In 1955, the graphic exhibit titled The Family Man, grew to become one of the most successful exhibits in the history of the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Though the images themselves were extraordinary, this success was due in no small part to the design of the exhibit itself, as it sought to break the psychological monotony of the viewer by allowing them to walk among the exhibit and view the images at their own pace and as they saw fit. This was a particular concern of Edward Steichen and his assistant, Wayne Miller,the creators of the exhibit, as they wanted to present an opposite perspective of the world in the wake of militarist and authoritarian regimes of Germany and Japan, and also as the Soviet Union grew in power and they United States itself was growing more and more militaristic and authoritarian. Yet despite all of its success, not just within the United States, but across the world as well as it contained images from many different countries, it was criticized for many of its faults just several decades later. This is because the exhibit does tend to gloss over the major issues prevalent in American society at a time of severe racial, sexual and social repression as well as glorify the positive aspects with a since of cultural propaganda. But is this necessarily fair to think? Isn’t it unfair for us to look at things in hindsight and judge them based on our modern views and education, especially if this art exhibit was thought to be forward-thinking for its time.
Starting in the 1970’s, a number of critics began to comment on how The Family Man did shy away from showing the more negative aspects of American society such as the sexual and racial repression that was prevalent during that time, while also glorifying the more positive, though conservative and agreeable, aspects of post-war American society. However, I do not think that this is necessarily fair to the exhibit, as it was thought to be fairly progressive in terms of accepting all peoples, regardless of national origin, and though it obviously didn’t delve into issues such as homosexuality and greater gender and racial equality, how could it? Homosexuality wouldn’t be legally or socially accepted on a nationwide scale until the late 20th century, if not the early 21st century, and the civil rights movement wouldn’t reach its full stride for almost another decade. So it is unfair for critics in the 1970’s, a decade since the American civil rights movement, to look at an exhibit from 20 years ago and call it racist or sexist or too eager to overlook those issues in favor of an easier route to glorify American society. But these criticisms overlook the most important, though not explicitly visible, point that Steichen and Miller were attempting to make. The authoritarian regimes that existed in Germany, Japan, and now in the Soviet Union with the proliferation of the Cold War, blinded their people by molding their psychological processes and essentially turning them into unquestioning automatons. Steichen and Miller sought to challenge that by, at least on this small scale, allowing the viewer, whether they be American, German, Chinese, or a citizen of the Soviet Union, to choose their own path and explore the exhibit at their pace and as they saw fit. This could help to free them from a form of mental monotony and allow them to think and feel independently thus perhaps forming a more diverse and tolerant society.
Regardless of the criticisms and the possible shortcomings of The Family Man, one cannot be helped but to moved by the images that portray many different peoples from many different places and from all walks of life. Nearly all are of a very personal nature, and while some are beautiful, touching moments between close friends or family, some are less pleasant, yet all the more compelling. And perhaps that is also why people came in record numbers to view the exhibit wherever it went, because it portrayed a history of your people and other people that was not what was taught in history books; a broad history of society and governmental structure. No, this was a personal history, it showed families and friends and comrades, during the good times and the bad and this is what doubtlessly touched the viewer to the extent that they would have left feeling closer to humanity, feeling more tolerant and accepting of others, perhaps even those they previously viewed as enemies. So perhaps it does not matter that Steichen and Miller’s exhibit did not meet our contemporary standards that we have been able to place high with the benefit of hindsight and the education of history, because for its time, it did what others did not, and it showed and reached for a better world of tolerance and diversity, a kind of individualistic utopia. And perhaps if we could see things through their eyes, we would understand that.
Lange, Dorothea. Migrant Mother. 1936. The Family Man, Luxembourg. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Web.
Peublo Indian. N.d. The Family Man, Luxembourg. Web.
Turner, Fred. “The Family of Man and the Politics of Attention in Cold War America.” Public Culture 24.1 66 (2012): 55-84. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.
I’m really pleased you brought up what was, or more importantly was not, going on in the time period that ‘The Family Man” was assembled. It did not occur to me that the civil right’s movement had not even happened yet. With that being said, by the pure inclusion of African Americans and another minorities, I think the creators of the exhibit were extremely progressive for their time. Steichen and Miller very easily could have assembled an arrangement of photos of just white Americans living in different places or stages of wealth. By creating a more inclusive project, I think they defied their time period and their progressive attitude was probably the reason it was so well received.
I liked that you brought up how the exhibit was progressive compared to the time that it was first displayed. I think the layout of The Family Man exhibit was unique in a good way to promote unity and show how we are all similar in more ways than we differ. I think that they left out the negative issues going on out of the exhibit to promote the positives of the United States and show how a non-authoritarian regime was better than an authoritarian regime, like in Germany and Japan. I also really liked that you included Dorothea Lange’s photo of the Migrant Mother since many people know that photo from previous history classes.
You bring up a good point in that the exhibit seemed to me to be relatively progressive for its time. Simply by including minorities in the exhibit it was far ahead of society at this time.
I really enjoyed the way that you valued the historical context of the exhibit and the ways that it was neglected during the later discussions surrounding the exhibit. Context is the key to understanding any situation from the perspective of the involved parties. This post did justice to pointing out the fallacies involved in interpreting the past, and even situations foreign (but present) to us today.
“Isn’t it unfair for us to look at things in hindsight and judge them based on our modern views and education”. This quote you used I find incredibly powerful. I also had a similar thought when reading the article. I think it was in my Methods professor who stressed not using hindsight to judge history, but rather try to delve in at the moment. I think you did an excellent job of interpreting the exhibit from its own time and for its own sake, rather than with sixty plus years of hindsight added on.
Context is everything, like we’ve discussed often both together and in class. Specifically, the time period/context of when the Family of Man exhibit was put on is necessary, I believe, to truly appreciating it’s appeal as you mentioned. It is a really breathtaking exhibit, regardless of contemporary critiques. I completely agree, and really appreciate, your post. Good job!