Mathew Brady, the famed 19th-century photographer, and documenter of all things American made the following declaration when asked about his photographs of the American Civil War: “I had to go. A spirit in my feet said ‘go,’ and I went.” The result of listening to his quiet but persistent inner voice was a body of work that many historians call the Civil War “the central event in U. S. History.” (www.achives.gov/education/lessons/brady-photos). The long-term result was a body of work documenting the hostilities from the start of the Civil War—April 12, 1861, and the Battle of Bull Run, to May 9, 1865, and the final Battle of Palmito Ranch!
Brady’s choice to document the American Civil War was costly and changed his life! “No one will ever know what I went through to secure those negatives. The world can never appreciate it. It changed the whole course of my life.” Mathew Brady incurred a considerable debt with his effort to photograph the Civil War and was only relieved of that debt when the U. S. Congress purchased, in 1875, the entire Brady archive for $25,000—$594,504.55 in 2021 money!—just enough to clear his debt! In 1862, Brady shocked the American public by exhibiting photographs by Alexander Gardner, James Gibson, and his own body of work on the Antietam battlefield. Of this ‘exhibition’, the NY Times wrote: Brady “had brought home to us the terrible reality and earnestness of war.”
Mathew Brady and other Civil War photographers felt an utter obligation to the United States to preserve the faces “of its historic men and mothers”. Brady demonstrated clearly that this new medium of image-making was more than just posing people for portraits! Brady’s efforts “represent the first instance of the comprehensive photo-documentation of a war.(www.achives.gov/education/lessons/brady-photos)
Mathew Brady was clear in his memoirs and speaking to the press that “The camera is the eye of history.”
What are your thoughts on photography as a medium that demonstrates the ability to document and record history as it is happening? Brady also exclaimed: “My greatest aim has been to advance the art of photography and to make it what I think I have, a great and truthful medium of history.” Is photography today, in the digital world, still a source of truth and reality as it was in the 19th century?
I believe that photography as a medium for recording history is exponential in its understanding. Photography is special in the sense that it captures history in that moment. It it imperative that we understand history in order to not repeat its mistakes. Especially in the sense of the American Civil War, and other wars in general. Not only is it good for capturing things in a moment that we will never see again, but also, it’s kind of cool to see images of very famous people, in a sense you get to see what they actually looked like. People like Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant. You wouldn’t really do that before, this time is special in American history for multiple different reasons, and using photography to see at least a little of it is great for our history.
I definitely agree that photography as a medium to record history as its happening is immensely valuable. It captures live emotions, feelings, actions. And it does have the capability of portraying it truthfully. Although, I believe that photography isn’t always used to capture unaltered scenarios, and that goes for both 19th century and today’s society. Photography is also a medium that is controlled by someone behind the lense, so photographs sometimes only show what the photographers want you to see. I think sometimes we think in today’s society photos are less truthful because of the access we have to cameras and the influence of social media, which is true, but I’m sure 19th century photography had it’s fair share of idealized photos. Also thinking about how much access we have to cameras today, I still believe it is being used as a truthful medium in some aspects. I think about about police brutality cases that continue to take place, and how cameras on our phones have become a truthful medium to expose corrupt policing. Overall, while I do believe that photography has the capability of being altered, I still believe in its value as a truthful medium.
I think that photography is a very strong medium when it comes to the documentation process. In Brady’s case, he was able to become a story teller through his documentation and verbal accounts of what he had experienced during his time. We can tell a lot from what we see in photographs – that is if the photograph is composed in a way that completely captures the story or message that one wants to tell. This is similar to portrait artists who don’t just try to capture the profile of their subject but the inner characteristics of their subject. This documentation medium is beneficial as it allows us to see things as they were when they happened.
I think today photography as a medium can hold truth and reality but it can also be manipulated to tell the complete opposite, especially if it goes through multiple people with differing biases. This goes back to the point I made that, photography can be very useful if the composition is as the message intends it to be. Its also very important that this documentation comes with some kind of written/verbal explanation as people will have different interpretations of the message trying to be captured in these photographs. Today we see this kind of documentation very useful in social justice issues to hold people accountable and even save people from facing difficult situations.
I definitely agree with Brady that photography has a special role when it comes to documenting history as it happens, but I feel it’s lost it’s some of its authenticity it had when it started. Before, in the 19th century, we did not have to worry about believing the validity of a photograph given that everything was done by hand and was somewhat hard to manipulate (or at least make it look real). It was also one of the only ways to note something in the most accurate form so we had no choice but to believe what those images depicted. Nowadays, however, people can easily photoshop and change aspects of a picture and we would never know it was not a real photograph. I wish photography, in terms of capturing historical moments and events, still had the same credibility it did once, but the reality is we have learned to be more cautious when it comes to believing certain captured moments.
Photography and by extension videography in the digital age has brought out a lot of awareness and truth to what’s happening with the world. Every time something major (or not even) happen, it’s posted, viewed, and watched. When people think of protests from the past few years, one of the first things they think of are the iconic photos taken from it. I find it interesting that when Brady decided to publicize the photos, it exposed the realities of war to people and probably gave people a sense of shock. I can say that the constant stream of photos these days can be desensitizing to a point. I thought it was a comparison worth pointing out.
As a photographer myself I truly believe that photography as a medium for documentation of not just history but of life in general is essential to the American people but also the world. Without photography we only really have depictions of the world as the artist chose to see it. Photography is a medium that while in today’s time can be manipulated but in previous time periods was the only way to document things the way they truly were. It was the truest form of art there was and while some would say photography isn’t as artistic in expression as say painting or sculpture it is a medium that is represented only by its subject matter and the artists interest in that subject matter. It is a connection to the world around us and the way we interact with it. Photography over the years has become one of the only ways to see not only the world but a representation of how we see it and the hopes we have for it.
I think photography is one of the best ways to document and record history as it is happening. It captures things that are happening in a moment, also taking videos is another great way to document history. I think taking a video might just be more effective to document history because it captures more and, in my opinion, pictures are easier to edit than videos. Is photography today, in the digital world, still a source of truth and reality as it was in the 19th century? Yes, but to a slightly lesser extent. With the advent of photo editing software, a lot of people can manipulate photos extremely well, so well it is hard to tell that a picture was even edited. But looking at a picture’s EXIF data can also help with determining if a picture is authentic or not.
Photography I believe is a great and amazing way to document history through times now and even back in the 19th century. I have always found that photography is special in ways that we can view an image and see what kind of architecture was like the lifestyle, and fashion. Photography has certainly come a long way since the Civil War and to see where photography is now is outstanding because millions of people photograph things daily, and I find that to be a great source of documenting things. To touch on what Brady said about the medium being great and truthful is still valid in today’s world because so many people out there want to take pictures and capture great moments that they won’t forget in the future. This medium is and always will be an excellent source to connect with the past and to tell a story in the future, and I believe it will only become even better as time goes on.
Photography was an essential step in the documentation of history. It is a medium the reveals the otherwise untold reality of historical events, such as the often gruesome and harrowing truth of Civil War battlefields. It is one thing for family members or newspapers to report on the events of a battle, but an entirely different thing to see it with your own eyes. Originally, photography eliminated a majority of the idealization and manipulation of a historical event that was often rendered in paintings. It was also a tool used to reveal aspects of life that many did not understand or had not been exposed to. Photography during the 19th century and years to come captured Americans with an honesty that is instrumental in the understanding of the United State’s history. In today’s society, photography continues to be an instrumental tool and medium utilized to spread awareness and deliver honest accounts of events. However, as the medium has developed with access to social media platforms and advancements in technology, photographs are increasingly subjected to alterations and manipulation of the imagery. People are becoming increasingly aware of these alterations, allowing them to find the truth in these images. Overall, photography continues to play a pivotal role in documenting reality.
Brady’s aim to make photography a great and truthful medium of history was fairly successful in my opinion. Though there are some things that can be manipulated or omitted from a scene, even in the 19th century, there is a sense of raw emotion that is captured that is harder to omit.
In today’s society with social media and the ease of accessibility to photography it is harder to know what is true and genuine because of a number of different obstacles that are presented. Firstly, in certain scenarios people only show what they want to show that doesn’t mean that a moment wasn’t captured that showed someones true feelings but that photo often isn’t shared, instead people chose to share the moments that present what they want to present. Another obstacle that we face today with photography is the altering or manipulation of reality through photoshop or other editing platforms. Even with these obstacle I think that photography can still be a truthful medium even with the obstacles that are presented today; it is important to analyze what is being viewed and the context of who is presenting the media.
I found Mathew Brandy’s pursuit of using photography as not only an art form but also documentation for history ingenious. Photography then was brand new. Looking back to even the beginning of art, we see that art has been used to document events, ideals, and history/mythology. Brandy was taking a new form of art and continuing its tradition of documenting history. However, I fear that Brandy’s ambition for photography has not lived up to its potential to be truthful even without today’s technology. Anyone and everyone with the right program on their computer can edit videos and photos. However, there is also the difficult task of determining if someone has taken photos of the whole picture. For example, a photo of an Mt. Charlstine hiking trail showed trash everywhere, and the caption was how people were literally trashing the place. However, if they had zoomed out or taken photos around the area, the trash was obsolete. Not that people should not be picking up after themselves, but photography from the beginning, even without editing technology, had the ability to curve, displace, or change the truth of what was being captured.
I definitely agree how powerful and more “real” photography as a medium can be to show us how things from the past that might not even exist anymore in the future. This form of documentation is also very important for us to know the reality of things or the beauty we once had but was destroyed on this earth by humans or natural causes. It’s always so interesting to me to see these true, vulnerable pictures of moments captured in history and what the people used to do back then.
Photography today in the digital might be a bit skewed. It has some source of truth and reality, but I don’t think it’s like the 19th century if we’re talking about photographs that have been digitally edited through programs. We aren’t seeing the true nature of these photographs because of the editing and defeats the purpose of the reality in what we should be seeing. Though there are still some exceptions if it’s just a simple touch up with making the picture brighter without changing the subject at all and letting it still shine through.
I respect Mathew Brady for capturing these moments in time since it must have been hard to see so many men wounded and dying (either from war or disease). Even though his ultimate goal in life is to advance photography as an art form, he captured moments of the Civil War with a sense of duty and respect for all those involved. No one was treated less than a person, just a “subject”, to Mathew Brady. He also captured such historical figures (generals and even former President Lincoln himself!) even if they did not know of their impact at the time.
With photography, I think it is important to acknowledge this art form as it is more than capturing images, it captures a moment in time that may be important when looking back at it. I know in the digital age where there are so many pictures online that it may seem redundant, but there will still be pictures that are important, just go to a different source. The photographs in the National Geographic for example have pictures of important people like the famous picture of Malala Yousafzai. She became and icon and figure for speaking out against inequality for education. With the help of her iconic photo, people knew who she was and was able to identify the message with a face. That is the power photography has.
Photography is not as important nowadays due to our ability to manipulate photos in this digital age. Photo’s taken these days are often inauthentic. Videography has taken photography’s spot because it is more difficult to convincingly alter them making them a better medium for documenting events. Even though photography has abdicated it’s number one spot in this regard, it is still important, due to it being able to be shared through analog mediums. The practical simplicity of the photography medium is a large part of why videography doesn’t render it obsolete.
This is interesting because today photography is used to communicate in a much different way than in Brady’s time. In a sense the digital age age stripped the truth from the photograph, because photos are now so easily manipulated. On the other hand though, photography is still used to document history, and the prevalence of cameras means that things are captured by professionals and laypeople alike – resulting in photos of life in most every culture on earth. We are capturing our present in a very well rounded way and approaching it from every angle, so maybe even more so than when Brady said it, photography is in fact, a ‘truthful medium of history’.
We often take photography for grated in our day and age. Photography has become widely accessible and advanced over a short amount of time. Photography is, in fact, a very useful tool for documentation. Unlike all other accounts of documentation, photography, and other recording documentation, directly references what it records. There is no misconstruing of words such as in oral accounts. Photography and historical documentation have become linked. There is no greater way of getting a more accurate depiction of historical events than seeing it in a photograph. Brady’s endeavor not only documented the war, but paved the road for documentation in general.
I agree that photography is an effective and valuable method in documenting and recording history. It can capture a scene as is rather than hearsay or what someone depicts. However, I do believe that photographs can be heavily manipulated by the photographer’s personal view or any potential biases. For example, a photographer might capture a scene in a way that focuses only on a specific part of the overall context. Regardless of this however, I do believe that photography is a good method in terms of documentation and recording and should be considered with context and checked for authenticity.
I do think that in a digital world authenticity of photographs and videos can be a much bigger problem compared to the 19th century. I do believe however that videos are also a major form in documenting and recording history because everyone has access to it nowadays and can be used to capture situations where people might have had one accessible back then. Manipulation of photography and videos is a major issue that is spread across multiple mediums like social media and sometimes appears on official sources even after reviewing. Thus, it is imperative to always check sources in today’s day and age.
I do believe photography and is the source of truth and reality in the digital world. A painting/curated work of art is the way someone portrays the world, but a photograph is how someone sees the world at that given moment in time. This can be more honest than something purely curated from the mind. Specifically when it comes to historic and political moments, photography is the moment most representative and truthful medium from that time. It represents how several people felt during that moment. It can also shed light to things people did not know before, such as the truths of war during the Civil War. Photography is powerful, but also still requires creativity and perspective from the photographer.
I feel that photography did earn its title as a source of truth and reality in the digital world. Looking through and studying history with only accounts that are written in text can only offer us so much information about events that happened in the past. Im sure every historian would have loved to have a picture or even video of historical events that happened before photography was popularized. With a photo we’re able to see an exact moment of time through generations. However, photography has also become less reliable as a source of truth with editing software in modern times.
As I read this week’s blog, I was reminded of a Korean film I recently watched called “A Taxi Driver” (2017). It was roughly based on the experience of Jürgen Hinzpeter, a German reporter, who was able to obtain footage of the military violence that happened during the Gwangju Uprising. I think Hinzpeter’s experience is similar to Brady’s because he also saw many unbelievable things and he still held on in order to film the truth of what was happening. Although he he used film to record, I think that photography holds the same purpose and sentiment in being able to record and document history. I think that it has a different essence from film because photos mainly capture a sole event/scene. Depending on what you’re looking for, I think that photography still has its qualities despite the advancing digital world of today. If anything, I think photography is a great source for focusing on certain, specific aspects. Something I find troublesome about video is that you have a lot more you have to visually analyze as so much is going on. For example, in a scenario where I needed film or photos for evidence, I would have to pause a lot or rewind at times. In that instance, then I think that photography still has its perks. I don’t think that photography will be be obsolete as a source of truth any time soon.
Lizbeth Ramirez | Art 474
Photography is a medium that has the power to capture a moment that within a second later becomes a memory. It is such a privilege and blessing to have this type of technology. It allows us to look back on and appreciate every little detail of that moment, that if not captured it would’ve been lost in the back of our minds forever. There are many memories that I have forgotten and the moment I see a picture, it allows me to fill in all the missing pieces. These photographs might not be of important historical events but they’re a part of my own history. So yes, in today’s digital world photography is still a source of truth and reality. It serves as a source for our society’s collective history as well as our own.
I totally agree with Bradly and I think photography is probably the most ideal approaches to archive and record history as it is occurring. It catches things that are occurring in a second, additionally taking recordings is another extraordinary method to report history. I figure taking a video may very well be more powerful to report history since it catches more and, as I would like to think, pictures are simpler to alter than recordings. Photography in past, was captured with basic instruments and processed in time consuming ways but the result was real. Today, I could say the meaning of the photography has changed and with new software editing programs we can produce unreal photos which is useful in graphic design world but could have negative influences to demonstrate unreal and fake incidents.
I heard somewhere before that a photograph can be considered a perfect capture of a moment in time, and I think within the context of the civil war photographs that is definitely true. Photography varies from other forms of art in that , if not edited, it has the ability to show something as it is in perfect accuracy to what is being photographed. That allowed these photos of the civil war to have such a powerful and lasting effect because there was no artistic flourish to these photos to make them seem larger than life or fantastical, it was just the harsh reality of war for all to see unfiltered. In the modern age I think that genuineness of photography is somewhat lost because of the ability to easily edit a photo in digital programs. A picture showed to someone in the modern age would always be taken with a grain of salt, because of that nagging in the back of our head asking if this image were 100 percent real or not
I agree with Mathew Brady’s beliefs on photography being a great medium for the truth. I believe photography is a great medium to record history, event, and memorable moments. Photography allows every to both capture and print important moments in history. Also, it allows people to use photographs for both reference and documentation for projects, social events, and both family and friends moments. Finally, they can be used to help people remember certain events in their past. However, digital photography can’t be as trustworthy as it was in the 19th century. Both artists and designers can digitally manipulate any photograph through photo editing softwares on both computers and mobile devices, such as Adobe Photoshop. By manipulating photographs, anything can be removed or distorted, preventing people from finding out the whole truth in the image. Also, some people would reinterpret and hide information to create their own “truth”, such as an image of a married man hugging his cousin can be reinterpreted as a man cheating on his wife. Photographs are an accurate method of both capturing and documenting moments in history. However, we need to be aware that they can be manipulated to create false information. We need to be careful on how we both interpret and believe in photographs.
I think photography is a great medium to document history accurately. Brady’s choice to document the American Civil War through photography was very important because he preserved history. During the 19th century, I think photography was a very truthful medium because the photographs told it exactly how it was. However, today I think photography is not as truthful as it was back then due to all the technological advancements we’ve made. Today, so many people can edit and photoshop pictures it can be hard to tell what is the truth anymore. I still think photography is a good way to document history, but because of our ability to manipulate pictures nowadays, there will always be a little bit of doubt to the truthfulness behind a photo.
I definitely think that photography is a great and overall one of the best mediums to capture and archive history. Brady deciding to document the American Civil War was a wise choice from him as it showed it as it is, thus providing an accurate representation for the time. Especially when it was taken as they could not edit the photos as much as we do now in the present simply just through Photoshop and apps we can just download on our phones. While adding a filter can provide a nice look to the photo, the truthfulness in photography today has been lost a little.
I believe that photography is one of the strongest media around for documenting history. Brady made the right call in choosing to capture the Civil War through photography because it allowed him to capture every last detail of the war effort much more accurately than he would have through drawing or painting. This resulted in a more realistic account because photography would simply capture the scene as is, rather than subjecting it to manipulation of formal elements in order to change the narrative like drawing and painting would. Unfortunately, photography can now fall victim to this due to the existence of programs like Photoshop. When images are not manipulated in such programs, photography can still be an extremely powerful method of documenting history due to its ability to do so with perfect accuracy and how much faster it is than more traditional methods of art. Also, photography can provide a first-person glance at events as they unfold, allowing the viewer to immerse themselves in said events rather than having to imagine it like they would with other documenting methods.
Photography is one of the only true ways of depicting a memory. Most of the time a picture is brutally honest and the only thing that can compare is a painting, but even paintings have imperfections to them that can 100% fully imitate life. On the other hand, photography cannot always portray culture like other arts can. Things that were used in everyday traditions and life tell their own stories that not always a picture can capture.