Dorothea Lange Read online

  DOROTHEA LANGE

  * * *

  A LIFE BEYOND LIMITS

  * * *

  Linda Gordon

  Dedication

  For Allen

  CONTENTS

  Cover

  Title Page

  Dedication

  ALSO BY LINDA GORDON

  Introduction: “A Camera Is a Tool for Learning How to See . . .”

  Part I

  HOBOKEN AND SAN FRANCISCO

  1895–1931

  Scene 1

  1. Child of Iron, Wounded

  2. Apprentice to the City

  3. Becoming a Photographer

  4. Maynard Dixon, Bohemian Artist

  5. Working Mother in Bohemia

  Part II

  DEPRESSION AND RENEWAL

  1932–1935

  Scene 2

  6. Leaving the Children, Leaving the Studio

  7. A New Deal for Artists

  8. Paul Schuster Taylor, Maverick Economist

  9. The Romance of Love, the Romance of the Cause

  10. Blending a Family

  Part III

  CREATING DOCUMENTARY PHOTOGRAPHY

  1935–1939

  Scene 3

  11. Father Stryker and the Beloved Community

  12. On the Road: California

  13. Migrant Mother

  14. On the Road: The Dust Bowl

  15. On the Road: The South

  16. An American Exodus

  17. Dorothea and Roy

  Part IV

  WARTIME

  1939–1945

  Scene 4

  18. Family Stress

  19. Defiant War Photography: The Japanese Internment

  20. Unruly War Photography: The Office of War Information and Defense Workers

  Part V

  INDEPENDENT PHOTOGRAPHER

  1945–1965

  Scene 5

  21. Surviving in the Cold

  22. Working for Life

  23. Diplomat’s Wife

  24. To a Cabin

  25. Photographer of Democracy

  Lange’s Photograph Captions

  Acknowledgments

  Note on Photographs and Quotations

  Notes

  Photograph Sources

  Index

  Photo Insert

  More praise for - DOROTHEA LANGE: A LIFE BEYOND LIMITS

  Copyright

  ALSO BY LINDA GORDON

  Cossack Rebellions: Social Turmoil in the Sixteenth-Century Ukraine

  Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America

  (revised 3rd edition published as The Moral Property of Women: A History of Birth Control Politics in America)

  Heroes of Their Own Lives: The Politics and History of Family Violence

  Pitied but Not Entitled: Single Mothers and the Origins of Welfare

  The Great Arizona Orphan Abduction

  AS EDITOR

  Impounded: Dorothea Lange and the Censored

  Images of Japanese American Internment

  (with Gary Y. Okihiro)

  America’s Working Women: A Documentary History, 1600 to the Present

  (with Rosalyn Baxandall)

  Women, the State, and Welfare: Historical and Theoretical Essays

  Dear Sisters: Dispatches from the Women’s Liberation Movement

  (with Rosalyn Baxandall)

  NIPOMO, CALIFORNIA, 1936

  INTRODUCTION

  “A Camera Is a Tool for Learning How to See . . .”

  A camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera.1

  The visual life is an enormous undertaking, practically unattainable. . . . I have only touched it with this wonderful democratic instrument, the camera . . . —Dorothea Lange 2

  This photograph, often called Migrant Mother, is one of the most recognized pictures in the world. It is not the only one of Dorothea Lange’s to win such fame—readers will recognize others in this book. Her photographs often linger in viewers’ memories as if their intensity etched itself into the mind. Yet many who are familiar with the photographs do not know the name of the photographer and very few know anything about her. This is partly because most of her photographs were published anonymously, and partly because, when she died in 1965 at age seventy, only a handful of photography connoisseurs grasped her genius and her influence. That has changed: in October 2005 a vintage print of one of her photographs sold at auction for $822,400. (See page 102.) She would have enjoyed the money (she earned little from her photography) and the fame (she savored recognition as much as anyone), but she would have questioned what it meant that a photograph of hungry men at a soup kitchen had become a luxury commodity.

  I have come to think of Lange as a photographer of democracy, and for democracy. She was not alone in this commitment, for she had predecessors and colleagues, and today has many photographic descendants. From her family of origin, her two extraordinary husbands, and friends of great talent she absorbed sensitivity, taste, and technique. These people are part of her enabling context, and for that reason this book includes them as major characters. So too the unique cultures of Hoboken, New York, San Francisco, and Berkeley play major roles in this story.

  The greatest influence on Lange’s photography, however, was her historical era, so that also demands attention. Her career developed when the severe economic depression of the 1930s created a political opening for expanding and deepening American democracy. President Roosevelt’s New Deal, responding to powerful grassroots social movements, made substantial progress in protecting the public health and welfare through regulation in the public interest, from securities and credit to wages and hours, and through institutionalizing aid to the needy, such as Social Security. Despite the miseries and fear it engendered, the Depression created a moment of idealism, imagination, and unity in Americans’ hopes for their country. No photographer of the time, perhaps no artist of the time, did more than Lange to advance this democratic vision. Her photographs enlarged the popular understanding of who Americans were, providing a more democratic visual representation of the nation. Lange’s America included Mormons, Jews, and evangelicals; farmers, sharecroppers, and migrant farmworkers; workers domestic and industrial, male and female; citizens and immigrants not only black and white but also Mexican, Filipino, Chinese, and Japanese, notably the 120,000 Japanese Americans locked in internment camps during World War II. Late in life her democratic eye reached beyond the United States, as she photographed in Egypt, Japan, Indonesia, and many other parts of the developing world. There too her focus was democratic: she photographed primarily working people through her lens of respect for their labor, skills, and pride.

  Most of Lange’s photography was optimistic, even utopian, not despite but precisely through its frequent depictions of sadness and deprivation. By showing her subjects as worthier than their conditions, she called attention to the incompleteness of American democracy. And by showing her subjects as worthier than their conditions, she simultaneously asserted that greater democracy was possible.

  Because her photography was both critical and utopian, its reputation and popularity have varied with dominant political moods. During the Depression of the 1930s her photographs became not only symbolic but almost definitive of a national agenda. The agenda aimed to restore prosperity and prevent further depressions, to alleviate poverty and reduce inequality. It stood for national unity and mutual help, and delivered the message that we must indeed be our brothers’ keepers. When a more conservative agenda came to dominate in the late 1940s and 1950s, Lange’s photography became unfashionable, losing currency to more abstract, introspective, and self-referential art. When the civil rights movement inaugurated several decades of progressive activism,
Lange’s photography was again honored and emulated.

  As I write at the end of 2008, another major depression makes Lange’s photography as significant as ever, and for the same reasons. We have today the same need to see—not just look at, but see—the struggles of those on the economic bottom. And we also share some of the 1930s optimism, in our case built up through widespread, energetic participation in a presidential election, in which the central issue was whether government would shoulder its responsibility for promoting the health of the society.

  It would be a mistake, however, to see Lange’s photography as politically instrumental. Her greatest social purpose was to encourage visual pleasure. Her message—that beauty, intelligence, and moral strength are found among people of all circumstances—has profound political implications, of course. Her greatest commitment, though, was to what she called the “visual life.” This meant discovering and intensifying beauty and our emotional response to it. Her words about this goal were sometimes corny, but her photographs were not. Although not a religious woman, she was rather spiritual, even slightly mystical in sensibility. Yet she never preached and she abhorred the sentimental.

  Because Lange’s subjects were often from humble surroundings, some have assumed that she herself came from among the disadvantaged.3 To the contrary, she had educated middle-class parents and operated for sixteen years a very successful, upscale portrait studio in San Francisco, catering to those of wealth and high culture. She was married for fifteen years to Maynard Dixon, a renowned painter. Articles about Lange and Dixon appeared on the society pages of San Francisco newspapers. Her second husband, Paul Schuster Taylor, was an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

  There are other incongruities: This woman born and raised in Hoboken, New Jersey, and New York City became not only a Californian, not only a lover of western natural beauty, but an early environmentalist who dared to raise questions about nature-changing projects such as big dams, which almost no one challenged at the time. This quintessential city girl became a photographer who specialized in rural America and its farmworkers. She took on an unusually demanding job for the federal government, on the road for months at a time, as a disabled woman, lame from an attack of polio when she was seven years old. Hostile to “feminism,” she nevertheless behaved like a feminist throughout her life.

  Lange’s is also the story of two great love affairs, leading to two unconventional marriages and a houseful of children, and these aspects of her life also carry historical significance. Her first husband, Maynard Dixon, enchanted her with his artistry, prestige, sex appeal, and irreverent personality. Together they were at the center of a bohemian but fashionable community of Bay Area artists and and art patrons. Reversing conventional marital roles, Lange became the breadwinner, while Dixon became increasingly dependent on her, not only financially but emotionally. She was a lone mother during Dixon’s many months-long trips, endured his depressions and crude jokes, and lived with the knowledge (and their friends’ awareness) of his extramarital affairs. Despite this, they were together for fifteen years, and it was hard for her to make a break. Her second husband, Paul Schuster Taylor, a progressive academic reformer, appears at first to be the anti-Dixon: conventional in appearance, starchy in conversation. Yet he and Lange created an extraordinary romantic, familial, and professional partnership, which lasted until her death thirty years later. In contrast to the archetypical story of a woman’s path to liberation, in which she moves from financial dependence on a husband to independence, and in contrast to the story of many other women who sacrifice artistic aspiration to marriage and family, Lange was able to become an artist when she got a husband who could support her. When she was still unknown outside her circle of customers, Taylor thought her photography a work of genius and encouraged her to defy the constraints of wifehood and motherhood. A rare equality shaped their marriage. He taught her about the social problems she was photographing, she taught him to see. Lange’s two marriages thus reveal, in their uniqueness, something about how a woman went about transcending the limits that held most women back from this level of achievement.

  AS I STUDIED Dorothea Lange, I began to feel an affinity with her work through the concept “documentary,” which applies to historical scholarship as well as to photography. There is no standard definition of documentary, but in photography, at least, it connotes both revealing the truth and promoting social justice. These goals fit my historical work. For me as for Lange, however, they need careful qualification. Neither photography nor history simply reports facts. Historians and photographers choose what to include and exclude in the pictures they shape, frame their subjects so as to reveal, emphasize, relate, or separate different elements, and use interpretive techniques to do this. Some will argue, of course, that historians and documentarists have no business promoting their opinions, but that argument rests on the false assumption that it is possible to avoid doing so. History and documentary photography necessarily proceed from a point of view shaped by social position, politics, religious conviction, and the thousands of other factors that mold every human being.

  This does not mean that it is appropriate for historians or documentarists to shape their creations as they please, regardless of the evidence. They must try to limit their own biases and must never manipulate evidence or select only the evidence that supports their perspective. When using examples to make a larger point, historians and photographic documentarists must look for the representative, the paradigmatic rather than the exceptional. Yet they must highlight what is most significant and remove detail that impedes the clarity of the main point; if they did not, no one would read a history book and photographs would be incomprehensible. There are disagreements, of course: one person’s extraneous detail might be another person’s vital evidence. Lange’s decisions in framing her photographs are not so different from historians’ decisions in writing books or lesson plans.

  The camera’s capacity to replicate what the eye can see made it appear, originally, to be the ultimate documentary tool. It seemed to be a machine for exact replication, its products machine-made, until the myriad means of constructing photographs were widely understood. Invented just as art steered toward expressing a subjective vision, an individual inner consciousness, the camera seemed limited to representing that which is visible to the naked eye. Honoré Daumier said that “photography described everything and explained nothing.” Photographers engaged in some self-delusion along these lines; Walker Evans called documentary “a stark record . . . [of] actuality untouched.” Lange did not fuss about exact representation in her photography. Her experience as a portrait photographer left her at ease in retouching an errant hand or shadow, in asking her subjects to move to a different spot or position. Like an historian, she wanted her photographs to emphasize what she saw as the main point and to prevent her viewers from being distracted by details. In her portrait studio she wanted to reveal the inner, not the outer, life and character of her subjects, and she continued the search for hidden truths in her documentary work. She would have agreed with her contemporary, Hungarian modernist photographer László Moholy-Nagy, who said he loved photography because it showed that nothing was as it seemed.4 This is what she meant by the slogan she so often repeated, “A camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera.” Like many artists, she sought to disrupt conventionalized, clichéd perceptions by revealing less-noticed, often passed-over aspects of the world. Like many historians, I too accept that challenge.

  Some artists and critics believed, and many still do, that documentary’s instrumental purpose disqualifies it as art. Lange refused this dichotomy. She harbored no doubts about the compatibility of beauty and a concern for justice, or about her ability to fuse them. “I believe that what we call beautiful is generally a by-product. It happens when the thing is done very, very well.”5 Her opinions seem to waver because she often used words loosely, connotatively rather than precisely. She kept on her bulletin boa
rd for many years a quotation from seventeenth-century philosopher Francis Bacon: “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.” Yet she insisted that “a documentary photograph is not a factual photograph.”6 She did not see such statements as contradictory because she believed that the truth she sought had an ethical dimension.

  One reason the artistic status of photography did not worry her is that for much of her career she did not think of herself as an artist. This humility came from the lingering cultural idea that artistry was an unwomanly aspiration; from her assumption that her first husband, painter Maynard Dixon, was the artist while she was but a craftswoman; from her experience of photography as a business; and, beginning in the 1930s, from her growing sense of social responsibility—she often described her documentary photographs as “evidence.”7 She began as an artisan, continuing a tradition that did not distinguish between art and artisanship. (Her notion that beauty happens when “the thing is done very, very well” could be the artisanal credo.) Her modesty, however, was also sometimes a pose, a coyness, a way of avoiding competition with other photographers who did call their work art. It certainly evidenced no lack of ambition, since the standards she measured herself against were high. But her early disclaimer about artistic ambition, along with her distance from New York, insulated her from the pressures of competing in art as commerce and of seeking the approval of establishment art authorities. It gave her space to develop an autonomous method and style.

  In particular, Lange resisted a central motif of photographic modernism, the use of the camera to express her own inner consciousness. To the best of my knowledge, she never made a self-portrait. This indifference to exploring her own inner life through photography appears, at first, surprising, considering that her success as a portrait photographer rested on her ability to express others’ inner selves. She was hardly devoid of self-love or pride. I cannot explain this reticence; I can only report that she was driven by interest in the outside world. One of Lange’s colleagues, documentary photographer Jack Delano, could have been speaking for her in saying, “I have always been motivated not by something inside me that needed to be expressed but rather by the wonder of something I see that I want to share with the rest of the world. I think of myself as a chronicler of my time and feel impelled to probe and probe into the depths of society in search of the essence of truth.”8