Migrant Mother Cat Boyce

After reading “Case Study: Image Analysis: The Example of Migrant Mother” and “Daughter of ‘Migrant Mother’ Proud of Story”, I couldn’t help but question the ethics and morals behind documentary photography. It is mindblowing to fathom that Lange almost didn’t stop on her way home to capture the iconic photograph of the “Migrant Mother.” It just goes to show, that you never know which photograph will be “your big break.” Lange probably did not foresee her photograph becoming a national symbol and icon at the time of production.

During production, Lange noted that she didn’t remember how she approached her but she does remember that the mother had not refused nor asked any questions. Lange also obtained no information about her subject other than her age at the time, which was 32, and that they had been living on frozen vegetables and killed birds. The Migrant Mother had seemed to know the picture might have the potential to help her, and so Lange deemed that there was a sort of equality about the photograph. However, is there really a sense of equality if the photograph does no good for the subject? The ‘Migrant Mother’ photograph became one of the most reproduced images of the history of photography appearing on postage stamps and even as a source for cartoons. Despite, the photograph becoming an iconic image, it really did absolutely nothing for the ‘Migrant Mother’ and her family. It raises the question: does documentary photography actually make a positive long-term impact pertaining to the subject matter in which the photographer was creating commentary on?

           

In 1978, Florence Thompson was found living in a trailer home in Modesto, California. “One of the twentieth century’s most familiar and telling images was recuperated as an ordinary aged women who was poor in a humdrum way and no longer able to function as an icon of nobility and sadness in the face of destitution. (42)” Thompson didn’t even comment on the photograph until 50 years after the fact, which surprised me. Although, she was proud to be the symbol for rural poverty and maternal strength, she put into perspective that the photograph had done her absolutely no good, and she never received any compensation for it. One of her ten children, Katherine McIntosh, noted that she was and still is embarrassed by the photograph. Putting myself in her shoes, I honestly probably would be too, especially if I wasn’t well off decades later. Often times, McIntosh cringes at the thought of how much money has been made through the reproduction of Lange’s photograph. Certainly, if I were a part of that family, I would imagine I’d feel the same way. The symbolic mother and her family, better off than before but still struggling. McIntosh shared that at age 77, she is still cleaning houses 6 or 7 days a week in addition to working at assembly lines at a turkey processing plant and graveyard shifts at Frito Lay Factory. She also added that she lost her home in a fire a few years ago. The article was written in 2012, but I would assume she still has to support herself through multiple jobs. It almost seems sickening to imagine that the photograph did nothing good for the family whose mother became a symbol.  This again poses the question of whether or not it is morally just to document social problems and if the photographs actually have the power to create change?

As we discussed last class, a more modern definition of documentary photography is the ability to demonstrate a need for change. When a photograph becomes a symbol, does that enter the realm of being considered a social change? In one sense, it is raising awareness, however, that doesn’t necessarily mean that that photograph actually made a difference. Does that awareness ever actually blossom into social change or improvement? Do the subjects in these iconic photographs sharing their stories of social problems gain anything aside from being a subject to millions of eyes? At first, I thought it is awful to think that the subject who was photographed, in this case Florence Thompson, was objectified and not initially sought out. However, then I began to question though, what if that photograph was never taken? If a photograph is never taken and shared then it certainly won’t have any chance in helping raise awareness or influence social change. Just like that famous saying, you miss the shots you don’t take, in this sense you actually miss the (photography) shots you don’t take.

Aside from that, I think it is also interesting to question the use of permission and model releases. Granted Thompson did not seem uncomfortable and unwilling to be photographed by Lange, but what if she claimed to have been unwilling and tried to sue or sought out Lange years late for compensation? I can’t help but wonder, if this photograph was taken today and there was no written agreement, would Thompson have sued Lange? Then again with the abundance of security cameras, phones with photo capabilities, and other technologies it seems as if there is a lack of privacy almost anywhere you go. A general rule I’ve always been told, and followed has been that if the person is in a public place, they cannot expect to have privacy. I feel as if the morals and ethics of documentary photography fall into a grey area. However, I do believe that a symbolic photograph, despite not helping the subject in the photograph, does carry importance in social change. Now whether or not the social change is achieved or not, that is an entirely different question based on the response to the photograph. The photograph has the power to instigate change, but it is the people who must act upon it.