Mathew Brady and the Posed Corpse

[Gettysburg Greg]

There are two common misconceptions regarding the great CW photographer, Mathew Brady. First, he did not stage his photographs by moving bodies from one location to another. There is ONE documented case of this happening and that was photographer, Alexander Gardner, not Brady. Second, Brady photographed zero dead soldiers at Gettysburg because he didn't get there til all the dead soldiers were buried.
Because there were no bodies to be photographed, Brady did make a feeble attempt to fool the public by having one of his assistants pose as a corpse in at least three locations. In the example below, Brady's assistant is seen in his phony death pose lying next to the Brian house. In the foreground is the only actual body photographed by Brady, the mummified corpse of a horse probably killed two weeks before. My now pic shows the same scene today in front of the restored Brian house.

 

[byron ed]

I've mentioned this before on the forum, that there were no established practices for battlefield photography as yet. What we call "an attempt to fool the public" was at the time considered "an attempt to inform the public" by telling an accurate story. Battlefields were not devoid of bodies, and it would have been deception to portray them that way in the photographers' view at the time. It was considered legitimate to "assist" the image at the time. It was not an ethical issue at the time.

I realize how much of a hurdle that is for us today to get past, but in my college art history courses (Timothy O'Sullivan was my semester project) we learned to do it. We were advised that in those times the comparison, the standard of conduct, was sketched journalism, which after all was a complete visual fabrication. Yet that was the existing standard that photo-journalists (not yet called that) like Brady were expected to follow. Their goal was to render an accurate depiction of the way things were, not the modern concept of "photo-realism" that we're accustomed to now. Standards specific to photo journalism didn't become established until much later in the century. Please consider that the depictions submitted by Brady photographers in the Civil War were as accurate and as honest as any depiction submitted in pencil by Albert Waud.

Also keep in mind that the same professional ethic was applied to photo studio portraiture at the time. The use of fabricated backdrop scenes and supplied props (pistols etc. in the case of soldiers) was wholly acceptable, the norm, the standard at the time, legitimate in depicting the sitter. Folks didn't think twice about it, nor did they think twice about the collections of battlefield photos they subscribed to after the war. Those were considered an accurate depiction of the war.

Fast forward to us today. OF COURSE staging a scene in that manner is not nearly legitimate journalism. It's unacceptable.

 

[Gettysburg Greg]

I've mentioned this before on the forum, that there were no established practices for battlefield photography as yet. What we call "an attempt to fool the public" was at the time considered "an attempt to inform the public" by telling an accurate story. Battlefields were not devoid of bodies, and it would have been deception to portray them that way in the photographers' view at the time. It was considered legitimate to "assist" the image at the time. It was not an ethical issue at the time.

I realize how much of a hurdle that is for us today to get past, but in my college art history courses (Timothy O'Sullivan was my semester project) we learned to do it. We were advised that in those times the comparison, the standard of conduct, was sketched journalism, which after all was a complete visual fabrication. Yet that was the existing standard that photo-journalists (not yet called that) like Brady were expected to follow. Their goal was to render an accurate depiction of the way things were, not the modern concept of "photo-realism" that we're accustomed to now. Standards specific to photo journalism didn't become established until much later in the century. Please consider that the depictions submitted by Brady photographers in the Civil War were as accurate and as honest as any depiction submitted in pencil by Albert Waud.

Also keep in mind that the same professional ethic was applied to photo studio portraiture at the time. The use of fabricated backdrop scenes and supplied props (pistols etc. in the case of soldiers) was wholly acceptable, the norm, the standard at the time, legitimate in depicting the sitter. Folks didn't think twice about it, nor did they think twice about the collections of battlefield photos they subscribed to after the war. Those were considered an accurate depiction of the war.

Fast forward to us today. OF COURSE staging a scene in that manner is not nearly legitimate journalism. It's unacceptable.

Thanks for adding your insight. The only points I would make are that the photogs were businessmen, not historians, so their goal was to sell merchandise (photos) not accurately record history and as I suspect you know, in only one documented case did a photographer photograph a dead soldier in two locations. That, of course, is the famous sharpshooter image. I see many comments suggesting that photogs were moving bodies all around the battlefield and staging pics. Not true, props were sometimes added such as rifles and shells, but only one body. moved.

 

[byron ed]

...Thanks for adding your insight. The only points I would make are that the photogs were businessmen, not historians, so their goal was to sell merchandise (photos) not accurately record history...

Like nearly everyone else (at that time and today) these photographers of course had A goal of making money -- but let's call that making a living. A goal to make money does not usurp other goals. By their very choice of profession these photographers could have rightly and honestly felt as though they were making a contribution to society as well. To read about these particular photographers suggests that recording history was as much a calling for them as it was a necessity to make money. In that sense they were no less historians (small "h") than diarists, reporters and book authors at the time.

To overdrive the point; I could remind that doctors, preachers, schoolteachers and blacksmiths all had A goal of making money, so I'm not understanding how it's derived that these photographers were somehow mostly driven by money.* I do understand that there were common small-time traveling photographers circulating at that time who had no goal of contributing to society, but only to their pockets. I wouldn't lump these well-known battlefield photographers, artists really, with that bunch.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*Generally, I try not to pre-emptively assume motivations of people of the CW era as if they didn't by default have the same kind of heart, motivations or spirituality that we moderns do. From a human standpoint, they were the same species as us, not all that almighty different from us today.

 

[Pete Longstreet]

Thanks for the post. I'll be honest... I knew nothing about this topic whatsoever. I assumed that the dead soldier is true and depicts fact based on that moment the picture was taken. I do understand the reasons and concepts as stated above... but it does take the wind out of my sails a bit. for years i thought the "corpse" laying in front of the Brian House was real. With that being said, I like facts and do appreciate your post.

 

[TerryB]

Very similar to the early practice of staging radio news events. For some reason it was regarded as unethical to "go live" with the news.