AgentX
Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2009
- Messages
- 204
- Format
- Medium Format
Hi all--
I'm just getting back into photography in a more serious way (including a return to b/w film instead of digital). I have a job that takes me around the world and will continue to do so, so there's a lot to photograph. But living in the third world, and one of the poorest countries in it, has really made photography difficult for me. In some cases, it's because it's unsafe to photograph at all. But in general, I'm just bothered by contributing to a canon of images that concerns me...photos of the poor, homeless, or otherwise disadvantaged being couched as somehow "picturesque."
So now here I am surrounded by people who are different than me. Something bothers me about just snapping away. Someone like Salgado has legitimate reasons for doing what he does, and I don't question that. I'm not Walker Evans.
I'm neither an ethnographer nor a journalist, and pretending my image-making is somehow done with love and affection for this place (which I have) seems sort of arrogant and self-absorbed. I'm making images to satisfy myself or impress others with my own skill...or am I just trying to share my experiences in life? Does it matter?
What happens when I make a photo of someone simply because they're an "other," possibly with some layers of nostalgia from my Rollei and Tri-X to top it off? Then I print and frame it and hang it on the wall, like this random guy with grass on his head? What happens when I give the image to a family member to hang on the wall? (Not that I'm trying to say this is amazing work, mind you...this is just the one and only photo of a random person I've made in over a year here.)
Does the context of my photography matter? Is it more ethical if I'm doing this as part of a project which benefits or simply studies and records the people and country, rather than me considering it some sort of "artwork?" Am I wrong for thinking it's demeaning to consider people "picturesque" for who they are/where and how they live/what they wear?
(And the guy in the photo was happy to stand there for a photo so long as I gave him some cash...shoot anyone in public here and they'll probably expect it, and become angry and possibly violent if you don't.)
Thoughts?? Am I just uptight or over-thinking this?
I'm just getting back into photography in a more serious way (including a return to b/w film instead of digital). I have a job that takes me around the world and will continue to do so, so there's a lot to photograph. But living in the third world, and one of the poorest countries in it, has really made photography difficult for me. In some cases, it's because it's unsafe to photograph at all. But in general, I'm just bothered by contributing to a canon of images that concerns me...photos of the poor, homeless, or otherwise disadvantaged being couched as somehow "picturesque."
So now here I am surrounded by people who are different than me. Something bothers me about just snapping away. Someone like Salgado has legitimate reasons for doing what he does, and I don't question that. I'm not Walker Evans.
I'm neither an ethnographer nor a journalist, and pretending my image-making is somehow done with love and affection for this place (which I have) seems sort of arrogant and self-absorbed. I'm making images to satisfy myself or impress others with my own skill...or am I just trying to share my experiences in life? Does it matter?
What happens when I make a photo of someone simply because they're an "other," possibly with some layers of nostalgia from my Rollei and Tri-X to top it off? Then I print and frame it and hang it on the wall, like this random guy with grass on his head? What happens when I give the image to a family member to hang on the wall? (Not that I'm trying to say this is amazing work, mind you...this is just the one and only photo of a random person I've made in over a year here.)

Does the context of my photography matter? Is it more ethical if I'm doing this as part of a project which benefits or simply studies and records the people and country, rather than me considering it some sort of "artwork?" Am I wrong for thinking it's demeaning to consider people "picturesque" for who they are/where and how they live/what they wear?
(And the guy in the photo was happy to stand there for a photo so long as I gave him some cash...shoot anyone in public here and they'll probably expect it, and become angry and possibly violent if you don't.)
Thoughts?? Am I just uptight or over-thinking this?