1,600 Rare Color Photographs Depict Life in the U.S During the Great Depression & World War II

The title of Walk­er Evans and James Agee’s extra­or­di­nary work of lit­er­ary pho­to­jour­nal­ism, Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, may have lost some of its iron­ic edge with sub­se­quent acclaim and the fame of its writer and pho­tog­ra­ph­er. First begun in 1936 as a project doc­u­ment­ing the large­ly invis­i­ble lives of white share­crop­ping fam­i­lies in rur­al Alaba­ma, when the book appeared in print in 1941 it only sold about 600 copies. But over time, writes Mal­colm Jones at Dai­ly Beast, “it has estab­lished itself as a unique and endur­ing mashup of report­ing, con­fes­sion, and orac­u­lar prose.” As essen­tial as Agee’s doc­u­men­tary prose poet­ics is to the book’s appeal, Evans’ pho­tographs, like those of his many Depres­sion-era con­tem­po­raries, have served as mod­els for gen­er­a­tions of pho­tog­ra­phers in decades hence.

Evans “pho­tographs are not illus­tra­tive,” wrote Agee in the Pref­ace. “They, and the text, are coequal, mutu­al­ly inde­pen­dent, and ful­ly col­lab­o­ra­tive.” If “the text was writ­ten with read­ing aloud in mind,” and Agee want­ed us to hear, not sim­ply see the lan­guage, per­haps we are also meant to see the indi­vid­u­als Evans cap­tured, rather than just gaze at weath­ered faces and bat­tered cloth­ing, and view their bear­ers col­lec­tive­ly as for­lorn objects of pity.

More­over, we shouldn’t look at these indi­vid­u­als only as mem­bers of a par­tic­u­lar nation­al group. In the book’s first para­graph, Agee writes:

The world is our home. It is also the home of many, many oth­er chil­dren, some of whom live in far-away lands. They are our world broth­ers and sis­ters….

We are meant to see the sub­jects of Evans’ pho­tographs and Agee’s exquis­ite descrip­tions as dis­tinc­tive parts who make up the whole of humanity—or, more pre­cise­ly, the world’s labor­ing peo­ple. Agee opens with a famous epi­graph from The Com­mu­nist Man­i­festo: “Work­ers of the world, unite and fight. You have noth­ing to lose but your chains, and a world to win.” (With a can­ny qual­i­fy­ing foot­note explain­ing these words and their author as poten­tial­ly “the prop­er­ty of any polit­i­cal par­ty, faith, or fac­tion”).

Sev­er­al pho­tog­ra­phers employed, like Evans, by the Farm Secu­ri­ty Admin­is­tra­tion dur­ing the Great Depres­sion shared these sen­si­bil­i­ties. The sym­pa­thies of Dorothea Lange, for exam­ple, lay with work­ing peo­ple, not with the noblesse oblige of mid­dle-class audi­ences who might sup­port relief efforts but who had lit­tle desire to min­gle with the great Amer­i­can unwashed. Many viewers—disconnected from rur­al life—stared at the pho­tographs, writes Car­rie Melis­sa Jones, “in issues of the now-defunct Life mag­a­zine, Time, For­tune, Forbes, and more,” and “took a pater­nal­is­tic view of the south, ask­ing: ‘How do we save them from them­selves?’”

Can view­ers of Depres­sion-era pho­tographs today put aside their implic­it or explic­it sense of moral supe­ri­or­i­ty? Per­haps see­ing pho­tos of the era in col­or brings their sub­jects more imme­di­a­cy and vivid­ness, and you can see them by the hun­dreds at the Library of Congress’s online col­lec­tion of work com­mis­sioned by the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment dur­ing the Depres­sion and World War II. Evans him­self may have thought col­or pho­tog­ra­phy “gar­ish” and “vul­gar,” Jor­dan G. Teich­er notes at Slate (though Evans began tak­ing his own col­or images in 1946). But con­tem­po­raries like Rus­sell Lee, Mar­i­on Post Wol­cott, Jack Delano, and John Vachon proved him wrong.

At the top of the post, see two pho­tos from Lee—of two home­stead­ers in New Mex­i­co (1940) and a shep­herd with his horse and dog in Mon­tana (1942). Beneath that, we have Wolcott’s strik­ing pho­to of a rur­al cab­in some­where “in South­ern U.S.,” cir­ca 1940. Fur­ther up, see Delano’s image of share­crop­pers chop­ping cot­ton in White Plains, Geor­gia (1941), which resem­bles the hero­ic fig­ures in a Diego Rivera mur­al. And just above we have John Vachon’s image of rur­al school chil­dren in San Augus­tine Coun­ty, Texas (1943). As we scan these faces and places, we might con­sid­er again Agee’s pref­ace: “The gov­ern­ing instrument—which is also one of the cen­ters of the subject—is indi­vid­ual, anti-author­i­ta­tive human con­scious­ness.” His instruc­tions invite us to both empa­thy for each per­son we see and to broad human sym­pa­thy for all of them.

Once the U.S. entered the war, many Farm Secu­ri­ty Admin­is­tra­tion pho­tog­ra­phers were reas­signed to make pro­pa­gan­da for the Office of War Infor­ma­tion (and a few, like Lange, also received com­mis­sions to pho­to­graph the Japan­ese Intern­ment Camps). The nature of doc­u­men­tary pho­tog­ra­phy began to change, large­ly reflect­ing small town Amer­i­can indus­tri­ous­ness and civic pride, rather than rur­al des­per­a­tion and strug­gle. Images like Fen­no Jacobs’ patri­ot­ic demon­stra­tion in Southing­ton Con­necti­cut (1942) above, are typ­i­cal. Quaint rows of hous­es and store­fronts dom­i­nate dur­ing the war years. We also find inter­est­ing images like that of the woman below work­ing on a “Vengeance” dive bomber in Ten­nessee, tak­en by Alfred T. Palmer in 1943. Aside from the dat­ed cloth­ing and machin­ery, her pho­to­graph seems as fresh and com­pelling as the day it first appeared.

“In col­or,” writes Emory University’s Jesse Karls­berg, “these images present them­selves as rel­e­vant to the present, rather than con­signed to the past. By dis­play­ing the prob­lems they depict—such as seg­re­ga­tion, pover­ty, and envi­ron­men­tal degradation—in a con­tem­po­rary form, the images imply that such prob­lems may con­tin­ue to be crit­i­cal today.” They are indeed crit­i­cal today. And may become even more so. And one hopes that writ­ers, pho­tog­ra­phers, and artists, though they will not do so under the aegis of New Deal agen­cies, can find ways to doc­u­ment what is hap­pen­ing as they did decades ago. Such work car­ries glob­al sig­nif­i­cance. And, as a recent Taschen book that col­lects New Deal pho­tog­ra­phy from 1935 to 1943 describes it, pho­tographs like those you see here “intro­duced Amer­i­ca to Amer­i­cans.” They also intro­duced Americans—who have been as divid­ed in the past as they are today—to each oth­er.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Found: Lost Great Depres­sion Pho­tos Cap­tur­ing Hard Times on Farms, and in Town

Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, Clem Albers & Fran­cis Stewart’s Cen­sored Pho­tographs of a WWII Japan­ese Intern­ment Camp

Yale Launch­es an Archive of 170,000 Pho­tographs Doc­u­ment­ing the Great Depres­sion

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Photographer Nan Goldin Now on Instagram

A quick heads up: Back in August, Cindy Sher­man, one of the best-known pho­tog­ra­phers work­ing today, launched an Insta­gram account where she has post­ed 600 new pho­tos and strange self-por­traits. Now you can look for­ward to explor­ing an Insta­gram account belong­ing to anoth­er influ­en­tial Amer­i­can pho­tog­ra­ph­er, Nan Goldin. So far, you’ll only find 19 pho­tos, includ­ing the one above, cap­tioned as “Self por­trait as a Dom­i­na­trix Boston 1977 (a long time ago).” But hope­ful­ly that’s just the begin­ning.

Gold­in’s Insta­gram account makes its debut at the same time that Stei­dl Books has re-released Nan Goldin: The Beau­ti­ful Smile–the mem­oir in which Goldin famous­ly pho­tographed, writes The New York Times, the sub­jects who “have been those clos­est to her: Trans­sex­u­als, cross-dressers, drug users, lovers, all peo­ple she befriend­ed when she moved to New York” and who lived in what main­stream crit­ics would cold­ly call the ‘mar­gins of soci­ety’.” The high­ly-praised book is now out again.

via Hyper­al­ler­gic

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Cindy Sherman’s Insta­gram Account Goes Pub­lic, Reveal­ing 600 New Pho­tos & Many Strange Self-Por­traits

Say What You Real­ly Mean with Down­load­able Cindy Sher­man Emoti­cons

Muse­um of Mod­ern Art (MoMA) Launch­es Free Course on Look­ing at Pho­tographs as Art

The First Photographs of Snowflakes: Discover the Groundbreaking Microphotography of Wilson “Snowflake” Bentley (1885)

What kind of a blight­ed soci­ety turns the word “snowflake” into an insult?, I some­times catch myself think­ing, but then again, I’ve nev­er under­stood why “tree­hug­ger” should offend. All irony aside, being known as a per­son who loves nature or resem­bles one of its most ele­gant cre­ations should be a mark of dis­tinc­tion, no? At least that’s what Wil­son “Snowflake” Bent­ley sure­ly thought.

The Ver­mont farmer, self-edu­cat­ed nat­u­ral­ist, and avid pho­tog­ra­ph­er, was the first per­son to offer the fol­low­ing wis­dom on the record, then illus­trate it with hun­dreds upon hun­dreds of pic­tures of snowflakes, 5,000 in all:

I found that snowflakes were mir­a­cles of beau­ty; and it seemed a shame that this beau­ty should not be seen and appre­ci­at­ed by oth­ers. Every crys­tal was a mas­ter­piece of design and no one design was ever repeat­ed. When a snowflake melt­ed, that design was for­ev­er lost. Just that much beau­ty was gone, with­out leav­ing any record behind.

Bent­ley left a con­sid­er­able record—though still an insignif­i­cant sam­ple size giv­en the scope of the object of study. But his pho­tographs give the impres­sion of an infi­nite vari­ety of dif­fer­ent types, each with the same basic crys­talline lat­tice­work struc­ture. He took his first pho­to­graph of a snowflake, the first ever tak­en, in 1885, by adapt­ing a micro­scope to a bel­lows cam­era, after years of mak­ing sketch­es and much tri­al and error.

Some great por­tion of this work must have been tedious and frustrating—Bentley had to hold his breath for each expo­sure lest he destroy the pho­to­graph­ic sub­ject. But it was worth the effort. Bent­ley, the Smith­son­ian informs us, “was a pio­neer in ‘pho­tomi­crog­ra­phy,’ the pho­tograph­ing of very small objects.” Five hun­dred of his pho­tographs now reside at the Smith­son­ian Insti­tu­tion Archives, “offered by Bent­ley in 1903 to pro­tect against ‘all pos­si­bil­i­ty of loss and destruc­tion, through fire or acci­dent.” You can see a huge dig­i­tal gallery of those hun­dreds of pho­tos here.

Along with U.S. Weath­er Bureau physi­cist William J. Humphreys, he pub­lished 2300 of his snowflake pho­tographs in a mono­graph titled Snow Crys­tals. Bent­ley also pub­lished over 60 arti­cles on the sub­ject (read two of them here). Despite his con­tri­bu­tions, he receives no men­tion in most his­to­ries of pho­tomi­crog­ra­phy. This may be due to his provin­cial loca­tion (he nev­er left Jeri­cho, VT) or his lack of sci­en­tif­ic train­ing and cre­den­tials, or a lack of inter­est in pho­tos of snowflakes on the part of most pho­tomi­crog­ra­phy his­to­ri­ans.

Or it may be because Bent­ley was thought to be a fraud. When a Ger­man mete­o­rol­o­gist com­mis­sioned some images of his own and got some very dif­fer­ent results, he accused the farmer of retouch­ing. Bent­ley read­i­ly admit­ted it, say­ing, “a true sci­en­tist wish­es above all to have his pho­tographs as true to nature as pos­si­ble, and if retouch­ing will help in this respect, then it is ful­ly jus­ti­fied.”

The defense is a good one. Although the “nature” Bentley’s pho­tos show us may be a the­o­ret­i­cal ide­al­iza­tion, so too are the hand-ren­dered illus­tra­tions of most sci­en­tists through­out his­to­ry (and near­ly every med­ical dia­gram today). Take, for exam­ple, the psy­che­del­ic, bright­ly col­ored pat­terns of accom­plished biol­o­gist Ernst Haeck­el, who turned the micro- and macro­scop­ic world into sur­re­al­ly sym­met­ri­cal art in his draw­ings. Though he might not have said so direct­ly, Bent­ley was doing some­thing sim­i­lar with a cam­era. Just lis­ten to him describe his process in a 1900 issue of Harper’s:

Quick, the first flakes are com­ing; the couri­ers of the com­ing snow storm. Open the sky­light, and direct­ly under it place the care­ful­ly pre­pared black­board, on whose ebony sur­face the most minute form of frozen beau­ty may be wel­come from cloud-land. The mys­ter­ies of the upper air are about to reveal them­selves, if our hands are deft and our eyes quick enough.

In the “qui­et fren­zy of his winter’s quest,” writes Alli­son Meier at Hyper­al­ler­gic, he pro­duced images of “beau­ti­ful ghosts from a win­ter that bris­tled the air over a cen­tu­ry ago.” Learn more about Bentley’s life, work, and the Smith­son­ian col­lec­tion in the short doc­u­men­tary fur­ther up, the Wash­ing­ton Post video above, and the Radi­o­lab episode below, in which a breath­less Latif Nass­er takes us into the heart of Bentley’s ori­gin sto­ry, and “snowflake expert and pho­tog­ra­ph­er Ken Lib­brecht helps set the record straight.”

Real snowflakes have many imper­fec­tions, and per­haps Bent­ley did snow a dis­ser­vice to so stren­u­ous­ly sug­gest oth­er­wise. But the record he left us, Meier notes, “is appre­ci­at­ed as much as an artis­tic archive as a mete­o­ro­log­i­cal one.” He might have been a sci­en­tist when it came to tech­nique, but Bent­ley was a roman­tic when it came to snow. His sto­ry is as fas­ci­nat­ing as his pho­tographs. Maybe a delight­ful alter­na­tive to the usu­al Christ­mas fare. There’s even a chil­dren’s book called… what else?…  Snowflake Bent­ley.

via Smith­son­ian/Hyper­al­ler­gic

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Behold the Very First Col­or Pho­to­graph (1861): Tak­en by Scot­tish Physi­cist (and Poet!) James Clerk Maxwell

See the First Pho­to­graph of a Human Being: A Pho­to Tak­en by Louis Daguerre (1838)

The First Known Pho­to­graph of Peo­ple Shar­ing a Beer (1843)

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Annie Leibovitz Teaches Photography in Her First Online Course

FYI: If you sign up for a Mas­ter­Class course by click­ing on the affil­i­ate links in this post, Open Cul­ture will receive a small fee that helps sup­port our oper­a­tion.

John Lennon and Yoko Ono, Dol­ly Par­ton and Arnold Schwarzeneg­ger, Barack Oba­ma and fam­i­ly, Bruce Spring­steen, Whoopi Gold­berg, Bill Gates, Queen Eliz­a­beth II, Lady Gaga: name some­one who has risen to the very top of the zeit­geist over the past few decades, and Annie Lei­bovitz has prob­a­bly pho­tographed them. Her images, in fact, have often come to stand for the images of her sub­jects in the cul­ture: when we think of cer­tain celebri­ties, we instinc­tive­ly imag­ine them as they appeared on a Lei­bovitz-shot cov­er of Rolling Stone or Van­i­ty Fair. Safe to say, then, that she knows a thing or two about how to take a pic­ture that makes an impact.

The peo­ple at online edu­ca­tion com­pa­ny Mas­ter­class have now pack­aged that knowl­edge in “Annie Lei­bovitz Teach­es Pho­tog­ra­phy,” a course that joins their exist­ing line­up that includes Helen Mir­ren on act­ingSteve Mar­tin on com­e­dyWern­er Her­zog on film­mak­ing, and Her­bie Han­cock on jazz. For a price of $90 (or $180 for a year-long pass to all of their class­es), Mas­ter­class offers a pack­age of work­book-accom­pa­nied video lessons in which “Annie teach­es you how to devel­op con­cepts, work with sub­jects, shoot with nat­ur­al light, and bring images to life in post-pro­duc­tion.”

The ear­ly lessons in “Annie Lei­bovitz Teach­es Pho­tog­ra­phy” cov­er sub­jects like mem­o­ries of her own devel­op­ment as a pho­tog­ra­ph­er to dis­cus­sions of her influ­ences and her view of the medi­um itself. Lat­er on, she gets into the real-life case study of shoot­ing chef Alice Waters for Van­i­ty Fair, dig­i­tal post-pro­duc­tion, how to come up with the right con­cept (ide­al­ly, so her career has shown, one just strange or dar­ing enough to get peo­ple talk­ing), and how to work with your sub­ject. “There’s this idea that in por­trai­ture, it’s the pho­tog­ra­pher’s job to set the sub­ject at ease,” Lei­bovitz says in the class trail­er above. “I don’t believe that.”

Few aspects of Lei­bovitz’s method have drawn as much atten­tion as the way she han­dles her sub­jects,  which tends to involve both devel­op­ing enough of a rela­tion­ship with them to gain some under­stand­ing of their inner lives and putting them in sit­u­a­tions which, so she has stu­dious­ly learned while get­ting to know them, may lie a bit out­side of their com­fort zone. Few of us will ever have that much face time with a pho­tog­ra­ph­er like Lei­bovitz, let alone enough to ask her in-depth ques­tions about the craft, but if you sus­pect you might find your­self one day in a posi­tion to pho­to­graph the next Cait­lyn Jen­ner, Mark Zucker­berg, or Kim Kar­dashi­an — or some­one more impor­tant to you per­son­al­ly — the strate­gies explained in her Mas­ter­class course will sure­ly come in handy.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Take a Free Course on Dig­i­tal Pho­tog­ra­phy from Stan­ford Prof Marc Lev­oy

Learn Dig­i­tal Pho­tog­ra­phy with Har­vard University’s Free Online Course

School of Visu­al Arts Presents 99 Hours of Free Pho­tog­ra­phy Lec­tures

1972 Diane Arbus Doc­u­men­tary Inter­views Those Who Knew the Amer­i­can Pho­tog­ra­ph­er Best

Ansel Adams, Pho­tog­ra­ph­er: 1958 Doc­u­men­tary Cap­tures the Cre­ative Process of the Icon­ic Amer­i­can Pho­tog­ra­ph­er

Hunter S. Thompson’s Advice for Aspir­ing Pho­tog­ra­phers: Skip the Fan­cy Equip­ment & Just Shoot

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. His projects include the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

 

The “Humans of New York” Photo Project Becomes a 13-Part Video Documentary Series: Watch It Free Online


New York, New York—there are many ways of assess­ing whether or not you’ve “made” it here—these days it includes an appear­ance on pho­tog­ra­ph­er Bran­don Stan­ton’s wild­ly pop­u­lar blog, Humans of New York, in which a spon­ta­neous street por­trait is anchored by a per­son­al quote or longer anec­dote.

Fol­low­ing sev­er­al books and a UN-spon­sored world tour to doc­u­ment humans in over twen­ty coun­tries, the project has mor­phed into a 13-episode docu-series as part of Facebook’s orig­i­nal video con­tent plat­form.

Aid­ed by cin­e­matog­ra­ph­er Michael Crom­mett, Stan­ton elic­its his cus­tom­ary blend of uni­ver­sal and spe­cif­ic truths from his inter­view sub­jects. Extend­ing the moment into the video realm affords view­ers a larg­er win­dow onto the com­plex­i­ties of each human’s sit­u­a­tion.

Take episode four, “Rela­tion­ships,” above:

An ample, unadorned woman in late-mid­dle age recalls being swept off her feet by a pas­sion that still burns bright…

An NYU grad stares uncom­fort­ably in her pur­ple cap and gown as her divorced par­ents air var­i­ous regrets…

A cou­ple with mis­matched views on mar­riage are upstaged by a spon­ta­neous pro­pos­al unfold­ing a few feet away…

La Vie en Rose holds deep mean­ing for two cou­ples, despite rad­i­cal­ly dif­fer­ent loca­tions, pre­sen­ta­tions, and ori­en­ta­tions.

A lit­tle girl has no prob­lem call­ing the shots around her spe­cial fel­la…

I love you, New York!!!

Oth­er themes include Mon­ey, Time, Pur­pose, and Par­ent­ing.

One of the great plea­sures of both series and blog is Stanton’s open-mind­ed­ness as to what con­sti­tutes New York and New York­ers.

Some inter­views take place near such tourist-friend­ly locales as Bethes­da Foun­tain and the Wash­ing­ton Square Arch, but just as many tran­spire along­side notice­ably Out­er Bor­ough archi­tec­ture or the blast­ed cement heaths apron­ing its less sought after pub­lic schools.

Those who live here will nod with recog­ni­tion at the cher­ry blos­som self­ies, “show­time” in the sub­way, and the Bush­wick vibe of the groom who pro­posed to his bride at Coney Island, under the Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog Eat­ing Con­test Wall of Fame.

Dit­to the appear­ance of such local celebri­ties as Jim­my Webb, emer­i­tus man­ag­er of the punk bou­tique, Trash and Vaude­ville and Black­wolf the Drag­on­mas­ter, the city’s unof­fi­cial wiz­ard.

Below, Stan­ton explains his goal when con­duct­ing inter­views and demon­strates how a non-threat­en­ing approach can soft­en strangers to the point of can­dor.

It’s well know ’round these parts that cer­tain seg­ments of the local pop­u­lace would gnaw off limbs to be immor­tal­ized by Stan­ton, but he cleaves to the pure serendip­i­ty of his selec­tion process. Ask­ing to have your pic­ture tak­en ensures that it won’t be. Luck puts you in front of his lens. Shar­ing your truth is what makes you human.

Watch Humans of New York: The Series here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Humans of New York: Street Pho­tog­ra­phy as a Cel­e­bra­tion of Life

Inter­act with The New York Times Four-Part Doc­u­men­tary, “A Short His­to­ry of the High­rise”

New York City: A Social His­to­ry (A Free Online Course from N.Y.U.) 

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author, illus­tra­tor, the­ater mak­er and Chief Pri­ma­tol­o­gist of the East Vil­lage Inky zine.  Fol­low her @AyunHalliday.

Carl Van Vechten’s 9,000 Portraits of Great 20th Century Cultural Icons: Billie Holiday, Orson Welles, Dizzy Gillespie & Beyond

Image above and below by Carl Van Vecht­en, via Wiki­me­dia Com­mons

Amer­i­cans have long con­sid­ered New York City, at least dur­ing its rel­a­tive­ly inex­pen­sive eras or in its rel­a­tive­ly expen­sive areas, a haven for every type of artist and mem­bers of all sub­cul­tures. The den­si­ty of its pop­u­la­tion, by Amer­i­can stan­dards, also presents its denizens with the oppor­tu­ni­ty to cross between one artis­tic or sub­cul­tur­al realm and anoth­er with ease — or with geo­graph­i­cal ease, any­way. Few New York fig­ures crossed as many such bound­aries as cre­ative­ly in the ear­ly 20th cen­tu­ry as a Cedar Rapids-born writer and pho­tog­ra­ph­er named Carl van Vecht­en.

“When Van Vecht­en first arrived in New York, in 1906, there were few signs that he would ever attempt to appoint him­self bard of Harlem,” writes Kele­fa San­neh in New York­er piece on Van Vecht­en’s life. “He was a self-con­scious­ly sophis­ti­cat­ed exile from the Mid­west, and he was quick­ly hired by the Times as a music and dance crit­ic.” In addi­tion, to his crit­i­cism, “he also pub­lished a series of mis­chie­vous nov­els that were notable main­ly, one crit­ic observed, for their ‘annoy­ing man­ner­isms.’ ” (The crit­ic? Prob­a­bly the author him­self.) And the longer Van Vecht­en lived in New York, “the more inter­est­ed he became in the sights and sounds of Harlem, where rau­cous and inven­tive night clubs were thriv­ing under Pro­hi­bi­tion.”

The white Van Vecht­en wrote a nov­el about black life in Harlem, insist­ing on a title that I doubt I can even type here. It expressed what San­neh calls “his con­vic­tion that Negro cul­ture was the essence of Amer­i­ca,” which went with “his simul­ta­ne­ous fas­ci­na­tion with the avant-garde and the broad­ly pop­u­lar; and his string of sex­u­al rela­tion­ships with men, which were an open secret dur­ing his life. Van Vechten’s tastes were var­ied: his bib­li­og­ra­phy includes an eru­dite cul­tur­al his­to­ry of the house cat, and in his lat­er decades he became an accom­plished por­trait pho­tog­ra­ph­er.” Black, white, or oth­er­wise, near­ly every major fig­ure in the Amer­i­can cul­ture of the day seems to have sat for his cam­era: actors, writ­ers, musi­cians, intel­lec­tu­als, archi­tects, mag­nates, and many oth­er types besides.

Some of the sub­jects of Van Vecht­en’s over 9,000 por­traits, all brows­able online at Yale’s Bei­necke Rare Book and Man­u­script Library, were his friends: Gertrude Stein, and Langston Hugh­es, for instance, both of whom expressed great enthu­si­asm for Van Vecht­en’s writ­ing on black cul­ture. Oth­ers cre­at­ed that black cul­ture, now known as the Harlem Renais­sance: Dizzy Gille­spie, Bil­lie Hol­l­i­day, James Bald­win. Oth­ers made up the cul­ture of glob­al celebri­ty, then only in its infan­cy: Orson Welles, Lotte Ley­na, Lau­rence Olivi­er.

They, and more so Van Vecht­en him­self, knew that to become an icon in the 20th cen­tu­ry, you need­ed to do much more than excel in the human realm: you had to tran­scend it, ascend­ing into that of the image. If you suf­fi­cient­ly fas­ci­nat­ed Van Vecht­en, it seems, he was only too glad to help you on your way there. See thou­sands of his por­traits at this Yale web­site.

Por­traits in order of appear­ance on this page include: Bil­lie Hol­l­i­day, Orson Welles, James Bald­win, Gertrude Stein, and Dizzy Gille­spie. All come cour­tesy of the Van Vecht­en Col­lec­tion at Library of Con­gress.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

A 1932 Illus­trat­ed Map of Harlem’s Night Clubs: From the Cot­ton Club to the Savoy Ball­room

Dis­cov­er Langston Hugh­es’ Rent Par­ty Ads & The Harlem Renais­sance Tra­di­tion of Play­ing Gigs to Keep Roofs Over Heads

Andy Warhol’s 85 Polaroid Por­traits: Mick Jag­ger, Yoko Ono, O.J. Simp­son & Many Oth­ers (1970–1987)

200,000 Pho­tos from the George East­man Muse­um, the World’s Old­est Pho­tog­ra­phy Col­lec­tion, Now Avail­able Online

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. His projects include the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Google’s Free Photo Editing Software, the Nik Collection, Has Been Acquired by DxO & Will Live Another Day

In March of 2016, read­ers thrilled when Google announced that it made the Nik Col­lec­tion, its pro­fes­sion­al pho­to edit­ing soft­ware, free to down­load and use. Pre­vi­ous­ly priced at $149, the now-free soft­ware gives users access to “sev­en desk­top plug-ins that pro­vide a pow­er­ful range of pho­to edit­ing capa­bil­i­ties — from fil­ter appli­ca­tions that improve col­or cor­rec­tion, to retouch­ing and cre­ative effects.”

If there was cause for cel­e­bra­tion, it did­n’t last that long. Ear­li­er this year, Google fol­lowed up with anoth­er announce­ment–that it planned to dis­con­tin­ue devel­op­ment of the Nik Col­lec­tion, and essen­tial­ly let it with­er on the vine.

Now here’s the lat­est chap­ter in the sto­ry. A seem­ing­ly good one. The image pro­cess­ing com­pa­ny DxO has acquired the Nik Col­lec­tion from Google. Jérôme Ménière, DxO’s founder and CEO, declared in a press release, “DxO rev­o­lu­tion­ized the image pro­cess­ing mar­ket many times over the years with its inno­v­a­tive solu­tions, and we will con­tin­ue to do so with Nik’s tools, which offer new cre­ative oppor­tu­ni­ties to mil­lions of pho­tog­ra­phers.” Appar­ent­ly the Nik Col­lec­tion gets to live anoth­er day.

If you head over to DxO’s web­site, you can still down­load the cur­rent Nik Col­lec­tion for free. You sim­ply need to pro­vide your email address, and they’ll send a down­load link to your inbox.

Also on the DxO web­site they’ve announced plans for a future iter­a­tion of the Nik Col­lec­tion, say­ing “The new ‘Nik Col­lec­tion 2018 Edi­tion’ will be released mid-2018, please leave your email below to be informed when it’s avail­able.” Whether that 2018 edi­tion will stay free remains to be seen.

via Petapix­el

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Google Makes Its $149 Pho­to Edit­ing Soft­ware Now Com­plete­ly Free to Down­load

Down­load New Sto­ry­board­ing Soft­ware That’s Free & Open Source

NASA Puts Its Soft­ware Online & Makes It Free to Down­load

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 9 ) |

Eerie 19th Century Photographs of Ghosts: See Images from the Long, Strange Tradition of “Spirit Photography”

We might draw any num­ber of con­clu­sions from the fact that rats’ brains are enough like ours that they stand in for humans in lab­o­ra­to­ries. A mis­an­throp­ic exis­ten­tial­ist may see the unflat­ter­ing sim­i­lar­i­ty as evi­dence that there’s noth­ing spe­cial about human beings, despite our grandiose sense of our­selves. A medieval Euro­pean thinker would draw a moral les­son, point­ing to the rat’s glut­tony as nature’s alle­go­ry for human greed. And a skep­ti­cal observ­er in the 19th and ear­ly 20th cen­turies might take note of how eas­i­ly both rats and humans can be manip­u­lat­ed; the lat­ter, for exam­ple, by pseu­do-phe­nom­e­na like Spir­i­tu­al­ism, which encom­passed a wide range of claims about ghosts and the after­life, from seances to spir­it pho­tog­ra­phy.

One such skep­ti­cal observ­er in 1920, Mil­la­ias Culpin, even wrote in his Spir­i­tu­al­ism and the New Psy­chol­o­gy of the “’sci­en­tif­ic’ sup­port­ers of spir­i­tu­al­ism,” most of them “emi­nent in phys­i­cal sci­ence.” They are eas­i­ly con­vinced, Culpin thought, because “they have been trained in a world where hon­esty is assumed to be a qual­i­ty of all work­ers. A lab­o­ra­to­ry assis­tant who played a trick upon one of them would find his career at an end, and ordi­nary cun­ning is for­eign to them. When they enter upon the world of Dis­so­ci­ates, where deceit mas­quer­ades under the dis­guise of trans­par­ent hon­esty, these emi­nent men are but as babes—country cousins in the hands of con­fi­dence-trick men.”

Such adher­ents of Spir­i­tu­al­ist beliefs were tak­en in not because they were nat­u­ral­ly cred­u­lous or stu­pid, but because they had been “trained” to trust the evi­dence of their sens­es. So-called spir­it pho­tographs, like those you see here, allowed peo­ple to “show mate­r­i­al evi­dence for their beliefs.” Pho­tog­ra­phers who cre­at­ed the images, Mash­able explains, could “eas­i­ly make two expo­sures on a sin­gle neg­a­tive, manip­u­late the neg­a­tive to cre­ate ghost­ly blurs, or over­lap two neg­a­tives in the dark­room to pro­duce an extra face with­in the resul­tant frame.”

The audi­ence for this work was “vast,” and many fit Culpin’s gen­er­al­iza­tions. In 1921, for exam­ple, para­nor­mal inves­ti­ga­tor Here­ward Car­ring­ton wrote of “a num­ber of ‘spir­it’ and ‘thought’ pho­tographs, the evi­dence for which seemed to me to be excep­tion­al­ly good.” In describ­ing oth­er pic­tures as “obvi­ous­ly fraud­u­lent” or “extreme­ly puz­zling,” Car­ring­ton made crit­i­cal dis­tinc­tions and appeared to use the meth­ods and the lan­guage of sci­ence in the eval­u­a­tion of objects pur­port­ing to prove the exis­tence of ghosts.

It may seem incred­i­ble that spir­it pho­tog­ra­phy had wide­spread appeal for as long as it did. The pho­tographs first began appear­ing in the 1860s, emerg­ing “from a small Boston por­trait stu­dio” and first made by William H. Mum­ler, the genre’s inven­tor and “most promi­nent ear­ly pro­po­nent,” writes Mash­able.

Mum­ler was nei­ther a pho­tog­ra­ph­er nor a medi­um. He orig­i­nal­ly worked as a sil­ver engraver, while dab­bling in pho­tog­ra­phy in the local stu­dio of a woman named Mrs. Stu­art. One day in 1861, in the midst of devel­op­ing a self-por­trait, Mum­ler report­ed that the dim fig­ure of a young cousin who had died twelve years ear­li­er emerged in the final print.

These ghost­ly images con­tin­ued to appear—on their own, the sto­ry goes—and the studio’s recep­tion­ist, a part-time medi­um, helped pop­u­lar­ize them. Soon Mum­ler “received vis­i­tors from across Amer­i­ca, includ­ing the recent­ly wid­owed Mary Todd Lin­coln.” Most of these vis­i­tors did not work as sci­en­tists or pro­fes­sion­al para­nor­mal inves­ti­ga­tors. They were ordi­nary peo­ple bereaved by the mass death of the Civ­il War and deeply moti­vat­ed to accept phys­i­cal con­fir­ma­tion of an after­life. More­over, before the rise of Fun­da­men­tal­ist Evan­gel­i­cal­ism in the 1920s, Spir­i­tu­al­ism was on the front lines of an ear­li­er cul­ture war: spir­it pho­tog­ra­phy was “a tan­gi­ble sym­bol of the over­ar­ch­ing argu­ment of mys­ti­cism ver­sus sci­ence and ratio­nal­ism.”

The three images at the top of the post date from the ear­li­est peri­od of spir­it pho­tog­ra­phy, between 1862 and 1875, and they were all pro­duced by Mum­ler in Boston and New York, where he moved in 1869, and where he was charged with fraud, then “acquit­ted of all charges because they could not be suf­fi­cient­ly proven.” (See many more of his pho­tos at Mash­able and the Get­ty Muse­um online archive.) Though his busi­ness suf­fered, spir­it pho­tog­ra­phy only grew more pop­u­lar, par­tic­u­lar­ly in Spir­i­tu­al­ist cir­cles in Britain, where Arthur Conan Doyle, cre­ator of the hyper-ratio­nal Sher­lock Holmes, was one of the most ardent of Spir­i­tu­al­ist believ­ers.

Doyle sup­port­ed a British pho­tog­ra­ph­er named William Hope, who began tak­ing spir­it pho­tographs in 1905, found­ed a group called the Crewe Cir­cle and lat­er “went on to prey on griev­ing fam­i­lies,” writes Riv­er Don­aghey at Vice, “who lost loved ones in WWI and des­per­ate­ly want­ed pho­to­graph­ic proof that their rel­a­tives were still hov­er­ing around in spec­tral form.” Even after Hope and his crew were exposed, Doyle con­tin­ued to sup­port him, going so far as to write a book called The Case for Spir­it Pho­tog­ra­phy. The four pho­tographs above and below are Hope’s work (see many more at Vice and the Pub­lic Domain Review). They are seri­ous­ly creepy—in the way movies like The Ring are creepy—but they are also, quite obvi­ous­ly, pho­to­graph­ic fic­tions.

Even as view­ers of pho­tog­ra­phy became savvi­er as the cen­tu­ry wore on, many peo­ple thrilled to Hope’s work until his death in 1933, maybe for the same rea­son we watch The Ring; it’s a fun scare, noth­ing more, if we sus­pend our dis­be­lief. As for the true believ­ers in spir­it photography—they are not so dif­fer­ent either from us 21st cen­tu­ry sophis­ti­cates. We’re still tak­en in all the time by hoax­es and frauds, maybe because it’s still as easy to push the but­tons in our brains, and because, well, we just want to believe.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Arthur Conan Doyle & The Cot­tin­g­ley Fairies: How Two Young Girls Fooled Sher­lock Holmes’ Cre­ator

Dis­cov­er “The Ghost Club,” the His­toric Para­nor­mal Soci­ety Whose Mem­bers Includ­ed Charles Dick­ens, Arthur Conan Doyle & W.B. Yeats

Browse The Mag­i­cal Worlds of Har­ry Houdini’s Scrap­books

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast