Following the Photographers of the Great Depression I: East United States

Figure 1: Old and sick, mine foreman's wife does washings in front yard. South Charleston, West Virginia.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/fsaall:@FILREQ(@FIELD(DOCID+@LIT(fsa1998011215/PP))+@FIELD(COLLID+fsa))

Figure 2: Homesteader returning from work in the lumber plant. Tygart Valley, West Virginia.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/fsaall:@FILREQ(@FIELD(DOCID+@LIT(fsa2000040721/PP))+@FIELD(COLLID+fsa))

Figure 3: Blind beggar. Washington, D.C.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/fsaall:@FILREQ(@FIELD(DOCID+@LIT(fsa1997002988/PP))+@FIELD(COLLID+fsa))

Photography without a doubt has a certain power to instantaneously create a connection between an image and its audience. As French literary theorist, Roland Barthes, claims in his Mythologies, “pictures, to be sure, are more imperative than writing, they impose meaning at one stroke, without analyzing or diluting it” (108). Barthes believes that any image assumes a certain agenda pushing content, cloaked by its natural and indisputable presentation. Recognizing this power to furtively influence an unassuming audience, the United States government utilized the Farm Security Administration (FSA) by having a lineup of photographers to cross the country, artistically taking pictures of the worst (and sometimes the best) of America. Although Roy Stryker, the figurehead behind the FSA, argued that the images his photographers produced were “accurate, truthful, unmanipulated slices of real life,” I will illustrate through various photographic examples how these images were more political and artistic than simply documentary, in order to be used as a source of propaganda (Carlebach 6). Under the critical framework of Michael Carlebach, I will compare and contrast different images of different areas in the United States during the Great Depression, as well as analyze how these images touched upon issues of class, gender, and race to ultimately unify the entire nation in such a dire state.

 Embarking from the East Coast, the photographs of the Great Depression quite frankly produce references to the division of social class within society—a problem that exists globally. Take for example the two images above (Figures 1 and 2), taken by Marion Wilcott and John Vachon of the FSA. Both pictures depict living conditions in America but of two different social classes. Figure 1 shows the conditions in which a poor white family must face everyday. In the image, the most pronounced detail is the structure of the home. Being a crucial identification of poverty, the destitute house comprises of galvanized roofs (probably scraps), unequal lengths of wood planks for walls, and irregular heights of different sections of the house. The home in the foreground shows signs of construction in progress by the visible, unused pieces of wood and chunks of stone lying in the dirt. In comparison, the houses in Figure 2 show a steep contrast. Exemplary of the stereotypical suburban home, the house is small and cozy, yet seemingly sturdy and appealing to the eye. It even boasts two levels, including windows on both floors. In reality, unfortunately, as John Pultz states, “[the families in Figure 1] control nothing of their own representation” (90). They are forever stuck in the vicious trap of injustice, for nothing the husband or the wife does can transport them to the upper class.

In places other than the suburbs or rural areas of the United States, for example the metropolis, the social dichotomy also exists. In Figure 3, there are two parts that definitively illuminate the social injustices present in that time. First, the blind beggar stands in the shade, dressed in a black, rugged robe, holding his simple hat to accept any available spare change. However, the fact that we, the viewers, are able to see (and not him) who is walking around the corner allows us to realize the class battle. In the bright sunlight, the two pedestrians approaching the beggar are clearly wealthy folks, as depicted by their expensive fur coat and tailored suit. Second, the blind beggar is standing right in front of the United States Treasury, a symbol of the country’s finance—which is ironically the setting of this Great Depression photograph.

Clearly through these two photographs, it can quite easily be assumed that the photographers could not have taken these images without trying to say something about the world in which they lived. To capture the essence of poverty, Wolcott and Vachon, respectively, must have intentionally “staged” these photographs. As any artist would not paint just about anything, Wolcott and Vachon would not have taken photos of just any random scene: everything is quickly debated and planned. As for Figure 1, the raised angle of the shot provides a wide view of the land on which they families settled. Through this wide side shot, we are also allowed to see the sides of the houses. In addition, the fact that Wolcott elevated the angle almost allows us to “look down upon” the families—this is the tool that effects sympathy and empathy from the general public. When directly compared to Figure 2, the line of social injustice becomes even more transparent. In Figure 3, Vachon captures the perfect scene of light/dark dichotomy, in a sense, to extrapolate the circumstances. In addition, this angle gives us the gift of foresight, to see into the near future when the rich couple will encounter the blind beggar—the clash of upper and lower social classes. The power rests in the hands of the photographers to generate the significations, emotions, and responses the audience experiences.