146

  • Girl at Loom or Drawer in Cotton Mill

  • ca. 1912
  • Lewis Wickes Hine (American 1874-1940)
  • Gelatin silver print, vintage
  • 11.8 x 13.8 cm., 4-11/16 x 5-7/16"
  • Catherine Carter Goebel, Paul A. Anderson Chair in the Arts Purchase with assistance from the Reynold Emanuel and Johnnie Gause Leak Holmén Endowment Fund for the Visual Arts, Paul A. Anderson Art History Collection, Augustana College 2006.20

Essay by Peter Kivisto, Professor of Sociology and Richard Swanson Professor of Social Thought

Lewis Wickes Hine has been described as a sociological photographer and as such represents, along with Jacob Riis, one of the two most prominent early exponents of "social-documentary" photography-and a precursor to slightly later luminaries such as Dorothea Lange and Walker Evans (Doherty 3). He preferred to describe himself as an "interpretive photographer." Although his politics are not entirely clear, what is certain is that he exhibited a political worldview that made him part of the progressive reform movement of the first half of the twentieth century-a movement that took aim at the exploitation and social exclusion of the working class in the emerging industrial social order. Unsympathetic to radical critics of capitalism, Hine sought to find ways to make the relationship between employers and employees something other than a zero-sum game. Art historians have contended that although work is the central theme throughout Hine's career, one can divide it between an earlier phase, during which the focus was on "negative documentation," and a later phase when he turned to "positive documentation."

With this in mind, how should Girl at Loom (which has the alternative title of Drawer in Cotton Mill) be located in terms of his corpus? Given that it dates from around 1912 and was produced under the auspices of the National Child Labor Committee, it would appear to be squarely located within the so-called negative documentation period. However, it is difficult to see how the photo in itself could be viewed as a critique of child labor. The girl does not appear to be living in squalor and her work does not appear dangerous. On the contrary, she is neatly dressed, her hair primly arranged in a bun, and she appears to be seated quite comfortably. Given that we do not see her face directly, it is not entirely clear at first view that she is a girl and not an adult. The small hands are perhaps a clue, but it is only because of Hine's title that the matter is certain. Here as elsewhere, the subject is absorbed in the task at hand, but does not appear overwhelmed. Nor is the worker reduced to being a mere appendage of the machine.