Page 76 - Centrum Dialogu im. Marka Edelmana w Łodzi. Time of the Litzmannstadt Ghetto. Film images.

tion. In some cases, he was probably accompanied by
his deputy, Friedrich Wilhelm Ribbe, who had supervised
the project of a Jewish museum (later that idea was
dropped) and managed the preparations for an exhibi-
tion of the ghetto’s products in the hospital building at
2 — 2
See: T. Majewski, Getto 34/36 Łagiewnicka Street .
w kolorach Agfa. Uwagi Genewein’s slides give a very selective and false
o „Fotoamatorze” Dariusza image of the ghetto, creating grounds for their critical
Jabłońskiego [in:] Między słowem
a obrazem. Księga pamiątkowa dla and emotionally marked reception suggested by Dariusz
uczczenia jubileuszu profesor Jabłoński. The aforementioned series of slides can be
Eweliny Nurczyńskiej-Fidelskiej, easily juxtaposed against the black-and-white photo-
ed. M. Jakubowska, T. Kłys,
B. Stolarska, Kraków 2005 graphs from the Litzmannstadt Ghetto, which seem to
be the carriers of historical truth. It is particularly obvi-
ous when we compare the location of Grosman and Ge-
newein’s photographs of Plac Strażacki – those two
pictures complement each other like a shot and a coun-
tershot, with a reservation that Grosman shows us what
cannot be seen in Genewein’s photographs. A gallows,
for instance. But here as well the matter becomes com-
plicated at a closer view. The photographs used in the
early films about the ghetto in Łódź (in particular in
Daniel Szylit’s film) were made by Mendel Grosman,
Henryk Ross and Lajb Maliniak – photographers em-
3
3 —
They have left approximately ployed by the Statistics Department of the Elder of the
20,000 photographs gathered Jews. Not all of those photographs were intended for of-
in photobooks made ficial use. Some of them are private (it was possible
4
by the Statistics Department.
until 1942, when ‘unofficial’ representations of the
4 — ghetto were forbidden), and some were made by Mendel
The Board of the Elder of the Jews Grosman at the risk of his life to document executions,
gave their consent to create
a cooperative of eleven photogra- deportations and other events which were to leave no
phers in the ghetto. They were trace. The status of those three kinds of documentation
to have two ateliers at their can not be identical, although their use as visual mate-
disposal – at 11 Brzezińska Street
and at 34 Lutomierska Street; see rial in films does not always respect that. The photo-
notes of 10-13 January 1942 graphs made for official and propaganda purposes were
[in:] Kronika getta łódzkiego/ selective in the way they depict reality, often staged,
Litzmannstadt Getto 1941-1944,
vol. II 1942, ed. J. Baranowski, which obviously does not exclude the possibility of using
K. Radziszewska, A. Sitarek, them as a form of historical testimony, but such use re-
M. Trębacz, J. Walicki, E. Wiatr, quires caution and the consciousness of the change of
P. Zawilski, Łódź 2009, p.22
interpretation.
5 — Witnesses recall that Mendel Grosman had two cam-
J. Podolska, Z Leicą pod eras at his disposal: one for official orders from the Sta-
płaszczem. Fotografowie getta, [in:]
Odwaga patrzenia. Eseje tistics Department, and a Leica which he would hide
o fotografii, ed. T. Ferenc, under his coat and use to record things on his own ini-
Łódź 2006, pp. 41-52. tiative . The most important of those secret pictures are
5
the ones taken during the Szpera. According to Ruzka

74 Tomasz Majewski