Appreciation of Edward Curtis

[cliveh]

Clive

 

[koraks]

Even though he may not have invented the orotone, we do have to thank him for it sticking around. That, and several other things. His work has truly been seminal.

 

[Renato Tonelli]

His portrait of In Out Too Yah Lat Lat (aka, Chief Joseph) hangs above my desk.

 

[joho]

The works of Edward Curtis was a source of reference, from early days of starting "Rural Life"

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I wonder if the chief complained about Curtis cutting off part of the horns on his impressive headdress and violating one of the rules of photography?

 

[runswithsizzers]

View attachment 405959
Clive

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.

 

[cliveh]

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.

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.

 

[runswithsizzers]

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.

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.

If I understand him correctly, Bacon seems to saying we should avoid distorting or creating confusion in our photographs, and we should stick to showing our subject as it is(?) In other words, he seems to favor a more documentary approach over work that might be more "inventive" (creative). I think it is worth mentioning that the work of Curtis may be a slightly more creative and a little bit less documentary than some people might assume.

Or to put it yet another way, I think Bacon is asserting the superiority of science over art -- and Curtis may have been an artist as much as a scientist?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nearly all that Frontier ethos was over by the time Curtis showed up. Abandoned dances were reenacted, costumes were improvised and regalia dug out, a great deal was staged. Basically nostalgia. Given those obvious limitations, trying to reenact what was already past in all but a handful of pockets of the continent, he still made compelling timeless images, worthy in their own right. And certain subjects were still alive who were once icons of the last phases of Indian independence, whom he photographed with dignity. Quite a body of work, for someone who was basically retrieving breadcrumbs.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks that was interesting.

 

[koraks]

It is well known that Curtis did not always contemplate "things as they are," and he was sometimes guilty of "substitution" and "imposture."

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.

 

[joho]

koraks,
well said,,,
but ?? Curtis' work is highly problematic. ???

 

[koraks]

By today's standards, yes.

 

[joho]

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??

 

[DREW WILEY]

A few notable ethnographers were out and about before Curtis, and so were other photographers. I'm possibly the only person on this forum who has personally interviewed native North Americans who grew up prior to White contact. Their grandchildren were my classmates. Curtis might have taken his liberties; but it was nowhere near as egregious as today's stereotypical Indian cultural revivals and casino entertainment antics, which are about as authentic as a John Wayne movie set. Three of my old trail running buddies did start up a local school trying to salvage the last first hand information about their own ethnic group, along with teaching the dialect to a new generation. But right down the creek there's a little colony of what I call "hippie Indians" just making stuff up. A local authentic Indian basket by a master - the last of them was a close family friend, and has examples in the Smithsonian - might sell for $50,000. The kind that the hippie Indians make looks like something you can buy at a suburban mall crafts store for $2 apiece.

 

[BrianShaw]

...
what is By today's standards??

I think that means today's overly sensitive attitude where offense might taken at virtually anything/everything.

Many moons ago I was helping a family friend with genealogy and found his grandfather in a census, perhaps about 1900 (I can't recall exactly) and his ethnicity was documented as "half-breed". Today that term is unspeakable (and unwritable) but then it was simply descriptive.

Tomorrow I will be visiting Mag and the Curtis family. I do that periodically. I'll let him kow that this discussion is ongoing.

 

[MattKing]

I think that means today's overly sensitive attitude where offense might taken at virtually anything/everything.

Or perhaps today's more appropriately sensitive attitude - one that takes into account many important values that in the past were often ignored or downplayed, because they came from a different background and perspective.
Edward Curtis was important, but much of his work reflects his need to sell it to a market that did not include the subjects of his most famous photographs.

 

[BrianShaw]

Could be, Matt. Societal attitudes change for all sorts of reasons and that’s one way to explain such changes.

 

[koraks]

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??

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.

I think that means today's overly sensitive attitude where offense might taken at virtually anything/everything.

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.

Please note that the gist of what I said earlier is that we need to see Curtis' work within the context of his time. To reiterate: if we apply today's ethical and academic standards to his work, it's highly problematic. So the solution is simple: don't apply those standards to it.

 

[snusmumriken]

He photographed canoes, more than once, so he was definitely an OK guy.

(Image from internet)

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Half breeds"? Intermarriage between Whites and Indians was routine where I came from; and I never heard that expression used, although I am certainly aware of its existence in certain demographic settings. Early pioneering families who didn't take that route ended up literally inbred, with all kinds of mental problems. The problem now is that very few "Indians" look Indian at all. In fact, one can be only 1/8th a still legally fall into that classification. Most of the ones I personally knew growing up were still 100%. Many dear friends, plus a few really dangerous ones too. What killed off their self-identity more than anything else was the introduction of Casino culture.

 

[Arthurwg]

I recently found a copy of "Sites & Structures: The Architectural Photographs of Edward S. Curtis." Absolutely fantastic.

 

[connealy]

I only recently became aware of

Heart of the Circle

Photographs by Edward S. Curtis of Native American Women

Edited by Sara Day

I think his fine portraits in that book effectively refute the negative criticisms of his approach.

 

[runswithsizzers]

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Curtis was a master of outdoor stagecraft. The majority of shots were re-creations of things already past. Exceptions included the still ongoing SW Pueblos and some of the Navajo nation. Geronimo, the famous Apache, made his living later in life posing for photographers and tourists in wild west shows and fairs, sometimes himself in ethnically inauthentic stereotypical regalia. He was the star; they were the papparzi. So it wasn't just people like Curtis and Buffalo Bill Cody stretching the truth. Geronimo understood marketing too.

Frontier photographers went to great lengths to outdo one another. One of them had a camera so massive that it took carpenters two or three days to build a scaffold for each set. The plates were four feet across. I was lucky enough to see a couple of the very few contact prints made from that collection. The museum in Colorado had no way to safely keep those flammable celluloid negatives, so deliberately destroyed them all.