It’s the middle of the war and this photograph is the only one in “Photograms of the Year 1941” related to wartime. Everywhere else it’s business as usual. An introduction was added after the volume was assembled and includes the following: “The fact that it includes practically no photographs of warlike subjects is an indication of the place that real picture-making holds in the hearts of the people who practice it. Camera records of various phases of the war at home and abroad may be left to the Press photographers whose business it is, through the illustrated papers and the newsreels, to show the world realistic details of what is being done to the world under arms.”
I take this to mean that only the kind of photos included in the volume are to be considered “real picture-making” whereas war photography is not. This seems not only wrong to me but ignores the artistry of war photographers and the documentary tradition. A corrective for today might be to look up World War II photographers using wikipedia though I note the omission of Lee Miller from both World War II photographers and holocaust photographers. (Her individual entry gets it right though).
Landscape in pictorialist style is well represented as usual as are still lifes:
There are the usual nudes and figure studies. For instance this example of using a classical reference to present a nude:
Personally I find “Idol” to be a much more appealing image and I note that, once again, the female nude is just as likely to be taken by a female photographer as a male one at this time.
“Cherry Time” is another example of the use of classical reference and a pictorialist style.
You won’t be able read the above but it is an example of 21 pages listing camera clubs in the UK which perhaps gives an indication of how popular photography was as a hobby, even in the midst of war. I note that the camera club to which I belong today was listed as being operational in 1941.
