Evidentiary Value of Documentary Photographs, and What to Catalog

Walker Evans - Bethlehem, PA

            “The camera is the eye of history,” according to Matthew Brady (Sontag, 2002, p. 11). This idea of the camera capturing moments in history is an alluring one, yet deceiving. Often images hold visual moments caught in time. Many people would like to believe that these images can give objective views into the past, documenting people, places, and events. This idea allows for evidential value to be added to the visual materials, which can help flesh out verbal and written stories, or tell stories on their own. However, every image, every captured moment, is directed by an individual; an individual who may not always 100% objective in what and how they capture the moments.

            Images have been manipulated to tell particular stories or angles of the photographers choosing since their invention; from adding rosy cheeks to daguerreotypes to modern day Photoshop manipulations. Even during the Civil War documentary photos were sometimes staged. “The picture titled ‘The Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter, Gettysburg’ in fact shows a dead Confederate soldier who was moved from where he had fallen on the field to a more photogenic site, a cove formed by several boulders flanking a barricade of rocks, and includes a prop rifle that Gardner leaned against the barricade beside the corpse” (Sontag, 2002, p. 11). Examples like “The Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter, Gettysburg” are reasons why using photographs as face value evidence should be proceeded with caution.

            Of course photographs are not all one and the same. Not every photo is staged for dramatic effect, and not every photographer has the ability to move subjects around. In Elizabeth Edwards essay “Photography and the Material Performance of the Past” (2009), she talks about how using survey photographs from the late 1800’s to early 1900’s England as historical evidence: “the subjects of these photographs were themselves physical or material traces of the historical past” (p. 131). She does touch upon briefly how photographs cannot always be trusted for historical and evidentiary value, she doesn’t completely seem to consider it fully in depth. While the survey photographs were meant to document the towns and cities across England, depending on how the photograph was taken could alter people’s perceptions of the different places.

            A very plain and generic example would be if the photographers were only taking quality pictures of places they enjoyed. Those unaware of the entirety of the town would have no means to question. Or, if there were a particular place in which the photographer did not like, they could set the mood of the photograph by underexposing or shot with an upward angle; adding more foreboding feel and blackness to the image. On the other hand a nice park or valley could be photographed with a soft focus, giving a dreamy pleasant look.

            An example of power and deliberate survey image could be that taken by Walker Evens in Bethlehem, PA. While working for the Farm Security Administration, he along with many other photographers were sent out to essentially survey and document America recovering from the Great Depression. On the surface the image is just of the townscape and/or a cemetery. Although, with the angle that Evens framed the townscape with the gravestone looming over the town imposes a subjective and emotional view on the living conditions than a standard wide angle or panorama. While not quite the survey process mentioned in the Elizabeth Edwards article, it is a demonstration on how even the angle and point of view of the photographer can drastically change how place, people and events are documented and what viewers will take away from them. Giving evidential value not necessarily of the place, time, and/or event, but evidential value of the place, time, and event as the photographer wanted to portray.

            A similar example that also shows variation between photographers is with the documentation of the Japanese internment camps. The three known photographers documenting the situation, Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, and Toyo Miyatake, were placed in similar situations (the exception being Toyo, who had a more insiders view of the camp for obvious reasons), and despite Ansel and Dorothea working within given restrictions; all three came out with photographs posing very different meanings. Ansel Adams’ images were more scenic, portraits, and generally “up lifting”. While Dorothea and Toyo left with photographs that captured and relayed more difficult emotions.

            As archivists, giving the job to arrange and describe materials that commonly include photographic materials, it is our job to appropriately catalog the images as well. Whether or not archivists should incorporate these more hidden of photographs is debatable. On one hand, archivists who have expanded their visual literacy (or ability to ‘read’ visual materials) are in the perfect position to make viewers aware of particular potential subjective value within the image. On the other hand researchers are the people applying the images, and most images could carry multiple messages depending on the point of view of the viewer as well. 

            In their essay “Mind and Sight: Visual Literacy and the Archivist”, Kaplan & Mifflin take the position that it is the job of the archivist to guide users of the archives toward understanding the potential subjective views of photographs. They break up photographic description into three categories of information archivists need to include to appropriately cataloging visual materials. The first category is superficial information on what is seen within the photograph. The second piece to the descriptive puzzle is discussing the aboutness of the photograph; what is going on within the photograph. The final piece involves higher visual literacy of the photograph being described. Abstract elements of the photograph need to be described: An ability to discern the technology used to create the image, as well as “an ability to critically dissect a document composed of elements such as time, light, sound, and motion; and an ability to translate these elements into a verbal description” that could possibly “guide interpretation” (p. 80, 81).

            In order to prevent misinterpretation of photographs as objective evidentiary documents one must enhance their visual literacy. In the end Kaplan & Mifflin (2000) take the more neutral approach of educating researchers. Similar to Lytles’ lesson plan for teaching students on visual literacy, Kaplan & Mifflin take the final position of making people aware of potential subjectivity and provoke them to ask questions. Some questions one might ask of the photographs, “who made it, who was expected to receive its message, and what was it meant to convey?” (Kaplan & Mifflin, 2000, p. 89). In addition, as archivists, additional questions should be posed during accessioning to the donor to ensure the photographs’ authenticity: “How was it made, and when? Was it, or a related image, ever exhibited or published? Where was it kept? How did it come to you?” (Kaplan & Mifflin, 2000, p. 94) Armed with this information archivists can help enhance researchers’ visual literacy by not imposing subjective value to the images, but making people cautious of the objective evidentiary value.

Resources

Edwards, E. (2009). Photography and the material performance of the past. History and Theory; 48, 130-150 

Kaplan, E. & Mifflin, J. (2000). Mind and sight: visual literacy and the archivist. In American Archival Studies: Readings in Theory and Practice. Chicago: Society of American Archivists; 73-97.

Lytle, Mark Hamilton. Pictures that changed our minds: writing the history of the sixties from images." OAH Magazine of History.

Sontag, Susan. (2002, September 12). Looking at war. The New Yorker.