THE MISANALYSIS OF IMAGERY WITHIN HISTORICAL CONTEXTS.

.

Looking through the contexts of a historian, a lot of the text reflected upon the wrongful source criticism that wasn't carried out by a lot of the publishers of Khaldei's work. As I could not obtain the imagery mentioned within the Slavic Review, I will be referencing it instead to Alberto Korda's 'Guerrillero Heroico' portrait from 1060 (see figure 1.).

Figure 1. ©KORDA, Alberto. 1060. 'Guerrillero Heroico'. A portrait of Che Guervera.

Every person who views photography in an-above-casual manner will accept the contextual changes overtime. How imagery of terrors, such as 9/11 were at the time tragic and unbearable, but now informative and intriguing, whilst still being tragic. One thing I've learned that affects this is the introduction of new viewers. Over time some die, and some are born, thus a continuous flow of new audiences emerges. The newer audience will not have the same ideologies or intellectual contexts required to understand a photograph – they will try and relate it within their own contexts. Altering the truthful depiction within the photograph to suit themselves. Pastor states "contexts [...] can be placed over the years represents [...] its afterlife", 'afterlife' representing the period after the image was taken. In contexts to Korda (see figure 1), this could be beyond the 1060s, past the movement of the Cuban revolution. For the analysis of a photograph to be carried out, this is imperative to understand, without it any photograph taken past this exact moment in time would be rendered useless. But it is not.

Khaldei's photograph referenced in Slavic Review depicted a mother and daughter duo, who had been shot upon a doorstep with a father figure looking distraught above them. The caption of the images altered depending on the contexts the images were used in. Taken in March/April time of 1945 it is first thought to associate the two Jewish females as victims of abuse from German forces. Environmentally, the women were in a Ghetto in Budapest, fleeing from their homes. This is what the images were presumed to be about when exhibited in the Museum of the Art and History of Judaism of Paris (2005) though in contrary to Khaldei, MAH-Judaism dated the photographs to the end of 1944. During this time there was a debate about the true contexts of this image; had the shooters truly been German? Some agree in line with Khaldei, that the women could've been shot by 'Fascist Hungarian Arrow Cross Gangs' and the presence of Germans was to protect the civilians. The debate for this exhibition's citation continued until it was confirmed that Khaldei, himself, had gotten the context wrong. This lends to question the photographer's intent. Not Khaldei specifically, but photographers as a whole – whether they want their audiences to believe what they say or to decipher into the facts of the image. Could this mistake be reduced with the production of modern cameras as time and date settings are already implemented into the bodies of the camera and carried with the information embedded in the image.

Returning back to Khaldei, carrying out more research into the birthplace of the image it was concluded that the true contexts was Germans as the perpetrators.

There is another incident of the unfaithful use of Khaldei's photographs by historian Andreas Peto, who included the images to illustrate "The Non-Narratable Memory. Rapes Committed by Soviet Soldiers". A year later, in 2015, the images were put up for consideration in an online article entitled "Is It Possible, Or rather, Is It Necessary to Depict Rape?". Pastor goes into this controversy as it is debated whether Peto should, in fact, use the images to depict rape when not rape had actually been committed. This decision wasn't just Peto's to make as the publisher for Rubican (the company Peto worked through) Racz intended to use these images. Peto made the correct ethical decision and didn't include the images in the article. I question, not Peto's ethical decisions, but the denial request of the use of images, as the image would be secondary to the text, as the time era of 2015 people are more accustom to the use of images and are no longer in shock factor upon their inclusion. Sometime later Peto reversed her initial decision. Pastor goes into the details of what that means for the people involved and further how the images interpretation will again be changed.

"its meaning is expressed through the information gained over the passage of time..."

One thing I dispute also is Peto's decision to use the images knowing the original context. How the women photographed were not a subject to the trajectories of rape and sexual assault and are not an illustrated depiction of the events she writes about. I believe this to be a forced misanalysis of an image. This is why viewers – as well as historians – carry out an in-depth analysis. Whether the analysis is intended or just observation based. The quote above is something I have subconsciously mowed over throughout my photography career thus far but having it in physical form hones in the importance of audience. This also links to Kroda's work (see figure 1) as what had originally started as a portrait of a person at an event has converted into an iconic symbol of 'leftist radicalism and anti-imperialism' (history.com, 2009). The original image that includes the plant on the right had been adjusted to the vertical format of Guevara himself (see figure2).

Figure 2. ©KORDA, Alberto. 1060. 'Guerrillero Heroico'. A portrait of Che Guervera.

Pastor mentions Burke within his text "any meaning attributed to an image is as valid as any other'. Burke is suggesting that a photographer's intentions may be second to those of the reproducer or the audience. If the viewers interprets and image a certain way, in line with their morals and personal contexts then it's wonderous as to why Rautert decided to look into the analysis of photographs through the introduction of photographic language to begin with.

There was one final twist to Khaldei's work discussed where comic book illustrator Jacques Fras used the photos on the last page of his story. Using it as a background he drew over the top – four cartoon characters escaping. De Bruyn's analysis discussed how Fras putting 'an authentic Nazi stamp' in the corner misled him. This could suggest that mixed media imagery is harder to analyse – especially from different creators. Needless of intent getting lost (as Burke implies it's near useless) it's hard to distinguish authenticity. From the professional point of view of a historian – where authenticity is vital to communication of information – this seems a bigger problem. But for photographers and their own audience it's considered normal to hold a subjective reading of an image and piece of work which has been altered so many times.

The misanalysis of Khaldei's work travelled along a journey through different time passages into contextual depictions I believe the images should have never been referred to originally. From Slavic Review by Peter Pastor, I have learned that the analysis of photographs is individual based off an objective context. This being the citation of the photograph whether that be in a museum or gallery or online. I find it imperative to consider the original contexts even when presented with new ones. For example, Fras' comic book applied the images in a new light, enthralling as it is, audiences should be open to interpreting photography beyond their viewing standpoint.

REFERENCES ANDS BIBLIOGRAPHIES.

PASTOR, Peter. 2017. 'Photographs as Historic Documents: An Examination of Two of Evgenii Khaldei's Budapest Photos'. Slavic Review 76 (1), 53-62. Available at: Jstor.org.

HISTORY. 2009. 'Che Guevara'. [online]. History.com. A&E Television Networks. Updated January 13, 2021. Available at: [accessed: 15 march 2021].