The Complexities of Race and Early Photography

Last week the well-respected auction house Freeman’s/Hindman hosted a giant auction of early photographs dating back to the early 1840s. Many interesting daguerreotypes–the earliest form of commercial photography and my favorite kind of photo to collect–were offered for sale. None were in my budget! The most compelling daguerreotype was the one seen below.

“A remarkable ninth plate daguerreotype of an interracial couple.”

The listing makes some very bold claims. It states that the auction house researchers “have been unable to locate another daguerreotype of a black man and white woman in an overtly romantic display,” making this photo historic and one-of-a-kind. They also state “the purpose of the image was likely political, though this is far from certain,” especially considering that abolitionist photography has been studied in depth and this particular photo has never been included in any such collection. And, most audaciously, the listing argues that “in a world where racial stereotypes about the humanity of blacks and the notion that they were incapable of the same emotions as whites, this image stands alone. Posed or not, the message of this small treasure is clear: in matters of the heart, white and black could be equal partners.” As seen in the photo above, the auction house estimated that the image would fetch between $30,000 and $50,000.

Make no mistake about it, the pose in this daguerreotype is extremely unique and the image has lots of value. But is the message of this image that clear? The subjects are unidentified. Are they even a couple, or are they just actors engaging for a pose? How do we know this image depicts an interracial couple? How do we know the man is Black or “mixed race”? How can the speculations made in the auction listing be verified?

Race is a very fluid concept and the reality is that a lot of people—both then and now—have a complicated racial identity that goes much deeper than their skin tone. The man seen here is described on the listing as an “African American or mixed race man,” and perhaps he is. But he could also be Indigenous, Hispanic, or…a dark-skinned man of European ancestry. If the subject were identified, we could conduct genealogical research and provide what would be a fascinating background story, but the absence of any identifying information makes that task extremely difficult.

I want to be clear that I am not making an argument about what I think the man’s race is. He could be Black, and if he is in fact Black he would be no “less” Black that anyone else who identified as such. What I am arguing is that this is a case where we can’t make a definitive determination one way or the other about the man’s racial identity, and that the concept of race itself is fraught with all sorts of ambiguity that leads us into some weird, quack nineteenth century race science when we begin speculating about someone’s race based on their hair, nose, etc. What bugs me is that the man’s racial identity seems to be the big focus of the listing and the reason why they estimate a $30-50k winning bid, rather than making the uniqueness of the pose and the artistry of the original photographer the focus of the listing. Instead, the auction house placed the image’s monetary value on a purely speculative claim about the man’s supposed racial identity.

The daguerreotype camera is ultimately an interpretation of a person’s likeness during the moment of exposure. The final product is shaped by all sorts of factors, including light, the space where the image is taken, the subject’s pose and angle, and the chemicals used to produce the photo. Moreover, it’s hard to determine a person’s race when you have only one photo to go off of. A different image of the same person may yield an entirely different skin tone and even overall appearance of the subject.

Dave S. Wilson also pointed out on The Daguerreian Society’s Facebook page that early photographs tended to darken many peoples’ skin. People with red or yellowing skin tones tend to show up much darker in daguerreotypes, ambrotypes, and tintypes.

Photo courtesy of Dave S. Wilson, The Daguerreian Society

For those of us who buy and sell 19th century photos, I believe we have an obligation to proceed very carefully before making grand declarations about the racial identities of the subjects in our photos. “Maybe” is an important qualifier. Sometimes we can look at a photo and say, “I know it when I see it,” but likewise there are times when we should refrain from making racial identity the focal point of an image when the subject is unidentified and a lot of ambiguity exists. For this photo specifically, I suppose it is all in the eye of the beholder who is willing to spend the money to own it. The photo did not meet the estimated auction price, but it did sell for $20,320 on October 25. I suppose the buyer’s interpretation of the photo is the one that matters the most, or, is at least the most expensive interpretation of them all.

Cheers