Pompous and arrogant. Leg propped up on the bumper of his shiny car in pure pride, this plantation owner appears to be a real jerk. His white, or light in color, attire gives him a holier-than-thou look that is almost nauseating. The men behind him are clearly submissive to his authority; their dark faces show slight emotion. I can’t tell if it’s the lighting, but these boys look tired.
I’m not a pro at analyzing photography from a technical standpoint. However, I can see that the plantation owner is offset to the right, and with the men elevated behind him, your eye is naturally drawn that direction. The faces of the assumed slaves are most intriguing to me and I wish they were clearer for further inspection.
The other man the owner is apparently chatting with seems to be in decent humor, perhaps smiling? I wonder who he is and what kind of conversation they are having…something as arbitrary as the weather, or maybe a topic more politically inclined. The disgruntled look on plantation owner’s face gives me the impression he isn’t enjoying whatever it is they’re discussing.
Sullen, the men on the stairs look like they are waiting for Mr. Owner to finish talking, but without any complaints. Why are they here? What could a plantation owner need five of his men in town for? The condition of their clothes, in addition to wearing hats and shoes, makes me feel like they are treated with as much fairness found in the late Thirties, which somewhat contradicts my first impression of the owner. A couple of these men look directly at the camera, and even though shadows cover their eyes, you can see the blank stares, the numbness, the open windows.
The angle at which this photo was taken leaves me curious. Seriously, why did she include the stranger on the left? Maybe because of the conversation going on? But then why can we only see a small portion of his body? What are the other men thinking, listening to the white folk? Do they care? Are they allowed to care?
What color is that car?
So many questions.
Hi, Whitney. Some very nice observations here, and I really like how you explain it, yet leave the door open for other interpretations at the same time by establishing some unanswered questions at the end.
ReplyDeleteThe only suggestion I have is for you is in the first paragraph when you write, "His white, or light in color, attire gives him a holier-than-thou look that is almost nauseating. The men behind him are clearly submissive to his authority; their dark faces show slight emotion." I know it probably wasn't your intention, but when first reading this sentence it sounded almost like it had undertones of racial supremacy to it. It almost seemed to hint that the only reason the plantation owner seemed holier than thou was because the color that he was associated with was white, as opposed to the darker people who couldn't be as holy because of they're simply darker in color. I guess what I'm saying is, is I think it's more of his posture that gives him a look of authority, rather than the colors he is. In a photo as racially sensitive as this one, I wouldn't use colors and descriptions like "white attire" and "dark faces" to subscribe holiness and submissiveness to people, because it brings the negative associations and stereotypes of the past to the forefront of your analysis. I get what you're saying, but I would definitely reword it, because white and dark in this photo also implies skin color, whether you like it or not. I'm not sure if other people felt this way, but that's just my two cents. I just don't want you to seem racially ignorant, because I don't think that's what you're trying to do.
I really loved how many questions you posed in your analyisis. When I first viewed the picture I was unable to see the man on the left. He really adds to the photo and I too want to understand why he was included. I fully agree with you that the man with his leg propped up is "nauseating." You did an excellent job of viewing this photograph and raising some really intriguing questions.
ReplyDeleteYour opener for your analysis was striking as well as accurate. "Holier-than-thou", brilliant. I love how your natural flow of thinking shines through in your analysis. I really liked how you drew on the man the landowner is probably talking too, as I had mostly overlooked him. Also, the fact you don't completely try to answer all the questions you pose leads the reader to a greater examination of the photograph, rather than just giving us information.
ReplyDeleteIt's strange to see how differently both you and I see the same picture. You definitely had more questions than I did as I just filled in the gaps with my imagination. But you bring up some very good questions and I wonder how you arrived to all these questions. I admire your curiosity! You gave me a new perspective to look at the photo, and a lot more questions that I probably won't get an answer to. The only one that really bothers me though, to be honest, is your last question.
ReplyDeleteKenny,
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read your comment, I was slightly taken back. Actually, really taken back. I've never, in a million years, considered myself racially ignorant and perhaps that is why I wasn't more careful in my analysis. My goal was only to describe what I saw and any racial undertones you may have "heard" were not intentional whatsoever.
That being said, I appreciate your insight and opinion--even if it was one that I didn't see coming!
And to the others,
Thank you for your feedback as well!! :)