his late photos and the idea behind them (glorifying of pain through artistic form)
I do think "the idea behind them" was always for Salgado to bear witness to injustice, exploitation and the senseless destruction of the environment. The problem is trying to do so both photographically and artistically, in how one answers the question "How do I make the horrible beautiful?" — an unavoidable one for anybody who has grown up with Aristotle's study of ancient Greek tragedy. It's not as easy to answer for any photographer.
Salgado wanted to bear witness, and by that, affect change. But there were unfortunate, and probably unforeseen, consequences that arose from artistic choices made along the way.
I'll never forget the first time I saw the pictures of the Brazilian gold mine. Knocked my socks off.
I had a similarexperience. He was a master of B&W. I don't now if he printed himself or had it done?
Very sad news indeed.
His legacy will remain controversial, at least in parts, but important nevertheless. And no one can doubt the sincerity and honesty of his desire to change the world — especially that of the poor and disenfrenchised — through photography.
Alex, I beg to differ, I don't believe as you said
"His legacy will remain controversial, at least in parts, but important nevertheless." Yes there is some controversy ....but that's an interpretation.
The man left behind a monumental body of work. Beyond the photographs, his work to reforest the Amazon is significant.
I far prefer his early film work to his later digital images, but that is merely an opinion of a viewer. I think David Kennerly nailed it:
" He was a great artist and an even better human being." The man was as significant as a social activist as a photographer.
Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with everything you said.
I was just stating fact regarding some of the criticism parts of his work received these past few years — a simple web search brings out a few. But I think that even those who criticised recognised the amount of good his work brought to the various causes he devoted his attention to.
And I also think it is healthy to have the conversation about how to photographically represent the poor and the disenfrenchized, and about how to represent populations in remote areas, that have barely been touched by what we call civilization. I don't see any contradiction in celebrating the man and his work, while still recognizing that the way he photographically, artistically chose to capture some of these difficult subjects do raise important questions — not that they are questionable — I leave that to Bruce Guilden —, but important questions on the nature of photographs and of photography, especially as a tool to affect change.
Alex, i think it's a question of language.
To say there is controversy around some of his work is one thing....& accurate (I'm familiar with that criticism of some of his work).
To say "his legacy will remain controversial.".... is your opinion.... not fact.
It's neither opinion nor fact. It's me writing in English when I should be writing in French.
I think you got what I meant.
The book "Workers" made a huge impression on me when it appeared in the early 1990s. I had probably seen photo essays by Salgado before that, but the book made clear the immense scope of his project.
I think a few people criticized his work for aestheticizing horrible conditions, which I think may be what was voiced upthread. However, I feel that's somewhat misplaced. I mean, nobody looks at these photos and thinks "Wow, disassembling scrap ships with hand tools on the coast of Bangladesh doesn't look so bad!" A photograph doesn't have to be physically repellent to depict something that is morally/ethically alarming.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?