By admin<\/a><\/span> <\/p>\n

The introduction of photography to the battlefields of the American Civil War had a remarkable impact on the home fronts of both the North and the South during the conflict. Never before this time had people been able to see the gruesome scenes on the battlefield in such realistic detail, and this shocking material immediately tore asunder the notion of dignity and heroism on the battlefield, replacing it with the true horrors of war. The three sources analysed in this essay examine different viewpoints on the effects photography had on the men and women of the North and the South both during and after the war. Faust talks about the fear driven into the hearts of the loved ones of those on the battlefield as they struggled to deal with the notion that their loved ones could die at any moment, depriving them of their right to a \u201cgood death\u201d[1]. On the other hand though, Godbey focuses on the disturbing human fascination with gruesome photographs of the aftermath of war and the interest the American population had in the carnage of war and the blossoming market of battlefield photography. Finally, Cahill speaks of her great great grandfather, a veteran of the conflict, who gives insight into the profound unifying effect the photographs of loved ones carried by the deceased and living alike reminded soldiers and civilians that the conflict was one between two groups of fellow countrymen and humans.<\/p>\n

Seeing bodies lying dead on the battlefield after a sudden death at the hand of a bullet or shell proved frightening for many families as it put the deceased’s soul at risk of not having what was considered at the time to be a \u201cgood death\u201d[1]. For a deeply religious population, the notion of a good death was vital in reassuring those left behind that all loved ones would meet again, \u201cin the garden of Eden\u201d[1] and that the tragedy of death would be but a distant memory. Faust illuminates the fact that a death on the battlefields of the Civil War was unlike any normal death though, and that the realisation of this, one that photography helped foster, was deeply troubling to the loved ones left behind as there was now the possibility that the lost soul would not have been adequately prepared for death and therefore be denied passage to heaven. Being at home was important for creating the circumstances for a \u201cgood death\u201d, Faust tells us, as was having ones loved ones and a priest nearby to perform important rituals and assist their passing into the afterlife[1]. However, the battlefields of the Civil War were far from home and for those dying on them by gunshot grasping a portrait of their family in their hand these two fundamental building blocks were undeniably absent. By shedding light on the desperate attempts made by people to persuade loved ones at home that the deceased was prepared for death or to act as surrogate family members for lucid soldiers dying in hospitals, Faust creates a powerful image of how different the Civil War was and how unprepared the people of both the North and the South were for its tragedies. The introduction of photography fuelled this fire as it brought at least partial truth home in an undeniable way for all of the home front to see, and Faust delves deep into the evidence of the desperation it caused to show how much of an impact the sharing of battlefield imagery had on the attitudes of the people who once sat on a hill in the distance cheering cannon fire through the lenses of opera binoculars.<\/p>\n

A reaction to death is something that is almost impossible to synthesise and is one of the most complete examples of humanity imaginable. Faust explores the shock of death under the guise of the shock it caused loved ones left behind, but Godbey chooses more to look at the chilling interest human beings took in the production of these gruesome images from the bloodiest battles in all of American History. Her Aptly titled article, Terrible Fascination<\/i> deals with the unavoidable human condition of fascination in \u201cpleasurable fright from the safest of distances\u201d[2]. Godbey states early in her article that the photographic exhibits on the dead at battlefields contradicted the view put forward by literature and fine art, \u201cfor glory and heroism seemed in short supply\u201d[2], and whilst this supports the arguments raised in Fausts work, she uses it to build an argument for the almost sickening fascination people on the home front had of looking at the images of death and suffering. This presence of interest where we expect repulsion, she argues, was assisted greatly by the invention of the stereoscopic image. Taken by capturing two images from the same vantage point at different focal lengths and viewed through a special viewing device known as a \u201cstereoscope\u201d, Godbey argues that these images fostered and encouraged this seemingly inexplicable appeal of such gruesome images[2]. By having the image concealed inside a specialised viewing device, Godbey argues that it separated the image from the viewers surroundings well enough so that even though the resultant 3D effect was apparently very immersive, the viewer could rest assured that the horror of the image only resided \u2018inside the stereoscope’ and that as soon as they removed themselves from the viewing apparatus, the thought could be dismissed as foreign again. Godbey attributes the human fascination with this kind of tragedy to the illusionary effect that the images were capable of, and examines its effect as a diluting agent for the horror of war and as a mediator between disgust and interest. By doing this, Godbey creates an illuminating (if not disturbing) insight into the human psyche that discusses the fact that there was evidently a market for an almost pornographic portrayal of death on the home front during the Civil War[2].<\/p>\n

Finally, Cahill takes a more optimistic approach to the affect of photography on the survivors of the war (both civilians and combatants), as her review of the photography exhibit, Photography and the American Civil War<\/i> focuses on what she refers to as the \u201cconstellation of miniatures\u201d[3]. These miniatures were \u201ccartes de visites\u201d (or \u201ccalling cards\u201d in english), and were small prints of photographs of loved ones that soldiers carried on their persons at all times. Concealed in uniform pockets, brass casings, or small lockets, these photos served as talismans for soldiers from the North and South alike both to remind them of what they were fighting for and to give them something to gaze upon in their dying moments. Cahill references her great great grandfather who survived the conflict (albeit with only one arm)’s speech on the unifying nature of the war to shed light on the fact that throughout the four years of fighting, the troops on the battlefield bacame more and more certain of the similarities between themselves and the soldiers fighting for the other side. For Union soldiers discovering them on the bodies of fallen Confederate troops (and vice versa), it proved that neither side of the conflict was particularly different from one another. And for the people at home seeing these exhibits at memorial services it went to show how many individual lives were lost for the sake of a political conflict. Cahill uses this powerful imagery to drive home her ancestor’s point that the war, however tragic, did, in fact, bring the two sides on the conflict more towards a \u201cperfect union\u201d than any purely political action ever could have.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, photography had a variety of impacts on people both during and after the war, and much of it most likely depended on one’s association with the conflict. For those losing loved ones on the battlefields, it is most likely Faust’s article that best sums up how they reacted, but for those powerful enough to avoid the skirmishes on the ground, perhaps they fell victim to the \u201cTerrible Fascination\u201d Godbey mentions. And many of those close to the fighting would no doubt have learned to appreciate those brave enough to do the same for the other side just as Cahill’s review suggests. Regardless of exactly how it affected people though, there is an undeniable mountain of evidence that suggests that the introduction of battlefield photography (however doctored it tended to be) had a truly definitive effect on the view held towards war on the home front.<\/p>\n[1] Emily Godbey. \u2018Terrible Fascination’: Civil War Stereographs of the Dead, History of Photography (2012), 36:3, 265-274<\/p>\n[2] David Gilpin Faust. \u2018The Civil War Soldier and the Art of Dying’: The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 67, No. 1 (Feb., 2001), pp. 3-38<\/p>\n[3] Elizabeth Kirkland Cahill. \u2018Calling Cards of the Dead: PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.’ Commonweal<\/i> 141, no. 1 (Jan 10, 2014): 19-22.<\/p>\n

<\/a>  <\/a>  <\/a>  <\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By admin The introduction of photography to the battlefields of the American Civil War had a remarkable impact on the home fronts of both the North and the South during the conflict. Never before this time had people been able to see the gruesome scenes on the battlefield in such realistic detail, and this shocking […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-public","post-preview"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.shroutdocs.org\/his245\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1561","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.shroutdocs.org\/his245\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.shroutdocs.org\/his245\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.shroutdocs.org\/his245\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.shroutdocs.org\/his245\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1561"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/courses.shroutdocs.org\/his245\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1561\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.shroutdocs.org\/his245\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1561"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.shroutdocs.org\/his245\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1561"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.shroutdocs.org\/his245\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1561"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}