viewed the picture without knowing the background and photographer.</em><br>

So do I. When all is said and done, this picture shows a cleaning lady holding the tools of her trade and looking rather sombre. There is really nothing more in the picture than this. There are more pictures by Parks of this lady here:<br>

<a href="http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Gordon+Parks+Ella+Watson&qpvt=Gordon+Parks+Ella+Watson&FORM=IGRE">http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Gordon+Parks+Ella+Watson&qpvt=Gordon+Parks+Ella+Watson&FORM=IGRE</a><br>

and these give me a much stronger feeling of what it was like to be her. Parks may have meant to make a strong satirical statement but somehow pulled his punches – as already mentioned, even the very mild parody of an iconic painting which he produced was apparently enough to seriously disconcert his boss Roy Stryker of the FSA and lead him to express the fear that they would all be fired. For me, the benchmark for a powerful comment by a black artist on the racial situation in the USA in the 1940s period is Billie Holiday’s 1939 recording of “Strange Fruit”. Story here:<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billie_Holiday">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billie_Holiday</a></p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"I wonder if the effect would be anywhere near the same if we just viewed the picture without knowing the background and photographer."</em></p>

<p>It's an interesting question and one worth considering. My response is that there's not much point in locking the barn door after the horse has bolted. I do know the background and the photographer, so I'm not sure why I'd be concerned with the hypothetical situation where I don't. Most documentary photography, to really hit home and be meaningful and effective, rely on the viewer's at least knowing something about what's being portrayed. If I saw the photo of John John saluting without knowing who he was or what the circumstances were, would it move me as much? Does the photo cheat because it relies in part for its emotional impact on my knowing he's the son of a slain president at his father's funeral?</p>

<p>I could also ask if the Parks photo would be as effective if I weren't familiar with Wood's <em>American Gothic</em>. I'd say it would still be moving and effective at what it's portraying which, because of the American flag, just feels to me like a political statement. It's so much more than just a woman with a mop and a broom. I guess the flag could just happen to have been there, but the deliberateness of the pose and the props (even if I didn't know what they referenced or meant) suggests the background to be deliberate as well. Know the Grant Wood painting adds several more layers to the experience.</p>

<p>I like when homages like this aren't too obvious. Being too obvious can often make an homage trite. Picasso said, <em>"Good artists copy, great artists steal."</em> Implied in the stealing is internalizing it and making it your own. Parks wasn't merely copying Wood, so I don't have to look for an easy or obvious translation, though it's not all that hard for me to see the homage and direct influence. And the title surely helps viewers along if they didn't already see it. And the title is a valid accompaniment to the photo. Titles and accompanying captions often help a photographer or artist communicate to viewers, set up a context, provide some direction. There's no rule book that says I have to come to a photo with a lack of outside knowledge and a lack of accompanying direction, especially when that direction is provided in the form of a title by the photographer himself.</p>

<p>For me, the fact that this photo disconcerted his boss is a great thing. It's supposed to be and should be disconcerting. That's what risk and guts are often about. It's a passionate statement, it's unflinching, it uses irony effectively rather than the simplistic way in which irony is so often used. The photo is both symbolic and iconic, at the same time being so very personal and grounded. That's a terrific balance to achieve.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>I think the photo without a title would lack an important context and blunt the statement made by Parks in the significant space he created for us in the photo. But the photo does have a title. Its title links it to a well known painting. For reference, here is a link to the 1930 painting: <a href="http://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/asset-viewer/american-gothic/5QEPm0jCc183Aw?utm_source=google&utm_medium=kp&hl=en&projectId=art-project">http://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/asset-viewer/american-gothic/5QEPm0jCc183Aw?utm_source=google&utm_medium=kp&hl=en&projectId=art-project.</a> Does the title Parks chose help us better understand his photographic statement? Does a comparison of the visual elements of the two works give us more of a handle on what Parks was saying? I think so. By titling his photograph, Parks asks us to also look at the Wood painting. Let's do so.</p>

<p>The background in Wood's painting is a house. The background in Park's photo is the USA flag. In Wood's painting the presumed homeowners stand in front of their house where we can presume the couple owns the house by their attire. (Were that Wood's couple was dressed like a cleaning woman and a groundskeeper, we wouldn't' presume they owned the house, quite the opposite.) Going strictly by the visual comparison then, Parks said that in this house, that in this nation of ours at that time, this particular woman is not an owner, based on her attire and work implements. Maids don't own the houses they work in. But we know that the USA is a house where we are all political owners regardless of what we do for a living. Parks clearly said with his photograph that the woman's non-ownership can <em>only</em> be on account of her race. It's to that fundamental injustice that Parks spoke, and he was speaking when about as far away in time from the end of the Civil War as we are now from the end of WWII.</p>

<p> </p>

[Bill C]

<p>In truth, I've never actually been too impressed with the photo, as just a photo. In my very fuzzy memory from long ago, it strikes me that I saw the flag as representing America - freedom and the American dream. But for the subject, a black woman, the farthest that went was in sweeping and mopping floors to eke out a living.</p>

<p>But I wasn't around when it was first published, so I don't know the "atmosphere" in the country at that time, and how it went over. But I know that it was an important photo, and there is weight to the story.</p>

<p>I'm very doubtful that Gordon saw it as a takeoff on the <em>American Gothic</em> painting, and suspect this title was just tacked on afterwards. I have another post I will paste in immediately after this, with a brief lead in to the photo. Perhaps this will change how some of the others interpret the taking of the photo.</p>

[Bill C]

<p>Per an interview with Parks, in "Life Photographers - What They Saw", here's how the photo came about.</p>

<p>Roy Stryker initially sent Parks out on a 3-pronged mission without his camera. Buy an overcoat, eat in a restaurant, and see a movie. The department store "didn't have his size." When he sat down in the restaurant, "...the guy was astounded. 'Don't you know colored people can't eat in this place! Come on, get outa here!'" (Parks had "just come from Minnesota, where I had sodas with my kids every day at lunch counters.") Same treatment in the theatre.</p>

<p>Stryker asked "What you gonna do about it?" After a bit of back and forth, he said, "You don't just go out and photograph a man because he refused you a seat or he refused to wait on you and title it 'Bigot,' because bigots have a way of looking that's good or better sometime than everybody else."</p>

<p>Per Stryker's suggestion, after hours Parks spoke with the charwoman, Ella. She told him how her father had been lynched, her daughter had died at childbirth, and she was bringing up two kids on a salary fit for a half person. Per Stryker, "...I can't promote her. She's black."</p>

<p>Parks asked if he could photograph her, and she asked where she should stand.</p>

<p>Here's the rest of what Gordon has to say, "And I was so angry I saw the American flag draped to the floor, and that's when I put her in front of the American flag. Put a broom in one hand and a mop in the other. And I said, 'Now think about what you just told me.' And I took the picture."</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Bill, thanks for the background. I really felt that anger of the photographer when I looked at the photo for the first time (and previously knowing the challenges he had faced in his career). As I mentioned, he sought to capture that distance between Ella and the American Dream and I think the vertical position of the flag emphasizes that and may have been part of his thinking. </p>