ART CLASSIC #4

This art classic is a series of classics. Sometimes an entire body of work by an artist is poignant. This is especially true of the photographs of the child labor force by Lewis Hine during the early twentieth century in America.*

Biography of Lewis Hine.

It is a difficult thing to create art about subject matter that is tragic. The artist has to walk a thin line between expressing the subject in its pure state and avoiding the pitfall of aestheticizing that subject. Lewis Hine's photographs of the child labor force show an unflinching eye trained on one of the dominant social issues and tragedies in America during the early twentieth century.

Mill Girl

From our 21st century standpoint, the conditions in which these children worked were appalling, and it is still shocking to see children working in factories. We are also aware that child labor is still being used in underdeveloped and third world nations today. Lewis Hine doesn't just capture the conditions. He captures the broken spirit of the children. They appear tired and jaded due to sometimes as many as 10-hour work days. Their clothing, hands, and faces are dirty and they have bags under their eyes. They work barefoot around dangerous machinery and work in coal mines and mills.

Hine's photographs also serve as a stark reminder of class differences. These children worked because they HAD to. Middle and upper class children were NOT working. If a child's father was injured on the job (which was often the case), children often had to go to work to support their families. Many were poor immigrants or disenfranchised farmers who moved to urban areas and had to work for a "boss" for the first time in their family's history.

Breaker Boys, 1910

Aesthetically speaking, Lewis Hine is making documentary photography, but he creates portraits of ghosts to the contemporary eye because these visages still haunt us. They were portraits of ghosts at the time because the subjects' childhoods had died. They haunt us still because, although we are only marginally aware of the use of child labor today (due to a lack of coverage in the media), we are nonetheless aware. Here is a link to an article by Human Rights Watch.

Breaker Boys, Pittston PA, January 16, 1911

Some actually support the use of child labor, if one can believe it. They often state that children have always been a part of the labor force, whether industrial or agrarian, and should still be used. They always add: 'as long as the conditions are safe.' I would argue that there is no such thing as safe conditions in factory work when it concerns children. When children worked with their families on farms, they worked with people who cared for them in close proximity, and only allowed them to do work their bodies were suited for--as they grew older, they obviously did more. Lewis Hine's photographs show us children that are being "used up." The industry or corporation had no and still has no vested interest in providing safe conditions for child labor because 1) the children don't belong to them, and therefore, they have no emotional connection to them--especially if they think having child labor is okay in the first place; and 2) safety regulations and limitations negatively affect their bottom line, which is the primary concern of any business.


While no sane person would advocate child labor, Lewis Hine's photographs make us question the nature of childhood--especially through our contemporary lens. We see faces like these today in the United States and other developed nations. They appear just as jaded and tired but have not worked in factories. Some are steeped in poverty. Some have been abused. Some haven't had their bodies worked, but have had their minds worked to exhaustion. There is more to learn than ever and even more to forget. They are bombarded with information so they can pass "tests." They watch hours of television that gets less intelligent with every passing second. They witness fantasy violence in television and video games to an unprecedented level. They come from broken homes. Perhaps we are more aware than ever of the dream versus the reality of childhood.

Is this childhood?

The Pied Piper by Kate Greenaway

Is this?

Unidentified Victorian Children

Is this?

Sunset by Norman Rockwell

Is this?

Television's The Brady Bunch

Are the images immediately above representations of our fantasy of childhood or are they representations of childhoods only available to a few or in manners of degree in all childhoods? If they are fantasies, why do we create them? Why do we seek to distinguish childhood from other phases of life and represent it in arcadian, idealistic, innocent, and idyllic terms and images? Perhaps some have access to these ideal childhoods, but it seems far more do not. Is Jack Nicholson right in As Good as it Gets? (I apologize for the sound quality):

I believe an "Art Classic" gives the viewer something to chew on or ponder, confronts our values and beliefs, and "wakes us up" to something--be it beauty, tragedy, joy, horror, or the sublime (among others). Lewis Hine's photographs are art classics because he captures a phase in history and the character of the people portrayed, exposes us to our guilt and complicity in the use of child labor, or the purchasing of goods made through child labor, illuminates class differences, reveals childhood as it often and sadly is, and reminds us of what business/corporations/industries are capable of if given free reign and no regulations.

Coupling Boy and
Rhodes Manufacturing Co., Spinner

* Here is a rather extensive digital collection of Lewis Hine's child labor photographs.

© Stephanie Lewis, 2007