Added Interpretations

A historical photograph can have various interpretations depending on the individual who is studying it.  In the article, “Image and Artifact: The Photograph as Evidence in the Digital Age,” Martha A. Sandweiss discusses the importance of the photographer’s purpose in creating the image.  This information adds depth to the knowledge about the photograph and adds to the historian’s interpretation of the image (194). 

Judith Fryer Davidov discusses the photographs of the Japanese internment camps in an article for The Yale Journal of Criticism.  I found the section on Ansel Adams particularly interesting.  Davidov notes that Adams documented the internment in a “positive, ‘thoroughly…American’ way” (233).  According to Davidov, Adams’ intention is to reflect this act in a positive way.  But the historical analysis of this event in history is in stark contrast to this depiction.  This example shows how a photographer’s intent can be one thing, but the image can actually be something else.  But the knowledge of the photographer’s original intent is an important consideration when analyzing photographs, after all, the image would not exist without the act of the photographer deciding to take the image.

 

LC-A35-5-M-39. Mrs. Yaeko Nakamura and family buying toys with Fred Moriguchi, Manzanar Relocation Center / photograph by Ansel Adams. Part of: Adams, Ansel, 1902- Manzanar War Relocation Center photographs

In the same article, Davidov also writes about Toyo Miyatake, a photographer that was imprisoned at Manzanar.  While the subjects depicted in his photographs of Manzanar are not that different from Adams, the intent is completely different.  He was documenting something that was happening to him and his community.  In his pictures he emphasized the American aspects to show they were just the same as other U.S. citizens.  It was not conformity, it was them trying to have some aspect of their normal lives (Davidov 236).

 

Image of Toy Loan Center. Manzanar Relocation Center. Photo copyrighted by Toyo Miyatake .

In these cases, the photographer’s intention is what provides the context for the image.  The content is similar, but does not represent what the image was created for.  This information is essential to the understanding and the interpretation of the image.

In her article, Sandweiss also notes that an individual can go further by looking at the subject of the photograph’s interpretation (Sandweiss 194).  And the relationship between the photographer’s and the subject’s interpretation can lead to an even richer understanding of the image.

Sandweiss cites a few different articles that are in the same issue of The Journal of American History.  Two stories that are noted are the stories of the photograph of rescuer Anthony Fernandez and his search and rescue dog after the Oklahoma City bombing.  One story is from the perspective of the photographer, David Allen, and the other story is from the viewpoint of the subject, Anthony Fernandez.  It really adds a new dimension to ‘reading’ photographs when you have the different interpretations of the same image from people that are directly related to the image.

Allen’s article, “An Image from Oklahoma City,” goes through the events that led up to the photograph of the rescue worker.  This photograph has become such a powerful image during the tragedy of the Oklahoma City bombing.  He describes capturing the special moment between Fernandez and his dog.  He writes about his emotional connection with the image.  He notes that people have told him that the image “exemplifies the effort that went into trying to find survivors trapped in the Murrah Building”(Allen 177).  His description of the photograph really shows that he felt compassion and felt that the image reflected the toll the tragedy had taken on everyone in the community.  He was thankful for this man’s rescue efforts.

Anthony“Skip” Fernandez III rests and protects his search and rescue canine, Aspen,after a twelve-hour shift searching for survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing. April 26, 1996.  Photo by David Allen. From Journal of American History.

After I read Allen’s account of the photograph, I read about the photograph from the subject’s perspective, Anthony Fernandez.  Fernandez also describes the events leading up to the time of the photograph.  He does not remember the photograph being taken, and he even describes actively protecting his dog, Aspen, from having her photograph taken (Fernandez 182).  His reaction to the photograph was one of disbelief and a desire for it to go away.  He did not want or feel that he deserved the attention.  But the image had struck a chord with viewers.  Sandweiss notes that the image became an “embarrassment” for Fernandez and singles him out above the other rescue workers (Sandweiss 194).  His story truly adds a new light to the reading of this image and allows for a new depth of understanding for the viewer/historian.

A similar image to this one is the image of firefighter Mike Kehoe taken on 9/11.  The photograph was taken by someone evacuating one of the Twin Towers while Kehoe was climbing up the stairway in the line of duty.  Mike Kehoe became the face of the bravery shown by firefighters that day.  Shortly after this photograph was taken, Kehoe and others were given the order to evacuate (Morse).  Kehoe is quoted as saying “I saved one person that day, and that was me, and it was by running for my life” (Morse).  While everyone saw Kehoe as a hero, he did not feel himself to be one.  Does this change how we perceive this photograph?  Does it change the meaning of the photograph?  I think that his feelings about the photograph do not diminish the powerful nature of the photograph.  People will still consider him a hero.  His narrative adds more to the photograph, we see the frightened look in his eyes and yet he still goes up the stairs.  His perspective adds more depth of feeling to the interpretation of the image.  I do not have the photographer’s story on this image, but it is interesting to see the difference in how the viewers have interpreted this image and how that contrasts with Kehoe’s own vision of himself that day.

Mike Kehoe as he ascends Tower One. Photo by John Labriola.

Understanding images in an archive can be challenging at times.  Sandweiss has brought up some interesting points and suggests that having the photographer’s perspective and the subject’s perspective add a new level of understanding to an image.  From the examples I looked at, these interpretations add important information to the context of the image and its creation.  This information would not be available if all we look at is what the image is of.  We see this in the photographs of Manzanar, while they are taken in the same location and have similar subject content, the information about their creation has become the important distinguishing factor in their interpretation.  In the case of the photographs of the rescue workers, their own accounts add a new depth that is rarely available for historic images.  But these narratives give a voice to the subject and provide a different interpretation than the one intended by the photographer.  This amount of information is a valuable asset to have for any historian, and if it is possible, it is important to note all available interpretations and contexts of an image for future researchers.

References:

Allen, David. "An Image From Oklahoma City." Journal Of American History 94.1 (2007): 172-178.

Davidov, Judith Fryer. The Color of My Skin, the Shape of My Eyes": Photographs of the Japanese-American Internment by Dorothea Lange, Ansel Adams, and Toyo Miyatake. The Yale Journal of Criticism. 9, no. 2 (Fall 1996): 223-244.

Fernandez III, Anthony. "Remembering The Oklahoma City Bombing." Journal Of American History 94.1 (2007): 179-182.

Morse, Jodie. “Gory in the Glare.” Time. 158/159. 28/1 (2001):96.

Sandweiss, Martha A. "Image And Artifact: The Photograph As Evidence In The

            Digital Age." Journal Of American History 94.1 (2007): 193-202.