Régine THIRIEZ
(December 2002)
Are photographs an accurate reflection of reality?
This question has been the subject of countless discussions. When dealing with early photography, it cannot be evaded, since for the first decades all scenes were posed, and moreover, often set up (i.e., fabricated) by photographers.
When photography was born in 1839, it was hailed as a miracle instrument which could record but never lie or distort. This, of course, was wildly optimistic: as was speedily demonstrated, a photograph is never more truthful than its author. It is, also, not more truthful than the person who looks at it, and as multiple examples in this database will demonstrate, this is very significant for a subject as culturally loaded as Chinese justice and punishment.
At purely photographic level, the problem can be summarized as: are (1) posed and/or (2) re-constructed scenes, reliable records of justice in late imperial China?
The fact that scenes were both posed and re-constructed is due to the limitations of photographic processes. First, they were too slow to catch movement (hence 'posed'). Second -- electricity was not yet available -- they required a great amount of natural light as all significant details had details had to be clearly visible. This is how it became customary to arrange every detail to best advantage, thus creating very effective -- if static and removed from reality -- scenes, a model which became the norm.
There was also a cultural aspect to this, the need for people of the late 19th century to share knowledge and to learn, education. All kinds of scenes were photographed all over the world, a number of which were information on customs of close or distant lands. The image was meant to explain it all, and this is also why all had to be clearly shown.
The most famous scenes were created in Shanghai by William Saunders in the 1860s, quite early by Chinese photography standards. In his fifty of so numbers, Saunders rarely used repeat models. He hired tradesmen or ordinary people just to repeat their everyday moves. The images are not only attractive, they are also remarkable as documents. This is a good thing, because their success made them as a long-lasting model for photographers of Chinese customs. They were still re-used fifty years later, as illustration of current times (see for example the use of the beheading scene, which was repeatedly identified as contemporary, such as execution of a pirate from the 1870s on, or of a Boxer after 1900.
While Saunders later shots were taken in the streets of the Shanghai concessions, including some cangue punishments, almost all of his early collection, created between 1865 and 1870, was recorded in the private surroundings of his studio and compound. They are undoubtedly commercial work, this is, images meant to please the Western public. How accurate a reflection of Chinese customs can they be, really?
The period did not produce 'candid' shots that could be compared with the studio work. The only possible way to decide is by comparing images of the same customs shot by several photographers, preferably in different geographical areas. For example, was a barber shown in the same way in Shanghai, Hong Kong, Beijing and Hankou? Multiple examples show that he was. This means that reconstructions of barbering activities were based on facts and not just on a photographer's idea of what his patrons would want to find.
Judicial photographs are unfortunately not the best vehicle for this type of study. First, the sampling is not very large. Second, and probably due to the particular aura already surrounding Chinese justice in contemporary foreign minds, judicial scenes turn out to be generally the least reliable -- as demonstrated, for example, by a group of cangue-bearers posing in the 18th century decor of an upscale photographic studio. The question could be rephrased to: 'Is Saunders reliable?' Based on his work in general, I would argue that he is.
The Chinese photographers, especially, created their own scenes while copying Saunders' setups. This was several decades later. They were bolder and generally less respectful of their own customs. Effect was sometimes privileged over facts. Their 'court of justice' from the 1880s and 1890s were clearly inspired by Saunders, yet they lack the quiet dignity of the original. At first glance closer to a pantomime than to judiciary ceremonial, their gain in action but lose in credibility. Yet, for all the minor details which are inaccurate or misplaced, the reference to Saunders shows that these late scenes were, in essence, exact.
Saunders' most famous scene, the beheading, was never imitated by competitors. Was it because it was too expensive to set up (about 60 people appear), and not something that anybody could manage?
Saunders created images of a timeless China. They were still credible -- if not necessarily valid -- fifty years later to be used on postcards as scenes of life in Republican China, which raises a problem. While still as 'exact' as they ever were, they could hardly be credited with reflecting current reality.
File(s) Download:
dossier.Reality.in.Photograpy.doc
