Appreciation of Edward Curtis

runswithsizzers said:

even though the two are indistinguishable

Click to expand...

Assuming that's the case. I'm not so sure whether that was accurate in Curtis' staged shots.
However, we agree that these standards we do not necessarily have to impose on his work. And even if we were to do so, there would still be the notion that Curtis attempted in many ways to capture and record cultural heritage of the people he worked with - the photographs are just one aspect of his work. There's also the audio recordings and narratives, and while the latter are complex for similar reasons as the photographs, they're a unique document of cultures that were just about to vanish, or had already done so recently.
In Curtis, we're faced very much with the question whether it's preferable to have an imperfect piece of work, or nothing at all. The answer, I think, is obvious.

Btw, as to the prints, I never realized that the difference in print quality between the earlier and later volumes of The North American Indian was so great. The later prints really are much, much less compelling.

J.P. Morgan was a patron to photographer Edward S. Curtis, offering Curtis $75,000 in 1906, for his work --on Native Americans.
it is written that for his work --- 20 volumes with 1, 500 photographs. Morgan's funds were to be disbursed over five years and were earmarked to support only fieldwork for the books, not for writing, editing, or production of the volumes. Curtis received no salary for the project, which was to last more than 20 years. Under the terms of the arrangement, Morgan was to receive 25 sets and 500 original prints as repayment. Once Curtis had secured funding for the project, he was able to hire several employees to help him. For writing and for recording Native American languages, he hired a former journalist, William E. Myers. For general assistance with logistics and fieldwork, he hired Bill Phillips, a graduate of the University of Washington. Perhaps the most important hire for the success of the project was Frederick Webb Hodge, an anthropologist employed by the Smithsonian Institution.

So in the light of this E, Curtis work takes on a historical value...

joho said:

...

So in the light of this E, Curtis work takes on a historical value...

Click to expand...

I would hope that, despite the current criticisms, there would be no doubt about this fact.

Years ago I saw a short film clip of a moving Kwakiutl war canoe, apparently made by Curtis in 1914. Amazingly powerful.

BrianShaw said:

I would hope that, despite the current criticisms, there would be no doubt about this fact.

Click to expand...

So far, nobody expressed any at least in this thread. Neither do I expect anyone will, to be honest. The historical merit is too obvious for that, IMO.

Both Curtis and the ethnographers were dealing with leftover fragments. That is obvious enough. But in terms of artistic composition and effect, there is something timeless about many of his images, worthy in its own right.

The same could be said about Julia Cameron on a parallel appreciation thread - she posed a lot of stereotypes in the same pre-Rafaelite trend of the Victorian age as many others, but somehow transcended the genre itself through sheer intuition. My favorite photographer of the Navajo is Laura Gilpin, who shows her deep friendship and empathy in her own superb prints; they aren't just "subjects".

Likewise, Curtis elevated his assignment with something extra special, even if it was basically an epic romanticization. For example, that picture of the women at the well in Acoma posted earlier today was undoubtedly staged for precise compositional effect, but at the same time, captured their actual lifestyle for sake of posterity.
It not only tells a story, but does it eloquently enough to capture our attention.

But overall, I'd say that what Curtis did was more like writing a novel based on history, rather than making an actual documentary. I tend to look at his pictures as pictures, and not nitpick the details.

There were a few old Indians where I grew up still making arrow shafts and just leaving them in unfinished bundles, and sitting on their cabin front porches fashioning arrowheads out of beer bottle glass rather than obsidian. Neither front porches nor bottle glass were ethnographically correct, but it was their form of nostalgia. Logs and stumps for furniture were perhaps closer to the truth; I've certainly sat on those with some of them. It's all about memories.
Curtis created memories for us, just like all great photographers have.

For further reading;

runswithsizzers said:

This whole "authenticity" thing is kind of tricky.

Imagine some object -- such as a Chippendale chair or a Ming vase. Now imagine it is possible to make a reproduction of that object, so exact in materials and workmanship that no expert, nor any testing method can tell the difference. Most people would be delighted to own the original, but horrified to learn they have a reproduction, even though the two are indistinguishable. Lack of authenticity violates our sense of fairness even when there is no logical reason why it should.

If I photograph a Scotsman, let's say he is a Campbell, and I provide a plaid for him to wear, and that plaid is one of the tartans favored by the clan MacDonald.

A typically ill-informed viewer, myself included, might admire the portrait, and say, "That is a very fine portrait of a Scotsman; I really like that!" But someone who is familiar with the history of the Scottish clans and their tartans, is going to take one look and say, "WTF!" (or whatever is the Gaelic equivalent)

The success of a photograph depends on what we can see -- subject, light and composition. But how much does it also depend on what we know? From a strictly aesthetic point-of-view, putting a Campbell in a MacDonald tartan is not going to make much difference (especially so in black and white). But when we cross from the photographer's side of the asile to the ethnographer's side, putting a Campbell in a MacDonald tartan would be unacceptable, suggesting ignorance, laziness, or dishonesty.

But as @koraks has said, it's hardly fair to judge Curtis by the modern standards of a field of study that barely existed in his time. I am satisfied to enjoy his photos for their esthetic qualities and for the way he shows us the nobility of his subjects. Still, knowing what we know today, I would be uncomfortable if a modern showing of his work failed to mention, if only as a footnote, that his work may not always be an entirely authentic representation of his subject.

Click to expand...

It's not fairness but scarcity that affects the price and value. There can only be one original, but many less scarce copies. That makes the original more expensive.