Navigating a Photographic Dichotomy

An Exploration of the Relationship Between Art and Science in Photography Through an Examination of Edward S. Curtis and “The North American Indian”

Driven by the exigency to document the vanishing culture of the Native American tribes, American photographer and ethnologist Edward S. Curtis is one whose work fuels the enduring debate surrounding the categorization of photography as an art or science. Within the extensive scope of this discussion and body of work consider the ethnographic portrait “Nez Percé babe” as an illustrative example. While serving as an object of systematic study into Native American culture, this photograph, a dramatically saturated sepia-toned print, possesses an undeniable aesthetic beauty. Its ethnographic approach paired with its notable grandeur presents an uncanny coexistence of ‘the aesthetic’ and ‘the objective’. Existing as early as the invention of photography, the tension of this relationship continues to drive the inherent need to differentiate photography as an art or science. As such, exploring Crutis’s work, “The North American Indian,” will serve as a case study to explore the intricate relationship between art and science within photography.

During the late 19th century and turn of the 20th century, Edward S. Curtis published The North American Indian with the intent and responsibility to document Native American life. Aligned with the prevailing practice of ethnographic salvage, Curtis described his effort as a “comprehensive record of all the important tribes of the United States and Alaska that still retain to a considerable degree their… customs and traditions.”1. Due to its supposedly intrinsic objectivity and ability to replicate reality, photography stood as an effective medium for preservation. In alignment with such proclivity, Curtis sought to understand and preserve the history of the Native Americans through the medium of photography. However, tainted by the influence of his pictorialist style, his scientific approach could not render mere accuracy. Or perhaps, if one understood his work as accurate, the accuracy of his representation of Native American life is not a result of objective observation but rather a fabrication embedded within an artistic representation. In other words, the deliberate stylization of Curtis’s photographs undermines their ability to stand as scientific objects. On the contrary, it is also this artistry that enhances the works' representational value perhaps more so than a solely objective approach would. Curtis’s photographic work challenges our conception of truth, prompting us to consider whether truth can go beyond objective accuracy. Is our innate desire to pursue truth the leading catalyst for this debate? The underlying tension within the relationship between scientific objectivity and artistic representation in obtaining truth demands a reconsideration of photography’s position as an art or science.

Before delving into such epistemological debate, it is crucial to understand that employing The North American Indian does not dictate the classification of every piece of photographic work. In other words, our conclusions may not be universally applicable. Conclusions derived from The North American Indian may not pertain to all styles and approaches present within the realm of photography as they may possess distinct characteristics, purposes, and hence criteria for evaluation. Furthermore, it is crucial to recognize that this work is a historical example and conclusions drawn from this specific context may evolve and may not be relevant to the dynamics of contemporary photography. Nonetheless, this work serves as an illustrative example that implements structure and allows us to contextualize the investigation, and in doing so, reach a more comprehensive conclusion into the categorization of photography.

In navigating such categorization of photography as an art or science, a single photograph will initiate our investigation. “Nez Percé babe” created in 1899 depicts an infant from the Nez Percé tribe held within a traditional cradleboard. The print in question represents an early iteration of photogravure, a method composed of the production of an image from a photographic negative, which is then transferred to a metal plate and etched. Like all initial photographs that exist from chemical experimentation, the technique alone distinguishes photography as a scientific process. Yet, the process of creating an image through etchings classifies these photographs as gravures rather than as a traditional photo-based process. The ability of photogravure to manipulate the original negative paired with its production of high-quality prints with an expansive tonal range alters the classification of these photographs as prints of fine art. As seen, the complexity of categorizing photography as an art or science emerges as early as its invention, yet this conflict extends beyond the technical processes involved. Relying solely on its technical approach is insufficient for definitively categorizing it as an art or science, and rather requires a unique vantage point.

“Nez Percé babe” depicts the ethnographic portrait of a child cloaked in traditional attire and standing amid an attempted seamless backdrop. Curtis captures the frontal view of the child who stands solemnly within the confines of a rigid pose and a static frame. Visually resembling an anthropometric study, this portrait is presented exclusively within the confines of the photographer's studio-esque set-up, entirely detached and decontextualized from its environment. Curtis’s strong adherence to a systematic form is precisely what prescribes his photograph as an object of ethnographic study and in turn, his photography as a scientific endeavor. Particularly when compared to the other hundreds of Curtis’s Native American portraits that employ a similar categorical approach, this work imparts a knowledge akin to what is obtained through an encyclopedic collection. Through what appears to be objective documentation, we perceive the work as a factual representation and hence assume a level of knowledge and understanding of the Native American people. In the simplest terms, science implies a degree of knowledge or deriving of knowledge, and therefore, on that most simplistic account, this photograph can be considered a scientific object. In alignment with such simplicity, photography in the most general sense serves as an instrumental replication of reality. Photography’s supposedly intrinsic objectivity and ability to replicate reality imparts a degree of knowledge that predetermines photography as a science.

However, it is imperative to note that perception differs from knowledge, in other words, what we see is not what we know. To observe and witness the portrait of a Native American child, does not confer a knowledge of the Native American child. The image we perceive is merely a representation of the reality of the child, and to experience and accept this representation as reality amounts to nothing more than an illusion of understanding. That being said, asserting photography’s categorization as a science over art cannot solely be rooted in characteristics that align with scientific principles.

Praised for its intrinsic objectivity, Curtis’s work also possesses an undeniable aesthetic beauty. Perhaps inspired by the pictorialist movement, Curtis holds a strong interest in the pictureesque, manifesting such interest through meticulously crafted compositions that feature extensive tonal ranges, dramatic contrasts, and soft focuses. It is these characteristics that appoint an aesthetic value to Curtis’s work, hence bridging the gap between scientific objectivity and artistic expression. Following a similar framework as previously executed; in the simplest terms, art and hence the categorization of photography as art requires a degree of creative skill. With this general understanding in mind, it is evident that Curtis’s work implements various creative techniques that generate a representational understanding of Native American life.

Consequently, what was initially a documentation of Native American life, transforms into an aestheticized representation of it. In his pursuit of truth, and perhaps even at the expense of his own accuracy and hindered by aesthetic value, Curtis’s work aims for a representative portrayal of Native American life. Yet, say if one argues this photograph qualifies as a scientific object due to its ability to replicate reality accurately, would the same assertion apply if it were a representation of that same reality? To that, it is a matter of defining our conception of truth. Those who perceive truth as synonymous with accuracy may regard photography as a science. Whereas, those who acknowledge that artistic representation may reveal a truth not readily apparent or understood by mere observation may categorize photography as art. With this dichotomy in mind, perhaps the deliberate stylization of Curtis’s photograph does not undermine its ability to stand as a scientific object and may in fact enhance it while still adhering to the criteria of art.

Both distinct perceptions are evident within the work of “Nez Percé babe” and thus both stand as legitimate conclusions. However, the debate does not revolve around whether photography upholds more characteristics aligning with art or science and instead, centers on which category carries greater significance in the representation of reality. In other words, the categorization of photography does not depend on its adherence to specific evaluative criteria; instead, it relies on our individual conception of truth. It is not merely a matter of accuracy, because objectively, a scientific viewpoint may offer a higher degree of accuracy than an aesthetic one. Rather it is a question of which category renders a more reflective representation of reality and hence a more authentic truth. Upon revisiting the work of “Nez Percé babe”, many questions come to the forefront of this debate. Can a scientific object, serving as a representation of reality, withstand the burden of its aesthetic value? Are aesthetics, in essence, even a hindrance? Should we instead reconfigure the role of aesthetics in the representation of reality? All of these questions are pertinent to our discussion, but there is one question that remains unanswered and requires further attention. If the common goal is to obtain truth, does how we achieve it truly matter, and if it does, then why does this fuel such a contentious debate?

The pursuit of truth and its means of achievement does not stem from personal preference or subjective judgment, rather they are grounded in considerations of morality and ethics. Specifically within a scientific context, Curtis’s strong adherence to pictorialism, inherently restricts our perception, forcing us to view the image solely through the lens of a stylized representation. In one respect, this may be the very element that renders his photographs as successful representations of Native American culture, yet, it is also precisely this aspect that deems his work as ethically questionable. Therefore, perhaps the decision to categorize Curtis’s photographs as art over science is derived from an ethical consideration as opposed to a conception of truth.