This, I think, involves a dilemma. On the one hand, I agree - it's a signal that's been expressed so many times that we've grown used and desensitized to it. But does that mean it shouldn't be expressed anymore? Perhaps that's an even more dangerous development - if it's not being said anymore, people might trick themselves into believing it's not there anymore, either.The way Brenda Keneally works has been done too often and has become a cliché.
This, I think, involves a dilemma. On the one hand, I agree - it's a signal that's been expressed so many times that we've grown used and desensitized to it. But does that mean it shouldn't be expressed anymore? Perhaps that's an even more dangerous development - if it's not being said anymore, people might trick themselves into believing it's not there anymore, either.
Keneally seems to signal this herself, too, when she mentions that she's tried to act on the issues and invest in these actions financially (within her very limited means). Apparently, as a photographer she also asks herself the question whether it's sufficient to make the problem visible.
I guess if you look at it from a distance, the engaged photographer might be one piece of a larger puzzle or system, that also consists of elements that work together to address problems and promote structural changes. This brings the question whether all parts of that system are actually in place and well-connected, or if perhaps certain parts are over-represented and others are missing. Is there anything the photographer-with-a-mission could do at the systemic level? Or is he/she limited to raising the flag on the level of symptoms?
We nowadays know that the people portrayed here are for the most part psychiatric patients.
The way Brenda Keneally works has been done too often
hereWhere do you get that idea?
Yes, that's exactly my criticism of this work.I see nothing either in the text or in the photos that suggests that they suffer from anything other than extreme poverty.
Yes, that's exactly my criticism of this work.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that photojournalists should not document poverty?
I don't see why this would need to be framed in terms of the problematic construct of art. It's documentary photography and it can be discussed in that sense just fine.But as art isn't.
I think that's exactly Kennealy attempts to do. Quoting from the interview:I agree that just taking photos of poor people has been done to death. A step forward is a book titled Dignity by Chris Arnade. The author actually talks with the people and learns something about them and their circumstances. You view them as individuals rather than symbols.
What’s important to me is that the people I work with are on board with the project. They know what I’m doing, and they’re part of it. If they didn’t believe in the cause, I wouldn’t have stayed there for 20 years. We’ve done community exhibitions where they hang the photos themselves, and in one project, we created scrapbooks where they shared their own stories. I want them to be active participants, not passive subjects.
Much of the interview focuses on how her own experiences and upbringing mesh with the suffering she sees in her subject. I suppose there's room for criticism on methodological grounds in that sense (is she really documenting the lives of others, or just a reflection of her own experience?) But from an ethical viewpoint, such criticism would also be problematic - and not necessarily justified even on methodological grounds, with an eye to the virtually inescapable issue of reflexivity in an approach like hers.I’ve spent years photographing hardship, but I don’t want to keep perpetuating the narrative that these kids are only defined by their struggles. Yes, they’re up against a lot—poverty, neglect, violence—but I’m more interested now in documenting their solutions, their healing, and their growth.
Err, no. The doesn't support your crass allegation in any way.
I can hope that I can have my own opinionI don't see why this would need to be framed in terms of the problematic construct of art. It's documentary photography and it can be discussed in that sense just fine.
Absolutely. And as you voice yours on a public discussion forum, it stands to reason that it'll be scrutinized if people see room for criticism.
Photography with a Purpose. It's something we don't discuss much here on Photrio.
For documentary photography that might be okay. But as art isn't. It's as flat as a plate of piss.
The titel of this tread is; Using Photography to Transform Lives.
But the uncomfortable truth is the even if you give these people $1000,- every month for three years long it wil not improve their lives significant.
Photojournalists will stop documenting poverty and the trauma it causes when we'll figure out a way to get rid of poverty.
These are two totally unrelated subject. The first one belongs to a photography forum, the second one doesn't.
Maybe best we keep the conversation on a "Can photography transform lives?" level rather than stray onto a treacherous socio-political path of which no opinion can come out unharmed...
This, I think, involves a dilemma. On the one hand, I agree - it's a signal that's been expressed so many times that we've grown used and desensitized to it. But does that mean it shouldn't be expressed anymore? Perhaps that's an even more dangerous development - if it's not being said anymore, people might trick themselves into believing it's not there anymore, either.
Keneally seems to signal this herself, too, when she mentions that she's tried to act on the issues and invest in these actions financially (within her very limited means). Apparently, as a photographer she also asks herself the question whether it's sufficient to make the problem visible.
I guess if you look at it from a distance, the engaged photographer might be one piece of a larger puzzle or system, that also consists of elements that work together to address problems and promote structural changes. This brings the question whether all parts of that system are actually in place and well-connected, or if perhaps certain parts are over-represented and others are missing. Is there anything the photographer-with-a-mission could do at the systemic level? Or is he/she limited to raising the flag on the level of symptoms?
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?