Allan Sekula - Photography and the limits of national identity (essay)

 This piece relates to work by walker evans and susan meiselas, but has relevance to any piece of work which discusses any group identity.

 This essay by Allan sekula features in “In History” (REFERENCE), as an introduction to susan meiselas’ Kurdistan work. I have selected a few excerpts from the piece which I found interesting and relevant in discussion of the documentary elements in her Kurdistan work.

“susan meiselas and her colleagues seem to me to be developing the case for a highly cautious, even suspicious view of photographs representing the kurds. Here are a people defined from without by multiple oppressors and scientists and adventurers..... with periodic busts of western journalistic intervention. The archive itself is dispersed, must be constructed from discontinuous and even mutually antagonistic sources. Everything is shadowed by fakery (or at the very least, circumspection and doubt) and fear.” (REFERENCE)

 Allan speaks of considering the Reliability of images in identifying a race/culture. Having often been photographed from the outside, a large body of found images could create an unreliable representation of the race/culture. It would be an outsider’s point of view, which has often been one that looked down upon the kurds.The source of photographs has to be questioned, and why the images exist.

 Sekula then goes on to discuss how the kurds are characterized and stereotyped as a group, but have to be catalogued and destroyed individually by oppressors in order for the group to be destroyed. Similarly, it is images and stories of individuals which exist that have to come together with other images/stories of other individuals to create a group identity through photographs and text. (REFERENCE/QUOTE)

 He then discusses how each image can have great significance.

“I recall visiting Susan Meiselas in New York while she was working on her Kurdistan book. At that moment she felt that nothing could be left out, that each and every image she had unearthed had unfathomed meaning for someone, and thus demanded to be included in her archive of a stateless people… Her radical nominalism, that is, her reluctance to allow any one image to stand as a type for other images that were excluded was worthy of the utmost philosophical respect... In theory, no potential story should be thwarted by editorial selection or publisher’s page counts.” (Reference)

 Each photograph has meaning to someone in the world; otherwise it wouldn’t have been taken. And Meiselas was apparently insistent on this. This all feeds in to why she created such a large (and growing) piece of work. To create a more accurate national identity than a short series or photo essay could.

Susan Meiselas and the genre of documentary photography (Part Two)

 

 The books “Chile from within” and “El Salvador: the work of thirty photographers” were edited by Susan Meiselas (REFERENCE). These pieces I have highlighted, because they mark a start to a new way of documenting subjects. Instead of going into an area, building up trust and creating a piece of work, Meiselas edits the work of people actual living in the locations to create a piece which will raise awareness to their plight. This could be seen as a more accurate representation of the subject, as the sufferers give their descriptions (photographically) of a situation which is affecting them. They have more involvement and perhaps more to say about a situation than an outside (Measles) coming in, making images, and eventually leaving. The situation in “Chile from within” also takes place on a larger time span, and occurred in the past, so Meiselas couldn’t create a full story out of her own images. To use other peoples images from the times creates a more accurate account.

 Another piece of Susan Meiselas that I looked at was archives of abuse. As well as being an interesting piece of work, it again raises various questions and responses to the genre of documentary photography. As with the previous works, she works in a genre as well as questioning it at the same time, which is very sophisticated and something to admire.

 The work was part of a collaborative piece named Women’s work, commissioned by Liz Claiborne foundation. The collaborative work was a public arts project meant to highlight the issue of domestic abuse. The project also set up a crisis telephone line which was aimed at assisting the victims of domestic abuse. Meiselas originally intended to photograph actual victims of domestic abuse with cooperation of the police, but was denied actually accompanying them. Instead, she used existing police documents and statistics (which she did acquire with the cooperation of the San Francisco police department) to tell the stories in more accuracy than the proposed images which Meiselas would have made could suggest (REFERENCE)

 The work was installed in bus shelters around san Francisco in 1992, (REFERENCE, IMAGE) and later published under the title of “archives of abuse.” the work is quite disturbing when we see that the images and reports are real, and are actually documents. They are proof of something happening, and thus create a powerful body of work.

 This leads on to her work concerning Kurdistan.

“In the 1990s, after seeing the exhumation of mass graves in northern Iraq, the result of Saddam Hussein's genocidal campaign against the Kurds in 1987 and 1988, she began to gather every scrap of visual evidence—documents, family pictures, maps, personal stories—to build a public archive of the history of the displaced Kurdish people. From a book project and an exhibition, it developed into a website, akaKurdistan.com, an expanding visual memory bank driven by the momentum of its contributors.”

(REFERENCE)

 Meiselas spent six years collecting information (texts, photographs) to create a body of work. In her own words, “images and texts from their past that might shed light on the present” were used to create an identity for a race of people whose home is spread across several countries and had at the time been suffering an attempted genocide. (REFERENCE) Their identity was at risk of being destroyed. And so the book (and eventually website) Meiselas worked on become a home for their identity. If the Kurds were to be wiped out and/or driven from their homes, then there would still be a home for their identity.

 Meiselas is not a photographer for this piece. She is simply a collector and editor. A term I came across often whilst researching this book was that it created a “collective memory” of the Kurds, as there are no official national archives for them, as Kurdistan is not a state, it is a region. They technically aren’t a nation. The website is quite powerful, as the description describes it as a “borderless space” which “provides the opportunity to build a collective memory.”  (REFERENCE)This piece is perhaps more dynamic than the Nicaragua, as it is still growing, and could possibly go on for many years as the Kurds are still a race without a country.  akaKurdistan is constantly evolving, defining the nation and keeping it defined rather than letting it fade away.

 But what significance does this have within the documentary genre? Similar to the pieces in Chile/ El Salvador, Meiselas isn’t getting involved with people from the culture, gaining some degree of trust, and then making a short collection of images taken within a short space of time to summarise them. She pulls images from a variety of sources to create a large collection of imagery and text which summaries the culture/race and that is perhaps a much more accurate and reliable telling of the culture than one Meiselas could provide on her own. After all, how could one person summarise a whole culture accurately without an incredible amount of material and sources. And even then, to create a summary on her own (and call it her own) would indicate some bias and be reliant on her own knowledge and interpretation of the situation. Meiselas has narrowed her practise down to being very accurate and reliable to the subjects concerned rather than making pictures with a distinct style and artistic impetus that she could create. Although this piece of work may not be referred to as a piece of documentary photography by Susan Meiselas, she gives photographs (which may or may not have already been documents) a new significance as documents in a new context. She has created a documentary piece, in many ways absent of any style, which therefore makes it accurate and valid as documentary work.

Susan Meiselas and the genre of documentary photography (Part One)

 As a young woman, Susan Meiselas originally studied anthropology (science of humans). This is relevant, as her photographic work explores human concerns. From 1972 – 1975, Meiselas photographed strippers in a touring carnival in America (Meiselas,S. 1976). As well as photographs, she accompanies the work with interviews. These show how she developed relationships (of trust, and perhaps friendship) with some of the subjects. This is Very in depth, as work goes beyond the photographs. The photographs themselves show women working in a less than reputable manner and location; ironically it is quite unattractive to look at. The interviews bring a more human element into it, that these women aren’t just show pieces, they’re humans. This is their lives and it is unfortunate. The depth of the work takes it from being a simple photo essay to almost a social study of a particular trend/culture. The fact that she builds a relationship with the subjects shows that she isn’t just observing, she’s getting involved and perhaps creating more accurate accounts of the culture.

Figure one REFERENCE USA. Presque Isle, Maine. 1973. First dance

 In 1976 she joins the prestigious Magnum photo agency, who are documenters of human concerns and stories.

Figure 2 NICARAGUA. Esteli. 1979. Sandinistas at the walls of the Esteli National Guard headquarters

 In 1978 she goes to Nicaragua in South America to photograph the Sandinistas uprising/revolution. This will perhaps be her most significant piece of work. She is a prominent photographer there, and her work makes appearances internationally in publications. However, once the “story” is finished and most other members of the media have left, she stays a bit longer. The work also evolves over time. She revisits subjects of her photographs and tracks down the people to see how their lives have changed. She also later makes large murals of significant images and hangs them in the locations they were originally photographed. (Reframing history, 2004).As a device, this is powerful, as it displays how both the location has changed and how the context of the location has perhaps changed. Instead of being an outpost, it is now a shop. Instead of a man fighting in a street, there are families walking freely. The evolution of the work, in many ways, redefines the nation and the message of the body of work.

Figure 3 NICARAGUA. July, 2004

 Over a large amount of time, the Nicaragua piece has evolved and become something much larger than a simple photo essay of an uprising. It is now a body of work which spans 25 years (1979 – 2004). As with the carnival strippers, there is some relationship between photographer and subject. The photographer obviously cares about the subjects as she revisits them and interviews them about how life has changed. Videos of this can be found on her vimeo and youtube.

 The original photo essay can have a different resonance with different people. I myself was not aware of the Nicaragua revolution before seeing this work, but members of generations before me may have been very aware, and perhaps even active over the issue. The images broadcast around the world that belong to Susan Meiselas appeared in many different publications, and that can have an effect on how they are read. This is the basis of the exhibition ‘Mediations’ of 1982.

 Meiselas displayed images in a particular way, to emphasise how the reading of images could differ depending on their presentation. She “installed the original images alongside the various publications that reproduced them, so that viewers could consider the different contexts of their reception.” (roth,p 2008) Although I cannot find any footage of the exhibition itself, I have got a few images of publications where meiselas’ images were used in varying ways.

Figure 4 meiselas, s (2008) pg 140 - 141

 The two images have a matching subject but are photographed in very different ways. The image on the left is a lot more sympathetic towards the subject. I personally find it reminiscent of images of people in death camps after world war two, leaning over to liberating troops and wanting to be freed. There is a focus on the “face” as it is taken at eye level, forcing the viewer to stare the subject directly. The image on the right gives a contrasting impression. It shows three figures grabbing rocks, and one figure holds one quite aggressively, as if they are about to throw it towards the viewer. The image is taken from a low angle, indicating that the men are on top of the viewer and perhaps about to attack them.

 The Mainichi Graphic Weekly and The New York Times, the publications in question, are actually quite similar. The Mainichi Graphic Weekly is a Tokyo based magazine (part of the Mainichi newspaper company, a broadsheet) which is similar to LIFE magazine in the us (Camerapedia, 2007). The New York Times is a quite sophisticated magazine aimed at concerned Americans, like a broadsheet. Although these papers give contrasting views, they are quite similar publications. Perhaps the conflict was viewed differently, or the editors had their own perspectives on the conflict which comes through here. A better example is probably this following image of the cover and article from GEO magazine.

figure 5 Meiselas, pg

 Using the same image from the Mainichi graphic cover, the main controversy (at least from Meiselas’ point of view) with this publication is the caption for the image inside, of rebels stood against a wall. Meiselas states;

 “Geo actually captioned it. ‘Here behind a barricade in Massaya six rebels who started by spitting contempt at photographers change their mines and strike this dramatic pose, for geo.’ I was not on assignment for geo when I took this picture. It’s a complete construction.”

Interview from draft text for mediations exhibition (Meiselas,S 2008)

 Not only has the image been taken slightly out of context of her personal work and presentation, which is the Nicaragura book, but a caption has been writing which does not represent the people photographed. But it does change the meaning, and alter the viewers’ perception on the people. Geo is an international geography magazine similar to national geographic, both concentrating on geography around the world. It is perhaps a bit more sensationalized than a newspaper, and is perhaps the reason the writer of the article elaborated a story around an image.

I did stumble upon this critique of Meiselas’ Nicaragua work, which made me consider not only her work but the documentary genre as a whole. “The best known of these critiques, by writer/artist Martha Rosler, placed Nicaragua (with disdain) in the tradition of concerned photography: "The liberal documentary, in which members of the ascendant classes are implored to have pity on and to rescue members of the oppressed, now belongs to the past.” (Roth,P 2008)

After reading this and a few parts of an essay (Rosler,M 1981), Rosler is very critical of “documentary photographers” in this time period, critiquing their work as not actually being activist or beneficial, more like exploitation of a foreign subject/culture which praises the photographer rather than raises awareness for an issue.

I’m not sure I agree with Rosler. I shall have to read some more, but I feel that her views may be based on the large amount of praise given to photographers (often not intentional on part of the photographer) by publications after/whilst a piece of work is made. (Rosler, M, 1981) I shall have to investigate Martha Rosler and her views further.

 The Nicaragua work is quite significant. As I said earlier, Meiselas has created a very large and dynamic piece of documentary work which spans 25 years. Perhaps she envisioned it lasting this long, or perhaps she felt a desire to go back and revisit the area and the people as her work started to take a place in history and become part of the Nicaraguan national identity. The result also critiques the documentary genre, whilst staying relevant to the people of Nicaragua.

References

• Meiselas,S 1976 Carnival Strippers. Farrar, strauss and Giroux new York (Reissue in 2003, steidl, Gottingen)

• Meiselas,s (2004) Reframing History - Three Muchachos Mural (video) available at http://vimeo.com/50164714 (first accessed January 2013)
• Roth,P(2008)The Uneasy Documentary Vision of Susan Meiselas, the nation, available at http://www.thenation.com/article/uneasy-documentary-vision-susan-meiselas (first accessed January 2013)
• Meiselas, s(2008) In history - Draft text for mediations exhibiton. International center of photography, New York.
• Roth,P(2008)The Uneasy Documentary Vision of Susan Meiselas, the nation, available at http://www.thenation.com/article/uneasy-documentary-vision-susan-meiselas (first accessed January 2013)
• Camerapedia,2007,Sunday Mainichi available at http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Sunday_Mainichi (First accessed February 2013)
• Rosler,m 1982 In, around, and Afterthoughts (on documentary photography) available at http://education.victoriavesna.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/Rosler-In_around.pdf  (first accessed February 2013)

Photographs

• Figure one Meiselas, s USA. Presque Isle, Maine. 1973. First dance (Photograph)
• Figure two Meiselas,s 1979NICARAGUA. Esteli. 1979. Sandinistas at the walls of the Esteli National Guard headquarters (Photography)
• Figure Three Meiselas, s (2004) NICARAGUA. July, 2004 (photograph) available at http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=SearchDetailPopupPage&VBID=2K1HZOVW1IUO2&PN=1&IID=2TYRYD9JK8T6 (first accessed January 2013)
• Figure four Meiselas,s (2008) In history (pg 140 – 141) international center of photography, new York
• Figure Five Meiselas,s (2008) In history (pg) international center of photography, new york

Walker Evans and Documentary photography

 Walker Evans is a prominent figure in early documentary photography. He produced worked for the farm security administration during the great depression (1930’s) in America. Despite the FSA having an agenda (Oberlin, 2001), he often stuck to his own agenda of photographing every day American life. In his own writing, he aimed for photographs which acted as “pure record not propaganda” (Library of Congress, 1988)

 His work appeared in many magazines and books, and his images are often remembered as being almost iconic of the great depression (Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000).  Despite being a labelled an early documentary photographer, he didn’t agree with having his work labelled as documentary photographs.

Street Scene, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1936. Walker Evans

 In conversation with Leslie Katz in 1971, Walker Evans was asked whether “photographs can be documentary as well as works of art.” He replied;

 “Documentary? That’s a very sophisticated and misleading word. And not really clear. You have to have a sophisticated ear to receive that word. The term should be documentary style. An example of a literal document would be a police photograph of a murder scene. You see, a document has use, whereas art is really useless. Therefore art is never a document, though it certainly can adopt that style.” – Walker Evans, 1971

(American Suburb X, 2011)

 This is a quote that has stuck with me heavily since I first read it. Whereas previously I used to say I enjoyed documentary photography (knowing that it was a broad term), I didn’t know how to formally distinguish photographs in that genre from one another. A Lewis Hine photograph of a child worker was regarded as a piece of documentary photography as much as a stylised Alec Soth portrait, but they actually have vast differences and sit in different places in documentary photography (if that label is still valid at all for the work concerned). A photograph is always a document of something, so I must avoid using it now. Perhaps over the course of this blog, I shall discover that I shouldn’t use it at all, or that documentary photography is actually something very specific, and not what I originally though it signified.

References

1.       Oberlin, Gorman,J (2001) The History of the Farm Security Administration. Available at: http://www.oberlin.edu/library/papers/honorshistory/2001-Gorman/FSA/FSAhistory/fsahist1.html (Accessed January 2013).

2.     Library of Congress (1988), Documenting America: Walker Evans, New York City Block. Available at: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsahtml/fachap04.html (accessed February 2013).

3.       Metropolitan Museum Of Art (2000), Walker Evans (1903-1975). Available at: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/evan/hd_evan.htm (accessed February 2013).

4.       American Suburb X (2011) An Interview with Walker Evans (1971).Available at: http://www.americansuburbx.com/2011/10/interview-an-interview-with-walker-evans-pt-1-1971.html (accessed January 2013).

Pictures

• Walker Evans, (1936), Street Scene, Vicksburg, Mississippi [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1999.237.1 [Accessed 02 April 13].