Photographs not as Documentation

The question that Baldwin Lee first answers in his presentation of Walker Evans' work was: "Are these photographs documentary?" Baldwin tells us Evans cringed at this statement; he never considered himself a documentary photographer. When at first viewing the exhibition, one cannot help but feel these photographs are documents of the Depression era. What is it that makes us feel something is documentary? Perhaps seeing a portrait of someone that is not portrayed formally, or maybe we know so much historical facts about this part of history that a photograph is just there to support it, thus making it a document of history. I have heard some claim the black and white makes a photograph feel like a document...maybe because they connect that with newsprint.

The question I ask is, can any photographs such as these be documentary? When I look at a photograph, the element of documentation often is there; in photographs of moments in the past and true landscapes, I find a sense of documentation because this photograph must have some truth. But as an artist, I know that it is just as possible for this photograph to be manipulated in order to enhance the artist's intent and invoke a certain response. Evans does not deny he skews the photograph to portray certain ideas. The first example Baldwin points out for us is Chester Bowls, the landlord. My first impression of this photograph was of his wrinkled suit coat. I wondered why he was photographed in wrinkled clothes if he was someone profiting. Baldwin exclaimed "he (Walker) wanted him to look like a buffoon!" That is why we cannot call it documentary.

The images to follow: the house with cardboard insulation, the shoe shine wall, the bed with flies are all images that makes us see the truth of what it was like to live then and there. The key is that Evans made choices about how and what we see. He was aware of his choices and was certain to utilize the images to create a certain message. This does not make the photograph any less impactful; what it does is makes us see. A passerby, scanning these photographs with no sense of what happened in these homes, would perhaps look and keep walking, but never see. As Baldwin emphasized, Evans wants us to realize that “seeing is harder than it looks” and the same goes for the viewer. Artists use manipulation and make choices about what we see so we can see. In that regard, one can appreciate that the photographs are not mere documents, but tools to catch the viewer’s attention to an issue that is obviously worth seeing.

-Biz Jurecki

I find it interesting when someone will tell me they never would have noticed something about an artwork if someone hadn't pointed it out to them. As an artist, myself, there are seldom any artworks that I could look at and analyze details accurately. Why do people who do not study art, but consider themselves to appreciate art, not notice the subtle meanings of the work? Does it matter if they do? Perhaps they are the better judges of artwork? When looking at the work of Evans in this exhibition, I say they are the viewers that interest me the most- those who claim to not know about art.

Art students are not taught the answers when looking at work. Sure, we are guided in directions of why an artwork is famous and are taught tools of analyzing and criticising work. But we see things that go beyond what is right in front of us because we have been trained to interpret, explain, and analyze how and why we feel about an artwork. Often during gallery talks and artist discussions, someone will say "I don't know anything about art stuff but..." and offer their input or question. I feel their responses to the work is extremely important and valuable.

Baldwin Lee explains to us that Evans created these images to make us a feel a certain way, to believe what he wants us to. I think he wants us to believe what he saw. The way he did this, may have taken extra manipulation and artistic eye. He may have had to incorporate little details such as the flies on the bed and three balls of cotton falling off the porch, to add to the effect of the image. I sense the "aha" moment in people "non-art" when they are pointed this out. Maybe they think the photograph means more to them now. To me, the important reaction is their first.

A lot of Evans work is about little subtleties he uses to enhance the meaning of the photograph. But those subtleties are not the most important part. The wholistic response is what Evans seems to be looking for. A quote that interested me was:

"I work rather blindly, and I don't think an awful lot about what I am doing. You are using your eyes all the time."

Evans means he is using his artistic eye naturally. When he says he uses his eyes all the time, he is always critically aware of the way something is portrayed. I think his eyes are doing the work for us and he knew we would have to feel a certain way when we look at his work.

The first reaction to an image is the best one. I find the "non-art" people to be the most honest. When a friend of mine first saw the exhibition, she said "I cannot believe how people had to live." Her reaction, without any insight from Baldwin Lee, was just as the exhibition is meant to invoke. Having the insight from the lecture makes us think about why our reactions are a certain way and the little things Evans did to get us to that point. Something any viewer must always ask themselves is why they feel that way without being told to feel that way.