To point
out the ways that ideas work subtly through the medium of documentary
is not to foreclose the possibility that such photographs have many productive
truths to share with us as historical documents. Such a critique should
invite creative ways of reimagining the method or the various mediations
involved in documentary photography so as to open up richer interpretations.
FSA historian Nicholas Natanson points out that "as visual texts, as 'readable'
documents, photographs are both supremely compelling and supremely slippery-
emerging as odd syntheses of what has been captured by intention (the
photographer's, often mixed with the subject's) and what has developed
through serendipity, or through 'subliminal vision,' as photo-historian
Richard Whelan calls it" (7). This vision of the process of documentary
photography touches upon the degree of complicated and problematic collaboration
going on between photographer and subject and emphasizes the subtle ways
documentary can manipulate its viewers without making the leap to the
determinist position that all documentary images emerge from a program
of fixed ideology.
|
|
2
|
|
|
Juliet Gorman, May 2001
|
|
|