For me, the most interesting aspect of this article was how it described the reception of this image in its historical context as well as in the opposing documentary/art worlds. In its historical context Solomon-Godeau writes that the image speaks to the "individual misfortune" of the woman, not the economic collapse. I thought it interesting that she would say this, and I do agree with her, but although the image does this it has become iconic of the Great Depression and of the entire economic collapse of the United States. I find it interesting that such an individual and personal image came to stand for such an enormous and far reaching disaster. I'm thinking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as another disaster, for instance, but with a similar viewer response to images of the atomic bomb which are much different from Lange's image. When I see this image of the atomic bomb, I immediately think of these two bombings and the horrible deaths of so many people:
But this photo is not personal or individual at all. It removes the viewer from the pain and death of human beings by simply showing the bomb's cloud, yet it is still painful for me to look at because I am aware of its historical context. It's so interesting to me how two different images like these could both get sympathetic responses from viewers towards the hardships of the world in those moments.
In the art world, Wells tells us that the Migrant Mother image was exhibited in art museums, and in that context was viewed in aesthetic and symbolic terms. Opposed to a documentary setting where the image would have been seen sociologically, the art setting caused this photograph to gain new meaning. When seen as a work of art some would say that Lange was referring to images of the Virgin Mary, for example. I find this reception interesting because this must have been the beginning of how this image would be re-translated and re-used by many different kinds of people and organizations, and within a myriad of disciplines.
SF Gate's article on the daughter of this iconic mother figure is also quite interesting. We are faced with the story of this mother's daughter and how hard her life has been since a child, and how her family had been embarrassed by the image, yet proud. I again thought about Solomon-Godeau's comment about the image portraying this woman's "individual misfortune." I would add to her comment, after reading this article on her daughter, that it also speaks to a generational misfortune. This misfortune is real and spans generations, and this in itself gives the photo another level of timelessness.
SF Gate's article on the daughter of this iconic mother figure is also quite interesting. We are faced with the story of this mother's daughter and how hard her life has been since a child, and how her family had been embarrassed by the image, yet proud. I again thought about Solomon-Godeau's comment about the image portraying this woman's "individual misfortune." I would add to her comment, after reading this article on her daughter, that it also speaks to a generational misfortune. This misfortune is real and spans generations, and this in itself gives the photo another level of timelessness.
1 comment:
I think your point is very interesting. I thought the opposite. I thought that Lange’s photograph captured a face and relationship that was respected, a mother and child. I thought it was a face that it was easy to sympathize with. A mother just wants to try and feed her children. I like your point though. I think it is smart and well thought out. I agree that I immediately think of that event. I, however, sympathize more with a face than a straight image. Perhaps that’s me. I think there is something in all of us that wants to feel empathy for other humans. I feel that both Lange’s photo and the one you have presented are good examples of documentary photographs with different effects.
Post a Comment