https://holliwomble2.home.blog/
Brief:
Martha Rosler believed that the social conscience of well-meaning photographers such as Lewis Hine was not helping the social situation because it reinforced the gap between rich and poor. She argued that the need for the poor to rely on the rich for sustenance and social change is not beneficial in the long term and that it’s simply a way of reinforcing hierarchical structures imposed by capitalism.
“…which political battles have been fought and won by someone for someone else?” (Rosler (1981) in Bolton, 1992, p.307)
Research:
Two of the documentary photographers referred to by Rosler who both photographed the poor in the late 1800s and early 1900s were; Lewis Hine and Jacob Riis. Each had a very different approach to their subject matter and offered different perspectives to their viewers.
Jacob Riis (1849 1914) “His (Riis’) work highlighted a world which was unseen by many of his readership “Riis was determined to show his readers that the vast majority of the poor were normal, hardworking people facing enormously adverse circumstances. As he visited the slums of New York, Riis made an effort to learn more about the various issues the poor faced, from the spread of disease to crime to overcrowding.” (eNotes.com.2019)
Jacob Riis’ book “How the Other Half Lives” combined his expose style of photography with moral and radical text. Martha Rosler’s opinion of such documentary photographers may well apply to Jacob Riis’ work. Riis produced images that were of a sensationalist nature (Bate.2009) and his work alone did not achieve any improvement in the lives of the people he photographed despite that being one of his aims. However, his work is recognised as the start of documentary photography. (Clarke 1997) And later documentary photography achieved far more.
Lewis Hine (1874-1940) reportedly declared himself as a “sociological photographer” (Clarke. 1997) Hine also photographed the poor, including; children working in factories, sweatshops, immigrants, etc. but he published his work in order to campaign for change. In describing Hine’s work Clarke wrote: “The figures remain ascendant, free of the propagandist or polemic intentions on the part of the photographer.” I see Hine’s work as “straight” photography rather than being artificially nuanced or created for effect. I would describe Hine’s approach as “outsider” photography although he still retains the trust of those that he photographed. Lewis Hine’s work is cited as helping to change child labour laws. (The Guardian. 2018)
My thoughts on Martha Rosler’s essay are complex. Rosler’s essay was written in 1981, almost 100 years after Riis’ infamous book was published. I think that the context in which we view these images is very different now to what it would have been at the time. Yes, there are essays written closer to the time but even these would only be the opinion of the writer. So, who is the most valid? The opinions of the writer or the opinions of the original photographer, or perhaps the editor of any publication that the images were seen in?
Rosler’s perspective appears to be entirely photography-centric, but I believe that it is the social structures and the perspective of different social classes that provide contextual “reality” and this would have been an experienced reality, clearly understood by most with or without photography. Any gap between the wealthy and the poor was there already and photographing it would have been unlikely to reinforce it.
Rosler’s argument is that the images are voyeuristic for upper-class consumption, but such voyeurism is only possible if a social class and wealth divide existed. Surely the wealthy classes were somewhat aware of the deprivation and suffering of the poor, even if the detail was not. Photography worked by bringing such issues to the forefront of societies consciousness in all of its gritty and uncomfortable details. Nevertheless, nothing seen would have come as a complete surprise to many, for daily life would bring the classes together, albeit on neutral ground with neither really venturing into the other’s territory.
A modern-day facsimile to this style of documentary photography are images taken from inside slaughterhouses or meat processing plants. Vegetarian/vegan interest groups will publish images in a sensationalist style, the meat industry, on the other hand, will publish very different ones. As a society, there are many people who will use one set of images or the other to justify and reinforce their beliefs. But the majority will recognise that there is truth in both positions and probably just try and distance the images from their thoughts. I doubt that the human condition has changed so much in 100 years, or that our thought process has evolved to such a high plane that we respond much differently now as to how we did then.
I would suggest that Riis and Hine’s photography exposed, highlighted, or brought clarity to the issues created by poverty. The term reinforcement suggests a shoring up or strengthening of the barriers between social classes rather than help break them down. Here, history demonstrates quite clearly that the severe differences between living standards of the social classes of the late 1800s and early 1900s no longer exist. Documentary photography has been recognised by many as helping with that change.
Rosler wrote her essay in 1981. She published a set of images in 2011 entitled “Greenpoint Project”. Her images are not sensational like Riis and not propaganda like Hine, but there is a similarity. Rosler shows us images of people from a poorer part of New York City. The images are personal, an insider’s perspective. They say to me “this is how it is” But isn’t the lack of shock or discomfort simply because the gap between wealthy and poor has diminished and most of society now sits in the comparatively comfortable middle ground. I am compelled to consider what if Rosler was born in the 1800’s? What would the context of her photographs have been then? Finally, I suggest that there are people in this world of sufficient wealth that for them Rosler’s images would be consumed in a voyeuristic way.
The bigger discussion rather than the debate over Riis and Hine’s work should be about society and the human condition in general with its inherent complexity and social intransigence. These problems far outweigh the impact of a small number of photographic images. That being said, you have to start a journey from somewhere. Riis and Hine were there at the beginning of a movement whose momentum grew over time to a point where society was changed for the better.
References:
Bate,D. (2009). Photography the Key Concepts. 1stEdition. Oxford: Berg
Clarke, G. (1997). The Photograph. 1stEdition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
eNotes Editorial. (2019) How the Other Half Lives – Overview. [Online] eNotes PublishingEd. eNotes.com, Inc. eNotes.com. Available from: http://www.enotes.com/topics/how-other-half-lives#overview-overview-1. Last Accessed 30/05/2019.
The Guardian. (2018). The photos that changed America: celebrating the work of Lewis Hine [Online] The Guardian Newspaper. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2018/feb/15/lewis-hine-photographs-child-labor-ellis-island. Last Accessed 30/05/2019
Rosler, M. (1981) In, around and afterthoughts (on documentary photography) [Online]. available from: http://web.pdx.edu/~vcc/Seminar/Rosler_photo.pdf. Last Accessed 30/05/2019.
Rosler, M. Photos and Photomontages. [Online] Martharosler.net. Available from: http://www.martharosler.net/photo/index.html. Last accessed 30/05/2019.


