Step 7: Two Contradictory Interpretations of Parks' Photograph "American Gothic"
Take one more look at the photograph we began with:

Below are two contradictory interpretations of the image from two different respectable and credible sources.
Ella Watson was a black charwoman who mopped floors in the FSA building. Parks
asked her about her life, which she divulged as having been full of misery,
bigotry and despair. Parks's simple question, "Would you let me photograph
you?" and Ella's affirmative response, led to the photographer's most
recognizable image of all time. "Two days later Stryker saw the image and
told me I'd gotten the right idea but was going to get all the FSA photogs
fired, that my image of Ella was 'an indictment of America.' I thought the image
had been killed but one day there it was, on the front page of The
Washington Post ." At the time, Parks couldn't have realized that the
image would go on to become the symbol of the pre-civil rights era's treatment
of minorities.
![]()
Gordon Parks, American Gothic
The photograph portrays a man wearing a dress and holding a broom, standing in front of an American flag. The man’s stance and blank expression recall American Gothic, the famous painting by Grant Wood of a man and woman standing in front of their simple house with a Gothic-style window. The painting has come to symbolize certain American values and styles and has been reproduced and parodied countless times.
In this particular parody one can read the American flag as a replacement for the house, which has come to symbolize American style or value. The man can be seen as a fusion of the man and woman in the original painting; he may connote a shifting sense of gender divisions in this country. Although Wood’s painting signified American style, it also signified America’s blend of conformity and freedom Parks’s photograph takes this meaning to an extreme by dressing a man in woman’s clothing (an expression of freedom), but the clothes are fairly conservative and traditionally feminine (an expression of conformity).
Source: Teaching Seeing and Writing, by Anne Kress and Suellyn Winkle. Bedford St. Martins Press, 2000, pp. 204-5.
![]()
What are the key contradictions in the two readings?
Which interpretation do you believe is the most convincing or credible? Why?
Which one is "true" or "right"? Why?
What could you do to try to resolve the contradictions between the two?