The Scenic Daguerreotype in America 1840-1860

After photography had been invented in the first half of the 19th Century, available technologies left much to be desired. The daguerreotype relied on mercury fumes (mercury is a neurotoxin), and it required not only considerable skill and preparation on part of the photographer, it was also excruciatingly slow. Initially, there was no flash, and when a form of it arrived later, it literally was an explosion of, again, hazardous materials.

There was immediate demand for photographs, mostly in the form of portraits. People flocked to the many portrait studios that opened up in many places to have their portraits taken. For almost all of those customers, this would have been the very first time in the history of their family that someone made an image bearing their likeness. And it was relatively affordable.

Indoors, producing a daguerreotype was relatively straight forward. As I noted, the materials were difficult to control. But the confines of a building offered enough stability to do so. All you needed was a big window to provide the light. Your customers needed a lot of patience, given the time required to arrive at a proper exposure.

The moment you left the studio setting, things became a lot more complicated. As a photographer, you needed to bring all of your materials, which not only included the toxic chemicals but also the sheets of silver-plated copper that carried the images. You wouldn’t be able to hop into your truck or station wagon because cars had not been invented, yet. Instead, you would have to rely on some wooden cart that probably would have been drawn by a horse or a donkey.

Some photographers did exactly that: they went outdoors and produced daguerreotypes of or in the landscapes, villages, or cities they wanted to photograph. What this looked like in the context of the United States is now available as The Scenic Daguerreotype in America 1840-1860, a handsome catalogue produced at the occasion of an exhibition at the Wardsworth Atheneum Museum of Art.

As you might imagine, the selection of images in the book is very diverse, both in terms of what was photographed but also who took the pictures. There is, for example, a Cincinnati street scene by James Presley Ball, an African American photographer, abolitionist, and businessman (it’s his only surviving outdoor view).

In fact, for each of the photographs in the book, there is a short text that explains its relevance. Some of it might be more or less obvious, some of it less so. And more often than not, those texts make you aware of something in the frame that a first, casual glance might have missed.

Or maybe as a viewer, you might simply not be aware of why what you’re looking at is relevant or noteworthy. In the case of Ball’s photograph, Deborah Willis focuses on three Black men who probably were in the middle of supplying a store with a load of candy boxes. “Black labor,” Willis writes, “was crucial to industrial and commercial growth in US cities and globally, and particularly evident on sugarcane plantations.”

And there are many more images that offer a glimpse into the United States before the Civil War. In an infinity of ways, it was a vastly different country than it is now, even as some of the dark undercurrents have now burst back out into the open again.

If the past is indeed a foreign country, photography’s role might be more limited than many of us would love to think. It’s doubtful whether photography can help us understand the past. What it can do, though, is to help us understand our present — as long as we reflect on what we see in photographs and how we come to the conclusions we come to.

In other words, seeing is one thing; understanding how we see is quite another.

Daguerreotypes essentially were mirrors, which required effort to see the ghostly images on their surfaces. Turned the wrong way, a viewer would only see their own face or maybe something else in the same room reflected.

The Scenic Daguerreotype in America 1840-1860 presents some of the earliest ghostly images from the United States, a country that wasn’t even a century old at the time. Some of the locales had been colonized long before; others were still being subjected to it.

It’s worthwhile keeping in mind that while it might be cool to see the gold diggers in some of the daguerreotypes, the Act for the Government and Protection of Indians triggered the California Genocide at exactly that time.

In photography, it matters what you can see in a picture because it also points at what is not being shown.

The Scenic Daguerreotype in America 1840-1860; photographs from numerous sources; edited by Allen Phillips and Grant B. Romer; texts by Matthew Hargraves, Allen Phillips, Grant B. Romer, and Deborah Willis; Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art/Paul Holberton Publishing; 2025

If you enjoyed this article, please consider subscribing to my Patreon. There, you will find exclusive articles, videos, and audio guides about the world of the photobook and more. For those curious, there now is the possibility of a trial membership for seven days.

Much like journalism, photography criticism involves a huge investment of time and resources. When you become a subscriber, you not only get access to more of my work. You will also help me produce it (including the free content on this site).

There also is a Mailing List, which I use to send out supplementary materials — anything that has me inspired or that somehow seemed worth noting. Some of it is serious, some is not. You can sign up for free here.

Thank you for your support!

9×9 Masterclass 2025/26

Last winter, I taught course I had been thinking about for a long time. The idea was to engage with a small group of photographers over the course of a few months to help them understand their photographs and process. Everything was done online (over Zoom).

In my introduction, I described my approach as teaching a method, and that is what it is. The method starts out from approaching photographs in a very simple and straightforward manner, and essentially everything else follows from there. Contrary to many other approaches where taking photographs is considered as being separate from editing them, which, in turn, is then different from writing a statement, in my method, everything flows together.

It’s easy to see why the method has such huge advantages: it’s simple, it does not require years of MFA studies (not even to mention associated costs), and it does not pile challenges upon challenges.

If you understand how your photographs operate, you understand how they operate when placed into the same context (for example a photobook). If you understand how your photographs operate in a photobook, you understand what the book — and by extension the work — is doing. If you understand what your work is doing, it becomes straightforward to talk or write about it.

And given it’s a method, once you put one project aside and consider another one, the underlying approach does not change. As a teacher, my main goal thus is to make my presence unnecessary.

It was extremely heartening to see the group of students (from all over the world) deciding to continue meeting up with each other after the course had ended. And everybody was able to show their work twice during the course, to have their fellow students discuss it in detail.

The time has come for another such course, the 2025/2026 edition. It is called 9×9 for a reason: 9 students, 9 meetings (plus an introductory one), and it’s $900, because I don’t think taking part in a masterclass (which it essentially is) should break the bank.

You can find some more details plus student testimonials on this website. If you are interested in joining the next course or if you have questions, please simple be in touch: jmcolberg at gmail.com.

And if you know someone who might be interested in this, please send them the information. I’m not on Facebook or Instagram any longer, meaning it’s a bit harder for me to get the word out. Thank you!

Immortal

Richard Avedon didn’t do subtle. Six years after Robert Frank had published his widely celebrated The Americans, Avedon produced his own take on the United States, Nothing Personal. Where Frank asked his viewers to look for traces of his discontent that would reflect on the country as a whole, Avedon shoved his into their faces: there are photographs of Nazis giving the Hitler salute, an old, weary former president, a Black fist covering a whole page of the oversized coffee-table book… And there was an essay by James Baldwin, an old high-school friend.

This was as uncouth a publication as you could produce if you wanted to enter the world of art. Consequently, the work was widely dismissed for all the reasons that were to be expected, the most important one of course left unspoken: how dare a commercially successful photographer pretend to be an artist?

You might wonder… If the country is brash and not subtle, then why should criticism and love be conveyed in a subtle and not a brash fashion? And why couldn’t a commercial photographer do it?

Maybe it was the fact that everything Avedon did in his work was done for effect that had his critics on edge. How could he have not done it otherwise, though, given that he had emerged from the world of fashion where there is no real substance — only effect?

Weren’t the critics who had their problems with the production of Nothing Personal complaining about the fact that Avedon had given them what they had wanted? It’s just that they didn’t want it this way: they didn’t want to be reminded that art had become a part of the world of luxury. And they didn’t want to acknowledge that criticism (and love) can also come from those from whom you’d least expect it.

It is when Richard Avedon turned his tricks towards those whose pomposity would deflate once it was on display in the gigantic prints he loved hanging on the walls of galleries that he succeeded as the artist that he so desperately wanted to be. Of course, this approach could go horribly wrong, such as when he traversed the American West to photograph an assortment of underprivileged people. But it brilliantly succeeded when, for example, the Chicago Seven were shown right next to the country’s military leaders.

In photography, the surface is all you get. Artists have long tried to dig deeper and to convince their viewers that, you see, there is so much more if you just look carefully enough. Whether he was aware of this or not, Avedon response was: no, there isn’t. The surface is all you got. And I’m going to show it to you in such a fashion that you feel that you can crawl into the pores of the people in my pictures.

In some ways, all of the above makes Avedon a more interesting artist than Robert Frank. It’s just very hard to realize this, given that the bad work (however you might personally define it) is, well, so bad.

But the good work is really good, good in ways that often runs counter many people’s refined, or rather too refined, instincts. It’s blunt, no doubt. But now that we live in a world where the most unrefined and blunt people possess all of the political power, more and more people appear to be realizing that it’s fine, yet pointless, to aim high when others go low.

We could forever argue over whether or not some of Avedon’s work was cruel, in particular the portraits of his aging, ailing father. But it might be time to accept that the best photographs are those that force a viewer to acknowledge the presence of two or more conflicting emotions.

Photographs often will either do this, or they won’t, and they might do it in a fashion that depends solely on the individual looking at them (hence Roland Barthes’ punctum). And yet, many photographs evoke the same boiling emotions in people. Photographs might be described as arresting (or any variant thereof) or exploitative (ditto) — as if both could not in fact be the case at the same time. The latter aspect, exploitation, will typically infuriate people and harden the front line.

This is not to excuse exploitation per se. It’s just that photography itself lives from it, given that the person making the decision which photograph(s) will be seen inevitably is the one who possesses a vastly larger understanding of why that is the case than whoever finds themselves in the frame(s). Try as you might to describe why a meal tastes good, the professional chef who made it has an entirely different vocabulary and background knowledge to produce such an explanation.

Given that photography is at least in theory much more democratic than cooking, this makes photography unfair. Even as inadvertently you might be able to take a great picture, it will be little more than a fluke, while a professional will know how to get their fluke again and again.

Richard Avedon was a true confidence man if there ever was one in photography. Finding his footing in the world of fashion, which does not accept anything other than the kind of confidence that in ordinary life is mostly described by the term bullshit, Avedon quickly became the most sought after, the most successful commercial US photographer in the latter half of the 20th Century.

Confidence and ambition are not entirely separate: if anything, Avedon possessed an overabundance of ambition, which, of course, was and is mistaken for confidence by those not burdened with a family background where recognition is desperately sought after and rarely, if ever, achieved.

Richard Avedon’s narcissism — it’s impossible to look at his self portraits without coming away with a very strong sense of it — was grounded in this elemental weakness: here was a man who desperately wanted to be acknowledged by the people who mattered most to him: his mother, his father, his sister.

Alas, the parents performed an unhappy marriage that ended in divorce, the father was an immigrant child who suffered through more than one severe hardship while trying to build a successful life in the country he had been transplanted into as a young child, and the sister was diagnosed with schizophrenia.

If as a viewer you didn’t know anything about the relationship between the photographer and the old man that was his father, increasingly looking frail and unwell, I think you might still infer that they were not merely two strangers who had met to engage in a game of photography. The tenacity with which these photographs were taken hints at something deeper, at a hurt experienced by the person behind the camera.

Strangers will do all kinds of cruel things to one another. But strangers will not simultaneously struggle with the source of their own cruelty in such an obvious fashion. Yes, the photographs are cruel in some fashion. Typically, in the Western tradition the approaching presence of death, something we must all face eventually, will have photographers step back from depicting the ravages of time and illness that become etched into a dying person’s face.

But death is an inevitability, and there is little, if anything, to be gained from denying it or from softening language so that someone has not died but passed on. Depending on one’s belief systems, the dead might have indeed passed on to another world. And yet, they are also dead at the same time. To use “pass on” implies a continuum of experience that in actuality does not exist: the moment someone has died, all that has been left unsaid will forever be unsaid.

Maybe that’s the cruelty that some critics have detected in Avedon’s photographs of his father and other elderly people: a reminder that once a person has died, there is no more opportunity to say what could, or should, have been said — in effect an admission of their own fallibility as human beings.

Who knows?

The full set of Richard Avedon’s portraits of his father with a long text about the family and the final years of the old man’s life, alongside a collection of other photographs of old people — that’s Immortal, a new, essential catalogue. I suspect that most people will be drawn to the many portraits of the other old people, many of them very well known (at least in their time).

But it’s the set of photographs portraying Jacob Israel Avedon that forms the core of the book and that deserves to be seen and felt widely. We have no way of knowing what was omitted from the text that outlines the final years of the father-son relationship. Whatever it might have been, I’m not sure it would have added much of value. There already is plenty to chew on.

We get to see two men trying to come to terms with their flawed relationship, and their hurt. One of them is handling the camera, the other one has given him permission to do so. It’s impossible to know, but I feel that they both went as far as they were capable of in terms of seeing the other man for who he wanted to be, regardless of however much they agreed with that other man’s choices.

We avert our eyes from the ravages of age and, instead, celebrate youth as if it had anything other to offer than smooth skin and many illusions not yet ground away by life. This is unfair to all those involved. It’s unfair to the young who have no other path in front of them than to gradually lose their seemingly biggest advantage; and it’s unfair to the old who have gone through life, only to now being set aside as, well, undesirable.

It needn’t be this way. If there is one thing that is equally guaranteed to all of us it’s that we age, and then we die. But happiness is entirely divorced from all of that. For example, late in life Jacob Israel Avedon re-married and, by all accounts, enjoyed his life.

There even is a photograph in the book that shows him smiling at the camera, while his grandson is standing right next to him, and there is a sliver of Richard Avedon in the frame as well.

I don’t know whether it is really true that at a triumph during the Roman era, whoever was being honoured had someone stand next to or behind him, to whisper into his ear “remember that you are mortal” (“memento mori”). But it’s worthwhile remembering, regardless of whatever life throws at us: we are all going to die. There is no point in making our own or other people’s lives miserable for any reason.

And photography doesn’t really stop time. Sure, in a photograph it does. But time still goes on and on, and at some stage only the pictures are left.

There is a lesson in that, and that is the lesson of Immortal.

Highly recommended.

Immortal: Portraits of Aging, 1951-2004; photographs by Richard Avedon; edited by Paul Roth; texts by Adam Gopnik, Vince Aletti, Gaëlle Morel; 208 pages; Phaidon; 2025