Transformation of Sweatshops

Photography plays a very large role in many people’s lives for many reasons. Each photo is unique in its own way and represents a specific idea. Developing pictures are now far easier compares to earlier times when it was very time-consuming and hard to access to. In some people’s opinions, this advancement has changed the meaning and the way people apprehend photography. Over the years, the purpose of photography has also transformed, allowing photos from the past to be recognized as fascinating. This can be proved when examining photographs that were taken in earlier times, for example the photo “Sweat shop, New York City” taken by Lewis Wickes Hine, which was my favorite photograph because the picture shows the differences between earlier times and todays society. This photo depicts a group of people that are engaged in their job at a sweatshop. One of the main fascinating aspects is the setting of this photo. When compared to sweatshops in modern days, there are very limited comparisons. In this photo, the setting looks more like a living room space rather than an factory space as in today. The people shown in this photo occur as if they are at home rather than at work due to how people work today. This shows how much jobs and our way of living has changed. The way people are dressed in this photo is also unalike opposed to what we wear today, displaying the transition of fashion throughout the years. In this captured photo, people are dressed in very covered and formal clothes such as skirts or suits, which is far unlikely to be seen worn in society nowadays. The differences between the types of lifestyle presented in this photo and today, are endless. These variations produce a deeper sense of interest in some people allowing this captured photo to be described as intriguing in present day.

 

All the best,

 

Shahramjon Musinov

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Transformation of Sweatshops

  1. This a great post Shahramjon, I really like how you described the photo and I like the vocabulary you used. Although, the photo is not in front of me right now I feel like you described it well enough for me to imagine, I like how you compared today’s society and the way people dress now to the way the people dressed in the photo, it makes your post a little different and that is always good. I also like the fact that you compared the work style of the photo to the changes that have been made in the current era, I agree that the differences in this photo and photos now is very fascinating and very different.

    Best regards, Briana

  2. Jalal says:

    This post was interesting because at first, you described the role of photography throughout the years and then you compared early photography with modern photography. Certainty the sweatshops transformed over years, from low quality of working to standard quality of working and with less danger than before. The way you describe the sweatshop was great, along the people who worked there. I could create an image of the sweatshop you described also the people who worked there. Home is a comfortable place for everyone, though some might argue sweatshops were not comfortable like a home. Do you think that the workers really felt they were at home?

    Jalal E Din

  3. SaliFaz says:

    Well first of all you did a good job painting a picture in my head with your description of the photo. When I close my eyes, I can see a black and white image of people working in a living room in a relax tone making clothing. Even without talking to you, I can see why this was your favorite. This photo does show certainty relations to present day. The people in the photo look like they really need the money but just like today’s sweatshops, don’t get payed enough. And haha I agree with your statement that people are wearing less and less now at days. I also like your view on photos and how they have a meaning behind them. I also think that each photo stands for something.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.