Screen Culture and the Social Question, 1880–1914

The Newsboys, slide 6 of STREET LIFE, OR PEOPLE WE MEET (Riley Brothers, 50 slides, c.1887).

Richard Crangle and Ludwig Vogl-Bienek

Introduction

The cover illustration for this volume of the KINtop Studies in Early Cinema series, taken from a lantern slide of 1890, is a challenging image. The situation it depicts – children in poverty, selling newspapers to raise a meagre income – is an uncomfortable one for most viewers, but equally, the gaze of the boys themselves towards the camera is direct and confrontational. It would be easy to read intentions into that gaze on behalf of these unidentified and long-dead individuals, but any attempts to do so are unavoidably coloured by our need to use them as easy symbols of a narrative we have imposed on their situation, and that realisation is uncomfortable as well. The few certain things it means are that these people existed, they had a position in a social and commercial structure, and they had an individuality that cannot be defined purely in terms of that position or the label applied to them by the producer of the slide. ¹

However, there is another aspect to our choice of image, which works as a metaphor both for our impression of the boys and for our approaches to the medium in which they were originally shown. In simple terms, the picture does not fit the frame: the cover design of KINtop Studies in Early Cinema employs a fixed border, based on the common rectangular aspect ratio of film, so when a lantern slide is reproduced in this way we lose part of the image. In our historical approaches to visual media, seen through 120-odd years of film, television and computer screens, we are not used to circular or square projected images as they appeared on screen for much of their history. In the case of the newsboys, we potentially lose telling details like their (lack of) footwear; but in the wider sense, we lose this image’s shape and composition, its impact of presenting the boys against a background of posters for popular recreations, not to mention its relation to the other images which preceded and followed it in a projection sequence, its accompanying published commentary, and its relation to the audiences to which it was shown. Several of these would be equally true of an early cinematograph film, of course – both media were fundamentally based on live performance, not just showing of pre-prepared materials – but the point is that to approach this material we need to have an idea of the whole picture, and need to see and think a little differently.

Public performances using the magic or optical lantern became a prominent part of the social fabric of the late 19th century in most western cultures. Yet today the impact of this contribution is little-known, and discussion of it limited. Relatively few specialists are researching in this field and know how to find slides and historical evidence in uncatalogued archives or private collections. It is not even clear what terminology we should use for consistent description of the medium. To take three examples: there were contemporary debates about magic versus optical lanterns (the latter being seen as more serious and educational); there is current controversy in some circles as to the term pre-cinema in describing optically based media which to greater or lesser extents contributed to the motion picture industries; and outside a very limited circle of knowledgeable amateurs there is now little or no currency of the technical terms needed to describe with precision the media and their effects.

Two particular terms are, however, quite useful, and on the whole we will use them in the following ways. The historic term art of projection (French l’art de projection, German Projektionskunst) is quite felicitous, echoing both the tradition of creative fine art to which much lantern material aspired, and the more prosaic sense of a technical craft in which lantern practitioners would become skilled. It covers all aspects of the design of materials for projection, the techniques by which they were projected, creative operation of apparatus as part of a term of performers (lecturers, reciters, singers or musicians), and interaction with a live audience, to name only some features of a complex performance medium. Above all the term art of projection signifies a creative potential.

Equally evocative is the term screen culture, which picks up an approach most influentially made in Charles Musser’s essay Toward a History of Screen Practice.² If we can side-step the technological distinctions between (for example) lantern and cinematograph exhibition practice, and look instead at a set of continuities of practice in spectators viewing images on screen, we come closer to a practical understanding of the art of projection in its contemporary contexts. The screen, in the sense of the physical location of the image in relation to its audience, is the common factor in a whole range of communication media practices of the late 19th and early 20th centuries – not necessarily always the centre of the process (music or vocal performance may have taken more of the audience’s attention), but always essential.

Between them these two concepts unite the two essential features of lantern and cinematograph media: an image thrown through the air by light, and a surface on which it lands and becomes visible and readable. Successful use of the art of projection requires both aspects, as do all communicative and performative media, and this is reflected in their human dimensions: one or more creators of stories, lectures and/or images, and one or more performers, communicate something to one or more audience members. The overall conception of screen culture gives us a useful framework against which we can begin to place individual examples of topics addressed, techniques used, and impressions taken away.

One of the major public controversies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the industrialised world was known by various names, one of the most common of which was the Social Question. It comprises complex socio-political questions based on a major contradiction, between liberal claims of civil rights and individual freedom on one hand, and prevalent destitution, pauperism and effective lack of rights on the other. Other severe concerns ranged from worries about epidemics spreading out from the slums, to fears that the existing social order could be swept away by uprisings or revolution. The Social Question was oriented towards interventions to change the living conditions of the poor, but also encompassed the debate about their reason and effectiveness. It was raised in many forms and contexts, from political debate and legislation, through campaigning journalism, to popular fiction and poetry. Given the widespread use of projection for public entertainment, it comes as no surprise that the art of projection was used on a large scale to spread concerns and promote solutions to the Social Question. It could even be used for practices of social intervention, by instructing the poor and preparing beneficial and affordable entertainment.

Deployment of screen culture for Social Question discussion took many forms, but along with travelogue presentations and representations of Christian religious material (both areas which overlap with the Social Question) it represents one of the primary uses of the screen at this period. Among the common slide subjects in the catalogues of contemporary producers are factual lectures using photographic slides to illustrate the conditions of the poor (sometimes with a genuine concern, sometimes with a condescending tone which treats poverty as quaint or entertaining); fictional slide sequences accompanying stories or recitations, often with a propaganda message against abuse of alcohol as a self-destructive feature of poverty; and promotion of organisations offering responses to poverty, particularly some of the organised churches, other religious groups and temperance movements. The overall effect of all these addresses to the Social Question was to promote it as a matter for public concern: more or less by definition, presenting a question to an audience is an invitation to all members of the group, collectively and severally, to take a position on the issue presented. By turning the issue into performance it was constituted as a public problem. There were other methods of doing this (melodramatic stage plays, or the many lecturers or reciters who presented social topics without using images), but the art of projection occupied its own place in this context, using spectacular presentation to impress serious points on its audiences.

In this volume sixteen international scholars address the issues of screen culture and the Social Question from the different perspectives of their individual research, with their essays gathered in three groups uniting related themes and strands of research. Drawing on a rich variety of primary sources they investigate the impact of the lantern and cinematograph in public lectures, entertainments, church services and electoral campaigns. They place the use of the optical lantern in the context of the multitude of visual media in the decades before and after 1900. In every case the relevance of projected presentation becomes obvious: it makes an essential difference for historical research if similar images are printed in books or papers for individual reception, if they are constantly available in exhibitions for examination by small groups or individuals, or if they are projected in deliberately arranged sequences for performances received within public gatherings.

The different approaches of the articles demonstrate altogether the relevance of screen culture in the area where social history and media history overlap. But the media history relevance of the Social Question to the establishment of screen media has hardly so far been examined. Nor have these media been critically investigated as social history sources. All the authors experienced the obstacles of an under-researched field of history, of which the lack of accessible and catalogued archives is one of the most severe.

The articles in the first part of the book reflect the role of screen culture in the public sphere and differentiate varied uses of the optical lantern and early cinema in the contexts of the controversial discourse of the Social Question and for political persuasion. They examine how social reformers like Jacob Riis, as well as charitable organisations, raised public awareness of living conditions of the poor and destitute. They discuss use of visually shocking lectures and adaptations of sentimental stories, like those of Victorian celebrity George R. Sims, to argue for social reform and encourage the audience to help themselves and others. Several examples describe the public interest in the Social Question as a market for the semi-industrial production of photographic lantern slides and early films.

The authors of the second part investigate the use of lantern shows, photography and early films for social prevention by charity and welfare organisations. Case studies demonstrate uses of projection as an agent of social prevention in the context of health and lifestyle. Activities of social intervention like the ongoing temperance campaigns regarded the optical lantern and the art of projection as an ideal medium to combine beneficial entertainment with instruction on desirable social behaviour. Presentations of visual media also turned out to be very helpful to familiarise new activists with living conditions in slums and tenements and to instruct vividly on the work of social institutions. In contrast, increasingly critical standpoints of social reformers against the cinema (at least the commercial cinema) in the 1910s are also reflected.

Finally, approaches to the hidden history of screen culture are outlined in the third part of the book, as a basis for proposal of an internationally agreed research agenda, including an introduction to the Lucerna Magic Lantern Web Resource. The lack of access to primary sources, especially lantern slides, is perceived widely as one of the main obstacles to research into screen culture. Several of the articles in this volume underline that the use of lantern slides is known from written evidence but it was impossible to find the slides themselves. It is quite possible that they still exist, since they were originally produced in large quantities, but without a more systematic approach to identifying which resources exist, and where and how they might be accessible, they might as well be lost.

As well as the influence of projected media on the Social Question, the history of the cultural establishment of the screen and its influence on social history needs international research to be better coordinated. More empirical data is necessary to answer economical, political, technical, and design questions and to enable audience research. Comparative analysis of historical screen practice (lantern and early cinema) within the wider context of social and cultural history requires micro-analytical approaches based on an internationally agreed research agenda, a major requirement of which is better identification and accessibility of the considerable historical resources that we do have available.

This volume, then, offers a fundamental step towards substantial research on screen culture in context of media and social history. The articles it contains are based on papers presented at the conference Screen Culture and the Social Question: Poverty on Screen 1880-1914, held at the German Historical Institute London (GHIL) in December 2011.³ This conference was initiated by the Screen1900 research group at the University of Trier.⁴

Complementary to the papers presented, international experts Ian Christie (London, Birkbeck College), Scott Curtis (Northwestern University), Andreas Gestrich (GHIL) and Clemens Zimmerman (Universität Saarbrücken) drew together the individual approaches in summarising comments and conducted the discussion to open questions for future research. Many participants contributed observations based on their own research experience in the history of screen practice and stressed the needs for methodological agreements and an international research agenda. The main areas for future investigation identified as part of such an agenda included (in no particular order):

material evidence (especially slides and supporting texts);

technical and creative elements of the art of projection;

intermedial comparison of the presentation of visual media;

comparative research on international screen practice;

investigation of the continuity of non-filmic screen practice with the optical lantern in the 20th century;

analysis of the interconnections between art, philanthropy, and business;

examination of the use of lantern shows for social and political persuasion and as practice in social work and pedagogy for instructing the uneducated and children;

questioning the legitimacy of visual representations of the poor, specifically photographs, created by middle-class producers for middle-class audiences; and

repetition of motifs as representational strategies in narratives on poverty.

This makes no claim to be anything other than a partly subjective proposition from one series of viewpoints in one particular context. Another conference would have possibly created a different set of priorities. But we have to start somewhere, and the broad principles behind this ambitious outline would, we suggest, help any understanding of screen culture to move forward, with the potential to enrich any number of other areas of study in future.

The editors are particularly grateful to Professor Andreas Gestrich, Director of the GHIL, and his marvellous team who made this conference a fruitful and pleasant time for all participants. The conference, along with the publication of this volume, was made possible by the generous support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) and the GHIL.

Notes

1. The slide image itself is more complicated than meets the eye: it is taken from a set of 50 slides entitled Street Life: or People we Meet, produced by the British company Riley Brothers. Known references to the set clearly date it to 1887 or 1888, and in the catalogue listings its image title is The Newsboy, with an accompanying reading text that refers only to him. Yet in this image there are two boys, and the posters in the background carry dates from mid-1890. So this slide must be a later replacement for the original image, for some reason which is lost to us (at least) until the earlier version of the image comes to light.

2. Charles Musser, The Emergence of Cinema: the American Screen to 1907 (Berkeley and New York: University of California Press, 1990), 16–54.

3. Screen Culture and the Social Question: Poverty on Screen 1880–1914. Conference of the German Historical Institute London in cooperation with Screen 1900 Project, University of Trier, held at the GHIL, 1–3 December 2011. Conveners: Andreas Gestrich (GHIL) and Ludwig Vogl-Bienek (University of Trier). See Lydia Jakobs, Screen Culture and the Social Question: Poverty on Screen 1880–1914, Conference Report, in German Historical Institute London Bulletin, 34:1 (2012): 191–196.

4. Screen 1900 is a research focus in media studies at the University of Trier. Since 2002, several research projects have investigated the history of the screen, the optical or magic lantern and the art of projection in social and cultural contexts. See www.screen1900.uni-trier.de (accessed July 2013).

PART I:

Screen Culture and the Public

Sphere – Raising Awareness

of the Living Conditions

of the Poor

Magic Lantern Entertainment given to 1,450 poor and destitute children by the members of the Fulham Liberal Club and Institute, engraving from The Graphic (23 February 1889): 189.

MAN SWALLOWING RATS, lantern slide with combined rack work and lever mechanism, Carpenter & Westley, England, c. 1880.

Martin Loiperdinger

The Social Impact of Screen Culture 1880–1914

In 1889, the Liberal Club of Fulham (London) organised a lantern show for 1,450 destitute children. The weekly newspaper The Graphic published a picture of this performance in a wood engraving showing a large, packed auditorium decorated with paper lanterns and garlands. The view is toward the stage, whose back wall is covered by a lighted circle almost four metres in diameter in which a larger-than-life-size, bearded man in a nightcap lies in bed while two rodents make for his open mouth. The projection illuminant shines brilliantly in the lantern’s housing. A projectionist operates the apparatus, and a second man acting as lecturer points to the image on the screen to underline to the audience his interpretation of what is occurring. A girl sitting on the shoulders of an adult is pointing at the image, as are several people in the first row, expressing the excitement with which they are following what happens on the screen.

The audience is viewing the well-known and popular lantern slide the MAN SWALLOWING RATS. A small painted glass slide rests in the projector, creating the pictorial information for the large projected image. The operator synchronises two mechanisms in the slide to produce movement on the screen. The image tells a story: the sleeping man opens and closes his mouth as both rodents approach in an arc and disappear into his open jaws. Without even noticing, he devours them! Presumably appropriate noises of snoring and smacking lips complete the entertaining performance.

The watching children were moved because presumably they had already experienced more or less frightful encounters with rats in their housing environments (and those who had not were probably afraid of such encounters). Rats were a plague in the slums of London: they outnumbered the human inhabitants of the densely packed tenements. Imagining someone swallowing live rats was likely to make the children’s skin crawl. Seeing someone unknowingly swallowing rats while sleeping adds a comic effect to the jitters, which might relieve the children’s tension as they waver between shuddering and laughter. The fact that evidently contemporary audiences experienced the MAN SWALLOWING RATS with comic relief in the face of the harsh conditions in their own daily lives might explain the tremendous success of this particular moving image, standard fare in many lantern shows at that time. The performances of this rackwork slide over decades offer an instructive example of the social impact produced by showmen and lecturers who projected pictures and by their audiences who watched them.

Victorian Lantern Shows – the Screen and Social Problems

In the engraving, the girl and the people in the first row pointing to the screen draw the attention of the readers of the Graphic to a leading cultural location for experiencing images: by 1889 the screen had become firmly established in Victorian society as a major place of communication through images. Projection technology was the basis of a pronounced media culture, with technical standards, established projectors and illuminants, a differentiated offering of images on slides, reliable channels of distribution and frequent performances. The performance at the Fulham Liberal Club was part of a cultural practice widespread at the time, not only in Great Britain. The term for such slide shows is the Art of Projection, L’Art de la projection, L’arte della proiezione, Projektionskunst etc. As early as the 1870s, apparatus manufacturers, image producers and operators formed a business network of their own, as can be seen in the issues of professional journals bearing the internationally current name of the projection apparatus in their titles: The Magic