Photo Courtesy of the Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University
What drew me to this photo is all of its nuances. Not only is this woman working when most stayed home but she's working in a munitions factory, gaging and assembling ball cartridges. She doesn't have a uniform and works in a simple dress, kitchen apron, and heavy gloves. And while the work isn't glamorous, she still presents herself very nicely with well-styled hair. It's an interesting juxtaposition of female ideals, strong and capable yet very feminine.
Possibly this is a case where more and better metadata would have helped with your interpretation. But, actually this is a time when thousands of women were doing work in munitions plants all over the country, as able-bodied men were drafted and off fighting in Europe and the Pacific. Moreover, women were "frozen" in their jobs if they were doing war work and could not leave without proving that they were going to do other war work or enter a "reserved" profession such as teaching. The apron is a nice touch, but I think you have to consider that this is likely to have been a posed publicity photograph taken, most likely, by a government photographer to promote the war effort. They would in that case naturally pick a nice, healthy, well-groomed, all-American girl to further emphasize the nature of the work she is doing.
I was going to say something similar in re: to wartime effort contributions by women during this time as well. What is also interesting is that she is photographed in an entirely different way than Rosie the Riveter was illustrated. Her hair isn't protected/very well done, she isn't wearing a factory jumpsuit for protection, and she's filled out more with air in her puff sleeves than with muscle mass. With that in mind, it's interesting to see the different approaches employed by the government in achieving its wartime propaganda goals, and also how "femininity" was grappled with during the war.
The vantage point of the photograph is another interesting thing I noticed about this photograph. It was taken from above, capturing the subject in a diminutive way, especially in context of the machine she's working on. I would also be interested in the metadata, if any, of this photograph.
Possibly this is a case where more and better metadata would have helped with your interpretation. But, actually this is a time when thousands of women were doing work in munitions plants all over the country, as able-bodied men were drafted and off fighting in Europe and the Pacific. Moreover, women were "frozen" in their jobs if they were doing war work and could not leave without proving that they were going to do other war work or enter a "reserved" profession such as teaching. The apron is a nice touch, but I think you have to consider that this is likely to have been a posed publicity photograph taken, most likely, by a government photographer to promote the war effort. They would in that case naturally pick a nice, healthy, well-groomed, all-American girl to further emphasize the nature of the work she is doing.
ReplyDeleteI was going to say something similar in re: to wartime effort contributions by women during this time as well. What is also interesting is that she is photographed in an entirely different way than Rosie the Riveter was illustrated. Her hair isn't protected/very well done, she isn't wearing a factory jumpsuit for protection, and she's filled out more with air in her puff sleeves than with muscle mass. With that in mind, it's interesting to see the different approaches employed by the government in achieving its wartime propaganda goals, and also how "femininity" was grappled with during the war.
ReplyDeleteThe vantage point of the photograph is another interesting thing I noticed about this photograph. It was taken from above, capturing the subject in a diminutive way, especially in context of the machine she's working on. I would also be interested in the metadata, if any, of this photograph.