Using Photography to Transform Lives

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

“I Will Not Tone It Down”

“I Will Not Tone It Down” Brenda Keneally on Using Photography to Transform Lives — Hot Mirror

Brenda Ann Kenneally (born October 23, 1959) is an acclaimed American photojournalist and documentary photographer recognized for her work addressing social issues such as poverty, addiction, and the underground drug economy.

www.hot-mirror.com

 

[koraks]

Thanks for posting that - Photography with a Purpose. It's something we don't discuss much here on Photrio. In a sense, it's the diametrical opposite of what we talk about - this isn't about the picture as such or its technical qualities, but the context in which it appears. I wonder if there are photographers on Photrio who are on a mission in a similar way?

 

[Peter Schrager]

poignant!

 

[gary mulder]

We nowadays know that the people portrayed here are for the most part psychiatric patients. Therefore, emphasising their economical situation does not do justice to the complexity of their problems. Just shouting louder doesn’t help. This way the spectator cannot identify himself with the complexity of the problem. The way Brenda Keneally works has been done too often and has become a cliché.

 

[koraks]

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?

 

[gary mulder]

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?

You’r right.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

We nowadays know that the people portrayed here are for the most part psychiatric patients.

Where do you get that idea? I see nothing either in the text or in the photos that suggests that they suffer from anything other than extreme poverty.

The way Brenda Keneally works has been done too often

As a photojournalist you are a witness of what's happening in the world. She's doing the same work Jacob Riis did over a century ago not because of a lack of imagination or originality, but because things haven't fundamentally changed that much in terms of how we care, or do not care, about people in such conditions. Photojournalists will stop documenting poverty and the trauma it causes when we'll figure out a way to get rid of poverty.

 

[gary mulder]

Where do you get that idea?

here

 

[gary mulder]

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.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Yes, that's exactly my criticism of this work.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that photojournalists should not document poverty?

 

[juan]

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.

 

[gary mulder]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that photojournalists should not document poverty?

As document there is a single layering in the meaning. For documentary photography that might be okay. But as art isn't. It's as flat as a plate of piss.

 

[koraks]

here

Err, no. The doesn't support your crass allegation in any way.

 

[koraks]

But as art isn't.

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.

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.

I think that's exactly Kennealy attempts to do. Quoting from the interview:

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.

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.

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.

 

[gary mulder]

Err, no. The doesn't support your crass allegation in any way.

You’r right.

 

[gary mulder]

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.

I can hope that I can have my own opinion

 

[koraks]

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.

 

[gary mulder]

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.

You’r right.

 

[Don_ih]

If cliche and done-to-death were enough to stop people taking particular photos (meaningful or not), there would never be another camera sold.

It's noteworthy that people seem to appreciate older photos of impoverished situations almost romantically - i.e., that was the quaint past. Contemporary documentary photography has to be about today and bringing attention to situations that require attention (whether that attention is remediation or applause).

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

Hence the reason why documentary photography isn't discussed much here on Photrio.

 

[gary mulder]

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. Therefore try to approach the problem differently.
Engaged art can be a way to look at this problem in a different way

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

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...

 

[gary mulder]

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...

I totally agree with you. Let's not talk about poverty. That was my point all the time. What we see in the photographs is not caused by poverty. Maybe it is poverty but it's not caused by poverty.

 

[chuckroast]

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?

I think this kind of work is critical as a matter of maintaining some level of photojournalistic breadth. I am pleased to see people continuing to work at photojournalism that delivers real insights.

But, there be dragons therein. This sort of thing has to be done honestly and in context (I'm not in any way commenting on Keneally here specifically). Many of the things I have seen in this vein in the past few decades are littered with political propaganda, economic finger wagging and ideological table thumping that both detract from the actual subject and rarely tell the whole story. For me, at least, when otherwise strong work gets pushed through such agenda peddling, it loses meaning and I disconnect.

 

[MattKing]

I would suggest that agendas are fine. The critical question is whether they are public and transparent - and a title that reads:
"Using Photography to Transform Lives" goes a long way toward that.
If one rejects the photography and the information depicted therein because one disagrees with the agenda, than that says more about the viewer than the material itself.