1. Objectives
The article “Self Portrait: The Sense of Self in British Documentary Photography” by Richard Howells investigates the notion of ‘Britishness,’ sense of self or British identity, in British documentary photography. It relies on British documentary photography between 1936 and 1989 to find if there is anything that is ‘British’ about it.
2. Theory
The article is based on the theory that documentary photography does reveal not only a given subject matter, but also the present cultural attitudes. The theoretical framework is based on an aspect of structuralist methodology that deals with other agents of documentary photography except for the individual agent, in this case, a photographer.
3. Concepts
The central concepts in this article are British documentary photography and ‘Britishness.’ Howells has managed to define these central concepts clearly by using examples. For instance, he states that British documentary photography does not refer to photography work in the country and he uses comparisons to demonstrate this. He says that a British photographer who takes documentary photographs in the US would be motivated by the need to communicate a sense of either ‘Britishness’ to the Americans or ‘American-ness’ to the British (Howells 103). Such a photographer would be part of British documentary photography. Howells describes ‘Britishness’ using the works of past documentary photographers. For instance, he claims that the work of Chris Steele-Perkins portrays an embarrassed ‘Britishness’ full of self-loathing and self-consciousness (Howells 114). Bill Brandt, on the other hand, portrays a heartwarming ‘Britishness’ characterized by different social classes that are cohesive and mutually interdependent.
4. Argument
The central argument in the article is that past British documentary photographers portray what it means to ‘be British’ better than contemporary British documentary photographers.
5. Method
Howells employs secondary data analysis to collect, analyze, and interpret data for the research. He uses the past works of British documentary photographers to inform his research. In particular, Howells focuses on the works of Bill Brandt and those of photographers of the 1980s.
6. Evidence
Howells provides evidence to support the claims in the article. He uses various sources in the article, most books, and journal articles. The sources used are adequate as they support various viewpoints presented by the researcher. Additionally, he has managed to explain the significance of every source used in the article through making connections and drawing conclusions. For instance, Howells (104), explains how the book, The English at Home provides a good avenue for the understanding of ‘Britishness’ in modern British photography.
7. Values
The value positions in the article are explicit as Howells considers conscious thoughts backed by evidence to support the values in the paper. For instance, Howells demonstrates this through revisiting the life of Bill Brandt who despite having a continental European bringing, became a good British documentary photographer despite moving to England at the age of 28. It shows that Howells considered conscious thoughts before questioning Brandt’s upbringing.
8. Style
The author’s language is clear as he uses proper tenses and the consistency and correctness of the tenses make the article easy to read and understand. There are no contractions and redundant words or phrases that can make the article difficult to understand. Howells also avoided the use of complicated expressions and technical terminology.
9. Conclusion
Howells’ position on the portrayal of ‘Britishness’ by past and contemporary British documentary photographers is convincing as he has backed it using credible evidence. Additionally, he has managed to cover the topic in the article comprehensively. The use of proper tenses and lack of redundancy in the article makes it easy for readers to understand.
Works Cited
Howells, Richard. “Self Portrait: The Sense of Self in British Documentary Photography.” National Identities, vol. 4, no. 2, 2002, pp. 101-118. doi:10.1080/14608940220143808.
