Posting 9: The Photographed West
Also see my comments on Dave's blog posting
My comments on:
Martha A. Sandweiss, Print the Legend: Photography and the American West
Sandweiss’s book takes us to another area where the myth of the American West interacted with the reality of the American West: photographs of the West and its people.
The photographs she examines supported the myth (and shaped the reality) of the West. They "shaped popular thinking about the very subjects they portrayed." They helped Americans imagine the West. They were "increasingly influential as a way of creating and shaping national visions of the far West." But, as with Elliott West's idea that fantasies imported from the East changed the West, Sandweiss argues that the combination of image and text also "spun predictive tales" about a West that could only come into being by changing the West as it was. Moreover, the photos themselves also were shaped by the myths of the West: "Indeed Americans' preexisting visions of the West shaped, to some extent, how photographs of the place would be made, marketed, and understood" (3-4). But despite their support of an imagined West, Sandweiss notes that the photographs produced a tension, because the camera showed exactly what was in front of the lens rather than the drama and excitement of novels or romantic paintings. But Americans never gave up their desire for the dramatic, romantic West.
This book is at the border between art history and history, using photographs as primary source documents. "Why, we must always ask, did a photographer make a particular image and who did he hope to influence with it," Sandweiss asks. This is the realm of art history. In the absence of the photographer's answer to this question, can we ever get beyond reasoned judgments about the artist's intent? Photographs, despite their seeming concreteness, are very difficult primary documents to "read." They are much more difficult to interpret than manuscripts – which, as we know, are difficult enough to interpret. But despite the difficulty of interpreting photographs, they do provide illumination of the ways in which Americans imagined the West – they were the shapers of imagination.
Sandweiss’s analysis is best when she examines the photographs in the context of "patron and publisher," marketplace and technology (reading photographs in history). Her reading of images through history as she calls it, her analysis of the photographs outside their publication context – outside their history – seems like a less effective technique of analysis for doing history. As she says they are then mere "artifacts of the past" – the realm of antiquarians, not historians.
Sandweiss, despite these difficulties, does a very good job of using these photos to "look at how American audiences created and sustained the enduring gap between the complex West of history and the West of the imagination."
Also see my comments on Dave's blog posting
My comments on:
Martha A. Sandweiss, Print the Legend: Photography and the American West
Sandweiss’s book takes us to another area where the myth of the American West interacted with the reality of the American West: photographs of the West and its people.
The photographs she examines supported the myth (and shaped the reality) of the West. They "shaped popular thinking about the very subjects they portrayed." They helped Americans imagine the West. They were "increasingly influential as a way of creating and shaping national visions of the far West." But, as with Elliott West's idea that fantasies imported from the East changed the West, Sandweiss argues that the combination of image and text also "spun predictive tales" about a West that could only come into being by changing the West as it was. Moreover, the photos themselves also were shaped by the myths of the West: "Indeed Americans' preexisting visions of the West shaped, to some extent, how photographs of the place would be made, marketed, and understood" (3-4). But despite their support of an imagined West, Sandweiss notes that the photographs produced a tension, because the camera showed exactly what was in front of the lens rather than the drama and excitement of novels or romantic paintings. But Americans never gave up their desire for the dramatic, romantic West.
This book is at the border between art history and history, using photographs as primary source documents. "Why, we must always ask, did a photographer make a particular image and who did he hope to influence with it," Sandweiss asks. This is the realm of art history. In the absence of the photographer's answer to this question, can we ever get beyond reasoned judgments about the artist's intent? Photographs, despite their seeming concreteness, are very difficult primary documents to "read." They are much more difficult to interpret than manuscripts – which, as we know, are difficult enough to interpret. But despite the difficulty of interpreting photographs, they do provide illumination of the ways in which Americans imagined the West – they were the shapers of imagination.
Sandweiss’s analysis is best when she examines the photographs in the context of "patron and publisher," marketplace and technology (reading photographs in history). Her reading of images through history as she calls it, her analysis of the photographs outside their publication context – outside their history – seems like a less effective technique of analysis for doing history. As she says they are then mere "artifacts of the past" – the realm of antiquarians, not historians.
Sandweiss, despite these difficulties, does a very good job of using these photos to "look at how American audiences created and sustained the enduring gap between the complex West of history and the West of the imagination."
posted by Ben Huggins | 9:35 PM
2 Comments:
Hi Ben, another fine post. I agree that the photographic art played a huge role in the establishment of the west in the American imagination, and as an economically viable component of our national economy (by stimulating settlement), but I stand by what I said in class last night: The role of photography in establishing and maintaining the Civil War in the nation’s collective memory is greater. Pictures of the people and scenes of that struggle have enabled us to have a much closer connection with that event. The impact of photos was greater in the Civil war than it was in the west.
Ben, I agree with your assesment of Sandweiss' analysis. I do, however, have to return to the issue of photographs as primary sources. I agree that a photographs are difficult sources to read. But as I argued on Monday, I believe that it is more an issue of analyzing or interpreting primary sources in general. If you look at the questions that one must ask when analyzing a photographic sources, they are the same questions you must ask of a written primary source. Who is the author/photographer? What biases do they carry into this source? Who is the intended audience? You may have to look at the questions in different ways, but the analysis is no more tenuous for a photograph. The writer of an historical document can be as mis-leading or biased as a photographer. Yes, you may feel like you know more about a writer if you have read his other writings and understand his relationship with the individual he is writting to or for. However, Sandweiss argues for the same level of analysis of images. You must know the context in which the photograph was produced, the intended audience, and the other work of the photographer. The issue is how one analyzes the source not the medium in which the source itself was produced.
Post a Comment
<< Home