I'm a first year PhD student writing my dissertation about the history of military photography in the First World War. I have a solid grasp on the military historiography side but my advisors want me to assign my research broader resonance in the wider study of visual culture — an area I'm unfamiliar with. I've been reading the literature like crazy but continue to struggle with the more abstract concepts of photographic history. Here's where I'm stuck:
To what school of thought does my research belong?
There is so much nuance in photographic historiography that I can't nail down where my work would contribute. "Photography as document?" "Photography as evidence?" "Photography and meaning?" I'm lost. Am I approaching the categorization of this lit incorrectly?
For reference, my dissertation studies the evolution of military photography in the British army on the Western Front from 1914-1918. 'Military photography,' in this case, includes official photographs and reconnaissance photographs, not so much amateur photographs.
If the history gods could show mercy on my wretched, wretched soul and bestow me with some guidance from the historians of Reddit, I think I'd cry.
Thank you for your time.
I'm not a photography historian but I am another First World War PhD student. So I hope I can offer something.
It seems to me that you probably don't need to situate your research firmly within one of these schools, but that you need to show engagement with them. Your thesis, which I'd assume is something about the increased levels of skill and professionalisation that developed, needs to address these broader issues when appropriate, not necessarily be based on one of them. Different types of military photography would be more relevant to different themes. Wouldn't photography as evidence be more relevant to aerial photography, and photography and meaning have a lot to do with official military photography and things like propaganda and the military's own ideas about its identity and culture.
It is important to show that you have a grasp of the broader ideas and foundational type work within that field, but it doesn't mean that you have to tie yourself to one of them. Show that you can see where your work fits into the general field but also how it's different. It is meant to be an original contribution to knowledge after all.
Hi - we as mods have approved this thread, because while this is a homework question, it is asking for clarification or resources, rather than the answer itself, which is fine according to our rules. This policy is further explained in this Rules Roundtable thread and this META Thread.
As a result, we'd also like to remind potential answerers to follow our rules on homework - please make sure that your answers focus appropriately on clarifications and detailing the resources that OP could be using.
Additionally, while users may be able to help you out with specifics relating to your question, we also have plenty of information on /r/AskHistorians on how to find and understand good sources in general. For instance, please check out our six-part series, "Finding and Understanding Sources", which has a wealth of information that may be useful for finding and understanding information for your essay.
For photography as evidence and meaning, I'd recommend:
Jordi Cat, Fuzzy Pictures as Philosophical Problem and Scientific Practice: A Study of Visual Vagueness, Springer, 2017, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-47190-7.