In Maya Angelou’s poem Human Family she expresses “I note the obvious differences between each sort and type, but we are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike.” This excerpt from the poem perfectly illustrates the purpose of The Family of Man, an exhibit by the world renowned photographer Edward Steichen displayed at the New York Museum of Modern Art, MoMA, in 1955. In a Press Release published by MoMA Steichen expressed the justification for the exhibit was “portraying the universal elements and emotions and the oneness of human beings though the world” (MoMA). This theme of “oneness” can be juxtaposed by Fred Turner’s article “The Family of Man and the Politics of Attention in Cold War America”. Turner illustrates that the display was not merely a way to connect individuals from different walks of life but rather was seen as “a tool of American imperialism” (Turner,57). These two points of view starkly contradict one another and impact the legacy of The Family of Man.
In his work Turner argues that The Family of Man was a form of propaganda. Steichen, the curator of the exhibit, participated in creating propaganda during the Second World War. This included his exhibit entitled Road to Victory, which painted the picture of men leaving their home and families to fight against the totalitarian regimes in Europe. Many at the time viewed The Family of Man as a way to promote Democratic values over those of the Communist values that were seen as a threat by the United States and most of the Western world. However, Steichen himself argued that his exhibit was “not concerned with photographs that border on propaganda for or against political ideologies” (MoMA, 1). Is this view of The Family of Man as propaganda seen by modern scholars or was this a significant view at the exhibits conception?
Steichen’s exhibit chronicled life from birth to death. Turner does a great description of how visitors filtered through the gallery. Each guest would begin their journey at the same spot birth which displayed pictures of women in labor and the beginning of one’s journey of Earth. After this they could journey through the exhibit how they pleased. Though images were curated together each one was unique and engaged each individual in a unique way (Turner, 78-79). The design of each exhibit encouraged guests to develop their own story. No two people could walk into The Family of Man and see it the same way. Each image would mean something different to each guest and impact them differently based on their world views. Steichen enabled this exploration through the set up, each person engages with art in a different way and the exhibits design facilitated this experience. A different story about birth, living and loss could be experienced by each guest.
The ultimate image that guests saw was a mushroom cloud from a Hydrogen Bomb (Turner, 84). This image could easily illustrate to guests the risks of Nuclear war and how it would be the end of the family of man. This image was prominent with in 1950s culture. Many believed that at any moment they could be obliterated by an nuclear weapon. Turner would argue that this image is propaganda because it is drawing on the fears of the West. People during this period believed that the Communists could unleash this mass destruction at any moment. However, it can also be seen as a common fear seen by people throughout the world during this period. A Nuclear War that would destroy everything in it’s path. It was interesting that when different countries displayed the works they modified this last imagine and many other imagines within the exhibit. Japan added victims of the Atomic Bomb into the final image in a way to illustrate the destruction that the bomb caused (Turner, 84). This artistic liberty by the Japanese, though seen as controversial by some, illustrates that the nation knew the effects of Nuclear Power and could be a political message to the world of the horrible impact it has on a society. Japan wanted to remind those that viewed this picture that the unthinkable image that so many visitors had walked by and pondered had once happened to them and their people and that it is not just a threat, as many people across the world believed, but a reality.
Though scholars argue about the political ramifications of the exhibit, The Family of Man can be characterized in the way that it made guests “integrate what they saw into their own world views” (Turner, 82). Turner argued that this can be seen as a way to psychologically foster individuals idea of democracy and instill in them the importance to maintain a democratic world (Turner,82). It is interesting to see that Steichen did not see his world as propaganda though many scholars do today. In his mind he was showing the world the way it was. How though people are different they still go through the same experiences in life. His imagines illustrated different races and lifestyles but though there were significant differences between the subjects of the photos they all experienced events that were synonymous with the human experience. The major weakness of Turner’s article is that he did not convince me that Steichen work was propaganda because instead I see it as a way to connect the similarities and the struggles people face throughout life.
Sources:
https://allpoetry.com/Human-Family
http://moma.org/d/c/press_releases/W1siZiIsIjMyNTk2NiJdXQ.pdf?sha=520b05de8b6c1f17
Turner, Fred. “The Family of Man and the Politics of Attnetion in Cold War America”.Public Culture 24,No. 1 (2012): (55-84).
I think you make a really valid point in saying that people are more alike than they are unalike. This is such a true statement and I think if more people in the world viewed other peoples lives like this then there wouldn’t be so much turmoil and angst that we deal with even today. I think talking about “the Family of Man” exhibit is also important because it gives people the opportunity to see the world differently. It’s also a really valid point you made that many people lived in fear of atomic warfare, but the Japanese saw it differently because it was their reality.
I never thought about how different countries would take in the image of the mushroom cloud. I pictured it as a symbol of how to destroy all the different peoples of the family man. I did not, however, think of it as another similarity that all of these people share; fear. It must have been a very powerful ending to the exhibit. After viewing images of happiness and sadness and interpreting them in different ways, people had to see an image of mass death and interpret that in their own way, then leave. I cannot imagine the profound effect that would have had on me had I walked around the exhibit.
I like the picture that you provided in the beginning of your blog. The viewers seem to look intently, and not indifferently at the photograph. I think this really illustrates part of the purpose of the “Family of Man” exhibit, which was to get people thinking about their prejudices and the fate of our ‘family of man’ if we continue to hate. I was also not convinced that Steichen’s work was propaganda. Propaganda is “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature.” Although he was definitely sending a certain message, I do not think he imposed his views on the audience, or tried to mislead them. The tone of the exhibit does not seem forceful. Like you said, viewers were able to move freely through the exhibit and formulate their own thoughts about the pictures that were presented to them.
I agreed with your analysis of the article as well. I feel like there is a difference between something being propaganda and an artist exploring an issue that they find important. I also love the picture you used from the exhibit as your digital artifact.
I like the way you used the Maya Angelou poem to connect your article to the argument you were trying to make. I am skeptical as well that this exhibit was meant to be propaganda. It seems to me that Stiechen simply saw a problem in the world that he felt strongly about and used his exhibit to bring attention to it, i highly doubt he had nefarious intentions.
I believe that the definition of propaganda is overblown. This is a form of art and any artist hides a message in their works. It’s what they do. So to say just because something sends a message then it means it’s propaganda, then practically everything would be propaganda. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. There are extreme forms, but in my opinion, it doesn’t matter if it’s propaganda. It doesn’t mean it’s bad. But I liked your argument!
What really struck me was the title of the post, this was the over message that was displayed in the work. The idea was to unify the viewer in order for them to see that we are all the same and that the conflict needs to end. I don’t think this was propaganda, or as the United States military would like to call it; persuasive or informative products. The idea of what needs to be done isn’t entirely clear. In class we discussed this and I stated that there was some “path” the reader wanted the audience to see. No one goes through all this for no reason, there had to be a motive. I think the designers past gives light to the motive and I do believe he wanted people to see that we are more alike than not or else we will have another conflict ending with the same conclusion as he ended his exhibit, another atomic bomb. It is easier to see how things are propaganda now than then. How we views things as historians is different for how they viewed the event during the time period. If I were a person back then and I saw the destruction from the war I would post these pictures because I want the wars to stop. With that said it, its not like the exhibit was to scare people straight and elude to if another war starts we will all die due to atomic bombs. My question is do you think the exhibit would have had the same effect without the atomic bomb picture or do you think that was needed to wrap up the purpose of the exhibit?
Wow! I love the parallel you drew from Angelou’s poem and Steichen’s exhibit. The purposes of both, I believe, are to highlight the oneness of human beings and promote kindness. I wish more people saw, and believed, these words/this concept that we are all “more alike than we are unlike.”