Showing posts with label photojournalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label photojournalism. Show all posts

15/05/2022

Letizia Battaglia : The Sicilian Photographer Who Fought the Mafia

 




“You seem like such a nice girl,” Letizia kept faxing back to me—always evasive and never, ever answering my usually welcome question: “Are you interested in working with me on a book for Aperture?”
 
Letizia Battaglia died on April 13, 2022, in Cefalù, near Palermo, Italy. She was eighty-seven. I first saw Letizia’s work exposing the Mafia’s oppressive, unrelentingly brutal grip on her native Sicily while working at Aperture Foundation, editing various issues of their quarterly publication, as well as books. At this time, the early to mid-1990s, Letizia was little known in the United States outside photojournalistic circles. In 1985, she had won the coveted W. Eugene Smith Fund Grant for humanistic photography, sharing it with Donna Ferrato—the first time two winners had been named. Then, in May 1986, the New York Times Magazine, in an article titled “Sicily and the Mafia,” published a selection of Letizia’s and Franco Zecchin’s images. Some of the most iconic became forever embedded in the mind’s eye of many—although both photographers were still relatively unknown.




 
When I decided to devote an issue of Aperture to Italian photography, Immagini Italiane (1993), we included Letizia’s work, accompanied by an interview with the wonderful Italian editor and writer Giovanna Calvenzi, who in 2010 would author Letizia Battaglia: Sulle ferite dei suoi sogni (On the wounds of her dreams). I thought Letizia was pleased, and I was fairly certain she had gone to see and liked the traveling exhibition we did in conjunction with the issue in Venice, where it opened at the Peggy Guggenheim Collection, or in Naples, where it was presented at Museo Diego Aragona Pignatelli Cortes. So why wasn’t she responding “yes” to my book entreaty, or at least acknowledging the question? This was her M.O., I would come to learn, but at the time I was flummoxed—it had become personal.
 
So, in 1994, I took the long way to Naples, where I had a project, and stopped in Palermo. Letizia saw me for maybe an hour. She showed me not one photograph. We sat in her home, in Palermo’s wonderful old center (I would soon learn that she and others helped to save it from Mafia-plotted destruction), and we shared an espresso together. Still, when I left, I was frustrated and bewildered, not to mention empty-handed. She had promised to send me a package. Yeah, sure: the check was in the mail.
 
But, wow—I was nonetheless blown away by her. Her fierce intensity felt almost feral. The proverbial force of nature and then some. And not only as a photographer  but also as a publisher, Green Party member with the Palermo city council, ecological activist, and defender of women’s and of human rights. We spoke about women, we spoke about justice, she asked me personal questions—not my forte, as I’m so private, but she was like truth serum. I soon understood I was being tested. That she was naturally suspicious. But our conversation was somehow instantly intimate. From that moment on, there was this extraordinary, powerful woman in my life who declared herself my sister, who could get annoyed with me, and who demanded a kind of complicity.
 
That package bursting with prints, most with handwritten Italian captions scribbled on the backs, arrived two weeks later. Her work took my breath away, as it did for Aperture’s director and publisher at the time, Michael Hoffman. It wasn’t just the photographs’ visual power, or Letizia’s clear commitment to bearing witness to the horrific violence plaguing her city, especially as it affected women and children. It was her all-in engagement, her toughness, her advocacy, her profound sense of justice. Her passion.



 
And so our story began, as she would only agree to collaborate on the book if I would write the accompanying essay about her that I had asserted was crucial. In this way, I would be invested not just as the book’s editor, but also as the person to whom she would tell her story in words. Of course, I accepted her challenge. Letizia Battaglia: Passion, Justice, Freedom—Photographs of Sicily was published by Aperture in 1999. I have chosen to quote many of her words from the book here, adding context when useful, as Letizia spoke so ardently and persuasively about what mattered to her.
 
Letizia was born in Palermo on March 5, 1935. Her father was in the navy and they moved around Italy. She spent much of her childhood in Trieste, in the north, and was ten when her family moved back to Palermo. At first she sought freedom by marrying an older man, and with him she had three daughters: Cinzia, Shobha (also a photographer), and Patrizia. But she became desperately unhappy and claustrophobic. She credited the Freudian psychoanalyst Francesco Corrao with helping her to understand that she was strong, telling her, “You can make your own peace, your own equilibrium. You can rebuild your life and save yourself.”
 
This gave her the strength to leave her husband in 1971, at age thirty-six. She went to Milan and began writing for a newspaper there, while also continuing to write for the left-wing Sicilian daily newspaper L’Ora, as she had done for the previous two years. She had always wanted to be a writer, to tell stories. She soon realized that she’d have more success selling her articles if they were accompanied by images, and so she began making photographs. Very quickly, she just wanted to take pictures. After she had done a small photographic job for L’Ora, the paper asked her to return to Palermo as its director of photography, and she became a full-time photographer. “I think that my life truly began with my camera,” she told me. “I mean my freedom as a person, my voice.” Diane Arbus, Josef Koudelka, Mary Ellen Mark, and Eugene Richards were the photographers whose work she especially admired.



 
In 1975, she traveled to Venice to see Jerzy Grotowski’s Apocalypsis cum Figuris and met members of his Theatre of Participation. Eventually she ended up working with them, and that’s where she met the twenty-two-year-old Franco Zecchin, who would become her partner in work and life over the next two decades. During our conversations, which took place between 1996 and 1998, she described how their “beautiful story” began:
 
“We spent our first . . . what would you call it . . . encounter on a floor full of dry leaves, because Grotowski was pushing to create things with nature. . . . Bit by bit, we got down in the leaves and began to know each other. After that, I returned to Palermo, and Franco returned to Milan—but then he came to Palermo and stayed for nineteen years. We experienced some very dramatic things together, and accomplished many positive things as well, including our work against the Mafia. Franco was not Sicilian, so it was different for him. He completely understood, but it was more of an intellectual fight for him, whereas for me it was my home, my people, who were so threatened. Besides, I am incapable of elaborating on an intellectual idea with the camera. I live life with the camera. The camera is like a piece of my heart, an extension of my intuition, my sensitivity. . . .
 
I was bare-handed, except for my camera, against them with all of their weapons. I took pictures of everything. Suddenly I had an archive of blood. An archive of pain, of desperation, of terror, of young people on drugs, of young widows, of trials and arrests. There in my house, Franco Zecchin and I were surrounded by the dead, the murdered. It was like being in the middle of a revolution. I was so afraid.”
 
One of Letizia’s and Zecchin’s most provocative and risky actions was displaying large-scale prints of their images of Mafia victims in Corleone’s main piazza. Letizia was desperate for her fellow Sicilians to truly understand the Mafia’s barbarity, and to speak up and out against them, despite her understandable fear. The acute brilliance of her reportage was always intertwined heart and soul with her activism.



 
Letizia’s own performative nature and instinct to take it to the streets eventually led her to enter politics. She met Mayor Leoluca Orlando when she was first elected to Palermo’s Municipal Council in 1985; although they were not predisposed toward working together, they soon completely accepted, trusted, and respected each other—especially once Letizia understood that he was “ferociously anti-Mafia, and also much more progressive than I was at the time on issues of the environment, for example.” They ultimately became close collaborators and friends, and Orlando poetically expressed his appreciation for Letizia’s heart, mind, and willfulness in a letter to her, written for our book.
 
About her work in politics, Letizia told me:
 
“When I stopped taking pictures and entered politics—first as municipal councilwoman, then as regional deputy, and lastly as municipal councilwoman again—I was afraid I had betrayed photography, and maybe even the struggle, since I had felt that taking pictures was my only weapon. But then I realized that the same motivation lies behind my photography and my politics, the same will to combat, to stay on the front line. Working in a different way, I could accomplish different things. So, despite many difficult times, we continued into the eighties with our politics, photography, publishing, meetings, and anti-Mafia demonstrations. And then came those wonderful men who gave us such hope—Judge Giovanni Falcone, Judge Paolo Borsellino—prosecutors who were good and brave; and who then, in 1992, were murdered.”
 
Another contributor to the book Passion, Justice, Freedom was Magistrate Roberto Scarpinato, who at the time was prosecuting Italy’s ex–prime minister Giulio Andreotti for collusion with the Mafia—and using one of Letizia’s photographs as evidence. Also writing for our book and discussing this image, along with her work in general, was journalist Alexander Stille, author of Excellent Cadavers (1995), which insightfully chronicles the violence and workings of the Sicilian Mafia in light of the assassinations of Falcone and Borsellino. In 2005, when Marco Turco turned Excellent Cadavers into a film, Letizia’s commanding presence throughout was electrifying.
 
Letizia’s approach was one of advocacy and empowerment, especially of women, on the most human and humane level. In Palermo she started a women’s theater project, and when she began her publishing house the initial idea was to give women (although not exclusively women) a place to be heard, a platform. The principal motivation for these books was desperation after the murders of Falcone and Borsellino, but Edizioni della battaglia soon embraced talented voices and addressed the struggle for human rights worldwide. In time, Mayor Orlando assigned her a counseling position to work with prisoners in Palermo: “It’s necessary,” she told me, “to work for justice but also to help those who have made mistakes to transform their lives.”  She and Zecchin also set up a photography school and volunteered in the psychiatric hospital in Palermo, working with the patients. Around 2013, Letizia told me about the photography center she had conceived for Palermo: Il Centro Internazionale di Fotografia—Cantieri culturali alla Zisa. She asked if I’d curate one of the first exhibitions; she wanted a show of American women photographers. And, would I please include Mary Ellen Mark? Mary Ellen, who died in 2015, consented without hesitation. “For Letizia.”
 




In the summer of 2015, I received an email from Letizia further describing the center. Mayor Orlando had provided funding to restore the building, “but there will be no money for anything else. . . . I need the help of many,” she wrote. “I need photographers who will give me photographs to exhibit at no cost. Everyone must know that I have much respect for the photographs and photographers. This is a heroic operation, because it was born in Palermo, still the powerful city of the Mafia. Whoever helps me has to do it by faith.”
 
I sent a rough translation to Nina Berman, Lynsey Addario, Donna Ferrato, Graciela Iturbide, Mary Ellen Mark’s studio, Susan Meiselas, Sylvia Plachy, and Stephanie Sinclair. These remarkable photographers joined forces with me (as did designer Yolanda Cuomo and translator Meg Shore). The 2018 show, Donne Fotografano Donne (Women Photograph Women), was born. Letizia was profoundly moved by their generosity of spirit and the support of her community. She understood that this exhibition came about because of the woman and photographer we all understood her to be. This spring, Mayor Orlando announced that the Palermo photography center would be renamed in her honor.
 
The Sicilian Photographer Who Fought the Mafia :  An impassioned activist and fearless documentarian, Letizia Battaglia lived by the heart and the camera. By Melissa Harris. Aperture , May 5, 2022. 



When Italian photographer Letizia Battaglia passed away on April 13, 2022, the biggest shock among those of us who have written about her was that she didn’t die at the hands of the Mafia.

 
For nearly five decades she fearlessly fought the criminal enterprise. Armed with her 35mm camera, she publicized the Sicilian Mafia’s reign of terror with her photographs of the bullet-riddled bodies of public servants, innocent bystanders and mafiosi. She later worked as a politician and local activist to wrest Palermo’s streets and piazzas from the Mafia’s grip.
 
Exposing the Mafia’s culture of death
 
Battaglia earned international acclaim for her photographs of Sicily – images that captured the island’s beauty, poverty, spirit and, perhaps most famously, violence.
 
Her first years working as a photojournalist at Palermo’s daily newspaper, L’Ora, coincided with the first Mafia murders of public figures in the 1970s and the years of the Second Mafia War in the 1980s, which was simply known as “the slaughter.”
 
The struggle over power and profits pitted the rural clan of Corleone, led by Salvatore Riina, against key clans operating in Palermo, the capital of Sicily. During the conflict, machine gun fire and car bomb explosions became commonplace in Palermo and outlying cities.
 
The politicians in Rome responded to the national crisis by asking General Carlo Alberto Dalla Chiesa to become the prefect of Palermo. After spending four months restoring order, Dalla Chiesa, his wife, Emanuela Setti Carraro, and police bodyguard Domenico Russo were murdered in a spray of machine-gun fire on September 3, 1982 – what became known as the Via Carini Massacre. Dalla Chiesa’s death, along with hits on police chiefs, public prosecutors and investigators, left honest citizens feeling hopeless and abandoned.
 
Some days Battaglia would rush from one city to another to photograph several dead bodies – of mafiosi, judges, police, political figures and journalists – “so much blood,” she later recalled.
 
Mafia murders became so commonplace – some 600 between 1981 and 1983 alone – that she sometimes came upon crime scenes by chance.
 
Such was the case with her famous photograph of the corpse of Piersanti Mattarella, the former president of the Region of Sicily. On Jan. 6, 1980, while riding in the car with her daughter and fellow photojournalist Franco Zecchin, Battaglia saw a small group of people gathering around a car. She spontaneously snapped shots from the car window, capturing Sergio Mattarella, the current President of Italy, as he attempted to help his brother, who had been shot in an ambush.
 
 
The Palermo Spring
 
Battaglia’s photographs of Mafia violence were published regularly on the front page of L’Ora. She also displayed large format prints of them at pop-up exhibits that she and Zecchin organized in downtown Palermo and local schools.
 
In doing so, she forced people to face what they had disavowed: that the Mafia existed, and that it killed.
 
Of course, most Sicilians had been aware of the crime organization’s influence. They watched the public parks become overrun by drug dealers, and tiptoed around used syringes dotting the sandy beaches. Some 80% of Palermo businesses regularly paid the “pizzo,” or money demanded by the Mafia to protect businesses from the Mafia’s own violence.
 
But Battaglia’s images of bloodshed made it impossible to continue turning a blind eye, and a shift gradually occurred.
 
Beginning in 1983, an anti-Mafia pool of prosecutors and uncompromised police officers started arresting numerous Mafia members. Over 450 of them were eventually put on trial in the famous Maxi-trial, which began in 1986.
 
With public confidence in the justice system bolstered, a social, cultural and political revolution took place between 1985 and 1990. Everyday people and new members of the city council started directly confronting the Mafia and working to loosen its grip on the region. It became known as the “Palermo Spring,” and Battaglia was a driving force behind it.
 
In 1985, she was elected as a council member. Together with the mayor, Leoluca Orlando, who appointed her Commissioner for Gardens and Public Life, Battaglia worked to stop the Mafia’s decadeslong sacking of Palermo. Mafia leaders and their political allies had let schools, historic palazzos and gardens fall into disrepair, with the intent of eventually razing the downtown neighborhoods and making windfall profits in reconstruction.
 
Battaglia was driven by the conviction that providing all citizens free access to spectacular gardens, parks, beaches and historical sites was essential for creating a culture of respect and appreciation for Palermo and its heritage. Through her projects to make Palermo more beautiful and livable, Battaglia reclaimed Mafia-controlled spaces block by block. She worked with fellow members of the city council on undertakings such as removing abandoned cars, creating a downtown pedestrian mall and restoring public gardens to their original beauty.
 
On streets and in piazzas controlled by clan bosses, where a glance or wrong word can represent an offense worthy of violent retaliation, Battaglia’s acts directly challenged the bosses. But public support soon coalesced behind Battaglia and her allies.
 
One instance is especially memorable. After having mountains of garbage hauled away from the beach near Foro Italica near the Kalsa neighborhood, which was famous for its high concentration of powerful mafiosi, she had some benches for enjoying the view bolted into the cement. The next day they were gone.
 
Journalist Antonio Roccuzzo was with Battaglia. He recalled how she went straight to the neighborhood and shouted, “I know who you are. The benches don’t belong to you. They belong to everyone. If all of you don’t put them back within the hour, I’m going to raise hell!”
 
An hour later, the benches were bolted back in place.
 
Keeping an invisible Mafia in the public eye
 
In 1992 and 1993, a series of bombings took the lives of Judges Giovanni Falcone, renowned architect of the Maxi-trial; Francesca Morvillo, a prosecutor in the juvenile court of Palermo and his wife; and Paolo Borsellino, who had worked closely with Falcone and investigated his murder. Bodyguards and bystanders in Sicily, Rome, Milan and Florence also perished.
 
With these bombings, known as the “strategy of massacres,” the Mafia attacked the state’s symbols of justice, government, finance and culture. Their goal was to intimidate politicians into weakening laws against organized crime.
 
However, the violence elicited even more public backlash, and the criminal organization soon adopted the strategy of going underground and quietly carrying on its diversified criminal activities. This shift marked a departure from spectacular bombings, brazen assassinations and shootouts in city streets.
 
Yet the menace of the Mafia still remains. Their murder victims now die mostly by “lupara bianca” – with any trace of their bodies destroyed by fire or acid.
 
In the absence of visible evidence, Battaglia’s shots documenting Mafia bloodshed and bereavement continue doing the work of keeping the ramifications of Mafia violence in the public eye.




 
These painful images have also become vehicles for expressing hope. In a project Battaglia began in 2004, known as “Rielaborazioni” – or “Re-elaborations” – she takes the original images of violent deaths and overlays symbols and signs of renewal, often through vibrant female figures. In her reconfiguration of her iconic picture of Falcone at Dalla Chiesa’s funeral in 1982, a youthful woman appears in the foreground, bathed in water spraying from a fountain.
 
In death, as in life, Battaglia’s impassioned commitment to create beauty and hope in her beloved Palermo survives. You can see it on the streets of a city reborn, and on the faces of its honest, well-meaning citizens.
 
 
The photographer who fought the Sicilian Mafia for five decades. By  Robin Pickering-Iazzi. The Conversation, May 2, 2022. 



  Letizia Battaglia, a Sicilian photojournalist who risked her life to document the brutal crimes of her Italian island’s notorious Cosa Nostra Mafia, died April 13 in Cefalù, near the Sicilian capital of Palermo, her hometown. She was 87.


The Associated Press reported her death, citing an announcement by officials including Palermo Mayor Leoluca Orlando, her longtime friend. The cause was not immediately available.

Ms. Battaglia, a onetime reporter who started taking photographs only in 1974, shortly before her 40th birthday, focused her lens on the bloody feuds between the various Cosa Nostra crime families in Sicily, including the Corleone clan from the small town of that name outside Palermo.

Although Mario Puzo’s 1969 novel “The Godfather” about Don Vito Corleone and the subsequent Francis Ford Coppola “Godfather” movies were fictionalized, the Corleonesi were real Mafiosi in Sicily, named after their town rather than a family. (The grandparents of actor Al Pacino, who starred in the “Godfather” films, were from Corleone.)

Ms. Battaglia covered the inter-family feuds mostly by photographing the bodies of their victims. These included rival Mafiosi, corrupt politicians, businessmen and often innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

In 1979, well aware that she was putting her life on the line, Ms. Battaglia traveled to Corleone and exhibited giant prints of her photographs of Mafia victims in the main square. Most locals stayed away, adhering to the Mafia’s famous omertà, or code of silence.

Easily recognizable by her punky hair, which she dyed in colors including pink and purple even later in life, Ms. Battaglia buzzed through the streets and alleyways of Palermo on an Italian Vespa motor scooter, her Leica dangling from her neck, a cigarette between her lips
.
She was often the first person after police officers to arrive at crime scenes, thanks to a scanner tuned to police radio frequencies. She said police officers were disarmed by her presence and allowed her to get “up close and personal” images, often of corpses lying in pools of blood.

She was one of the first female photographers to work for an Italian newspaper when she first picked up a camera in 1974 for the left-wing daily L’Ora in Palermo. In the following years, she shot around 600,000 images, which she called her “archive of blood.” Never moving to color film, she insisted that her black and white images, with skillful use of light and shadow, were more effective than color in portraying the blood and death caused by the Mafia.





“When you are shooting the dead, using black and white is a way to be delicate, respectful,” she once told London’s Guardian newspaper. “It creates its own silence and silence was very important for me.”
One of her best-known images shows Sergio Mattarella, Italy’s current president, pulling the body of his brother Piersanti, a Sicilian politician, riddled with bullets, out of a car in Palermo in 1980. Another shows a young boy pretending to be a Mafia hit man, pointing a toy gun at passersby while wearing a nylon stocking to disguise his face, a common practice at the time.

She wanted to show how the Mafia’s deep-rooted influence affected ordinary Sicilian society, especially the youth. Her photographs, often first published in L’Ora and picked up by global photo agencies, gradually turned Sicilians against organized crime by showing them that the Mafiosi were not only killing each other but affecting, and sometimes even killing innocent people on their island.

Ms. Battaglia’s images were a major influence on what became known as the Palermo Spring in the late 1980s, when many Sicilians ditched the omertà and took to the streets to denounce the violence of the feuding clans. Ms. Battaglia and Orlando, Palermo’s longtime mayor, were at the forefront of the demonstrations.

Calling her photos “indictments,” Ms. Battaglia once told the German press agency DPA, “I am a messenger of resistance, resistance against violence, corruption, poverty, against moral and political chaos.”

In a 2017 interview with the Guardian, she called the Mafia’s reign of terror in the 1980s the “terrible years. You no longer knew who your friends or enemies were. In the morning, you came out of the house and did not know if you’d come back in the evening. The bosses could blow my head off, any second.

“When the police stopped [the Mafiosi], I approached them, as close as possible, to photograph them, in their handcuffs,” Ms. Battaglia said. “I wanted the bosses to look me in my eyes, even at the cost of spitting on my face.”

The Guardian quoted her as saying that when she attended funerals of Mafiosi, she would cough every time she took a photograph, “so that the click of my shutter could not be heard.” Unbeknown to her, Sicilian police sometimes used her funeral images to identify other Mafiosi and their political and business associates.

Letizia Battaglia was born in Palermo on March 5, 1935, and moved with her parents to northern Italy as a child. She said her childhood was “happy and carefree” until a man exposed himself to her in the street. Her father then demanded that she stay at home, a restriction that led to her eloping at 16 with an older man, Ignazio Stagnitta.

She had three daughters by the time she was in her mid-20s before leaving her husband in 1971 and moving to Milan to work as a journalist.

In Milan, she met Franco Zecchin, a photographer and fellow anti-Mafia activist. They moved to Ms. Battaglia’s native Sicily in 1974, where she was hired by L’Ora. Inspired by the work of American photographer Diane Arbus, Ms. Battaglia first picked up a camera at age 39.

“With this in my hand,” she recalled in a 2019 interview with the Guardian, “I can take on the world.”
One of her first photos for L’Ora was of a Mafioso who had been executed by a rival clan, spread-eagled beneath an olive tree in rural Sicily. Ms. Battaglia told the Guardian in 2019 that she could still recall the smell of that day 45 years later.

“Everyone is equal in death,” she said. “It was very hot and he had been dead for a few days. Now, as soon as you ask about this photograph, it comes back to me. I can almost feel it, this atmosphere of death.”

She hung up her Leica in 1992 after two anti-Mafia judges were murdered. She told friends she was shocked and exhausted by the violence, which never seemed to end.

“Photography changes nothing,” she told the Guardian. “Violence continues, poverty continues, children are still being killed in stupid wars.”

British filmmaker Kim Longinotto told Ms. Battaglia’s story in a 2019 documentary, “Shooting the Mafia,” which was shown at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah.

Survivors include her daughter Shobha Battaglia, herself a well-known photographer and twice winner of a World Press Photo award.

After retiring as a photojournalist, Ms. Battaglia went on to serve as a Green party member with the Palermo city council and the Sicilian regional assembly. Those years were “the worst part of my life, the most humiliating,” she told London’s Sunday Times in 2019. “I didn’t do anything and they paid me a fortune. Everything was decided outside and the Mafia was still there.”

Letizia Battaglia, photographer of Sicilian underworld, dies at 87. By Phil Davison. The Washington Post  , April 16, 2022




Her shocking pictures told the truth about mafia murders – and earned her death threats. Ahead of a powerful film about her extraordinary life, we meet the woman who dared to confront killers.

 
Letizia Battaglia can still remember the first corpse she photographed: a man lying beneath an olive tree in a field in rural Sicily. It remains a viscerally unsettling image, made all the more so by its telling details: the dead man’s shoeless left foot, the resigned gaze of the policeman guarding the body, the olive leaves hanging low over the spreadeagled torso. The fact that he was a mafioso murdered in a local feud is, insists Battaglia, neither here nor there. “Everyone,” she says quietly, “is equal in death.”
 
What has stayed with her, over 40 years later, is the smell that hung in the summer air that day and was carried on the breeze. “It was very hot and he had been dead for a few days,” she says, drawing deeply on a cigarette. “Now, as soon as you ask about this photograph, it comes back to me. I can almost feel it, this atmosphere of death.”
 
We are sitting at a table in Battaglia’s modest flat in central Palermo, her home town, talking about Sicily’s bloody past – what the Italians call “the years of lead”. Now 84, her hair dyed pink as if in defiance of old age, Battaglia is an icon in her native city, the woman who captured the atmosphere of death like no other photographer throughout the dark days of the 1970s and 1980s.
 
Still passionately engaged in the social and political life of the city, she speaks about what she once called her “archive of blood” with a mixture of stoicism, anger and regret. “Photography changes nothing,” she says at one point. “Violence continues, poverty continues, children are still being killed in stupid wars.”
 
Yet Battaglia’s photographs were evidence that held the mafia to account: two of her images were crucial in proving former prime minister Giulio Andreotti’s links to organised crime, as they showed him with an important mafioso, Nino Salvo, whom he had denied knowing. Later, she will take me to see her latest venture, the grandly titled International Centre of Photography, a gallery and creative hub on a former industrial site on the edge of the city.
 
In one room, assistants are hanging a selection of her early work, originally published in Palermo’s left-wing newspaper, L’Ora. One striking photograph shows several mafiosa sitting in a row in a courtroom. The youngest is staring arrogantly at her camera, his finger pointed towards his mouth. “He is saying to me, ‘I will blow your brains out,’” says Battaglia, who lived with regular death threats for two decades.
 
 “Letizia’s pictures confronted the mafia,” says Kim Longinotto, director of an extraordinary new film about Battaglia. “She faced up to the fear they instilled. She refused to be afraid at a time when it could have cost her her life.” Using Battaglia’s images alongside news footage and scenes from classic black and white Italian realist films, Shooting the Mafia is, among other things, a sustained riposte to romanticised Hollywood portrayals of the mafia.
 
“They called themselves men of honour,” says Longinotto. “But, as her photographs show, there was nothing honourable in what they did. Many of those they killed were young activists, trade unionists, truly honourable people challenging corrupt politicians.”
 
In one revealing sequence from the 1980s, Battaglia and her friends stage an impromptu exhibition of her photographs in the village of Corleone, a mafia stronghold that has produced several bosses. The locals initially stare at them out of curiosity then wander away in silence. “It was an act of incredible bravery and defiance.” says Longinotto. “Letizia was forcing them to look directly at what the mafia were doing, but the people were afraid even to be seen looking at the photographs. That is how deep the fear ran.”



 
Battaglia’s rebellious spirit found its true expression in photography. Raised in postwar Palermo, save for a few years when her family relocated to Trieste, she reacted against her strict upbringing by running away to marry a rich older man when she was just 16. Against the odds, the marriage lasted over 20 years and produced three children, whom she took with her when she finally returned to Sicily.
 
Her ambition was to be a writer, but her fledgling journalistic career came to an abrupt end when she first picked up a camera at the age of 40. “I thought, ‘With this in my hand, I can take on the world,’” she says, her eyes lighting up. “Suddenly, I no longer needed kisses or caresses. Instead, I had this confidence, this independence. But it was not just about expressing myself. With the camera, I could also express the inquietude of the world.”
 

When I suggest that she is, at heart, a romantic, she bridles and fixes me with a fierce stare. “No! Photography is not a romantic thing for me. It is not so banal. To create a truly great photograph, you have to work hard and be free. A good photographer needs to be inside the photograph somehow so that the viewer can feel their presence.”
 
Entirely self-taught, she did not realise how powerful her photographs were until years after she took them. “No one told me they were good, but I could feel something. The men photographers kept me apart, they did not invite me to their gatherings and I did not care. It was only in retrospect that I realised I was a storyteller who used images instead of words.”
 
The story she told remains one of the most compellingly powerful in photography’s history. But alongside the horror, there is a strange kind of formal beauty that rests in her intuitive grasp of composition and use of shadow and light. “When you are shooting the dead, using black and white is a way to be delicate, respectful. It creates its own silence and silence was very important for me.”
 
A bleak photograph from 1982 is a case in point: three bodies lie slumped over chairs in a nondescript room, a sex worker and two of her clients, all killed for using heroin that was not supplied by the mafia. “It was such a small room,” she says, “and when I arrived it was full of people: policemen, doctors, magistrates. I had to wait there until, one by one, they left and I was alone with the bodies. It took an eternity, but I had to be alone out of respect for the dead.”



 
There are silence and beauty too in her heartbreaking portrait of Rosario Schifani, which was taken at the funeral of her husband, a bodyguard killed in a car bomb that targeted Battaglia’s friend Giovanni Falcone, a fearless anti-Mafia judge. His death, and that of his associate Paolo Borsellino the same year, caused Battaglia to retreat from the world for a time.
 
“I was in despair,” she says, looking pained. “There were too many dead people. Falcone and Borsellino were symbols of hope, of change, but I loved them as people. It was too much for me. I wanted to die. I had to rebuild myself, but it was so hard, so painful.”
 
At moments like this, one catches a glimpse of the heavy price Battaglia paid for her bravery and commitment. Things have changed for the better, she says, but the Mafia remain a malign invisible force in international crime and politics. Her energies are directed elsewhere these days. She is working on an extended project called Nude Palermo. “It is people of every age and gender – and now, finally, they are not afraid to show themselves. It is not sexy, it is pride, it is strength. Women are freer inside now, they do not wait for the man’s permission.”
 
She smiles and lights another cigarette. “I am optimistic despite all I have seen,” she says, blowing smoke into the air, “I have to be. Not for me, but for the young people. I can see that they need hope and I have to give it to them. Politics shows them only hate. I can show them beauty. My heart has not hardened with age. Always, there is hope, but you must fight for it.”
 
Archive of blood: how photographer Letizia Battaglia shot the mafia and lived. By Sean O’Hagan. The Guardian, November 27, 2019. 



Letizia Battaglia, Italy’s most famous female photojournalist, has developed all of her rolls of film but one. Shot in 1987, the photos show the corpse of a 10-year-old boy, Claudio, who had been killed by the mafia in Palermo.

 
It was a time of war. The Sicilian mafia, known as Cosa Nostra, was leaving bullet-ridden bodies in the streets and assassinating prosecutors with car bombs. Battaglia  of corpses, building a bloody archive in black and white that showed Sicily’s worst face to the world.
 
Thirty years have passed since Battaglia photographed the boy, killed because he had witnessed a murder, and the world around her has changed. Tourism has regenerated Palermo and brought it back from the depths. Most of the Cosa Nostra bosses are in prison and its killers have stopped shooting up the city. Battaglia has changed too. Now, at 82, she is trying to leave behind the horror of those years and searching for innocence and beauty.
 
Her new subject is a 10-year-old girl, the same age as murderedClaudio, in a work called The Beauty of Greta. “This project, in a way, begins from that film roll that was never developed, of the murdered child, that I never found the courage to print,” she said.
 
“The age of 10 is the age of innocence. For me, innocence is synonymous with beauty. Being 10 years old is a magical moment in life. At that age, we are dreaming, we dream of a wonderful future, a future that the mafia, in Sicily, has removed from thousands of people.”
 
Battaglia said it was the impact of Claudio’s murder that decades later had led her to ditch her celebrated noir style. “The constant sight, every day, of all those dead makes you crazy. I have photographed hundreds of them in my life.



 
 “Yet the death of that innocent child, killed because he had witnessed a murder, marked me forever. They took away the right to life. The right to dream. That is why, from the destruction of life, I decided to move on to the construction of life. From horror to beauty.”
 
 Battaglia, who is resuming work after a break of nearly 10 years, lives in the historic centre of Palermo with her 13-year-old dog, Pippo, and has recently agreed to manage a new international photography centre opening in September. Her dream is to bring the British photographer Richard Billingham to Sicily. “For me, he remains the best in the world,” she said.
 
It is far removed from the late 70s, when a war between the mafia families in and around Palermo led to hundreds of deaths. The Corleone clan decided to conquer the city by killing its rivals, along with dozens of police officers, judges and politicians who were trying to stop that war.
 
Riding a Vespa and armed only with her Leica camera, Battaglia scoured the alleys of Palermo, day and night. She was always the first on the scene of the crime, often even before police and relatives.
 
“They were terrible years,” Battaglia said, slowly blowing out cigarette smoke. “You no longer knew who your friends or enemies were. In the morning, you came out of the house and did not know if you’d come back in the evening. The bosses could blow my head off, any second.



 
“When the police stopped them, I approached them, as close as possible, to photograph them, in their handcuffs. I wanted the bosses to look me in my eyes, even at the cost of spitting on my face. That was also a way for me to challenge the mafia.”
 
More than 4,000 mafiosi have been arrested in Sicily since the 1980s. And maybe it’s not a coincidence if Palermo, free from bullets, seems to have been born again. The city was recently named 2018 Italian capital of culture and next year it will host Manifesta, Europe’s most important biennial of contemporary art. Palermo was last year included on the Unesco world heritage list.“But the fight is not over,” Battaglia said. “It’s true, the mafia no longer shoots, but you must not lower your guard. You can also continue to fight the mafia, with beauty,” she said. “Beauty makes us understand what we might lose again.’’
 
From mafia murders to innocent beauty: Letizia Battaglia’s Palermo portfolio. By Lorenzo Tondo. The Guardian, June 2, 2017. 






 
“We stop time,” says Letizia Battaglia of her profession, photography. “If you go back to the great artists of previous centuries, theirs was a magnificent, fantastic interpretation. But it wasn’t reality.”

 Unfortunately for many of her subjects, time stopped just before she got to them. If you have ever been haunted by a photograph of a Mafia killing in Sicily, it is a fair bet that Ms. Battaglia took the picture.
The Maxxi, Italy’s national contemporary art museum in Rome, has gathered more than 300 photographs, contact sheets and contemporary prints for a retrospective of Ms. Battaglia’s work that opens on Nov. 24.

“Her photography is universal,” says Bartolomeo Pietromarchi, one of the show’s three curators. “It recounts humanity with the force and commitment of a work of art. It goes beyond the specific context of Sicily at a particular time to speak to other cultures that have had similar experiences and can identify with people who are suffering, caught between life and death.”
 
One of the exhibition’s most striking aspects is how quickly Ms. Battaglia, now 81 years old, got to the scene of the killings that she recorded—sometimes before police cordoned off the area or draped a sheet over the corpse.
 
Visitors to the Maxxi will first encounter photos of plays that she directed and experimental videos that she produced, as well as her photos of protests in 1970s Milan and photographic portraits of the poet and film director Pier Paolo Pasolini. The museum also will show samples from her most ambitious project: a photographic record of the patients at a psychiatric hospital in Palermo, Sicily, which she visited over a decade.
 
In the second of the two sections of the exhibit, large-format reproductions of 120 of Ms. Battaglia’s most striking images hang from the ceiling. Some are predictable, with victims stretched on the ground or slumped in cars, their windows shattered by gunfire. In another photo, a man lies face down next to a pool of blood, his shirt lifted to his shoulders to reveal a large tattoo of Jesus crowned with thorns.
Her shocking pictures told the truth about mafia murders – and earned her death threats. Ahead of a powerful film about her extraordinary life, we meet the woman who dared to confront killers.



 
Perhaps the most poignant captures the aftermath of a triple homicide. The victims included a prostitute who had been trading drugs without the Mafia’s permission. As if sleeping exhausted, she slumps on the arm of a well-padded chair. Above her hangs a ludicrous poster of a topless model posing in soccer boots and holding a soccer ball.
 
To get the shots for the newspaper that she worked for, Ms. Battaglia had to ignore boundaries. In one picture, a policeman leads away a woman who has just murdered her boyfriend in a jealous rage. Beyond the pair is another photographer, maybe 12 feet away, his camera raised to take the standard picture of an arrest. But Ms. Battaglia can’t have been more than a foot from the policeman’s elbow.
“I always felt a need to show myself; not to hide; to say, ‘I’m here and I’m taking your photograph,’ ” says Ms. Battaglia. “I had cameras broken. I was punched. I was spat at. But that was to be expected,” she adds. One highly placed Mafioso, she recalls, kicked her hard.



 
Though her documentation of Mafia mayhem brought her fame, the exhibition shows her to be much more than an unusually creative ambulance-chaser. We see photos of a rat scuttling down a street in Palermo with a cat right behind; a hunched and wizened old lady contemplating with satisfaction the ice cream that she has just bought for herself on a feast day; a little girl, caught in a shaft of sunlight as she waits round a corner in an alley with her fists clenched, holding what might just be a makeshift garrote.
 
Laced through the show are the photographer’s Sicilian women—fixing the camera with dark, baleful eyes, often with expressions of misgiving and sorrow.
 
Ms. Battaglia started in photography late and almost by accident. At age 37, the mother of two daughters, she was desperate for an income of her own. She wanted to separate from her husband, and Italy had not yet legalized divorce.
 
She looked for work as a reporter at a Sicilian daily, L’Ora. It was August. Most of the journalists were on vacation. “I was lucky,” she says. Soon she moved to Milan and found that editors wanted photos to go with her articles. Approaching the age of 40, she picked up a camera professionally for the first time. She became so good at it, her old paper asked her to return as head of photography. She arrived back in Sicily just as Mafiosi from the town of Corleone were muscling their way into Palermo, murdering whoever got in their way.
 




For years, Ms. Battaglia says, she used a “very simple” Pentax. “I was never one for the technical side—I put up with it.” But she took “lots and lots and lots of photographs” on each assignment. And back at the paper, “in among the bad ones, there’d be a good one.”
 
Today, helped by the Rome-based publishing house Drago, she is painstakingly sifting through the discards. Some of her discoveries are in the exhibition, which ends March 30 and may go to other countries, according to Mr. Pietromarchi.
 
“Listen,” she says with a ring of youthful enthusiasm in her gravelly voice. “I’m actually impressing myself with the power of what I have done.”
 
The exhibition at the Maxxi was curated by Paolo Falcone, Margherita Guccione and Bartolomeo Pietromarchi.
 
Icons | Mafia Mayhem at a Museum. By John Hooper. The Wall Street Journal,   November 18, 2016. 




When Letizia Battaglia returned to Palermo in 1974 from a three-year sojourn in Milan, the city was enjoying a period of relative calm. There was the endemic corruption, obviously, and the usual posse of self-serving politicians. But no one was expecting a bloodbath, least of all Battaglia. She was already a 40-year-old mother of three, enjoying her first steady job as picture editor of a city newspaper. She wasn't looking to cover a war. But war, it seemed, had decided to come looking for her.
 
Sitting at a low table in her eighth-floor apartment in Palermo, Battaglia, now 76, flicks through some of the iconic images she captured during what Italians call the anni di piombo, the years of (flying) lead. Eighteen years in which the ferocious Corleonesi mafia clan would claim the lives of governors, senior policemen, entire mafia families and, ultimately, two of Battaglia's dearest friends: the anti-mafia judges Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino.
 
This May marks the 20th anniversary of Falcone's assassination by a massive motorway bomb, which also killed the husband of Rosaria Schifani, one of Falcone's bodyguards. In the intervening years the big drug-trafficking wars have shifted, on a blood meridian, from Sicily to the Mexican border. But Battaglia's photographs testify that nothing has changed, that none of this is new. The techniques pioneered by the Corleonesi have proved their efficacy. Maximum violence. Total extermination of your rivals. Intimidation of the state.
 
If horror still lurches reliably out of Battaglia's pictures, so do the more complicated emotions of pity and despair. To many, these are the qualities that elevate them to the status of art. Battaglia's reputation has steadily risen over the years, attracting awards and exhibition space as far afield as New York and Amsterdam. But long before the foreign prizes and plaudits arrived, she'd already received domestic recognition of a more heartfelt kind: death threats.
 
That Battaglia ignored the threats, despite being advised to lie low by Falcone himself, comes as no surprise once you've met her. At first she puts you at ease with her husky laugh and friendly little dog, Pippo. Her apartment is dark and cool, the walls adorned with two of her more soothing photographic portraits: a girl, and a dove. Further along is a framed Red Flag (it's from India, sent by a daughter), which seems in keeping with Battaglia's bohemian dress and 60s fringe. Beyond the bookshelves is a balcony, its tiles and pot plants shining in the summer sun. Framed by the door the view could almost be a photo, a sanitised vision of the sunny present.
 
But once her eyes have fixed on you, her intensity is revealed. Let your gaze drift down to your notebook when she is declaiming something and you are abruptly reprimanded. "Look me in the eyes!" She is deadly serious. She insists on being heard. She smokes a lot.
 
During the height of the violence Battaglia would get called out at all hours of the day and night, and be on the scene of a murder, pushing through ghoulish crowds of onlookers, before the blood of the dead had begun to dry. It was unrelenting: they would find as many as seven bodies at a time. No sooner had she and her colleagues raced across town on mopeds to cover one killing, than they would receive news of another hit. "Before you'd even dealt with the desperation and suffering of one murder, you were already on the way to another. More blood, more violence."
 
But she didn't stop. This was never just a job. It was her duty as a citizen, she believed. And it showed. These urgent, often grainy shots were politics of the most incendiary kind. They were asking a question that no one at the time wanted, or dared, to hear: why?
 
"The worst thing was that we didn't understand at first where this inferno came from, she says. "No one knew about the Corleonesi. No one was getting caught for these crimes. And they always killed the best people. The best judges, the best policemen, the best politicians. It took years to understand what was going on, thanks to the work of Falcone and the testimony of the pentito Tommaso Buscetta."
 
Battaglia's inability to shield herself from the horrors she witnessed is still evident. At one point she shudders and asks me to put away a photo taken by her then-boyfriend and fellow photographer, Franco Zecchin. The photo in question has an almost surreal quality to it – three bored-looking young men slouch in the back of a bus, looking for all the world as if they haven't realised they're dead yet.
 
However, Battaglia didn't only photograph corpses. She ranged across Sicily, taking in religious festivals, psychiatric hospitals, crumbling slums and aristocratic salons. The stars of her photos are often young women, quietly enduring their various predicaments. The compassion that shines out of these portraits dispels any doubts one might entertain while wading through the bloodier end of her catalogue. Her art is not exploitative – it is about exploitation.
 
Though Battaglia describes her own childhood as serene, it was also suffocatingly cloistered. Palermo after the war was not a place for independent-minded girls and her father was possessive. He kept her locked up in the family home. "I couldn't go out because men would bother me on the street, even at 11 years of age," she says. Life with her jealous father soon became intolerable and at the first opportunity she bolted, which in those days meant marriage – at the age of 16, to a prosperous older man who worked in the coffee business.
 
Three children followed, but little happiness. Twenty-one years would pass before Battaglia finally mustered the courage to walk out. In a country where divorce was still illegal and feminism just a distant rumour, she installed herself and her daughters in the single room of an "alternative" household in Milan. She was penniless but free. Her family considered her ruined.
 
In Milan she learned her craft as a photo-reporter and soon, despite her family's forebodings, she was enjoying success and all the other things she'd previously lacked in life: creativity, independence, intellectual friends. Among these was the Sicilian author Leonardo Sciascia. It was he who later wrote a catty article that labelled Borsellino as a "professional of the anti-mafia". The article was seized upon by the judge's enemies and used to isolate him. Five years later both he and Falcone were blown up by two separate bombs, one after the other. The judges knew it was coming. As Falcone said: "It is my destiny to take a bullet from the mafia one day. The only thing I don't know is when."




 
"Sciascia was an adorable person, but he had an outdated idea of the mafia," Battaglia says. "He made a mistake with that article, but I forgave him." As for Falcone and Borsellino, she has only praise. "I have two photographs of each of us together, taken by my daughter. They are the most important photographs of my life. I was proud to know them. These two brave Sicilians died to defend us."
 
But perhaps the most important friendship she made was with the maverick anti-mafia mayor of Palermo, Leoluca Orlando, with whom she served both on the city council and as a deputy in the regional parliament. "Those were the most beautiful years of my life. Better than being in love, or having children."
 
A price must be paid for this kind of political commitment. It was difficult for her daughters; it was difficult for her, too. When she bought an apartment in one of the roughest parts of town, intending to share the people's problems, she was repeatedly burgled under the eyes of her neighbours who, true to form, never saw a thing. A cynic might suggest this was a classic case of a communist intellectual showing solidarity with the masses, and the masses failing to reciprocate. But at least the thieves didn't steal her negatives. Battaglia's immense archive would provide sensational evidence when the former Italian prime minister Giulio Andreotti found himself in court answering charges of links to the mafia. Battaglia, years before, had taken a photo of him during a visit to Sicily which unwittingly showed him in the company of a mafioso. Despite this, the prosecution never succeeded in securing a conviction.
 
It was a defeat for the anti-mafia movement, one of many. But despite the difficulties of winning cases such as these, Battaglia believes that the answer to defeating Cosa Nostra is deceptively simple. "The mafia can be beaten, but only if people stop voting for dishonest politicians. It's no longer just a Sicilian problem. It's all over Italy."
 
Battaglia no longer does reportage – "I'm too old to keep walking the streets" – but she regularly visits schools and attends anti-mafia events, however lost the cause may seem sometimes. Is this what people mean when they describe her as impegnata, involved?
 
"It means setting an example," she says. "It means opposing the mafia in everything that I say and buy and eat. Every person that I meet, every gesture that I make, it's all connected to the need to liberate my country from the mafia." In a city like Palermo, where the vast majority of shops and businesses pay extortion money, that's not as easy as it sounds.
 
In fact, Battaglia doesn't go out much any more, except in the morning to walk the dog. She avoids contact with the city's middle classes, deemed guilty of what she calls moral absenteeism. She admits: "Palermo is a bit of a prison for me – it holds me down. Every now and then I need to get away. I even moved to Paris for a year and a half, but I couldn't help thinking about Palermo – despite all of its problems, its shit, its corruption, which is even worse now than it was before."
 
These symptoms of embittered love will be familiar to anyone who has lived in Sicily for an extended period of time. The place is infuriating, self-destructive and very nearly hopeless, but you can't shake it off. As Battaglia's friend Sciascia once said: "I hate and detest Sicily insofar as I love it, and insofar as it does not respond to the kind of love I would like to have for it.
 
 
Letizia Battaglia: shooting the mafia. By Peter Jinks. The Guardian, March 4, 2012.  














06/11/2020

The Humanist Vision of Dorothea Lange

 



In 1966 the Museum of Modern Art held a retrospective devoted to Dorothea Lange—its first-ever solo exhibition of work by a female photographer. Lange’s photographs have now become part of our collective memory of the Great Depression. Migrant Mother (1936)—a portrait taken in a pea pickers’ camp in California of a woman holding her baby and surrounded by her children—is perhaps one of the most reprinted images in history. But beyond her better-known photographs of the Depression and the Dust Bowl migrations, Lange produced a vast archive of events and crises in the American twentieth century, from the Japanese internment camps to the arrival of the first Mexican braceros and the racial and economic inequality in the judicial system. Many of those photographs were censored by the US government for decades, or simply not published by the magazines that had originally commissioned them.

 
When John Szarkowski, head of MoMA’s Department of Photography, initially approached her in the early 1960s, Lange was almost seventy years old and suffering from cancer of the esophagus. She had already decided to devote the time she had left to making a series of intimate family portraits, and she agreed to the retrospective with some reluctance. There is film footage of Lange talking to one of her sons in 1963, as she’s looking over a lifetime of work for the exhibition and finding herself at an impasse. Her son tells her she just needs to get the job done, to stop doubting herself and hurry up. After a short pause, she responds: “It is not really modesty on my part. Don’t mistake it. It’s not modesty. It’s that I’m afraid.”
 
In February 2020 the museum opened “Dorothea Lange: Words & Pictures,” curated by Sarah Hermanson Meister. As I studied Lange’s photographs in the museum in early March, just before the pandemic shut everything down, I found it difficult not to wonder: What exactly had she been afraid of? Maybe she was simply worried that she might not be able to finish her selection in time. Perhaps she thought that her work would be misunderstood, and was doubting herself the way so many women do whenever we interact with hierarchical institutions that open their doors to us only as widely as conventional narratives allow. Lange lived—we still live—in a time and a culture that hinges on the normalization of unequal standards and conditions, and then chooses exceptions to its rules, but only on its own terms. Having to embody that exception must have been a heavy honor to carry.
 
Or perhaps Lange’s fear was just there, as rotund and unexplainable as it is intrinsic to the creative process—that dull hum or sharp ring of fear, sometimes unleashing and at other times stifling the drive to imagine and give shape to new things. In the end, Lange agreed to choose two hundred images for the show and dedicated the next year and a half to looking through thousands of old negatives and prints, shuffling and organizing pieces of her life’s work into some kind of coherent narrative.
 
Dorothea Lange’s first darkroom was her mother’s repurposed chicken coop in their backyard in New Jersey, where she grew up. She was born in Hoboken in 1895 and contracted polio when she was seven. The virus left her walking with a limp for the rest of her life. She spoke about her disability, in a series of taped interviews for the California Regional Oral History Office, as “perhaps…the most important thing that happened to me, and formed me, guided me, instructed me, helped me, and humiliated me.” When Lange was a teenager, her mother, by then divorced and raising Lange and her brother alone, sent Lange to a girl’s high school in New York. But Lange would cut class and spend the entire day walking the city, despite the difficulties that moving about entailed. She referred to those long wanderings as not “unproductive truancy,” and believed them to be her most formative early experiences as a photographer, even though she didn’t yet own a camera. After high school, under pressure from her mother, she enrolled at Barnard to train as a teacher. She studied halfheartedly and devoted most of her time to learning photography by whatever means she found: as a camera operator, apprentice to portraitists and commercial photographers, and assistant in a number of New York studios.
 
In 1918, at the age of twenty-two, Lange left New York to travel the world with a friend. She planned to make a living selling her photographs, but the two young women were robbed of their savings in San Francisco and had to scramble for jobs. After a couple of months, Lange was able to rent a commercial space on Sutter Street, near Union Square, with a loan from an acquaintance she’d met at the San Francisco Camera Club. That became her second darkroom. Materials wouldn’t pay for themselves, though, so she turned part of the space into a commercial portrait studio. Clad in a Fortuny gown, she received her visitors with tea made in a Russian samovar, gradually amassing a clientele from among the city’s economic elite. She worked up to eighteen hours a day, every day, until she was able to make a living.
 
 
 
Lange’s Sutter Street studio quickly became a kind of salon where other photographers, writers, and painters gathered. Many were women, including the radical modernist Imogen Cunningham; Alma Lavenson, who photographed industrial landscapes; and Consuelo Kanaga, one of the first female photographers to document life in the South under Jim Crow, and whose portraits of black writers and intellectuals became more widely known only many years later. Some people referred to Lange’s studio as “the matrimonial bureau,” presumably because of several amorous relationships that had started at its late-night gatherings. It was there that Lange met Maynard Dixon—a cowboy-booted bohemian painter twenty years her senior. They married in 1920, only two years after she left New York, and had two sons. By the end of the decade Lange was running the studio and taking care of her children and household mostly on her own, with only intermittent participation from her husband.
 
During the early 1930s, the first years of the Great Depression, San Francisco’s art scene was still vibrant. Diego Rivera was painting murals at the San Francisco Art Institute, City College, and the City Club; local artists were making murals for Coit Tower; and the photographers who called themselves Group f/64—including Cunningham, Willard Van Dyke, Ansel Adams, and others—were showing their work in studios and galleries while writing manifestos in favor of “pure photography…as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form.”
 
Lange herself never adhered to such a fixed set of aesthetic principles; she favored matter-of-factness. Around that time she pinned a note outside her darkroom—a note she later carried with her to successive darkrooms—with a quotation from Francis Bacon (the sixteenth-century philosopher, not the twentieth-century painter): “The contemplation of things as they are, without substitution or imposture, without error or confusion, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention.”
 
By 1933 there were more than 14 million unemployed people in the country. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had been elected president the previous year and set the first New Deal plans into motion, but the economy was years away from any kind of recovery. Although Lange continued to make portrait photographs in her studio, work had gotten slower and she was earning one third of her usual income. She gave up the Sutter Street studio to travel with Dixon for a while—a last, rescue-the-marriage trip—boarding their kids out with a Mormon family on weekdays.
 



 
When they returned to San Francisco they again boarded their sons (ages seven and four), this time at a school in Marin County. Lange and Dixon each took up a studio of their own on Montgomery Street. That was Lange’s third darkroom, and also where she lived for the next year. In one of her interviews for the California Regional Oral History Office, Lange describes a window in the corner of the studio where the sun came in directly. She often stood there, studying her prints, observing the street down below and the many unemployed and desperate people drifting past. It was looking out that window, she explains, that got her going “in the direction of a kind of photography for which at the time there was no name. They call it ‘documentary’ now, and though it isn’t a good name, it sticks to it.”
 
 
Lange went into the streets to take some of the first documentary photographs of the Depression, including White Angel Bread Line (1933), which shows the backs, shoulders, and hats of men waiting in line for food. One of them, an older man, is facing Lange’s camera but doesn’t look straight at it. Only his nose, unshaven chin, and downward curving lips are visible under the brim of his hat. His cracked hands are clutched together, a tin cup between his arms. The angle is slanted, as if Lange had taken the photograph while floating a few feet above the ground. The shot is reminiscent of Tina Modotti’s Workers Parade (1926), which looks from above at a group of workers during a May Day demonstration in Mexico City. Both photographs record a similar moment of political and social unrest. Modotti’s is a modernist abstraction—a constellation of hats and backs—while in Lange’s there is a deep, desolate intimacy: the hands, the cup.
 
 
Curiously, both photographs were on display in New York this year—Lange’s at MoMA and Modotti’s at the Whitney’s “Vida Americana” exhibition, which focuses on the influence of the Mexican muralists on US artists working for the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the 1930s. It would be illuminating to see Modotti’s and Lange’s work on the same walls—to see, for example, Lange’s later photograph Tractored Out (1938), a shot of a lone Texan house in a field with perfectly concentric semicircles of dusty furrows yielding no crops, alongside Modotti’s Stadium, Mexico City (circa 1927), of a newly built Mexican stadium with its steps set like an amphitheater, also concentric, made of reinforced concrete. Both photographs, one rural, the other urban, register a moment of capitalism—with all its faith in mechanization and progress—that was already producing the rampant, brutal inequalities that tractored people out of their rural homes and shoved them into urban breadlines.

 White Angel Bread Line was the first of Lange’s photographs to become known to a large audience. It was published in the San Francisco–based monthly magazine Camera Craft in 1934, and two years later she gave a print to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. For years the print traveled to different museums and was seen by thousands or maybe millions of people. Decades later, in 2005, in a sinister irony of the market economy, this print of an elderly man waiting in a relief line sold at Sotheby’s for $822,400.
 
In January 1934 Lange gave up her Montgomery Street studio and sent out a change-of-address note to all her clients. The front of the leaflet said: “New Season/1934/Dorothea Lange/Photographs/of People/New Place/2515/Gough Street…” Inside, she printed the Francis Bacon quote she cherished: “The contemplation of things as they are…” Lange had changed the course of her work completely, away from commercial portraiture. Now she was mostly photographing people in the streets, where economic unease was swelling and with it political rage, fertile with possibilities.
 
West Coast longshoremen went on strike that May, joined later by sailors, engineers, firemen, oilers, and pilots. They demanded fair wages and hours, recognition of their union, and union control over hiring (which was, until then, done at the whim of bosses in large hiring halls). Demonstrations in San Francisco soon turned violent: the California National Guard was deployed and there was a heavy police presence. At one demonstration, police fired on strikers and killed two men.
 
A general strike followed, during which more than 150,000 workers shut down the city for four days. Lange documented the strike. One of her photographs shows a policeman in profile, arrogant and impassive; behind his face is a sign that reads, “Tax the rich for unemployment insurance.” Another shows a worker from the shoulders up, his eyes almost invisible under the shadow of his cap; behind him, a sign reads, “Feed us!” Still another shows a policeman standing, statue-like, hands clasped at the height of his stomach, a thumb tucked in between the buttons of his overcoat, legs in a kind of fencing stance; behind him, an orderly crowd holds up multilingual signs with anti-imperialist proclamations.
 
During the summer of 1934, the Group f/64 photographer Willard Van Dyke exhibited some of Lange’s photographs of the strikes and protests in his Oakland studio. It was the first time her documentary work was ever shown in a public space. Paul Taylor, a progressive agricultural economist and Berkeley professor who had done extensive work on Mexican labor in California, saw the show and was taken by Lange’s photographs. He asked her for permission to use some of them to illustrate an article he had written on the strikes for the left-wing journal Survey Graphic. A couple of months later, the two traveled with a group of photographers—including Van Dyke and Cunningham—to document the new bartering communities that the Unemployed Exchange Association (UXA) had formed across California as a response to the Depression. After a few months of collaboration, Lange and Taylor each filed for divorce from their respective spouses and started living together in San Francisco with Lange’s two sons.
 
In the midst of the Depression came the Dust Bowl, one of the most severe environmental crises in US history. The southern Great Plains had once been fertile grasslands, but during the long colonization of the West, farmers started deep-plowing the ground, spurred on by successive governments that offered settlers plots of land and encouraged ever more productivity and efficiency. Farmers plowed over the topsoil so frequently and fervently that they ended up displacing the region’s native grasses forever. There was nothing to hold the ground together anymore, so when droughts came and strong winds followed, enormous “black blizzards” of dust spread across parts of Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico. Thousands of families had to flee their homes.
 




Lange and Taylor were the first to begin photographing and interviewing the Dust Bowl migrants arriving in California. Taylor was working for the California State Emergency Relief Administration, one of Roosevelt’s early New Deal agencies, and he invited Lange to join the team. She was hired as a “typist” because the administration’s payroll had no provisions for a “documentary photographer.” I presume this would have been handled differently for a man. But Lange was in fact there to take photographs, while Taylor talked to people and took field notes. They documented the influx of rattle-trap jalopies, the stunned faces of the newly arrived families, the temporary tent settlements. The caption of a photograph that Lange took in Bakersfield, California, of a sharecropper family with their kids and belongings in tow reads, “We got blowed out in Oklahoma.”
 
Lange and Taylor put together a report about migratory labor that helped secure federal funding for temporary migratory camps to house displaced farm workers. Lange’s photographs were also instrumental in the creation of the Historical Section of the Farm Security Administration (FSA), a New Deal agency put together in 1937 as a response to the agricultural devastation of the Dust Bowl. After seeing Lange’s photos of the camps, Roy Stryker, the head of the Historical Section, hired a group of young photographers—Lange, Walker Evans, and Arthur Rothstein among them—who over the next few years produced a public archive of more than 80,000 photographs of the Depression.
 
Lange and Taylor continued to develop and perfect their method: taking photographs, interviewing, and logging field notes in a shared journal that later helped them put their work together coherently. Their respective words and photographs were not two separate projects later assembled artificially, but rather grew together, intricately woven. The culmination of their work from the 1930s was an astonishing book, An American Exodus: A Record of Human Erosion (1939)—now almost impossible to find—which assembles a narrative of human struggle against the machinery of capitalism, always swallowing labor in order to produce fortunes for the few and destitution for the many.
 
The book documents lives shattered by the cotton industry, rural poverty, migration to urban centers, depletion of natural resources, mechanization—and also the absurdity of it all, encapsulated in a photograph of a barbed-wire fence separating two identical expanses of dusty emptiness. The book includes introductory essays by Taylor, photographs by Lange, and captions, most of them direct quotes—fragments of conversations—from the people they approached:
 
      “There’s lots of ways to break a man down…
We’re trying not to, but we’ll be in California yet…
If you die, you’re dead—that’s all.
The people ain’t got no say a comin’.”
 
“How do you tell others about what you think is worth telling, that you have either discovered, or uncovered, or learned…and that you think is meaningful,” Lange asks the camera in the film footage from 1963—“not moral, but meaningful?” That is, perhaps, both the most basic and complex question in the creative process: How do we organize the chaos of our individual experience into a narrative that carries collective meaning? Perhaps taking a series of photographs is similar to the process of taking notes for a novel or an essay. The hardest part comes later, when those notes have to be revised—most discarded, some kept—and then assembled into a larger narrative. And when getting that larger narrative right directly affects the people whose lives and struggles you are documenting, as was the case with Lange’s work, the responsibility is not only aesthetic but also political.
 
In a letter to Szarkowski from June 1965, Lange wrote:
 
   “Am working on the captions. This is not a simple, clerical matter, but a process…. They are connective tissue, and in explaining the function of the captions, as I am doing now, I believe we are extending our medium.”
 
She was indeed extending the medium. Lange’s work from the 1930s, particularly in An American Exodus, allows us to see and almost hear the early ruins of American capitalism and the bodies it ravages. Combining images and words—where the words were the voices of the people portrayed and not the authoritative voice of the artist, curator, or editor—was a way of understanding documentary photography as a vehicle for a multiplicity of voices. In some ways, Lange’s method prefigures that of contemporary journalists like Svetlana Alexievich: there is a choral quality to her way of documenting, a collection of voices speaking in different tones and with distinct textures about a common concern.
 
The next decades were dramatically different for Lange. She won a Guggenheim fellowship in 1941—the first woman photographer ever to receive one—to document cooperative religious communities, but the war thwarted her plans, and she continued working for the government. The New Deal programs were fizzling out, however, and nothing like the FSA’s photographic project was repeated. In 1942 the Office of War Information was created, and it absorbed the FSA. The next year, the federal government defunded the WPA, which had employed more than eight million people to build public works.
 






Then, following two executive orders from Roosevelt, the government created the War Relocation Authority, the agency responsible for interning approximately 120,000 people of Japanese descent. All these bureaucratic rechristenings are enough to give a clear sense of the direction the country was about to take. The US was spinning itself out of the Great Depression by steering toward a war economy, the mass incarceration of minorities, military attacks and interventionism abroad—in other words, toward a future that is now our present.

 During the next few years, Lange worked for the Office of War Information, which was openly an instrument of government propaganda, nationally and abroad. Her work was heavily surveilled and controlled, she was often accompanied by a soldier on her assignments, and all her negatives had to be sent to the government. In 1942 she photographed the first braceros—Mexican men brought into the US to work when the labor shortages of the war began. The braceros, who were called “guest workers” in the US but referred to themselves as “los enganchados” (the hooked ones), were put to work in dismal conditions, picking and canning produce on farms and building railroads. They suffered constant discrimination, and when the war was over and they were no longer needed, they were deported through a series of federal maneuvers, such as “Operation Wetback” in 1954.

 Lange possibly sought to bear witness to their circumstances—the kind of approach she had been taking in her assignments for an entire decade. But the only photographs that appeared at the time are of the braceros’ arrival, showing cheerful young men smiling and waving from trains (see illustration at the bottom of page 18). These were published in 1943 in Survey Graphic with an accompanying article that claimed that “workers are being shipped from Mexico to the United States—not as unwilling forced labor, but as neighbors to help with the harvest.” It is unclear if those were indeed the only photographs that Lange was able to take, or what she may have thought of the way that, this time around, someone’s words and her pictures were paired.

 After she photographed the braceros, the War Relocation Authority commissioned Lange to photograph the internment process of Japanese-Americans. She was hesitant to take the project on, but saw in it an opportunity to denounce what the government was doing. She photographed, in her own words, “baffled, bewildered people” standing in long lines in the streets, waiting for inoculations, as the government set the confinement plan into motion; then, people in front of an “ocean of desks” being interviewed—interrogated—and handed numbers in place of their family names; and, finally, people carrying their luggage and wearing their best clothes on the day of the forced relocation.

 All of Lange’s negatives and prints for this project were impounded by the government. “They had wanted a record, but not a public record, and [the photographs] were not mine. I was under bond,” she said. These brutal documents of this country’s hatred toward the Japanese-American community remained mostly inaccessible until 2006, when they were all finally released.

 Lange believed that a documentary photograph could only reveal something about the event it documented if it contained something larger than that event:

     “A documentary photograph is not a factual photograph per se. It is a photograph which carries the full meaning and significance of the episode or the circumstance or the situation that can only be revealed—because you can’t really recapture it—by this other quality.”

 Her photographs possess that “other quality,” and imprint themselves in the observer’s mind in such a way that they come back—an involuntary echo—when something in the world resembles them or evokes their atmosphere. In the South Texas Family Residential Center, currently the largest ICE detention center for undocumented mothers and their children, there is an eerie echo of the Manzanar Relocation Center, which Lange photographed during the Japanese internment. And therein lies not only the power but also the importance of a documentary gaze such as Lange’s: it reminds us how everything contains a trace left behind by a previous event, which will in turn continue to reverberate and ripple into the future.

 In 1945 Lange stopped working for the government. The Office of War Information had asked her to photograph the first conference of the nascent United Nations, but she did not complete the task. She had become ill, and her health deteriorated over the next few years, forcing her to live with chronic pain and intermittent hospitalizations. She was less active as a photographer during the late 1940s and 1950s, though in 1952 she cofounded Aperture, the nonprofit institution and magazine devoted to photography, and worked on and off for Life magazine, often with frustrating outcomes.





 One of her last large undertakings for Life, which she worked on between 1955 and 1957, was a photo-essay called “Public Defender.” In one photograph, The Defendant, a Black man sits on a chair in a courtroom, resting his face on one of his hands—an enormous, strong hand; a desperate, helpless hand. His other hand, barely visible, is tucked between his knees (see illustration on page 19). Lange, as she had done before in her work, sought to document what usually goes unseen or is willfully ignored. This time, her gaze observed racial bias against Black people in the American judicial system, and the crucial part public defenders can play in guaranteeing that those who cannot pay their way through the system get as fair a trial as possible. (It was only three years later, in 1963, that the Supreme Court ruled, in Gideon v. Wainwright, that states have to provide an attorney to defendants who cannot afford their own.)

 Though some of the photographs from that series were included in the syndicated magazine This Week in 1960, Life decided not to run “Public Defender.” For almost two decades, starting in the early 1940s and into the late 1950s, Lange’s work had been surveilled, censored, misused, impounded, or simply rejected.

 “Out of those materials I want to extract…the universality of the situation, not the circumstance,” Lange says on camera as she is preparing for the retrospective at MoMA in the early 1960s. Documentary photography teaches us to observe things historically, understanding the connections between systemic inequalities deeply rooted in the past, the events and crises of our present, and the possible futures that our present foreshadows. Studying Lange’s photographs today, it’s impossible not to wonder: How would she be documenting the Black Lives Matter protests and police brutality against communities of color? What photograph would she have taken in 2016—eighty years after Migrant Mother—of a migrant mother in a detention facility? How would she have captioned a photograph of children locked in one of ICE’s cages at the border? What would she have revealed to us about the lives of agricultural workers—mostly Mexican, Central American, and undocumented—feeding America through the Covid-19 pandemic while living under the threat of deportation?

 Dorothea Lange died at the age of seventy in October 1965—just three and a half months before the opening of the MoMA retrospective. “Those darkroom terrors, they still remain,” she said toward the end of her life. I think of her working in her successive darkrooms: the New Jersey chicken coop; the Sutter Street “matrimonial bureau”; the Montgomery Street studio from which she looked out the window onto the Depression-ridden streets; the Gough Street studio where she developed her Dust Bowl prints; and her last studio, in the home she shared with Taylor in Oakland, where she looked back at her life’s work to put together a coherent narrative.

 Perhaps Lange’s fears came from a deep consciousness of her responsibility. After documenting nearly a half-century of crises and the lives of those most deeply affected by them, Lange understood, possibly too well, the enormous responsibility that comes with telling any story, but especially the story of other people’s struggles. Fear is an embodied knowledge, an almost physical intuition of possible outcomes learned through past experience. It can spin into paranoia, paralyze us, shock us into impassivity. But it can also be a powerful drive, as I suppose it was for Lange, who with all her “darkroom terrors” was still able to document what many others had not yet seen or wanted to see. Fear allows us to give shape to things that we were unwilling to see or unable to name. Fear is a specific form of intelligence that comes when hindsight, insight, and foresight collide.

 Things as They Are. By Valerie Luiselli. The New York Review, November 19, 2020. 



In the midst of the Great Depression, the American photographer Dorothea Lange crossed the street from her San Francisco studio to photograph unemployed men in a breadline. Lange’s instinct not to shrink from misery but to embrace it evidenced her profound sense of empathy. If we’ve grown a bit immune to it these days, the havoc wreaked on American life — on global life — by the COVID-19 crisis lends Lange’s humanist vision renewed relevance. This spirit is behind the Museum of Modern Art’s current exhibition, Dorothea Lange: Words & Pictures. The show, which spans Lange’s entire career and is her first major museum survey of her work in 50 years, stresses the social context in which she produced her images.

 
The most famous of these date from the New Deal period (1933-36), when the government hired artists to document poverty and unemployment affecting millions of Americans. Lange started at home: In “White Angel Breadline, San Francisco” (1933), a cluster of men huddle with their backs to us, while a lone man in the foreground faces us, his hat pulled over his eyes, his shoulders slouched and arms resting on a wood beam. Lange focuses on his empty cup and ravaged hands, clutched in front of him.
 
She returned frequently to the intersection of unemployment, dignity, and masculinity — for example, with the crumpled, defeated posture of the seated figure in “Man beside Wheelbarrow” (1934); the weathered hand of a farm worker in “Migration Cotton Picker, Eloy, Arizona” (1940); and the clasped hands behind an old man’s back in “Back” (1935, from the Farm Administration portrait series). Oftentimes capturing arrested motion or collapse rather than rest, these forceful images encapsulate despair.
 
Text is central to the exhibition’s emphasis on narratives. MoMA’s photography curator, Sarah Meister, accompanies the photographs with pages from publications in which Lange’s work appeared, including An American Exodus and Survey Graphic. In the latter, agricultural economist — and Lange’s husband — Paul Taylor (who also co-authored An American Exodus) explains why San Francisco workers are on strike.
 
Lange’s “Street Demonstration” (1934) accompanies the text. While it’s an essential coupling, the photograph also reminds us that art can arrive at messages sideways. Although we may note first the towering figure of a policeman, hunkering down in front of the crowd, on the left a small child daringly looks straight at Lange. On the right, a short elderly demonstrator opens his feet wide, as if mimicking the policeman’s stance. This multivalent composition — at once committed, serious, defiant, and yet playful— is the true mark of Lange’s craft. In her photography, human ingenuity and grace triumph over the unspeakable blows of the Great Depression, even when hope is in short supply.
 
Many evocative portraits are of women and girls. In “Woman of the High Plains, Texas Panhandle” (June 1938), a woman clasps her forehead, staring out over empty horizon. Her left hand rests on the back of her neck; her sinewy torso fills the frame. Gentle yet steely, scrappy yet sublime, the image projects resilience. Lange’s notes, which she made often, recap the woman’s words: “This county’s a hard country. They won’t help bury you here. If you die, you’re dead, that’s all.”
 
In the Farm Administration photographs, there’s the staggering image of a diminutive Black woman, identified only as “Ex-Slave with Long Memory, Alabama” (1937), her right hand clutching a walking stick. A portrait of a young Black girl alone on a ramshackle porch walled off by ivy (“Tennessee,” June 1938) echoes that of a young white girl clutching a barbwire fence (“Child and Her Mother, Wapato Yakima Valley,” August 1939). These are portraits of girlhood forestalled or abandoned.
 
By contrast, a section devoted to women’s rights and racism (primarily anti-Japanese sentiment and segregation) feels a bit sparse, suggesting that perhaps Lange received fewer commissions in those areas, although there’s at least one striking portrait elsewhere in the show — “Plantation Overseer and His Field Hands” (June 1936). For the most part, however, the exhibition flows well. Audio notes fill in the broader context around the photographs: for example, artist Wendy Red Star, who grew up on a Crow reservation, comments on “Tractored Out, Childress County, Texas” (1938) by drawing a parallel between the Indigenous people pushed out from fertile prairies by white farmers and the same farmers being pushed out by dust bowls. Such contextualization, from multiple perspectives, broadens the social resonance of Lange’s work. It also helps balance the other moments in the show, where the lack of narrative makes it feel like the marginalized groups are being relegated to summary roles or ethnic types (as in “Ex-Slave” or “Filipinos Cutting Lettuce, Salinas Valley, California,” June 1935).
 




Lange could be ferocious. In her late series, dedicated to the injustices of the legal system, every image is a cry of protest. In “The Defendant, Alameda County Courthouse, California” (1957), a young man sits alone in the courthouse, his broad shoulders slumped, his head in his hand, the latter slightly blurred, spectral, and so massive it shields his face. The immensity of the man’s grief is palpable. In “The Witness” (1955-57), a Black man holds up his right hand in a courtroom; the apathetic faces of white jury members behind him speak powerfully to racism in America.
 
In Regarding the Pain of Others (2003), Susan Sontag argued that no photograph could tell one story clearly. Lange seems beyond such worry in this exhibition. She had stories she wanted urgently to tell, and moral clarity about her reasons to tell them.
 
Dorothea Lange: Words & Pictures is scheduled to continue at the Museum of Modern Art (11 West 53rd Street, Manhattan) through May 9. The exhibition is organized by Sarah Meister with River Bullock, and assistance from Madeline Weisburg.
 
Dorothea Lange’s Humanist Vision. By Ela Bittencourt. Hyperallergic , April 30, 2020.






The Museum of Modern Art  in New York opened, on February 9, the first major retrospective on the photography of Dorothea Lange in 50 years. Lange’s work photographing poor Americans for the Farm Security Administration (FSA) during the Great Depression is well known. Perhaps most famous is the photograph known as the “Migrant Mother.” Most US viewers have seen the picture in one form or another. It has been widely anthologized, used in posters, and even became a postage stamp. Dubbed the “Mona Lisa” of Depression-era photography, it is one of two or three photographs that represent that era.
 
We can look at the photo as an iconic representation of true American grit in the face of adversity. But a photograph also performs an act of transformation; it takes a moment fluid in time and fixes it into a timeless image. Thus, Lange’s photo has turned an impoverished woman (who only much later was identified as Florence Owens Thompson) into an object — whether of admiration, pity, or fascination — for the consumption of a more affluent public. But what if we try to return the picture to its fluid moment, as an encounter between two people — Lange and Thompson?
 
Let’s place the picture in the context in which it was taken. Lange had been a San Francisco portrait photographer working out of a commercial studio on Sutter Street near Union Square, in a high-rent building that housed a “distinguished art gallery” and an Elizabeth Arden beauty salon. She moved in wealthy and cultured circles, having come from an elite family; her father was a lawyer, member of the local board of trade, and was elected as a representative to the state house. Among Lange’s friends were Imogen Cunningham, Frida Kahlo, and Diego Rivera. When she had to close her studio during the Depression, she took to street photography of the poor and homeless, as many of her left-wing colleagues in the so-called “Cultural Front” were doing.
 
Although Lange usually took meticulous notes, she did not have any for the “Migrant Mother” picture taken in 1936. Twenty-four years later, Lange wrote up her recollections for an article in Popular Photography entitled “The Assignment I’ll Never Forget.” In this piece, she said that she had been “traveling in the field alone for a month, photographing the migratory farm labor of California” during a “cold, miserable winter.” As she was driving through Nipomo, near San Luis Obispo, she saw in passing — actually “barely saw […] out of the corner of my eye” — a “crude sign” that read, “Pea Pickers Camp.” She drove 20 miles further, all the while arguing with herself, then turned around and drove back. Parking the car, she grabbed her camera and entered the camp. Here’s her account:
 
    “I saw and approached the hungry and desperate mother, as if drawn by a magnet. I do not remember how I explained my presence or my camera to her, but I do remember she asked me no questions. I made five exposures, working closer and closer from the same direction. I did not ask her name or her history. She told me her age, that she was thirty-two. She said that they had been living on frozen vegetables from the surrounding fields, and birds that the children killed. She had just sold the tires from her car to buy food. There she sat in that lean-to tent with her children huddled around her, and seemed to know that my pictures might help her, and so she helped me. There was a sort of equality about it.”
 
The haunting and disturbing part of this account is when Lange describes the encounter as having “a sort of equality about it.” How could there be an equality between the well-dressed woman with her camera and the poor, rain-soaked migrant with her three children?
 
Perhaps we can understand this moment better if we take it in stages, almost as the two women experienced it. Lange tells us that she was in the camp for “only ten minutes.” But is that true? And is the spontaneous documentary quality of the experience she asserts also true?
 
Let us imagine her driving up in her nice car to this huddled camp of old beat-up vehicles. That action alone would have taken several minutes. Let us say that she saw Florence Owens Thompson and her children and then took out her camera. The world Lange lived in is not the snap-and-shoot world we occupy today. The Graflex Series D that she used came in a large box, which she would have had to open. She would then have had to open the camera itself, turning a knob to expand the accordion sides that connected the lens to the body. If she had a tripod, she would have had to set that up. She would have had to set the manual focus, lens opening, and shutter speed. Usually that would involve using a separate light meter to assess the available light. But perhaps she would intuitively know the proper settings after years of being a photographer. Then she would, for each shot, have had to insert a pre-loaded film cartridge into the back. If she did not have any pre-loaded cartridges, she would have had to sit in the car and load the film in the total darkness of a black fabric bag. For each shot she would have had to pull out a protective cover, shoot the picture, replace the protective cover, and then pull the cartridge out. In other words, the simple act of taking the picture would have been far more deliberate and cumbersome than her account implies.
 
And the session must have taken longer than she recalled. We happen to know that she took a total of six photographs (not five as she later stated). In the Library of Congress where “Migrant Mother” rests, there are five other photographs in the series. What is clear from them is that this encounter was anything but spontaneous. The impression Lange gives us is that she acted as a removed documentarian. But the reality is richer: the final photograph was staged for maximum effect and then altered in the darkroom for aesthetic reasons.
 
 



 
In the first photo, we see Thompson with the three younger children who appear in “Migrant Mother,” but here in addition there is a teenage daughter sitting on a bentwood rocking chair. The final photo will omit this older girl, who does not seem to fit into the message this picture was designed to convey. The girl is wearing clothing that is not frayed or worn out. Her hair is a bit blowsy, but a headband adds some fashion. The position of the girl is almost certainly posed, and her direct regard creates an uncomfortable awareness of the moment. All of the subjects are looking at Lange, and the two younger girls are smiling. Clearly, this wasn’t a spontaneous series of photos: there must have been posing and composition.
 
 



 
A second photo has the camera moving a few steps closer. We can tell it is the second in the sequence because the rocking chair has been moved into the tent and the mark its rocker rails have left are clearly imprinted in the sandy earth. Again, we have to assume that Lange asked that the chair be moved. In the previous photo, a car jack on the chair prevented the girl from sitting on it in the normal manner. That object has been removed and is no longer visible. One younger girl is still staring at Lange, while the other has gone to the right of the tent, with only her legs and hat visible. Are the teenage girl and younger girl now attempting to avoid being photographed?
 
 



 
Several more photographs were taken closer up to Florence Owens Thompson. One is a more frontal and horizontal portrait in a Madonna pose, with her eyes averted from the camera. In this one we can see that she is wearing a wedding ring, which perhaps disrupts the assumptions built into a story about a single mother alone.
 
 


 
Another photo shows her breastfeeding, revealing a white breast in contrast to her darker, sun-exposed skin. Thompson’s face reveals a kind of pleasure and almost peace in the activity — again, a picture that might have been rejected later for its lack of consonance with assumptions about the starkness and hardship of poverty. In terms of their interactions, the woman might have been asked by Lange to breastfeed the baby. The duration of the encounter — the supposed quick snaps leading to the iconic photograph — had to have been longer than 10 minutes, in order to allow the baby (who is sleeping in all the other pictures) to wake up and begin feeding.
 
The final picture, the iconic one, is the most obviously posed. The two girls now face away from the camera. The woman has put her hand to her chin in a contemplative gesture often used in paintings featuring philosophers and other thinkers. In doing so, she has released her hold on the baby, who continues to sleep. Her other hand is holding the tent pole. This would mean that enough time has passed for the baby to stop breastfeeding and be still enough so that she could release it completely into her lap.
 
I hope I’ve shown that there is another story here, a more complex one than Lange presents. This alternative encounter represents a much richer set of human interactions between the five people in the photos and the photographer. Adding to what now seems a misleading backstory is the telling detail that, in the editing process, Lange altered “Migrant Mother” for aesthetic reasons. In the original shot, we see Thompson’s thumb and forefinger in the lower righthand corner, partially obscuring the baby. The thumb was dodged out of the “official” photograph, a decision that belies the notion of a purely documentary slice of reality.
 
Unlike the majority of Depression-era photographs whose subjects are anonymous and silent, this one has a history that allows us to see things from the other side of the lens. In fact, Florence Owens Thompson, some 42 years later, spoke about the image. Having seen it in a number of places, she wrote a letter to U.S. Camera magazine in which she said:
 
   “This photo since has been displayed In the Palace of Fine Arts San Francisco, also Two Years ago it was called to My attention that it appeared in Look Magazine […and] in U. S. Camera. […] Since I have not been consulted […] I request you Recall all the un-Sold Magazines. […] You would do Dorothea Lange a great Favor by Sending me her address That I may inform her that should the picture appear in Any magazine again I and my Three daughters shall be Forced to Protect our rights. Trusting that it will not be necessary to use Drastic Means to force you to Remove the magazine from Circulation Without Due Permission to Use my Picture in Your Publication I remain
 
Respectfully,
 
Florence Thompson”
 
In a later interview with the Los Angeles Times (November 18, 1978), Thompson stated clearly, “I didn’t get anything out of it. I wished she hadn’t of taken my picture.” She added, “She didn’t ask my name. […] She said she wouldn’t sell the pictures. She said she’d send me a copy. She never did.” In another interview (cited in Marie-Monique Robin’s 1999 book The Photos of the Century), Thompson complained, “I’m tired of symbolizing human poverty when my living conditions have improved.”
 
Because the photographic object talked back, and because U.S. Camera magazine did forward Thompson’s letter to Lange, we have learned indirectly from an interview with another photographer (cited in Linda Gordon’s 2009 biography Dorothea Lange: A Life Beyond Limits) that Lange felt “shaken — frightened and miserable that her photograph had caused grief.”
 
We might want to compare Thompson’s statement, which implies a kind of theft of her image, with a statement made by Lange earlier (also cited in Gordon’s biography): when talking about her plunge into documentary street photography of homeless men in San Francisco, she said, “Sometimes you have an inner sense that you have encompassed the thing. […] You know then that you are not taking anything away from anyone, their privacy, their dignity, their wholeness.” This assumption on Lange’s part seems consonant with her account of the encounter in Nipomo. Her notion of “a kind of equality” between herself and Thompson is a way of justifying the practice of photographing poor people with or without their permission.
 
  
It’s not as if Lange was insensitive to the awkwardness of her position. A photograph shows her in what for her was one of thousands of such encounters. Here, we see Lange in her working outfit — beret, scarf, pants — looking directly at the person taking the picture. She is smiling confidently, surrounded by three young farm children, one boy gazing stiffly at her Graflex while two other children watch the person taking the picture. One can sense the awkwardness of the encounter and how out of place Lange seems, despite her confident smile. Much later, Lange described her general method to Richard K. Doud, who was interviewing her for a Smithsonian oral history project:
 
     “You know, so often it’s just sticking around and being there, remaining there, not swooping in and swooping out in a cloud of dust; sitting down on the ground with people, letting the children look at your camera with their dirty, grimy little hands, and putting their fingers on the lens, and you let them. […] I have told everything about myself long before I asked a question. “What are you doing here?” they’d say. […] I’ve taken a long time, patiently, to explain, and as truthfully as I could. […] They know that you are telling the truth. Not that you could ever promise them anything, but at that time it very often meant a lot that the government in Washington was aware enough even to send you out […] so that you could truthfully say that there were some channels whereby it could be told. Not about them, but about people like them.”
 
In short, by the time Lange encountered Thompson, she had developed a technique for winning over her subjects. In Nipomo, however, she clearly did not take the time to have that conversation, except briefly. She did “swoop in and swoop out in a cloud of dust,” although she clearly said that her photographs would “help.” She also indicated that the “Migrant Mother” photograph wasn’t about Thompson but about her situation — it was thus not “personal” but documentary in nature. Such assertions had, no doubt, become mantras she used in her trade. Her approach was similar to that of another photographer who worked for the FSA, Russell Lee, who (as cited in Bill Ganzel’s 1984 book Dust Bowl Descent) would tell his subjects, “I want to show the rest of the country how you live.”
 
Had Thompson not come forward publicly, she would just be what the iconic picture suggests — a poor white American woman thrown into a desperate situation by social, economic, and political turmoil.
 
But Thompson was not white: she was a member of the Cherokee nation. She was born Florence Leona Christie in 1903 in Indian Territory, four years before the region was obliterated by “consolidation” into the new state of Oklahoma. Her parents were both Cherokee, and her mother’s second husband was as well. Much has been written about this telling detail (see, for example, Sally Stein’s “Passing Likeness: Dorothea Lange’s ‘Migrant Mother’ and the Paradox of Iconicity,” in the 2003 anthology Only Skin Deep: Changing Visions of the American Self, edited by Coco Fusco and Brian Wallis). It seems clear that, because Lange asked no questions, she got no answers; she was thus unaware of Thompson’s indigenous heritage.
 
Roy Stryker, who ran the Farm Security Administration, also seemed ignorant of this fact. Indeed, he probably would have rejected the photograph if he had known Thompson’s origins. In response to a proposal to document Native Americans submitted by another photographer, he wrote (as cited in Stein’s essay): “The Indian pictures are fine, but I doubt if we ought to get too far involved. There are so many other things to be done. You know I just don’t get too excited about the Indians. I know it is their country and we took it away from them — to hell with it!”
 
Had Lange taken the time to really talk with Thompson, she would have discovered that this encounter was not Thompson’s first with the well-to-do middle class. In fact, after her husband Cleo died of tuberculosis, she had an affair with a rich Oroville merchant who fathered one of her sons. Thompson was afraid his wealthy family would try to claim the child, so she took him back to Oklahoma to be raised by her parents. Looking at the photograph, one does not get the sense that Thompson could move between classes in this way. Later, when given the opportunity, she told more about her life:
 
  “”I left Oklahoma in 1925 and went to Oroville. The Depression hit just about the time them girls’ dad died. I was twenty-eight years old, and I had five kids and one on the way. You couldn’t get no work and what you could, it was very hard and cheap. I’d leave home before daylight and come home after dark — grapes, ‘tater, peas, whatever I was doing. Barely made enough each day to buy groceries that night. I’d pick four or five hundred pounds of cotton every day. I didn’t even weight a hundred pounds. We just existed — we survived, let’s put it that way.”
 
This account (included in Ganzel’s Dust Bowl Descent) doesn’t belie the photograph, but it does give it more resonance and nuance. Surprisingly, Thompson follows up these comments with a literary reference:
 
   “When Steinbeck wrote The Grapes of Wrath about those people living under the bridge at Bakersfield — at one time we lived under that bridge. It was the same story. Didn’t even have a tent then, just a ratty old quilt. I walked from what they’d call the Hoover camp at the bridge to way down on First Street to work in a restaurant for 50 cents a day and leftovers. They’d give me what was left over to take home, sometimes two water buckets full. I had six children to feed at that time.”
 
Would the viewer suspect that the haggard woman in the photograph was actually aware of Steinbeck’s work? Such self-awareness of her position — and its place in the larger culture — is clearly on her mind, but the photograph can’t show us that.
 
Moreover, crucial details in Lange’s account are simply incorrect, according to Thompson and her family. Lange identified them as pea-pickers camping in Nipomo. In fact, however, they were not staying there but merely passing through on their way to Watsonville. Despite being depicted as Dust Bowl refugees newly arrived from Oklahoma, the family had been in California for a decade (see Geoffrey Dunn’s 2002 New Times essay, “Photographic License”). Lange claims the family sold their tires to buy food, but Thompson’s son, Troy Owens, disputes this. “There’s no way we sold our tires, because we didn’t have any to sell,” he said when interviewed. “The only ones we had were on the Hudson and we drove off in them. I don’t believe Dorothea Lange was lying, I just think she had one story mixed up with another. Or she was borrowing to fill in what she didn’t have.” In fact, the car had trouble with the timing belt; in trying to repair that, the radiator was damaged, so Thompson’s husband, Jim Hill, and her two sons went to the town to get it fixed. After the encounter with Lange, the husband and sons returned, and the family made it to Watsonville.
 
Thompson also claimed that Lange promised that the photo would never be published. According to a 2008 article in the Modesto Bee, she felt betrayed when it appeared in newspapers a day or so after the encounter. Katherine McIntosh, Thompson’s daughter (who appears behind her mother’s right shoulder in the “Migrant Mother” photo), confirmed that Lange “told mother the negatives would never be published — that she was only going to use the photos to help out the people in the camp.”
 
By the time Lange’s photograph appeared in the newspapers, in articles about the starving pea pickers of Nipomo (articles that sparked a government effort to bring food into the camp), Thompson and family had moved on. Thompson’s son eventually found work as a newspaper boy and was shocked to see the photo of his mother in the paper. “I screamed out, ‘Mama’s been shot, Mama’s been shot,’” Owens (as cited in Dunn’s essay) recalled. “There was her picture, and it had an ink spot right in the middle of her forehead, and it looked like someone had put a bullet through her. We both ran back to camp, and, of course, she was OK. We showed her the picture, and she just looked at it. She didn’t say nothin’.”
 
In an essay about Lange’s photographs and those of other FSA photographers (included in the 1988 anthology Documenting America: 1935-1943, edited by Carl Fleischhauer and Beverly Brannan), Lawrence W. Levine remarked:
 
   “The urge, whether conscious or not, to deprive people without any power of determination over their destiny, of any pleasure in their lives, of any dignity in their existence, knows no single part of the political spectrum. […] The only culture the poor are supposed to have is the culture of poverty; worn faces and torn clothing; dirty skin and dead eyes, ramshackle shelters and disorganized lives. Any forms of contentment or self-respect, even cleanliness itself, have no place in this totality.”
 
James Curtis, who studied the FSA archive for his 1991 book Mind’s Eye, Mind’s Truth, notes that “what is surprising is the degree to which they [Stryker and his staff] manipulated individual images and entire photographic series to conform to the dominant cultural values of the urban middle class,” through “conscious arrangement of subject matter, posing of people, and construction of assignments to follow predetermined points of view.”
 
Yet, when the poor are crafting the narrative, things change. If we listen to one of Thompson’s children, Norma Rydlewski (as cited in Dunn’s essay), we hear a different version: “Mother was a woman who loved to enjoy life, who loved her children. […] She loved music and she loved to dance. When I look at that photo of mother, it saddens me. That’s not how I like to remember her.” She adds, “Mama and daddy would take us to the movies a lot. We’d go to the carnival whenever it was in town, little things like that. We listened to the radio. If they had any money at all, they’d get us ice cream. In Shafter, we had friends and relatives visiting. We also had our fun.” Troy Owens recalls (also cited in Dunn), “They were tough, tough times, but they were the best times we ever had.”
 
Lange’s photograph hardly shows this side of their lives. Instead, it emphasizes the abject and forlorn aspects of poverty. The lack of agency on the part of Florence Thompson and her family is emphasized by her daughter Katherine’s statement in a 2008 CNN piece about the iconic picture: “We were ashamed of it. We didn’t want no one to know who we were.” She added, “The pictures didn’t make better kids out of us. Mother did.” Trying to fill out the cipher left by Lange, Katherine noted (as cited in Ganzel’s Dust Bowl Descent): “She worked hard, brought us up and kept us together. We all have good jobs and we all own our own homes. And none of us have ever been in trouble.” For Katherine, a slice of her life had been taken and made into the whole of her life.
 
Some people, Lange included, make the argument that the photographs, while perhaps invasive, served to improve the lot of the displaced people being photographed. Indeed, the photograph first appeared in newspapers accompanying a story about the starving pea pickers of Nipomo. And thus, since the government subsequently brought food to the area, it is claimed that the image was successful. But in reality, the “Migrant Mother” photograph only appeared in later editions of the story, after the aid had been sent. The photograph wasn’t the inciting image that launched a thousand food baskets. Middle-class people would like to believe that photographs such as Lange’s both capture a reality and affect that reality. But the truth can be quite different.
 
There is a widespread belief, especially on the left, that politically committed art has a redeeming social value. In the catalog accompanying a 1994 Lange exhibit at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, curator Sandra Phillips argued that Florence Thompson’s “life [was] most likely saved by Lange’s photo.” Given what we now know, this statement is far from true. Dunn’s “Photographic License” cites the Thompson family’s reaction:
 
   “Phillips’s assertion brought out groans of agony from Thompson’s children. “We were already long gone from Nipomo by the time any food was sent there,” said Owens. “That photo may well have saved some peoples’ lives, but I can tell you for certain, it didn’t save ours.” “Our life was hard long after that photograph was taken,” added McIntosh emphatically. “That photo never gave mother or us kids any relief.”

In effect, in this instance, the photographic object is talking back, prompting a complex discussion about the rights of the observed in a situation where journalists or writers use the images without permission. Art curator and theorist Ariella Azoulay, in her 2008 book The Civil Contract of Photography, says that, in these kinds of encounters, there is a “contract” among at least three stakeholders: the photographer, the person being photographed, and the observer(s) of the photo. Her point isn’t only that the encounter may have an exploitative aspect but also that a positive outcome is possible if the observed have a stake in the dialogue about citizenship that is played out. Had Florence Owens Thompson actually wanted the photograph to display her deprived social status, her give and take with Lange — and others who subsequently appropriated the image — would have taken a much different form.
 
And, of course, there is also the very real issue of financial gain. None of the FSA photographers held copyright over their photographs, although Lange seems to have been one of the few allowed to develop her own pictures and keep copies of her work. Nevertheless, she did not directly profit from the “Migrant Mother” photograph, although she did so indirectly, via the cultural capital that accrued from its publication and exhibition. Indeed, the image is widely considered to be one of the top 100 photographs of the 20th century. Sales of the photo were handled by the Library of Congress, which sold each reprint for $150. Lange acknowledged her lack of copyright in a 2000 interview (cited in Azoulay’s book) but then rather disingenuously claimed that Thompson was, in effect, the true owner: “The negative now belongs to the Library of Congress which supervises and prints it. […] [U]ntil now it is her [Thompson’s] picture, not mine.”
 
With the deaths of Lange and Thompson, the photograph is now everyone’s and no one’s. Does it matter really how it was produced? Many famous photographs of the poor — by the likes of Walker Evans, Gordon Parks, and Vivian Maier — have not benefited their subjects, financially or otherwise. Yet these traces of their lives flow through the cultural bloodstream. Do we have an obligation to view the images in a different way if we know something more about the circumstances of their creation?

Migrant Mother: Dorothea Lange and the Truth of Photography. By Lennard  Davis. Los Angeles Review of Books, March 4, 2020. 




For the entire second half of Dorothea Lange’s life, a quotation from the English philosopher Francis Bacon floated in her peripheral vision: “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention.” She pinned a printout of these words up on her darkroom door in 1933. It remained there until she died, at 70, in 1965 — three months before her first retrospective opened at the Museum of Modern Art in New York and three decades after she took the most iconic photograph in the medium’s history.
 
“Migrant Mother,” Lange’s 1936 portrait of Florence Owens Thompson, whose identity wasn’t known for more than 40 years, shows the rag-shrouded torso and shining face of a handsome young woman. She’s seated at a California campsite for migrant workers during the Great Depression, and yet she looks timeless. Her fingers lightly touch the corner of her mouth as she squints into the distance, two of her children hiding from the camera behind her shoulders. Overwhelming hardship but also resilience are evident in both her facial expression and body language. Taken while Lange was working for the federal government’s Resettlement Administration, a New Deal program that aided the high volume of economically displaced, the picture was in MoMA’s inaugural photography exhibition in 1940, alongside works by Alfred Stieglitz and Paul Strand. Since then, it’s likely been exhibited there more times than any other photograph, and it is on view again at the museum’s second retrospective of Lange, which opened this month. The image, which has appeared on postage stamps, jigsaw puzzles, magazine covers and T-shirts, is familiar even to American schoolchildren. Because it was taken while Lange was a government employee, its rights are in the public domain. It can be — and is — reproduced by anyone, at any time, for any reason.
 
Unlike a large portion of Lange’s work, the image was never obscure. On the same day that Thompson’s likeness was published in the San Francisco News, it was announced that the federal government was sending 20,000 pounds of food to the California migrant camp where she and her children had been living. “I did not ask her name or her history,” Lange recalled. She learned her age, which was 32, and a few atmospheric details that Thompson would later dispute, but nothing more.
 
The lack of contextualizing information was atypical for Lange, who believed, uncommonly for a photographer, that “there is no photograph ... that can’t be fortified by words.” If Lange is remembered disproportionately for one photograph out of thousands, she is also remembered disproportionately for pictures in a career that also very much included words. After photographing her subjects, she rushed to take down what they said to use as a caption or a title, and then selected choice quotes, with an ear for the poetry of vernacular language. “An American Exodus: A Record of Human Erosion,” her book on rural poverty from 1939, includes some of the most bracing examples, and even its endpapers are printed with captions like: “Burned out, blowed out, eat out, tractored out,” “We made a dollar working from dawn until you just can’t see,” “I’ve wrote back that we are well and such as that, but I never have wrote that we live in a tent.”
 
Looking at Lange’s career today, it’s possible to see that her photographic innovations were less visual and technical than they were interpersonal. She spoke while taking people’s pictures. Before asking them any questions at all, she talked about herself. She explained where she was from and her job as she understood it to be; she spoke of her children and of how much she missed them while on assignment. By revealing herself, subjects showed themselves to her in return. More than perhaps any other photographer’s work, Lange’s was less about bearing witness to history than it was about engaging directly with it, of being part of history itself.
 
Like the new journalists of the 1960s and 1970s, people like Norman Mailer and Tom Wolfe, who brought frank personal bias to forms of writing previously heralded as objective, Lange, decades earlier, did something similar in photography. She blurred the line between reportage and fine art and, in so doing, opened the medium for its most celebrated practitioners, the people who would be the inheritors of Lange’s expressiveness and empathy, from Robert Frank to Wolfgang Tillmans. Her contemporary Ansel Adams called her pictures “both records of actuality and exquisitely sensitive emotional documents.” She was an artist under the guise of a journalist and an activist under the guise of a dispassionate civil servant, and it would be impossible to think of any of these roles today without her influence.
 
 
Lange was born at the very end of the 19th century to educated and prosperous first-generation German-Americans. She read literature, patronized the arts and contracted polio. She retained the limp for the rest of her life. “... [It] formed me, guided me, instructed me, helped me and humiliated me,” she said. She grew up in Hoboken, N.J., but attended high school in Manhattan. For fun, she strolled along the Bowery after class — “a lame little girl walking down that street unprotected,” as she once put it. It was then that she first “learned to be unseen.” This combination of looking and disappearing led her to announce, before she ever owned a camera, that she would become a photographer.
 
After working in New York for several years post high school — and taking a class at Columbia University with the famed art photographer Clarence H. White — she decided to take off on a trip around the world with a friend; a pickpocket curtailed their ambitions and they never made it farther than California. Lange would live there for the next half century. Despite her brief experience with White, she was mostly self-taught, trained in the commercial demands of commissioned portrait photography, whose wealthy subjects sat for her in a rented San Francisco studio. She grew into her aesthetic style and moral motivations, which came to her, together, at once. She was still married to her first husband at the time, an esteemed landscape and mural painter, and her two sons were young. It was 1933, and the Great Depression had reached its lowest point. Lange looked out the window of her studio, where her wealthy and safely ensconced patrons sat, and saw the ravages of joblessness and hunger on the streets below. It was then that she took her first documentary photograph, “White Angel Breadline,” which today remains a kind of visual shorthand for food scarcity during the Depression.
 
This single image — of a group of downtrodden men, all with their backs to the camera except one, whose dirty face is looking hopelessly at the ground — would position Lange alongside Woody Guthrie as a primary witness to America’s decline in the 1930s. With her camera she would capture remarkably intimate images that were universal in their communication of shared suffering: an oddly thin baby nursing at his mother’s breast inside a homemade tent in Blythe, Calif. (“Drought Refugees From Oklahoma Camping by the Roadside,” 1936); a man sitting beside an upturned wheelbarrow, his head bowed low in desperation (“Man Beside Wheelbarrow,” 1934); two laborers walking down a long and empty dirt road with perhaps all they own in their hands, as they stride past a mocking billboard advertisement for the Southern Pacific railway that reads “Next Time Try the Train, Relax” (“Toward Los Angeles, California,” 1937).
 
Not long after abandoning society pictures, Lange was separated from her husband and working alongside Paul Taylor, a Berkeley agricultural economist whom she would soon marry. The California State Emergency Relief Administration hired Taylor in 1934 to study migrant workers, and he convinced them to hire Lange in 1935, sneaking her onto his research trips as a typist, knowing very well that she would, in fact, be photographing everything. They traversed the state and together devised a new kind of multimedia sociology, one that was part oral history and part visual documentation. Sometimes their tactics were wily. In Arizona, Taylor got a running count of migrants by hiring a gas-station attendant to clock them. His figures, alongside Lange’s photographs of extreme destitution and hopelessness, were the first records of what would become known as the Dust Bowl, the name given to the drought-choked Southern Plains. The physical image we retain of this era was almost single-handedly shaped by Lange. Her initial joint report with Taylor was spiral-bound and included over 50 of Lange’s photographs. These were bureaucratic reports conceived like novels, with Lange capturing the sort of detail no pie chart could render — the decaying roll of linoleum, for instance, that a homeless family had been carting around for three years in hopes of once again having a kitchen floor.
 




For the next four years, Lange was employed by the federal government’s Resettlement Administration, renamed the Farm Security Administration in 1937, and developed a compassionate but matter-of-fact style that focused merely on the subjects of the day, ones that have once again become familiar: environmental degradation, rural poverty, mass migration. Her depictions of these topics would define the rest of her career and help create a topical lexicon of American concerns, and her mythic compositions made from ordinary lives appear neither intentionally newsworthy nor artificially arranged. Lange’s attention to texture and detail make individual human subjects look like evidence of a national crime. Indeed, her 1942 photographs of Manzanar, the concentration camp in eastern California where Japanese-Americans were held during World War II, were impounded and then censored by the military. Among the ones found most dangerous to the national image showed workers picking crops in a greenhouse, whose intricate frame cast striped shadows that resembled prison bars. In their depictions of inhospitably barren landscapes, institutional living facilities and tiny children with numbered tags hung around their necks, they look eerily similar to photographs being taken today at the Mexican border. These images, alongside her portraits of the Dust Bowl, did nothing less than heighten the stakes of what we expect from a photograph, expectations that persist: These days, the camera, whether a Leica or an iPhone, is not so much a documentary tool as a politicking one — an incitement to outrage, a method through which to seek dramatic transformations of the status quo.
 
It wasn’t until  a 1963 trip around the world with Taylor, Lange said, that she truly considered herself to be an artist. For a few years before the journey, she had been a freelance photographer at Life magazine and thought of her work as something closer to straightforward journalism. But it was in places where she knew no one, didn’t speak the language and traveled by rickshaw and motorbike that the sensitivity of her own vision became clear even to herself. By this time, she was suffering from esophageal cancer and so thin that her clothes had to be held up with safety pins. When she returned, she began assembling decades’ worth of work for her MoMA retrospective — she thought of it as making sentences out of pictures, paragraphs if she was lucky. Lange was only eating soft foods by this point and rarely ventured outside. She kept a camera around her neck, though, “for health,” and continued to take photographs — of her house, of her family. Her son wrote to the curator saying that he thought she was staying alive almost entirely for his visits. He estimated her chances of living to see the show open as 50-50.
 
MoMA, which hadn’t devoted a major show to Lange since, reopened last fall after months of renovation with a fortified list of existential priorities, one of which is to approach its permanent collection with the enthusiasm and scholarship that in the past was typically spent on loaned works. It’s in this spirit that the curator Sarah Meister organized “Dorothea Lange: Words & Pictures.” The exhibition spans approximately a hundred photographs. It unfolds more or less chronologically, but in keeping with Lange’s belief that a photograph’s effect can be fortified with text, the gallery layout includes reading areas so visitors can experience the text as they would in a book, instead of uncomfortably on the wall.
 
What does Lange’s career look like in 2020? It’s clear she was an anomaly from the start, an evident female star in a field dominated by men, a photographer whose work was both funded by the federal government and embraced by the contemporary art world of her day. She produced evidence of the worst moments in this country’s history: the migration of the sick and starved across the country during the Depression, the cruel folly of Japanese internment and the moral disaster of segregation. (In 1941, her photographs of black farmers in the South would accompany Richard Wright’s prose in the book “12 Million Black Voices.”) But it was in looking at these grim, often ignored corners of life that Lange found figures of resilience, dignity and unlikely survival. Her legacy combines two fields — art and journalism — whose entirely separate constraints and ethics can still, at their best, change the world.
 
For a woman whose images seemed to reveal so much about others, there is only a small amount of material that reveals Lange herself, just a handful of blurry images from her travels through the ruins of the American West during the Depression, her small frame almost eclipsed by her hulking camera. Perhaps the greatest portrait that exists of her is an excerpt from crackly, black-and-white film footage from 1964, where she’s seen discussing the negative of a picture she shot of some elegantly proportioned pueblo steps in New Mexico, beside which lies a bit of rubbish. “The man with a certain kind of training will never remove those two cans and the other man must,” she says. She pauses, mutters the words “these wretched little cans down here,” and then she sighs. “Well,” she concludes, “you accept it.” Lange didn’t necessarily accept the flaws in the world around her, but she didn’t look away, either.
 
 
How Dorothea Lange Defined the Role of the Modern Photojournalist. By Alice Gregory. The New York Times  , February 10, 2020.