Category: Observations on Interconnections (Page 1 of 2)

Throughout the semester, it’s come to my attention how important ethics come into play in taking a photo. Whether it’s the portrayal of women in fashion, or pondering if a picture would do a family justice, ethical debates are constantly being brought up, even among the most “innocent” of photos. To that, I really respect the overall care that the photojournalists we studied put into their work. For example, when Ashley Gilbertson spoke about Bedrooms of the Fallen, and how he worked with each family to produce a final product, our ethical questions regarding whether it was appropriate to photograph very personal spaces was answered. Similarly, in photos of dying subjects or of those about to die, I learned that it’s often times appreciated to have that memory preserved for not only the family of lost ones, but also for a photo to serve a purpose as evidence to achieve a greater good. I find it truly inspiring that the work of a photojournalist expands far beyond the camera. To that, while the photojournalists we studied seem to be capturing mere reality, these moments in time can ultimately help achieve something greater– like peace, or justice. That in itself is extremely profound.

Throughout this course, I enjoyed the in-depth analysis through the lens of photojournalism that we gave to each historical event covered. I enjoyed hearing the voices behind the images we observed when guest speakers came to talk. This course provided a truly holistic and interdisciplinary method of observing photojournalism and the complications and issues that can arise from visual news. I believe this course allows us all to gain a unique perspective to the reality of the images we are faced with everyday. It allowed us to go beyond the frame, and beyond a simple aesthetic analysis. It provided us a framework through which we could view global issues that exceeds traditional media analysis. It allowed us to see who took the images we view as snapshots and representations of greater issues, and what led these individuals to take this path. By combining the historical, political, economical, technological, ethical, and artistic, we attempted to break into the world of photojournalism in a way most people are not able, or willing, to do. We studied issues that many would like to turn their heads from, but are necessary to understanding the human condition, all in an engaging and insightful manner. We learned of the “addiction” that fuels many of these photojournalists to return to deadly war zones and depressing locations. We learned that many photojournalists are plagued with the same questions that we were when we viewed their work. We learned that intrinsic reward was necessary to survive in the world of photojournalism but that inspiration to stay in its grasps exceeded self-reward and extended into a desperate desire for change in how we view the world. The collaborative effect of photojournalism and advocacy inspired many of us, and through the mesmerizing websites and socially conscious projects my classmates presented at the end of the semester, we saw the true power of the image (Sorry for the use of the phrase, professor!)

I came into this class truly knowing very little about photography and the world of photographers. I respected the industry, though I did not know exactly how or why it all works. I do not feel I understand it all now, but I certainly have a more firm grasp on (at least some specific) photographers and their motivations in their work. Motivation  came up a lot over the course of this semester – with the many of the horrific or inhumane events/realities we covered, we would all look to the photojournalist in the middle of it all and question, “Why do you do this? How do you do this?” In our discussion with Ron Haviv and Ashley Gilbertson, I think they gave a fair response – “How do you not?” Perhaps that is not satisfying for some people. Are they in it for the fame? the art? the thrill? the possibility of changing the world? But I think they are completely entitled to give such a response. I do not need to know their entire reason for wanting to enter a war-torn country or an impoverished city, and perhaps they do not even completely know themselves, but regardless: I am certainly grateful they do what they do and I respect them even more than before I took this course.

In observing this wide swath of photographers, their motivations were certainly varied for more reasons than we know. The one thing that seemed to be consistent amongst everyone, though, was the dedication of the photographers to their work. Looking back now, this seems like an obvious thing to observe; how could these individuals not be dedicated to what they do? We discussed so many things that separate photographers from one another – the minute differences between photojournalism and documentary photography, the way women are treated differently than men in the industry, where people differ if they are in an agency vs. with a publication vs. freelance vs. under an editor vs. on their own – and the vast number of differences makes it seem there is little uniting the world of photography. Dedication to the craft, though, across all fields and all types of photography seems to be a powerfully unifying force.

Calling something “art” leads to many nuanced layers of connotations, but for lack of a better term, the art of photography only still exists in the world because of the dedication of the men and women who keep it alive. Whether they are fashion photographers who spend hours laboring over the right shot, documentary photographers who seek out social justice in the far reaches of the globe, or conflict photographers imbed with a military overseas, these people bring a passion to their work that is incomparable in other industries. I think back to reading about the early days at Magnum, and that same passion is present then, too; an empire in the photo world was built from a group of individuals who were dedicated to photography. Even though the industry and even the mechanics of photography have changed a lot over the past few decades, the passion is what remains.

Throughout the semester, we studied both images and the photographer responsible for the production of it. However, most of the time this is not how it happens in real life. Even if photographers develop their now style, it can sometimes be hard to tell whoosh photographer behind an image is by simply looking at an image. But when someone in a coffee shop opens a magazine and sees an image, most of the time they don’t have a very precise background on either the photograph or the cause behind the shot.

So, this raises the question: do we really need to know anything about the photographer in order for an image to be iconic? Do we even need to know anything about the cause behind the shot?

Just like in art, I find it very intriguing but also frustrating that once a piece is published and given to the public, the artist in a way looses its own art. Once a photograph is made public, it is subject to the viewer’s own interpretation of the image. The photographer somehow doesn’t really matter anymore. All there is left is the image in the magazine and maybe a caption. If the image is not captivating enough for the viewer, they will probably not read its caption or the story behind it.

Throughout the course, we studied how photographers themselves, aware of this challenging aspect of their job, deal with this. Some choose beauty, like for example Ron Haviv with his photograph of the 3 girls walking through the desert of the Darfour. Some others choose the shock effect by showing the blood, violence and pain. Some want us to feel angry, some want us to feel inspired. I find it amazing that within one same profession, there are so many different ways, philosophies and approaches possible. The diversity of photography is both its beauty but also its challenge. We got to study a piece of this diversity and, I found it so amazing that there are multiple ways of creating an iconic image, that will make a difference.

So, as someone who’s passionate about photography, I would answer that the answer is yes. Yes, it is important to know about the cause and the photographer in order to have a complete understanding of an image. But, I sincerely do not believe that  this would be everyone’s answer. It would probably not be the person flipping through the ages of a magazine at the coffee shop’s answer; and I completely understand it. However, this class gave me a better understanding of the world of photojournalism, and especially I believe it expanded my understanding of how to analyze a photograph.

Over the course of the semester, I’ve noticed that there has been an overarching critique to all of the photographers which consists of usually a call to action. Often they get negative comments about not helping the very person they’re photographing physically right there and then. The more it came up in class, the more frustrated I began getting about comments like this. I, for one, think the work that these people are doing is incredibly brave and inspiring. These are people who are not only dedicating their lives, but often putting their lives in danger in order to spread the stories of these tragedies. They do this in order to get people informed, involved, and to ultimately make a change. A lot of the photographers we studied aim to use their photography to change the world, most notably people like Ron Haviv, Marcus Bleasdale, and James Nachtwey. While, yes, Nachtwey could have tried to help the people he was photographing in a physical way, he was trying to help their country and community as a whole.

Previous to this class, I had been quite overwhelmed and, quite frankly, pessimistic, about the current state of the world. Like we talked about a few weeks ago, there seems to be no place evil has not seeped into. For example, if you oppose animal cruelty, you stop eating meat. Instead, you eat GMO vegetables or you’re paying absurd amounts of money for organic produce. Instead, you opt to go to a restaurant and are served god knows what. This is just one example of how deep this cycle goes. Learning about the kinds of work these people do to try and bring awareness to important social and political issues around the world is truly humbling and has inspired me to try and make a difference, even if it is a small one. I was always hindered by the thought of “why aren’t you doing more” and this prevented me from doing anything at all. Saying, “I’m just not educated enough to have an opinion” or “I’m only one person, why do I make a difference?” or “there’s just too much to do” was my safety blanket, my coping mechanism for how corrupt the world is when you think about it just a little bit. Through exploring these different bodies of work and talking about the importance of even being passionate about one subject in class really inspired me to try and get involved. My socially and politically involved friends have shed so much light and knowledge on me recently and in combination with this class, I have truly been inspired to become more informed with the issues going on around me.

Something I’ve thought about a lot during this course is what impact photography can have. For example, how does photography change the public opinion on a war or a famine? And more importantly, how can photography cause people to actually take action. I think as photojournalism has evolved over the years, photographers have become less hopeful that photography can change the world in a very impactful way. I think Ron Haviv is one of the perfect examples of this. While photographing the war in Bosnia, he hoped that his images would incite powerful nations to get involved and stop the ethnic cleansing. When that didn’t happen Haviv’s world view changed a lot.

However, I think this is even more interesting when it comes to the famine photography we talked about, because often the  photographs are used to get people to donate. I guess unlike war photography, it relies more on individual action. Therefore, I think its really interesting whether more shocking photos cause less people to donate money or if the more uplifting photos that show hope. I wonder if that is also true of war photography. Maybe more heroic images of the kind we see from World War II or the immediate post war years would cause nations to act more than the images of atrocity we see more often today.

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.

I noticed a trend among some of the photographers that we discussed this semester, such as viewing photography of a means, rather than an end, for social change. Often, these photographers have goals besides simply taking and displaying their photos. For them, in varying degrees, photography is just a tool is used to uncover injustices, tell untold stories, and/or make changes in the world.

This is apparent in the work of Ron Haviv, who saw the terrible conditions that hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the former Yugoslavia endured. He chose to stay in the area despite receiving littler media coverage of his photos. Now, more than 20 years later, some of his photos have been part of the effort to punish Serbian war criminals. Probably the most prominent example of this type of thinking is Marcus Bleasdale, who corrects people when they refer to him as a photojournalist. Rather, he sees himself as an activist, and uses photos to spread his message against conflict minerals in the Congo. He sends his photos to politicians as a way to pressure them into changing policy, and has over time seen good progress.

In the end, this idea is wrapped up in what seems to be one of, if not the, central debate of photojournalism: what is more important, art or content? Are the Magnum and VII photographers artists, journalists who tell visual stories, or something deeper and more humanitarian—something more Bleasdale-esque? Do the photos matter for their own value, or for what they can do? The answer seems to be slightly different for all journalist/documentary photographers.

Every photo we looked at this semester— whether individual or part of a collection, whether featuring a single subject or multiple, whether a portrait or a landscape — was never just a photo. There is context, history, social justice issues, political correctness issues, etc. Two themes that emerged throughout this class were: the idea of the photo as a window into a deeper issue and the idea of the eyes as a window into the heart and soul of the narrative.

Ron Haviv’s photo of a man surrendering, Steve McCurry’s portraits — both in the exhibit at the Rubin Museum or the infamous nat-geo portrait we all recognized — Susan Meiselas’s photo of a wife carrying her dead husband’s body, if you look at each respective photo they are the window into the deeper issues each photographer explored and hoped to expose. Moreover the subjects eyes took you into the heart and soul of the issues exposed, as well as acted as a window into their hearts undoubtedly striking empathy into the viewer.

Photography is a powerful medium, more so today than ever before. While photography may be a saturated market, any person who picks up a camera then assumes responsibility for telling a story justly, a story with grit and heart and soul. I feel that every photographer we learned about this semester achieved this goal and I admire more than ever the talent and passion of photographers and their influence on changing the world.