Color Photos from The Great Depression

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Lets have a think, Sandy.</p>

<p>What percentage of your folk, in your great nation...and it is ; on welfare and scroungers? 10 percent, 50 percent or more? What do you think?</p>

<p>"Simply actual family history"</p>

<p>With implications.<br>

.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>So, we will leave it as this.</p>

<p>A unknown number of Americans on welfare are scroungers. However, Sandy and his ancestors were hard working, and took on any job, because....</p>

<p>Enough said.</p>

 

[DavidTriplett]

<p>Allen; I am saddened that you appear to see Sandy's family history as a diatribe against the poor and downtrodden. My own family history is not terribly different. I and my immediate family have never known the want or hunger that others have known, but I am in this place because I fled Southern California in 1993 as, quite literally, an economic refugee. My success and that of others in overcoming hardship does not make us better than those who struggle today. What I hope it does is demonstrate that it is possible to overcome hardship, and remind us to be compassionate towards those experiencing hardship today. I hope you will reconsider your perception of Sandy's words. I have no doubt that he shared these images as a remembrance and recognition of those who struggle, not as criticism or arrogant posturing.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>David, I urge you to read Sandy's words once again, noting the distinction made between those getting assistance who consider themselves <em>poor</em> and those not getting assistance who are not poor but <em>proud</em>. Whether and how to characterize making that kind of stereotypical distinction is up to each of us.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In my "backyard", there are people who work hard for very little when they could choose to work not at all for a good deal more in benefits. Those who take the benefits might call themselves poor. Those who work for their living are proud of it and do not believe they are poor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll just add that I know a bunch of people who work hard, are proud of it, and do very much believe they are poor, because they are. There are a lot of working poor in the U.S.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>In any case, what impresses me about these photos and the other FSA photos I've seen, such as those by Walker Evans and Dorothea Lange, is the portrayal of human dignity even in the face of adversity. I think there's a reason photos that show such dignity seem to last and become part of our consciousness. </p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>Fred; you will get no argument from me that there are many, too many working poor in the US and the world. I choose to read into Sandy's words a meaning that is consistent with my own experience. I, too, know and have known many people who are hard workers and remain poor in terms of worldly goods. I would offer that they are better off psychologically and spiritually than their peers who decline work in favor of handouts. (I don't know whether to cry or laugh at the panhandler standing in front of 5 or 6 "help wanted" signs.) Neither is more or less valuable as a person because of this. However, from a similar starting point, their likely outcomes are vastly different, and not just in terms of money. I believe this is what Sandy is getting at, even if his choice of words left you and others cold. I invite him to correct me if I am wrong. I firmly believe that the only thing we as individuals control in this life is how we respond to our circumstances, whatever those circumstances might be.</p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>Oops, overlapping responses... +1 on Fred's comments regarding human dignity. I agree that is why these images remain powerful.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p> (I don't know whether to cry or laugh at the panhandler standing in front of 5 or 6 "help wanted" signs.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I certainly wouldn't laugh. I would assume that a panhandler standing in front of a help wanted sign is for some reason incapable (perhaps mentally or physically disabled) of working as opposed to choosing not to work. Living in San Francisco, which has a relatively high population of homeless people, I can't say I've often seen people asking for money while standing in front of a help wanted sign let alone 5 or 6 of them, and I'm a pretty observant guy. So, to me, that just seems like a red herring, or 5 or 6 of them to be exact!</p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>Not a red herring. The shopping plaza near my office is full of small businesses, from eateries to lube joints to grocery stores. The social/intellectual thresholds for employment in many of these is fairly low, and right now we are experiencing 3.5% unemployment. There are one or two panhandlers who have staked out their territories at the entrance drives. This is also where these businesses typically post sidewalk advertising and help wanted signs. No, laughing is never appropriate. The consternation associated with this scene remains very real. It is certainly possible that these individuals are essentially unemployable, for any number of reasons. If that is truly the case, then they are deserving of compassionate support. That's why we give generously to programs aimed at the truly needy. On the other hand, I have a lazy relative who has refused to take meaningful employment specifically because it paid less than a government welfare check.</p>

<p>My impression of the images Sandy shared is of regular people pushing ahead in the face of difficult circumstances. I did not see one image that was of nothing but hopelessness, though most of the circumstances pictured were desperate by our modern standards. Even the FSA camp was a haven against absolute homelessness for the poorest of the most desperately poor. While these images overtly illustrate poverty and difficulty, I believe the message they hold is one of hope. Color me an optimist... </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Optimistic? David, that's not what I get from you. Consider this. Let's say I had posted pictures of Jews in European ghettos from the 30s and 40s and a fellow PN poster came along to tell us he has a Jewish friend who's really cheap. Now maybe that's true, and maybe he does have such a friend. But I'd take offense at that because it would mean that the Jewishness of the people depicted in the picture, for some ungodly reason, reminded him of his cheap Jewish friend. That's how I understand your focusing on your "lazy" relative in the face of these historical photos. It's a strange leap to make from seeing pictures of folks impacted by the Depression to lazy relatives who refuse work in favor of welfare. Just as it would be to go from pictures of Jews in European ghettos to one's cheap Jewish friends!</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Keeping this a photography discussion, I wonder what those who celebrate the "dignity" and "humanity" of the poor people in the 1930s in the photos Sandy linked to, actually refer to.</p>

<p>The comfort of the viewer when after all everything seems all right among poorest of the poor ? Children go fishing; they smile; go to fairs... It is actually very, very difficult to maintain an image of dignity and humanity for the viewer when you cannot feed your children; when you cannot afford the medical treatments needed for your loved ones; when you see your new born dying, when life expectancy was as low as in the forties for such populations.</p>

<p>Photos showing the anger and desperation of such poverty-stricken people might show more humanity to the viewers, than this agreeable color photos of the Daily Mail. </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Anders, the FSA photography was aimed at showing both the harshness and the persistence of human dignity. It was essentially a marketing program to sell the FSA. Look at Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange etc. they don't paint a pretty picture of how fun it is to be poor, but they show people surviving the best they can in very tough times. Some of these photos show some pretty desperate people. That doesn't mean that kids can't go fishing.. people still lived.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder what those who celebrate the "dignity" and "humanity" of the poor people in the 1930s in the photos Sandy linked to, actually refer to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suggest if you keep looking and wondering and keep searching your . . . heart . . . you may figure it out.</p>

<p>This reminds me of when my father was dying. For months, he had to be fed, had to be bathed and changed, had to be cared for. Some people actually said to me they would want to be able to die with more dignity than that. They weren't looking carefully or leading with their heart. Had they been, they would have seen the dignity with which my father both lived and died. Some degree of anger, forthrightness, and even desperation are not undignified. Dignified is not some sort of family-album romantic snapshot. My dad had been disabled on the battlefields of WWII. Many of his buddies and others died, with dignity, on those battlefields. It was not a pretty picture. The Depression was a kind of battlefield of its own.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I guess art, like life itself, is full of ambiguity, which I think is part of its fun. Indeed, a poor and desperate time for many, and plenty of people did document just how poor and hard life was for so many. But not everyone was poor in the same way, some poor people had dignity, some had fun, and for some, the fair still ran, and perhaps there's room for a little of that too. </p>

<p>On the purely pictorial, photographic front, I hope the chance arises for people to see the pictures "in person." I can't even remember now where I saw some of them, but I think it may have been at the Williams College gallery. They may also have had some in Bennington, Vermont, at the same place where a number of Grandma Moses paintings are found*. Wherever they were, the prints of the Rutland fair images by Jack Delano were striking, and I think internet reproduction probably does not do them justice. </p>

<p>* momentary thread drift: Grandma Moses is another one - if you've seen the pictures in a book, etc. and thought "meh, so what...." I urge you to find some of the paintings and see them in real life. It's a different experience. She was good. </p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>I think Barry has captured the essence of what I was trying to say about the images and how I relate to them.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><em>"I suggest if you keep looking and wondering and keep searching your . . . heart . . . you may figure it out."</em><br /> <br /> Don't worry, Fred, I see it immediately as you surely could have imagined.</p>

<p>The magic of "humanity" and "dignity" is all over the place in these photos, but that is only the surface for everyone to appreciate. Behind, is of course the harsh reality of what these millions of Americans went through during the "great depression" of the 30's - and what millions others throughout the world live during the "great depression" of our generation since the oil crisis of 70's, and even more so, since the financial crisis of 2007/08.<br>

<br /> Sometimes what we appreciate as "human" and "dignified" in photos plays the role of hiding reality, in order to please the superficial eye.</p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>The power of images to move us, the viewers, is very dependent upon what we, as viewers, bring to the equation. The various perceptions shared here regarding these images are intriguing in their varying interpretations. This discussion should remind us, as photographers, that the images we make and share remain subject to interpretation, even those which are seemingly the most objective and documentary in nature. Take, for example, the image of the Caudill family eating their supper. The heading notes that they are homesteaders, living in a dugout. The roughness of the construction, their simple attire all point to poverty and a difficult life. But, there are hints as to a more complex picture, if we choose to see and apply them: As homesteaders, this family benefited under the Homestead Act by settling on and working the land, thereby gaining title to it through their own labors and sacrifice. This would be in stark contrast to a family of sharecroppers from the same era. They are sharing a meal as a nuclear family, with both father and mother present. Their meal would appear simple, but far from starvation rations. Assuming its honesty, this image is well-executed to tell the viewer a great deal about this family. While there is still more that we don't know, I see a message of hope founded on very hard work and sacrifice. Others may see different things, based on what they bring to the event.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>David, I certainly agree that we will each bring our own life experiences and subjectivity to photos. And you mentioned a continuum earlier, which I think is important. I think the subjective lenses through which we each see photos and the life experiences we bring which account for differing interpretations and reactions to photos are on a sort of continuum with cultural and genetic leanings and even biases we may have. Going even further on the continuum, we must also be aware of prejudices brought to photos. And, so, I am willing to embrace different tastes and subjectivities, different cultural leanings and even biases at play in the viewing of photos but I am less willing to abide prejudices or neglectful viewing. Not all interpretations of a given photo are valid or equal. Some are simply uninformed or downright wrong. People can carelessly look at photos and miss things and that's not a matter of subjective variation. It's a matter of poor viewing. This is a fairly complex issue to take on. I am constantly confronting my own taste biases, my own cultural limitations, and my own prejudices, especially when I look at documentary or journalistic work, but even when I look at art photos as well. And just as I don't always accept my own viewing as being unencumbered by such natural human limitations and such correctable human prejudices, I don't always accept others' viewings as simply a matter of a different subjective outlook. There are deeper things creating interpretive and reactive differences in our viewings than just individual experience and subjectivity. Especially with documentary work, it's great that we can confront those together.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Barry and David are right in mentioning the Farm Security Administration (FSA) and the photographic missions financed by the FSA/ Division of the Resettlement Administration(RA), which these photos are part of. The result was, as noted by several above, thousands of photos including some of the most well-known shots of farmer poverty in the US in the 30's. <br>

The objective of the Resettlement administration was, as could be expected, to document that their actions and programmes were working and a success, which included:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>loans to buy land, equipment, livestock, or seeds...assisting families by providing healthcare, education, and training programs. The goal of these measures was to help families become self-sustaining.<br /><br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Appreciating these photos demand of the informed viewer some attention going beyond viewers standard guts search for human warmth and comfort - or you can chose not to care and appreciate the scenes in a vacuum.<br>

<br>

We have discussed the FSA/RA photos many times here on Photonet (mostly on the defunct Off-Topic forum) and the idea came up, what would happen if the present US administration launched similar initiatives paying photographers to shoot what the Government is doing for for Wall-Street bailout victims, foreclosure victims, below-living-wages families etc. </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Nice idea Anders, except there's really not much that the government has done to help those victimized by the collapse of the housing market, Wall Street and the resulting economic depression/recession. However, there should be lots of opportunities for photographs of bankers and hedge fund managers who managed to suck up billions in bail-out money and did nothing to ease the pain of those losing their homes and jobs as a direct and indirect result of their reckless greed, but instead demonized those people as slackers and "takers". Different times than the 30's. </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>"<em>not much that the government has done...</em>"<br /> <br /> Yes Barry, that was in fact my point. So much more does the Government have a need of justifying themselves and so much more their exist a general need of photographing the dire state of affairs among the great majority of low income Americans.<br /> <br /> And, by the way, the same can be said as concerns all governments and countries, that have been struck by the financial crisis of 2007/08, and been subject to "crisis" management the last many years.<br /> <br /> Concerning "photography for reform" see the Subject on photos of Strand (and Hine) - if interested.</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes Barry, that was in fact my point. . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know..</p>