First, let me say, I love the work of Edward Curtis. I recognize the importance of his work as a photographer, and as someone who made a great effort to document the indigenous people of North America. His empathy and respect for his subjects is obvious in his photographs, and I appreciate that.
However, I think seeing your signature:
"The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention" - Francis Bacon
... Seeing this quote in association with a discussion about Edward Curtis, is somewhat ironic. It is well known that Curtis did not always contemplate "things as they are," and he was sometimes guilty of "substitution" and "imposture."
On the the Smithsonian webpage devoted to Edward Curtis, it says (emphasis mine),
"Between 1900 and 1930, Curtis traveled across the continent photographing more than seventy Native American tribes. The photographs presented daily activities, customs, and religions of a people he called “a vanishing race.” To this end, Curtis often staged his subjects and set up scenes, mixing tribal artifacts and traditions to match his romanticized vision of the people he studied."
In my mind, Curtis (and every other photographer) had/has the right to stage his photographs however he wants. Artists take "artistic liberties" -- always have and always will. This is what we pay artists for, to show us alternate realities. Myth-making is a longstanding tradition in the arts, whether through poetry, literature, painting or photography. However, I think the line between myth-making and stereotyping is not always clear, and it is the viewer's responsibility to try to make that distinction, whenever possible.
Yes, I realize the juxtaposition of the Francis Bacon quote and Edward Curtis in your post was almost random, and not something intentional on your part. But still, I think the Bacon quote does have something to do with Edward Curtis.My inclusion of the quote by Francis Bacon, has nothing to do with Edward Curtis. I appreciate many photographic styles that are very different to my own.
Certainly; it's well-known. What's less known, or at least people are less aware of it, is how to interpret Curtis' choices within the context of his era. He was essentially working on the interface of ethnography (a field that barely existed, at least academically, when he was working in it), artistry and entrepreneurship. As to the methodological aspects of his work, it's wise to keep in mind that the methodological rigor we often expect from practitioners and researchers far exceeds what was common over a century ago. Simply put, things we much more informal back then and the degrees of freedom more expansive. By today's standards, Curtis' work is highly problematic. But he didn't make it to meet today's standards. It's us who can choose to impose those standards on his work - or not.It is well known that Curtis did not always contemplate "things as they are," and he was sometimes guilty of "substitution" and "imposture."
...
what is By today's standards??
I think that means today's overly sensitive attitude where offense might taken at virtually anything/everything.
Try this: you, as a modern photographer, travel to the US. You seek out a couple of people who are direct descendants of the original population of the Americas. You have brought with you some nice headdresses with eagle feathers and some woven robes with geometric patterns. Throw in a peace pipe as well. You then ask these people to dress up with the attributes you've brought for them, and ask them to take place in a teepee you've set up for them. Then you photograph them, then print the photographs in a book that documents native American culture. See what kind of responses you get.in what way ??
if what you mean is that his work was at the end point of Indian way of life ??
what is By today's standards??
Society has become more receptive to the viewpoints of people who happen to not be part of the dominant cultural contingent. It's one of the areas in which we've made some progress. Not enough, but quite a bit.I think that means today's overly sensitive attitude where offense might taken at virtually anything/everything.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?