Throughout this semester, I have noticed an overwhelming reoccurrence of the theme of agency. Agency both in regards to photojournalists, as well as their subjects. Our discussions on the topic in regards to the bodies of work of photojournalists have brought about many issues, two I found most notable were misrepresentation and exploitation. What I recognized is how vitally necessary it is for photographers to have a strong understanding and keen eye to a world foreign to them, and this must manifest itself in their images. Steve McCurry’s India exhibit and the critical reactions to it made me realize how even an aesthetically beautiful body of work that appears innocent and celebratory of a culture can really be one-sided and misrepresentative of the current people and socio-political/economic status of a place. Some discussions and photographers that come to mind are James Nachtwey’s coverage of Sudan famine and Ron Haviv’s work in the Balkan Conflict regarding human rights violations and war crimes.

Often times the photographs we discussed resulted in positive change, whether that be aid or judicial action, but also had a counter side, promoting stereotypes or helping spread fear. Ultimately, I believe that being a photojournalist is an incredibly difficult job that requires keen attention to the nuances and sensitivities of the situations being photographed. When analyzing photography, it is critical to be aware of not only who is in the frame, but who is not as well, and from what perspective is this story or event being told and documented. The more critical and aware of these issues that the audiences of photojournalism are the more photographers consider this in their work, as the relationship between photographer and press are symbiotic in many ways. I will continue to have a critical eye to the role of agency in regards to the photographs I see, and I hope to come to an even greater understanding of the various aspects agency plays in photojournalism.