You see, when I look at this photo, I get curious about what its story is. Why was it taken? From the title I assume the white man with the car, indicating wealth and societal status, is the plantation overseer. He also has his leg up, resting it on the car- almost claiming it to be his, the way his positioning also suggests those behind his are "his" as well. This leads me to believe that the group of black men on the porch stairs were most likely "property" of the plantation, working the fields. I start asking questions when I notice the sign on the porch, though, meaning it's probably some sort of store. From the way the black men are positioned, sitting and sort of nestled behind the white man, they look smaller and give off the feel that they're less significant. It's challenging to decide whether his stance is protecting them, or claiming them. There is the profile of a man on the far left, he's white as well, and it almost looks to me like he's smiling but there isn't enough of his face turned to be able to be sure. The dynamic between the overseer and himself is conflicting, and whether it was intentional or not, it intrigues my focus to the man on the left and draws it away from the actual subject of the photo. I suppose from the title's context I would have assumed this photograph to make me feel sad, but when as I look at it now I don't. For some reason, I don't categorize this as any typical relationship between this group of men.
What I'm really curious about is whether or not the photographer is black or white. I'm wondering about this because of the angle the shot is taken from. The photographer's point of view would be between two white men, and across from the African Americans.
What I'm really curious about is whether or not the photographer is black or white. I'm wondering about this because of the angle the shot is taken from. The photographer's point of view would be between two white men, and across from the African Americans.
As I look at the photo, I wonder what it would look like if it had been taken in color. Would that have changed the feel of the photo? I find it hard to imagine it in anything but black and white since the lack of color matches the lack of emotion on the faces of the people in it. Ironically though, perhaps color would change every single thing about the photo since black and white separated those very same people on such a large scale back in 1936...
Nice job. You make a lot of nice observations about some of the individual aspects of the photograph itself. Yet after reading your post I feel as though there are more questions to be answered in regards to, "What do all these observations mean? How do they all tie in together with each other?" I would have liked to hear more about that sort of stuff after you established some of the technical aspects at work here.
ReplyDeleteAlso, to offer just a quick suggestion, I'm not sure if your first paragraph is entirely necessary. I feel like it weakens your argument, and the better writing that follows it, by telling the reader "I don't really know what I'm talking about, but here's why you should believe me." You need to give your reader a reason to believe that what they're reading will be worth their time, instead of leading them on to question your integrity on the subject. Overall, the first paragraph just sort of felt like a "clearing of the throat" paragraph before you got to the actual important part of the piece.
I'm curious too about how it would make me feel were this photo in color. This was something I had not considered until I read your post. Very, very nice question!
ReplyDeleteI found it funny that you started this post by claiming that you are not very observant because you did an excellent job of observing this photo. I think that people that are involved in artistic communities, such as the one we have created, too often force observations about things. We somtimes excpet to make some "mind-altering", jaw dropping claim and when we don't we think we are bad at observing. Anyway, like I said, you've done a might fine job of observing this photo. I had not seen the man in the left of the picture originally, which changes my observations... I really like how you are questioning the ethnicity of the photographer. I hadn't even thought any object or person outside of the photo, and I think that it's really neat that you did. Photos are very constricting in that manner, and it's cool to "fill in the blanks," in terms of what is just outside of the frame.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that you fell that this isn't a typical salve/plantation owner relationship is because it isn't. The plantation owner is probably mean and treats his workers unfairly because of the workers race. The thing that isn't typical is that these workers are not slaves. In 1936 slavery has been made illegal by the thirteenth amendment. These men are "free" but since they and their ancestors have know nothing else but slavery this old man can probably use them for cheep labor.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your post I too wonder what the photo would look like in color. Would the color create more contrast? I personally feel that the black and white keeps the message stark.
ReplyDelete