In 1822, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce created the first photograph using a Camera Obscura. This was an early photographic method that used a pitch-dark room or box with a small slit letting only a small ray of light, this developed into an upside-down image of the outside area parallel from the room/box. Later in 1839, Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre invented a new process called the “Daguerreotype”. This tedious process involved a polished sheet of silver-plated copper that was treated with iodine to make it light-sensitive, which was then exposed for several minutes, salt water was then used to fix it. A few years later, in 1841 Henry Talbot introduced the “Calotype”, This process was much easier than the Daguerreotype because it used a negative which could produce multiple prints of images and took less time to reproduce. The process involved a sheet of paper that was coated with silver chloride, this was then exposed to light in a Camera Obscura, areas that were hit by light became dark, this then created a negative image. According to a theorist named John Szarkowski, there are two groups of photographs that can be made, “the photograph is seen either as a mirror–a romantic expression of the photographer’s sensibility as it projects itself on the things and sights of this world; or as a window–through which the exterior world is explored in all its presence and reality.” Or in short “Windows” and “Mirrors”, Window images are documentary and raw while Mirror images are staged and personal. Applying this theory to the Calotype and Daguerreotype, I believe that both of these processes can be seen as both a Window and Mirror, the Daguerreotype is more of a window, this is because the process itself was more exclusive and expensive which meant it was only accessible to those in the upper class, this then resulted in most Daguerreotype images to reflect social status and power, these images were documentary of the social hierarchy at the time. On the other hand, the Calotype is more of a mirror. Unlike the Daguerreotype, this process was much cheaper and accessible to a wide range of people, people used this method to present everyday life and offered a glimpse of reality through people’s lives and experiences.  

Responding to Szarkowski’s idea of a “Mirror” image, I have chosen to analyse this specific image because of Jeff Wall’s ability to take a concept and turn it into a visual representation. This staged image is a reworking of Ralph Ellison’s novel “Invisible Man” which describes the protagonist’s feelings and experience of being metaphorically invisible due to being a black man in a hostile and oppressive society. This image supports Szarkowski’s thesis because it fits into his two categories of images, in this case a Mirror. I believe it is a Mirror because it gives a sense of self-exploration, not for Jeff Wall himself but marginalised people such as the protagonist in the novel, the image presents a staged reality which symbolises a harsh and common feeling among a variety of people, in other words it’s a representation of reality through a staged one. “This thesis suggests that there is a fundamental dichotomy in contemporary photography between those who think of photography as a means of self-expression…” – Szarkowski. Although Szarkowski’s theory helps understand photographs a bit better, it disregards and oversimplifies photography, just as Jed Perl says in “Mirrors and Windows: Messages from MoMA”, Szarkowski’s theory is too broad and that it is more of a narrative than a critical framework. “Szarkowski’s thesis is a simplification, a reduction of the complexities of photography to a single, overarching narrative.” 

I have chosen to analyse this photograph responding to Szarkowski’s theory of “Window” images because of its unedited and pure nature. This image is one of Lange’s many works that documents the lives of migrant workers and their families during the Great Depression. This image is a great representation of what Szarkowski calls a “Window” image, “…a window–through which the exterior world is explored in all its presence and reality”, because it is a fixed and objective snapshot of a moment in reality. However, like mentioned before, Szarkowski’s theory is too broad and doesn’t give full context into what type of documentary photograph this or other photographs may be, it doesn’t consider the different contexts. “Szarkowski’s theory oversimplifies the complex relationship between the photographer, the viewer, and the image”. 

In conclusion, both images give a glimpse into reality and the personal struggles of those effected by extreme issues, However Wall’s image shows a more private reality of one specific subject, his image shows reality through romanticism and staging, it allows interpretation and makes viewers think about what the actual context of the image is. On the other hand, Lange’s image is more objective and public, it shows us a pure in the moment image of reality during a decisive event that happened. So although I agree that photographs can be categorised into two groups like Szarkowski suggests, I fully agree with Jed Perl’s review that says Szarkowski’s theory doesn’t emphasize the importance of context and that the theory has limitations when focusing on the photographer’s perspective.  

Links used:

• https://www.britannica.com/technology/calotype
• https://marinaamaral.substack.com/p/daguerreotype-a-turning-point-and#:~:text=Utilizing%20techniques%20he%20learned%20from,discovered%20that%20the%20image%20could
• https://archive.aperture.org/article/1978/2/2/mirrors-and-windows-messages-from-moma