AA’s “Trailer Camp Children” – a closer look at the psychology

[Heroique]

This portrait by AA (below) is on my mind, and I’m curious what others here think about it.

How effective is this image as psychological portraiture, and what state of mind do you think is being portrayed? If you think it’s effective, what makes it work – or if you think it fails, what’s getting in the way? (My initial reaction is below.)

The image can be seen in AA’s The Print – it’s part of the “Special Printing Applications” chapter, the final chapter of the final book of his so-called trilogy.

I don’t think the forum has ever discussed this image – though Brian Miller did offer a glancing comment (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?22661-Yes-but-is-it-photography&p=220309&viewfull=1#post220309) several years ago, pointing out that textual commentary is sometimes necessary if a photo is to fully communicate a deliberate message.

Its full title is “Trailer Camp Children, Richmond, California (1944)” and it was taken by AA while on co-assignment w/ fellow photographer Dorothea Lange. Fortune magazine had hired the two to help make a documentary about the area. The shipyard at Richmond had attracted many transient workers during the war years, causing the town’s population to explode – but the documentary’s subject was actually the region’s agricultural situation. (To add more context, I’ve appended AA’s brief but interesting remarks from the photo’s caption. He included the image in The Print as an example of making a print from a difficult negative.)

Many aspects of this photograph capture my interest, but I’ll name just one for now to get a discussion going. Namely, it’s how the three children gaze in three unrelated directions – the boy downward (away from his charges), the girl sideways (away from the comic book), and the toddler out (to the photographer). Despite being wrapped in each other, there’s psychological separateness here that is plainly and, I think, successfully conveyed...

-----
Here are AA’s comments in The Print:


“This photograph was made for a wartime project at the shipyards at Richmond in which Dorothea Lange and I were engaged. The boy was caring for his sisters while both father and mother worked in the shipyards. He was being interviewed and was obviously concerned. At the time I was using only my view camera; for this I borrowed Dorothea’s twin-lens reflex Rolleiflex and made this negative (only one, as she needed the camera). It is a difficult negative to print. The camera lens was uncoated (and probably dusty) and the negative shows considerable all-over flare. The lighting was very uneven and both cropping and dodging were critical.

The negative contrast varies extensively. The faces require careful dodging with a small wand. Other areas – parts of clothing, hands, arms, near door-jamb – were in patches of sunlight against areas of deep shadow, and thus demand precise burning. This is a good example of correcting an uncontrolled negative. In fact, I was fortunate to get any negative (or acceptable print) at all! The subject was vital to the story, and fleeting; the visualization was only ‘general.’ ”

[Mark Sampson]

The first thing you notice is that Adams ignores the content when discussing the image... but of course when writing 'The Print' he was exclusively concerned with technical issues, and rightly so. Obviously a powerful image, if he indeed exposed only one frame he got a good one. That does happen, and 'chance favors the prepared', but it's also notable that a photographer of lesser technical skill (and persistence) than Adams might have passed by a 'difficult' negative like that one.

[civich]

The ambiguity, uncertainty, mystery of off camera lines of gaze always add interest but the direct stare anchors the photograph. An effective technique difficult to stage realistically. I imagine Adams saw this composition coming and happened to have the right camera in his hands. - Chris

[Heroique]

The first thing you notice is that Adams ignores the content when discussing the image…

Are you sure that Ansel ignores the content? He certainly doesn’t make it the principal issue – the photo’s technical aspects play that role, as you say. But neither does Ansel ignore it. After all, he says in the quoted caption: “The boy was caring for his sisters while both father and mother worked in the shipyards. He was being interviewed and was obviously concerned.”

Me, I’ve always thought Ansel’s remark a little ambiguous – if unintentionally so.

For example, does Ansel mean the boy in the photo is the one “being interviewed,” or does he mean the father working in the shipyards? I suppose he means the boy. For when Ansel says “he was obviously concerned,” I think his use of the word “obviously” means to describe the boy’s expression (i.e., his expression is “obvious,” because it’s right there in front of us; and his “concern” is made “obvious” by his facial expression). On the other hand, Ansel might very well be speaking of the father, who would be “obviously concerned,” if he was being interviewed in the shipyards, about the children he left back home. Let’s just say I think the book’s text editor missed a chance to improve clarity here. (Even the first sentence makes it sound a little like Ansel and Dorothea were engaged to be married in the shipyards! :))

In any case, the somewhat ambiguous caption certainly adds to the image’s “ambiguity, uncertainty, and mystery” that Civich points out. Human psychology deserves so much, and I think the photo conveys the complexity – with or without Ansel’s caption.

[ROL]

I've always thought it at least as powerful and moving as Lange's "Migrant Mother...", for many of the reasons you mention. The downward looking perspective suggests volumes about the times and socioeconomic class.

[Brian C. Miller]

Lange's Migrant Mother, while moving as a photograph, unfortunately misrepresented the situation. The details of the situation Lange reported were simply fabricated. As such, I do wonder about the text of the Forbe's article. Also, there have been a number of modern photographic essays about poverty that I've seen dismissed as "exploiting the genre."

As for certain arrangements of the people in a photograph, how much of the arrangement is suggested by the photographer ("could you move..."), and how much is simply due to the equipment? For instance, the downward angle is what I think of as, "photographer standing with camera, subject sitting," instead of being an implied part of social commentary. Perhaps the boy was holding his siblings simply because strangers had come to the door, and were asking questions.

I myself grew up poor, and at times the family's roof was only a car roof. What would a photograph have looked like? Family in a junker car with junk. Is that photogenic? I have no idea. I do suppose that it would depend on the fact if my father were working the camera, or someone with a sense of what makes a good composition.

[bobwysiwyg]

Brian, can explain or expand on your statement about the misrepresentation of the photograph? Thanks.

[RichardSperry]

Lange's Migrant Mother, while moving as a photograph, unfortunately misrepresented the situation. The details of the situation Lange reported were simply fabricated

Care to elaborate?

[Brian Ellis]

Brian, can explain or expand on your statement about the misrepresentation of the photograph? Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Owens_Thompson

[bobwysiwyg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Owens_Thompson

Very interesting, thanks.

[RichardSperry]

I'm still missing the fabrication and misrepresenting part.

Are you talking about the thumb photoshopping?

[Bill Burk]

I think the issue relates to saying they sold tires for food, which they didn't do... and the fact she wasn't a pea picker at the time, she was just waiting for auto repair...

Actually, waiting for auto repair is a seriously stressful part of human condition. Not knowing if the bill will come in a few hundred or a thousand dollars and being stuck where you are... Wonder if any other serious photo essays have been done on that subject...

I consider Trailer Camp Children, Richmond, California a mark of Adams' flexibility, and perhaps a mark of Dorothea Lange's influence. Who you travel with and where you go has a lot of impact on what you shoot.

[RichardSperry]

They were pea pickers.
They were in a pea pickers camp.
I don't see a misrepresentation. If they had finished picking peas and were heading up to pick peaches, it doesn't change the image or story.

The vehicle was stalled in need of repair.
Tires or radiator, doesn't change the story.

Fabrication is to make something that doesn't exist. I don't see this fabrication. I'm
Missing something still.

None of those small details change the story or context of the photo.
He must mean something else I suppose.

[rdenney]

They were pea pickers.
They were in a pea pickers camp.
I don't see a misrepresentation. If they had finished picking peas and were heading up to pick peaches, it doesn't change the image or story.

Well, actually they were not pea pickers, and they were not quite as destitute as Lange represented in the textual description. They were passing through and had car trouble, which they were in the process of repairing when Lange happened by. The men conducting the repair had gone in search of parts, and the mother and children were just camping while waiting for them. They were not desperate because of the pea crop failure as Lange described, and after the repair they simply drove away.

That's the fabrication--a story that did not actually happen that was created to exaggerate (at least) the desperation being portrayed. The photo is what it is, but the story surrounding the photo is left unrevealed by the photo and that story was documented falsely. That's why photos can accompany text when used for journalism, but they cannot establish much in the way of fact, let alone truth.

Rick "who never depends on photos to tell a narrative story--that's what words are for" Denney

[Bill Burk]

Tires or radiator, doesn't change the story.

Fabrication is to make something that doesn't exist. I don't see this fabrication.

None of those small details change the story or context of the photo.

I agree it's nit picking to tear apart Dorothea Lange for not thoroughly upholding the major requirements of journalism. It appears her interviewing and note-taking skills are less than her photographic skills. I'd be happy to leave it at that.

I have no personal knowledge or depth of study to give any but a personal opinion. But I'm with you, the specific facts are not significantly different. I don't think they really detract. They are just interesting.

[Vaughn]

I agree with Richard and Bill on this.

For something to represent something else, it does not have to be that something else. I am willing to take "Migrant Mother" (and AA's Trailer Camp Children) as representing the plight and general condition of migrant workers in general

[tgtaylor]

With respect to Dorothea a closer look into her influences would prove fruitful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Lange

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_H._White

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maynard_Dixon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Schuster_Taylor

A treatise into the true inner motivations of Dorothea and that of her second husband Paul Taylor - to whom she was both married to and actively engaged in photographically documenting his research into rural poverty and economic exploitation at the time Migrant Mother was photographed - would be an interesting read indeed.

As far as Ansel, well he never was really interested in documenting the social condition and at the time was engaged in photographing the western landscape. Perhaps he was checking out the possibility of a steady pay check by working for the RA or FSA like Dorothea.

Thomas

[rdenney]

I agree with Richard and Bill on this.

For something to represent something else, it does not have to be that something else. I am willing to take "Migrant Mother" (and AA's Trailer Camp Children) as representing the plight and general condition of migrant workers in general

A photograph can be successful as art, but unsuccessful as journalism and even a misrepresentation. The claim was that the story accompanying the photograph was a fabrication, and it was. That doesn't make the photograph any less art, but it does expose an agenda on the part of a photojournalist. It's just worth keeping in mind when the topic is the psychology of such photos.

If Sally Mann had made this photo (imagine the technical look), it could be of herself reflecting on the meaning of life after playing in the muddy pond behind the house with her shy kids. The backstory is what makes the photo meaningful to many people, and if it's a fabrication, it forces us to consider whether the photograph's value is visual or whether it depends on its text, and whether the integrity of that text is what makes it have value as art. It's come up as a big discussion recently vis a vis propaganda, particularly the pro-Nazi films made by Leni Riefenstahl.

If Lange had written, "Photograph of a Woman and her Children Waiting on Car Repairs, that Reminds Me of Suffering Among Migrant Farm Workers" would it have become famous and garnered the admiration it has received? What about if it had been published as art with no caption or story?

In music it's a more direct question. For example, is the art of an opera the score or the libretto? There is no obvious or deterministic answer to this question, really. We can't immediately reject the importance of the backstory to the art, when it is provided, without some serious consideration.

Rick "thinking the relationship between art and propaganda is very touchy" Denney

[Vaughn]

From what I can gather from readings, DL was more of an artist than a photojournalist, at least not a trained photojournalist. The image of the Migrant Mother (MM) represented the thousands of stranded migrant workers who DL saw slowly starving in the camp. It really makes no difference to me, nor to the power of the image, that this particular mother and family were not actually stranded at that camp. DL was on her last leg driving home to Berkeley from a month photographing migrant workers, turned around to make an unscheduled stop at a pea-pickers' camp, took six images of MM in the camp and continued on home. Most likely tired, wanting to get home, and rushed, I am not surprised she did not get her facts straight.

The MM was a migrant farm worker....she just happened not a pea-picker. At least she did end up making some money out of the photograph, though she was in bed with a stroke and may not have known about the $25,000 to $35,000 that was raised by donations for her care -- directly because of the photograph. Far more money than DL made directly with the image. And her kids seemed to value the image enough to put "FLORENCE LEONA THOMPSON Migrant Mother – A Legend of the Strength of American Motherhood" on her gravestone.

[RichardSperry]

rdenny,

The daughter said they, the whole family including children, picked everything they could. The photos were taken at the pea farm. The older children would pick in front of the mother, as she dragged the babies behind her in cotton sacks. Cotton, tomatoes, artichokes, or peas; who cares?

"Not as destitute"? They have 3 adults and 7 children living in a Depression Era Joad Mobile. This made them more than poor?

From what I make of the story, Lange was not a journalist nor employed as one. The daughter says she didn't even ask her mother any real questions, just her age and permission to take the shots. No other real questions, sounds like not a journalist to me.

Maybe the daughter's the fabricator.

Myself, I don't think you can get much poorer in America than that without eating the babies(or being a slave). Maybe I'm just wrong.

[RichardSperry]

" that Reminds Me of Suffering Among Migrant Farm Workers"

Seriously?

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-02/living/dustbowl.photo_1_migrant-mother-florence-owens-thompson-picture?_s=PM:LIVING

[RichardSperry]

I need to follow up on something. It doesn't make any difference to the photo. It's just a logical question I have about how people think.

When you guys say that "they were not pea pickers" what do you mean?
That they did not pick peas at all.
Or that at the pea farm where the photo was taken there was no work, so they couldn't pick peas at this farm that season?

If its the first...
In the Central Valley, the notion that a migrant farm worker >doesn't< pick this or that is pretty alien. That's like going up to Manual Trabajo in May when he's picking cherries, and telling him that he's NOT a grape picker(in August). You'll more often than not get an earful of Spanish if you said something absurd like that. Now the crops have changed and we don't really have cotton or peas in the valley anymore, but I think it would have been the same then as now. They migrate to where the crops are being harvested throughout the year, that's why they are called migrant farm workers.

Are you saying that these cotton pickers were above picking peas?

If it's the second. That there were no peas to pick because of blight(or too many workers for the job), so they were NOT pea pickers; how does this support the notion that they were too rich to be dirt poor?

Who told you that these migrants did not pick peas, would be another question?

[Doug Howk]

Ansel's recollection of the kids in "trailer-camp children..." is at variance with the description given by a friend of Lange's (see Chapter 13 of Andrea Stillman's "Looking at Ansel Adams..."): "The children are being watched by a neighbor child while the mother is away." Stillman further states, "The image is an anomaly in Ansel's work. Human misery was not something he felt comfortable photographing...". Apparently, the only reason Ansel took this picture is he was challenged by Lange.

[Vaughn]

I need to follow up on something. It doesn't make any difference to the photo. It's just a logical question I have about how people think.

When you guys say that "they were not pea pickers" what do you mean?


In my case, it just meant that MM and family did not arrive at that location to specifically pick peas. They were on their way to a different location to pick a different crop when they broke down at the pea farm.

[RichardSperry]

Fair enough.

Ps, I didn't mean to say that cotton or peas are not grown in the CV anymore. I'm pretty sure that it's all picked by machines these days. Cherries and much of grapes are still picked by hand today.

[ROL]

Pea pickers, Schmee pickers. What a pempest in a peacup! It doesn't seem that any of this minutia addresses the OP's considerations, except that DL's photograph seems to have somehow touched nerves. Having grown up (physically, anyways) in the Central Valley not far from any of the hundreds of crops or shooting locations in question, I can certainly verify that the itinerant farm worker, if not migrant, moves from harvest to harvest throughout the season. Heck, even fresh vegetable crops move these days, from Washington to California to Arizona (now Mexico too), with the harvest. Temporary migrant housing is and has been a subject of local concern for decades. One need only drive through the farming communities of Parlier or Layton off-season to comprehend the situation, or look no further than Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath for first rate dramatic description of the process.

[rdenney]

My point was not to superimpose my (or anyone else's) current political or social policy on an event that happened 75 years ago, but to also be sensitive to the superimposition of political and social philosophy by the people making and presenting the photographs. It brings up questions that seem to me relevant to the discussion of the psychology of such photos.

And it also brings up some issues of how photographers can be quite patronizing in their attitudes towards the poor. Nobody wants to be poor, but the assumption that poor people live in minute-by-minute misery is an over-simplification that, in my experience at least, often offends them.

Adams was not rich and worked hard, but at the end of the day, he would drive home from making these photographs in his own car, to his own house and calm his mind playing his own Mason and Hamlin grand piano. If that isn't at least relevant as the basis for questioning the psychology of these photos, then I don't know what is.

These seem to me important questions if one is going to raise the psychology of such photographs. I'm not sure the answers are necessary, but it seems to me the thought process can't be dismissed, especially on the basis of one's current social viewpoint.

And, no, I'm not inviting a political discussion. The whole point is to question whether these photos survive without that filter.

Rick "thinking Adams's photo works better as a photo than Migrant Mother, when there is no backstory" Denney

[Kirk Gittings]

My family on both sides converged as farm workers in the San Fernando Valley during the Dust Bowl and the migration west. That time is remembered both with anxiety and fondness. Though the times were really really tough, the family was never tighter, loving and mutually supportive.

[Vaughn]

The whole point is to question whether these photos survive without that filter.

Well, Mirgrant Mother, even without the back story and as a (environmental?) portrait, IMO, blows away 99% of what I see on this forum, including my attempts. And the AA image is right there, too.


These seem to me important questions if one is going to raise the psychology of such photographs. I'm not sure the answers are necessary, but it seems to me the thought process can't be dismissed, especially on the basis of one's current social viewpoint.

A fellow I took photo classes with in college has published images of cowboys -- you know the score...you pay some bucks for a workshop/opportunity to photograph cowboys and horses, etc. Sort of like when photographers pay to photograph 'wildlife' (lions, tigers and bears, oh my!) at animal farms. Seeing his work and talking about it it comes out that he dislikes cowboys -- looks down on them as inferior people -- and it shows in his work. I mentioned Jay Dusard to him and how Jay would help the ranch hands gathering cattle, etc. The fellow dissed Jay for it. The fellow also does landscapes and invited me to go with him, saying his 4WD Suburban could get us over the berms the gov't uses to block dirt roads and we could get anywhere we wanted to go. I declined.

So when taking landscapes, how important is one's connection to the land? Can someone whose concept of getting into the wilds is to drive to a pull-out on the highway and walk no more than 20 feet from the car to snap his/her photo really have any connection to what s/he is photographing? Are their landscape images more or less important than, let's say, those of an ex-wilderness ranger? Probably not so much difference to be seen in the images I suppose.

AA's image -- is it actually looking down? He used a Rollieflex -- most likely with a waist-level finder. I think that the lens was about even with the boy's face, and perhaps pointed slight down.

[Brian C. Miller]

Well, Mirgrant Mother, even without the back story and as a (environmental?) portrait, IMO, blows away 99% of what I see on this forum, including my attempts. And the AA image is right there, too.

When was the last time that you went in search of subjects like that? Adams and Lange were looking for those subjects, and of course they found them. They wanted to find people who were living on the "edge," just getting by on not very much money at all. Also, all of the subjects had to look downcast and impoverished. Even when my family lived in a car, there were very few totally glum moments.

I used to live in trailer parks (when I started photographing with my Petax 6x7, I was living in an 18ft 1967 Fireball travel trailer), and these days you would have to work to find people like that because development has eaten up a lot of these trailer parks. One place where I used to live has been converted into duplexes, condos and apartments. Other trailer parks are very high-priced, so none of the poor can possibly live in them. (Seriously, $700/mo for a speck of ground??) And in a trailer park, there are all kinds of social-economic strata, from metally disfunctional people to (my next-door neighbor for a while) an airline pilot.

The next time some of you go camping, look around for a family. Ask them to help you recreate Migrant Mother. Or better yet, go to a homeless camp and make some photographs of the people there.

[Vaughn]

When was the last time that you went in search of subjects like that? Adams and Lange were looking for those subjects, and of course they found them. They wanted to find people who were living on the "edge," just getting by on not very much money at all. Also, all of the subjects had to look downcast and impoverished. Even when my family lived in a car, there were very few totally glum moments...The next time some of you go camping, look around for a family. Ask them to help you recreate Migrant Mother. Or better yet, go to a homeless camp and make some photographs of the people there.

Actually I have no interest in recreating someone else's image. Nor am I interested in documenting the homeless/homefree. So I am not quite sure where you are coming from with your question. There was a time period when, in order to keep my $50/mo. room, I bought a sack of potatoes and thinned a neighbor's lettuce patch for them and had some dinners of cheap ginger-snap cookies dipped in tea. But like you said, they were still good times (eventually someone told me about food stamps).

Brady's photographer's during the Civil War supposively rearranged bodies for their images. Someone rearranged cannon balls in a photo of the Crimean War. AA choose his images carefully when using them to promote conservation issues. What to leave in and what to leave out has always been a photographer's decision...they are the one telling the story. Of course what gets published is more likely to be the decision of the editor or perhaps the person hiring the photographer.

[Heroique]

The conversation has taken a circuitous (and entertaining) route, but my impression is that there’s a general consensus that Ansel’s photo – standing by itself – does an admirable job at conveying the discomforts of poverty, psychological or material. However, I’m also sensing a lot of uncertainty in this thread about whether any of the following considerations contribute to the photo’s success:


• Ansel’s background & artistic/social aims
• The children’s background (or the “real” story here)
• The viewer’s background

For example, does it really matter whether Ansel went home each night to play a grand piano; or whether we have the actual story about these children “right”; or whether you – yes, you – have felt the grind or, as some describe it, the blessings of poverty?

Tricky questions all, but you can count me among those who say the photo succeeds by itself – independent of Ansel’s experiences, or the children’s, or yours, or my own. The photo, as I appreciate it, just doesn’t rely on those things for the children’s psychology portrayed here to be intricate & significantly moving. (BTW, I don’t mean to suggest we all sense the same psychology.) It’s a complex photo about the human mind – working on other levels, too – and succeeds, I think, w/o the “fill” or “facts” that might naturally satisfy some of our tangential curiosity about it.

[Brian C. Miller]

Does the photograph succeed if there is absolutely no narration? Both Migrant Mother and Trailer Camp Children show the bonds of family -- hugs, etc. But we have seen both with a huge influence, which starts with the title of the photograph. How would you feel about Migrant Mother if it was titled, Mom Comforts Kids after My Little Pony Breaks? For me, that doesn't carry the same weight as Migrant Mother. If Adams' photograph were titled, Older Brother Babysits Infant Siblings, it loses a lot of its impact. If one of us had done it, it might be titled, Babysitting Over at the Neighbor's House.

As a portrait, it's good because all three children are in good poses. Another important factor is that no flash was used, and the light comes strictly from the open door. The older brother and the baby both have catchlights in their eyes, and the baby also has some reflection on the lips. The photograph would have been radically different with artificial lighting.

The negative itself shows some development errors. Look at the top, and you'll see uneveness, like there was insufficient agitation. (See? You don't need stellar technique to have a good photograph!)

[Heroique]

Does the photograph succeed if there is absolutely no narration?

In this case, absolutely “Yes” as art – however, lacking narration, the photo might not succeed so well as a vehicle w/ an intended message, or as a means to motivate particular behavior. I like your comment about less-than-stellar technique and effective photos, an inspiration to us all! :D

[Bill Burk]

"Pempest in a peapot," I like that.

I just spent the day in Watsonville. Following up on this story. Lots of mud running off the strawberry fields today.

Sometimes photographs transcend the accompanying writing. My opinion is that these two photographs do that.

Other times, writing transcends the photographs. The Grapes of Wrath does that.

[Merg Ross]

What I find missing, is a good reason for the photograph being made, other than the attempts of Dorothea and Ansel to provide Fortune Magazine with images fitting the text and agenda of the proposed article.

On a personal note, when this photo was taken in 1944, my father was working in Kaiser Yard #2, (had been for three years) and was required to be present for all three shifts, day, swing and graveyard. I was three years old, about the age of the younger boys depicted in Ansel's photograph. If the boys and their family remained in the area after the war, as many did, they were most likely my classmates as we progressed through classes in the Richmond School District. So what? Most of my classmates had parents who had come to work in the Kaiser Yards. Where is the story? Are we supposed to feel some hardship for these boys? Were they deprived of successful lives, or did they attain success, as many of my high school classmates of '59 did?

Ansel was not comfortable with this assignment, as one will glean from reading his later comments, addressing what Dorothea had involved him in; he was, however, very fond of Dorothea and accepted the value of her work.

[RichardSperry]

"How would you feel about Migrant Mother if it was titled, Mom Comforts Kids after My Little Pony Breaks?"

That's not really the title. It doesn't really have a title does it? That's just what people call it.

I had seen the photograph numerous times before I knew the title or anything about the photographer or specific subjects. So I say definitely the title does not make any difference to me about my impressions of the photo. If I remember correctly, I believe that my very first impression was that was in context with the Grapes of Wrath, possibly a candid, possibly a set up portrait, maybe as a cover for the book("Mrs Joad and some of her kids"). I knew they were Depression Era poor Oakies, pretty immediately.

Unlike Adams' photo, which I was exposed to originally by Adams in one of his books. So his narrative is part of if not foundational to me with his photo. What were he and Lange doing walking around Richmond, and the 'bad' part too, in the dark with essentially a $5000 camera around her neck? I wouldn't do that today(tonight) without carrying a gun, and I would leave the camera and female companion in the car(running).

[Vaughn]

...What were he and Lange doing walking around Richmond, and the 'bad' part too, in the dark with essentially a $5000 camera around her neck? I wouldn't do that today(tonight) without carrying a gun, and I would leave the camera and female companion in the car(running).

Hey, we are talking about the "Greatest Generation" here! Peace, love and nuke the Japs!!

[Brian C. Miller]

What were he and Lange doing walking around Richmond, and the 'bad' part too, in the dark with essentially a $5000 camera around her neck? I wouldn't do that today(tonight) without carrying a gun, and I would leave the camera and female companion in the car(running).

They weren't walking around in the dark, as it was daylight, according to what we see in the photo. Delta 3200 had yet to be invented. Since the area where they were at was a working section, the able adults were out working. The section they visited had children and supported adults. As for the "crime rate:" "If President Hoover could walk through the little shanty addition to Seattle bearing his name, he would find that it is not inhabited by a bunch of ne’er do wells, but by one thousand men who are bending every effort to beat back and regain the place in our social system that once was theirs," said Jesse Jackson, self-proclaimed mayor of Seattle Hooverville (link (http://depts.washington.edu/depress/hooverville_seattle.shtml)).

[Bill Burk]

What I find missing, is a good reason for the photograph being made.

What else is a self-respecting photographer going to do after happening upon a subject who has erected their own canvas backdrop? (thinking of Migrant Mother)...

[Bill Burk]

Friends gave me a mind-blowing book for Christmas: Instant, The Story of Polaroid (http://www.polaroidland.net/the-book/).

On page 49 are three pictures of Dorothea Lange, taken by Ansel Adams (with a Polaroid Model 95).

I'd just seen John McCann's excellent presentation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALfiTDYLtAQ

And I can't get over the idea that Ansel Adams spent a lot of time consulting for Polaroid.

[Bill_1856]

There is nothing at all special about this image. It might just as well have been taken years later with the three kids squirming around a sofa in front of a TV.

[Vaughn]

there is nothing at all special about this image. It might just as well have been taken years later with the three kids squirming around a sofa in front of a tv.

rotfl!

[Merg Ross]

What else is a self-respecting photographer going to do after happening upon a subject who has erected their own canvas backdrop? (thinking of Migrant Mother)...

Bill, my reference was to the subject of this thread, the "Trailer Camp Children" in Richmond, 1944, by Ansel. Perhaps it is my proximity to the events and location that cause me to comment at all. However, I can not help but believe that Ansel was safely prowling around the segregated Atchison Village, and not out at the Canal War Apartments on Cutting Blvd. Those images would have told a different story, perhaps not what Fortune Magazine wanted from the assignment. Of course, just speculation on my part.

Regards,
Merg

[Bill Burk]

Bill, my reference was to the subject of this thread, the "Trailer Camp Children" in Richmond, 1944, by Ansel. Perhaps it is my proximity to the events and location that cause me to comment at all. However, I can not help but believe that Ansel was safely prowling around the segregated Atchison Village, and not out at the Canal War Apartments on Cutting Blvd. Those images would have told a different story, perhaps not what Fortune Magazine wanted from the assignment. Of course, just speculation on my part.

Regards,
Merg

Merg,

I must have misunderstood your questioning "why" the image was taken. I never thought to ask why because they make sense to me. But who commissioned the work? Fortune Magazine? That does make things interesting, I wonder what they were hoping for.

I didn't mean to take away from your story by tagging an amusing observation to your post... Apologies, because I really appreciated hearing that... in essence... you were there. You might have lived your life with those very children. If you had been taking photographs in your youth and captured a photograph of the same kids, it would have been much more powerful. I really don't "feel" from this image that Ansel Adams had a close rapport or empathy for them. Of course this is likely a projection of my own thoughts, because I wasn't there. But I "feel" there is more a connection between Dorothea Lange and Migrant Mother.

Ansel Adam's shot feels to me like the cliche images of poor children taken by tourists in Mexico. It's masterful. It has strong composition and old master pictorial lighting going for it. But it falls short on emotion to me.

[Merg Ross]

Bill, no need for apologies. Mine is just another voice, with perhaps a different perspective, added to the conversation. I agree with what you suggest about Ansel, and his participation in this particular paid assignment. Fortunately, his legacy will always be with his marvelous work of trees, rocks and mountains, subjects dear to his heart.

Best,
Merg

[Doug Howk]

There are a couple of questions about this photograph:
1) What was Fortune magazine expecting when they hired Lange and Adams for a portfolio on our wartime shipbuilding expansion? Fortune, in competition with Life and Look, had in past hired James Agee & Walker Evans for the sharecropper story. But for this story I would guess they expected an upbeat portfolio. Why not somebody like Margaret Bourke-White? Adams, already well-known for his iconic images of nature, was probably hired to create similiar images of shipbuilding. Lange, with her FSA and photojournalism reputation, would concentrate on the family-side of the story. Adams image was not included in the Fortune portfolio - too downbeat?
2) What was the challenge "hurled" by Lange that made Adams attempt something he was uncomfortable with doing? Technical? It certainly was a difficult negative to print. Empathy? Adams was not a callous person. The FSA look which Adams had never been a part of even when documenting Japanese internment? If so, he certainly handled it well.

[Bill Burk]

... Empathy? Adams was not a callous person. The FSA look which Adams had never been a part of even when documenting Japanese internment? If so, he certainly handled it well.

I should limit my comment on Empathy to that specific image. I agree that Adams is capable of Empathy and showed a great deal of it at Manzanar.

I am glad his legacy is his film-based landscapes. This overshadows his studio, commercial, Polaroid and documentary experience. I can appreciate that he was well-rounded, without having to expect all his auxiliary work meets the same standards.

[j.e.simmons]

I've just read "Looking for the Light" by Paul Hendrickson. It's the story of another FSA photographer, Marion Post Wolcott. In the book, Hendrickson explains that the FSA photographers were instructed to photograph the most destitute looking people they could find. The idea was to show people in more well to do areas how terrible the depression was, and to promote the proposed solutions by the Roosevelt Administration. In other words, they were to be propaganda photos. Could these instructions have figured into Lange's not-so-accurate description of Migrant Mother?

And still these photographers created art - art that evokes emotions in us even 70-years later. As for Adams empathy, doesn't he show empathy in his landscape photos, too?

[RichardSperry]

In other words, they were to be propaganda photos.

Today we have that word, propaganda, inextricably tied to meaning lies and falsehoods.

Much like the word eugenics, which only means good genes, it is tied to other contexts including genocide. It has meanings attached of it far greater, and malevolent, than what the simple word itself means.

Of course, it was propaganda. But what message, including photographic message, isn't? Adams taking photos of Yosemite was propaganda too, all of it. He had a message and a purpose, to conserve the wilderness and environment. And he wanted government to do it. He wanted a change in government. And it worked. Lange's photo did too.

[Bill Burk]

Today we have that word, propaganda, inextricably tied to meaning lies and falsehoods.

Much like the word eugenics, which only means good genes, it is tied to other contexts including genocide. It has meanings attached of it far greater, and malevolent, than what the simple word itself means.

Of course, it was propaganda. But what message, including photographic message, isn't? Adams taking photos of Yosemite was propaganda too, all of it. He had a message and a purpose, to conserve the wilderness and environment. And he wanted government to do it. He wanted a change in government. And it worked. Lange's photo did too.

Let's spin it as "purpose driven" images for a good cause, which I may argue had a positive outcome.

For Empathy, I wish I hadn't said it. It's merely my own projection. I believe, if one spends time with a subject, one can develop more Empathy, which may come across in photographs. As good a photograph can be made instantaneously without spending time with a subject (photography just works that way). Especially if you are Dorothea Lange. Contrasting the two images, Dorothea's and Ansel's just isn't a fair comparison. She was in her element, he was stretching. She was amazing. He did a creditable job.

[Kirk Gittings]

Today we have that word, propaganda, inextricably tied to meaning lies and falsehoods.

Much like the word eugenics, which only means good genes, it is tied to other contexts including genocide. It has meanings attached of it far greater, and malevolent, than what the simple word itself means.

Of course, it was propaganda. But what message, including photographic message, isn't? Adams taking photos of Yosemite was propaganda too, all of it. He had a message and a purpose, to conserve the wilderness and environment. And he wanted government to do it. He wanted a change in government. And it worked. Lange's photo did too.

86230

All art is propaganda.......

[Brian C. Miller]

An instructor's saying was, "People like it when we fuck their minds, but complain when we fuck their bodies. Go figure."

[Alan Curtis]

It's interesting that Russell Lee was hired by the FSA during the same period as Dorthea Lang and others to photograph America during a difficult time. Russell's photographs are much different, he generally captured people in difficult situations but, making the best of life. The "Pie Town" photographs are of poor struggling people, Russell photographed their happiness. It's appears that most of his photographs were like this, maybe he had a different assignment or just his perspective on the times. He was obviously very comfortable with the people and they him.
Ansel may have just been hired to photograph in an unfamiliar and uncomfortable situation but, his photographic capabilities came through.

[AuditorOne]

First, in my opinion both of these photographs work. To me MM has a bit more emotional impact but I have also spent much of my life exposed to that photo.

Second, the controversy around what was and was not being done described after the fact by the real Migrant Mother is interesting, but for me is a bit suspect. For starters, in my former life I was involved in interviewing people about what they did and did not remember about events that occurred in their recent past. It has never ceased to amaze me how little people actually remember, and how inaccurate it can be, even shortly following an event. It would surprise me a bit if the memories of the Migrant Mother didn't differ from Dorothea's descriptions of the event. She is remembering things from years ago and the photograph, though very memorable, reminds her of some very painful memories that she would prefer to keep buried.

Next, photographers have many agendas when taking photographs. Some are their own and some belong to others. If you have been hired to do a certain thing then your photographs will necessarily reflect what you were hired to do. There is no shame in that. For most mature photographers, and Ansel Adams and Dorothea Lange were certainly very mature and accomplished photographers, their art and style tend to be reflected in the results. Oft times this is why they were hired in the first place.

As for any psychology behind this photograph, to me it is clear that he was influenced by Dorothea in this photograph. This is not his typical style, even when you reference his Manzanar work, but it certainly is Dorothea Lange's style. There may also have been a bit of one upmanship going on here. Dorothea is bugging him and he grabs her camera, takes this picture, and jumps through hoops to print it, even though it was a lousy negative. Why was it that important? Maybe to show Dorothea that he could take pictures similar to her own work.

[Bill_1856]

The only conclusion this images reinforces is what a lousy people photographer that AA was.

[Tim Meisburger]

The only conclusion this images reinforces is what a lousy people photographer that AA was.

Fascinating opinion, as in my opinion this is the best photo AA ever took, bar none.

[dsphotog]

The children are watching an awesome moonrise, behind Ansel.
This is how he learned to always watch for a good moonrise.

[Drew Wiley]

AA did splendid people photography and lots of it, both LF and miniature camera. Most people just haven't seen much of it due to the preponderance of his landscape images. But much of it was more formal, studio-style rather than street-style. But he certainly knew how to handle a 35mm camera effectively. No,
he was no Dorothea Lange; but he certainly had his moments. Manzanar itself had formal restrictions on what one could go about shooting. The best shots there
were taken by one of the detainees who made his own box camera and lens! He was so respected by the officer in charge of the camp that he was deliberately
and jokingly told where they would or would not be watching that day, so he could basically go around shooting anything he pleased. Some of those shots are now on display in the visitor center there, I believe. He had his own little makeshift darkroom too, and the guards helped him smuggle in his film and supplies.

[Bill_1856]

Except for the caption, there is nothing about this image which could not just as well have been labeled: "My Grandchildren." Olin Miles could have done better.

[Drew Wiley]

It's easy to pontificate when you see the image on the web or in a so-so reproduction. But the dude could print. THAT'S what separates him from the 'My Grandchildren" crowd. Leave the web prognostications for the corn syrup generation. We geezers should know better. Or if you have twenty grand, just buy a vintage print yourself and then you can say anything you wish. I happen to find the image compelling. It a bit classical in its sense of composition, and that's not
easy to do on the fly. Not like oil painting.

[Jmarmck]

I look at the three as a group, not individuals. They are obviously familiar with each other and find comfort and safety in being together. Once together as under an umbrella, the two girls survey their surroundings unsure of the event. The unity of the three is expressed in the querying of their surrounds, but only after safety......at least that is what the images says to me about the group.

The shot is obviously a snapshot and lacks the composition and lighting details one would normally expect from an AA print. But I think that is what makes this work. The contrast brings the cleanliness, or lack there of, to the forefront re-enforcing social expectation of "Trailer Park".

From a technical view point, I have none. Who am I to judge or question the master. It is as it is because of AA's designs.

[Drew Wiley]

Nonsense. Look at some of AA's other group portraits. He obviously studied more classical figure composition techniques from the olden painters than one might initial suspect. After all, even he began by being influenced by the Pictorialists, who were heavily rooted in pre-Raphaelite formal composition. We are all entitled
to form our own opinion. But this is no random shot. I has been both published and exhibited quite a bit. There must be a reason. And although Art History classes
bored me, I see it.