This was a great book which I wish I had read earlier on in my research. Even from the first chapter, I found many paragraphs useful to my study which summarised key ideas about documentary photography.
“It is important to
define documentary for the purposes of this book. The definition of documentary
photography in the twenty first century is complex, multilayered, and nuanced.
It is both process and aesthetic and applies to a broad range of imagery, from
traditional, straight reportage-type images to the manipulated faux documentary
images that appear on gallery walls.” (pg2)
Documentary has an ever changing definition throughout its history.
“To some degree, all
photography is documentary because all photographs document something. Each
photograph is evidence of something that appeared in front of the camera.” (pg2)
Bogre then goes on to quote Walker Evans as I already have,
about documentary having uses. Every image is a document of something.
 |
| Dust Storm, Cimarron County, OK, 1936. Arthur Rothstein |
“Edward Steichen, when
reviewing some photographs from the farm security administration’s (FSA)
photography unit, wrote that the photographers produced a series of “...the
most remarkable human documents that were ever rendered in pictures” because
they were so direct that “they made many a citizen wince” leaving the viewer
with a “feeling of a living experience” not soon forgotten.” (pg2)
The photographs Steichen was referring to had the power to
elicit emotion from viewers. This leads on to the adoption of emotionally
charged images to being popular, and photojournalism being quite popular as it
gives viewers some emotional response. Although it may not be truly
representative of the situation or scene.
“The quest for a
definition of documentary continued. In 1938, the word made its way into the
lexicon of photographic history when Beaumont Newhall identified documentary as
a means, not an end – an approach to a photograph, not the photograph itself”
(pg2)
Documentary photography is about the mean, then approach,
the subject, the context. The photograph doesn’t have to have something exotic
or dramatic, they just have to be relevant and accurate and displayed in the
correct context. The image itself is almost irrelevant.
“Even with this
expansive definition, traditional photography... has been under attack for more
than a decade by postmodern photographic critics and theorists, most notably
Martha Rosler and Allan Sekula. The general assertions that photographs are not
simple records, that they are not evidence, and that they can’t be objective
leads critics to challenge the very nature of documentary work.” (Pg3)
Bogre recognizes that there are many valid critics of the documentary
genre.
“If, as critics claim,
all photographs are suspect, contextual, complex layers of symbols and meanings
laden with the photographers hidden agenda, then how can documentary be
truthful and representational?” (pg3)
Similar to Tagg’s idea, that there are so many factors and
varieties of bias that can be brought to creating and reading images, that a
photograph can possibly never be true. There will always be some bias, even if
it is ever so slight, and subconscious to the photographer/reader.
“Documentary
photographers are still faithful to the notion of a truth, although maybe not
the truth, and still pledge an allegiance to the idea that photographs can and
should be rooted in the moment, not directed, not staged, and not manipulated.”
(pg3)
“Documentary
photography doesn’t ever “change” anything; rather it simply transfers
information about a “group of powerless people” (the subjects; otherwise, they
wouldn’t be photographed) to a much more powerful group (the elite gallery
goers or viewers). “The expose, the compassion and outrages, of documentary
fuelled by the dedication to reform has shaded over into combinations of
exoticism, tourism, voyeurism, psychologism, and metaphysics, trophy hunting –
and careerism.” (pg3)
Bogre summarises some of Roslers critical essays here.
Rosler makes good points, but perhaps she is being a bit too critical. It seems
like Rosler assumes that photographers make images of these downtrodden people
because it boosts their own profile. She does make a good point that the
photographers don’t seem to care about the people, and aren’t fighting for some
great social change (a criticism Rosler had of Meiselas (Roth,
P.2008)) but this isn’t always the case. (Meiselas then proved her wrong
by making work that came through her strong bonds and compassion to
Nicaraguans). This is a good summary,
and the notion of the transfer encapsulates the situation well.
“Only those born into
or those from a culture or community can truly understand that culture or
community, or so it goes; hence, only the insider has the right to photograph
inside that culture. This specious argument ignores the reality that insider
truth is not necessarily more accurate than outsider truth. Misrepresentation,
intrusion, and exploitation are as likely to occur when an “insider photographs
as when an “outsider” does.” (pg4)
The in/outsider argument is actually irrelevant, because
there are the same pros/cons. The same mistakes can happen in reliability and
accuracy of work.
Here is an example I have created:
- I go to Syria, and photograph the conflict that is currently occurring. I know about rebels and government from news, and find more stories by hanging out with one of the factions.
- Someone living under the government, who has lived their all their life, photographs the conflict. They are fighting what they perceive to be an evil government, and that government wants to kill them.
Although the Syrian can create images that are reasonably
accurate and suitable because they are directly in contact with the situation,
there is bias as they are on a side. I may not be on a side, and I can view the
situation from the outside and appreciate more factors on the conflict, rather
than having one vision (at least to start with). In reality, I do have a
personal agenda towards the conflict. But if I was to document it accurately, I
would have to ignore it.
“They function as a
social lens and can be both a “mirror” and a “window”. A documentary photograph
makes the random, accidently, and fragmentary details of everyday existence
meaningful while preserving the actual details of the scene. It simultaneously
hosts an internal dialogue (content, style, the transformation of reality not a
two-dimensional representation) and an external dialogue that changes as the
time changes. Today for example, we look at photographs differently than a
nineteenth century viewer would.” Pg5
Documentary images can be a window into another culture, but
can also be a reflection on ourselves as viewers, and photographers. It makes
us consider our own position, our connection to what is being displayed. Or the
images may be of our own culture, making it both window and mirror.
In a later chapter, named modern history, Bogre talks about
the history of photojournalism and documentary work in modern times.
“Photography retained
its activist status throughout the late 1930s and 1940s because the photograph
had no competition. In world war 2, news organizations and publications geared
up to cover the war, providing support and precious print space for the newer
generation of photographers. For example, life magazine sent photographers to
the frontlines and even ran a photo school to train army photographers.” Pg46
“Activist photography
peaked again in the 1960’s and 1970s, the heyday of life and look magazines.
Photographers imaged the great social movements, upheavals and issues (for
example, civil rights, the Vietnam war, and drug addiction) in America, and
then travelled to photograph the injustices and social inequities around the
world, just as their Victorian counterparts did in the 1800’s.” Pg46
 |
| Iwo Jima, 1945 - W. Eugene Smith—Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images |
War is a great supplier of drama and photographers and thus
media outlets could consume it. This could be a reason that people like Sekula
and Rosler start to become critical, as they are surrounded by people who long
to find conflicts and situations, so when a small situation crops up,
photographers flood to an area, photograph, consume all the imagery the area
has and head home looking for admiration and decoration. This is slightly
touched on in my Meiselas post, as she stays in Nicaragua for quite a while
after the worlds press have left.
“Photography’s power
wanted somewhat in the 1950s and 1960s as television journalism supplemented
the still photograph. Television news was more immediate; it’s moving image and
sound intrigued viewers.” Pg46
The role of moving
image in documentary/journalism is important. It can be more immersive, but I
believe photography to have the power to dramatise stories more. If
photographed at the right time, the decisive moment, the most banal scene can
be elevated to one of much drama.
“Advocacy photography
almost disappeared in the Reagan era as the limitations of print media forced
magazines to close, television viewing increased, and the greed is good culture
emerged. Americans did not want visual reminders of social inequities.” Pg46
The consumerist cultures
of capitalism lead to a decline in activist photography. People became more
self interested, and unconcerned with the injustices around the world.
References
- Bogre, M (2012). Photography as Activism. Oxford: Elsevier. .
- Roth,P(2008The Uneasy Documentary Vision of Susan Meiselas, the nation, available at http://www.thenation.com/article/uneasy-documentary-vision-susan-meiselas last accessed 1st april 2013
Pictures
Arthur Rothstein, (1936), Dust Storm, Cimarron County, OK, 1936 [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.weru.ksu.edu/new_weru/multimedia/dustbowl/big/cimarron_ok.jpg [Accessed 02 April 13]
W. Eugene Smith—Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images, (1945), Iwo Jima [ONLINE]. Available at: http://timelifeblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/ugc11388312.jpg?w=1024 [Accessed 02 April 13].
No comments:
Post a Comment