- Pages 35-45 of chapter 1 (Case Study) focus on Dorothea Lange’s Migrant Mother (1935), and provides multiple perspectives for interpreting this iconic, popular, and still widely circulated photograph. Write a short response to the photograph, and post it in this forum. Which perspectives offered by the textbook are the most intriguing or surprising to you? Do you think the photograph was exploitative? What perspectives and interpretations could you add to those presented by the Case Study?
Migrant Mother makes a deep impact with the honesty it portrays, both on the part of the subject (Florence Thompson) and photographer Dorothea Lange. This was real life for a poor itinerant mother and children, and her facial expression and body language are a haunting mixture of stress, sadness, and strength.
I think the social/historical perspective is the most obvious way to interpret the photo. This woman becomes an icon for the many impoverished people and families that were affected by the Depression era of the 1930s. Likewise, the photographer's intention seems fairly straightforward- Lange was documenting the plight of such people for the FSA and she realized that she had a powerful image. All five photos she took were compelling, but I think Lange sensed that the alternative four were a little too stark, and lacked the dignity of her best shot.
While the remaining perspectives offer additional insights, I feel that some offer little in their abilities to interpret the photo. Politics and ideology- this perspective is very similar to social/historical. It is doubtful that the mother was very concerned about politics. Photographer Lange was working for a government agency that allowed her almost no editorial power, so that can be seen as a political influence. Class/race/gender? Again, rather obvious that this photo shows a very poor white family and that there was no father present- a testament to female strength that transcends class and race.
The most intriguing comments and insights for me: The idea that the title itself, Migrant Mother, influences how we perceive the photo. (Lange's original title- "Destitute pea pickers in California, a 32 year old mother of seven children"). The two alliterative words "Migrant Mother" are the perfect choice, adding a poetic element to the photograph. John Pultz (p. 47) alludes to the photo's similarity to many "Virgin and Child" paintings- (something I would not have thought of), which helps me appreciate the photo more.
I struggle with whether Migrant Mother was exploitative or not. In one sense, financially, I think it was. Lange was paid to be a documentary photographer, but she wasn't allowed to keep her own negatives. And that means that she never received any royalties, despite the record amount of times it was reproduced. That's exploitation. (But yet, it brought fame to Lange, who later had her own gallery showings). The subject herself (the mother) and her family obviously never gained anything financially from it either. However she became "immortal' in a way...
Professor Millett- Can you refer more to details from the photograph to support your points?
I'll begin with a visual reference demonstrating that Migrant Mother shared some attributes with the numerous "Virgin and Child" paintings from the Renaissance... while I don't think that Dorothea Lange made a conscious effort to do so, she nevertheless captured a similar dynamic with her photo. Many of these paintings depict a mother with a rather sad and detached expression on her face. It's probably no more than a coincidence, but most of us observers of Migrant Mother do have this sort of archetypal image in our subconscious, and so we make the connection (whether we realize it or not).
One important perspective I didn't address in the initial post- process and technique. In my opinion, the fact that Migrant Mother is a black and white photo adds to its poignancy. (But that's an opinion that's almost moot- since there's no color version to compare it to). Whoever cropped the image did a wonderful job- we can assume that it wasn't Lange, because our text reveals that these photographers for the FSA didn't have much control of their images. But yet, interestingly enough, Lange did re-touch the photo to remove someone's thumb in the foreground (Hurley, 43).
On page 41 of the text (PCI), the bottom left photo was taken from more of a distance than the others, and it shows how miserable this family's living conditions actually were. In a way, it is more honest than the up-close photo that became famous. But someone (at the FSA) realized that the shot was too depressing (as were the other alternates to a lesser degree). That's another point to consider- especially in this time period, there were editors who had considerable power in choosing what images became available to the public. Lange's best shot, per the text (Roberts 46) captures a quality that magazine editors "were waiting for: an image of tragedy AND resistance". In essence, it says to the many people concerned about the Depression: "if this woman can still function, then all of us can".
Finally, although the mother is obviously the focal point of the shot- the two sons who hide their faces and cower behind her add an important element... They're so young, but yet exhibit some form of shame or fear of anyone intruding on their personal space. Only the infant is unaware of their predicament. These three children "frame" the mother in a very important way.
@Chanda Platania:
I agree with you Chanda that the photo exploited its human subject(s) to a degree, but it seems that opinions vary widely among classmates. The definition of exploit: "make full use of and derive benefit from".
Lange "made full use of" the photo opportunity- she saw the poor woman & family, quickly asked their permission, snapped some pictures, and was on her way. It does seem very cold not to even ask a name.
As far as "deriving benefit from", it certainly didn't hurt the photographer's ensuing career. But we have to remember too that Lange didn't receive any royalties either for all the thousands of times it was reproduced- the rights and the negatives belonged to the FSA.
You can find more of the background story on the Internet. There was a husband/father for this family- he was away at the time of the photo with two of their older sons, having a part for the car being fixed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Owens_Thompson (Links to an external site.)
@Lacey Walls:
Excellent post, Lacey. I want to point out one little detail that you and many classmates (including myself) have assumed- that the two figures with their backs to the camera are boys. That's what I thought too, until I decided to Google around for more background on the photo. These children are girls, named Ruby and Katherine. It's the haircuts and clothes that fool us- definitely very boyish looking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Owens_Thompson (Links to an external site.)
The five alternate takes are in this Wiki article, and a listing of the subject's names. There were no boys present- they were helping their dad elsewhere.
icons at the top right corner of the subsection.