431 So Nachtwey has won another award, the TED prize: <blockquote>‘First up was photojournalist James Nachtwey, who displayed a riveting series of photographs of human misery. He described documentary photography as “a kind of intervention” in the face of poor political judgment and political inaction -- as a way to give voice to ordinary people around the world. (Example: “A photo that showed the true face of war would almost by definition be an antiwar photograph,” Nachtwey said.) The nature of Nachtwey’s job made his wish a bit cryptic: “There’s a vital story that needs to be told, and I wish for TED to help me gain access to it, and then help me come up with innovative and exciting ways to use news photography in the digital era.”‘ - http://tedblog.typepad.com/tedblog/2007/03/ted2007_day_two.html </blockquote> <h3>Documentary photography as a kind of 'intervention'?</h3> Why is it that people are still fooled by the value of portraying human misery, as if that’s simply enough to make a positive change to the lives of the photographed subjects or victims of similar fates? Nachtwey’s images are doubtlessly beautiful. But I doubt that they provide much help to understanding the complexities of war, conflict, famine and disease in the way that they are purported to by TED, or himself for that matter. What is this “kind of intervention” that somehow automatically “gives voice” to ordinary people? These people aren’t “voicing” their problems and needs by being the passive subjects of cold, emotionally detached images. The images speak less <i>for</i> these people than <i>about</i> them. And arguably less about them than Nachtwey. From the TED website: “when certain stories he wanted to cover, Romanian orphanages and Somalian famine, garnered no interest from magazines he self-financed trips that resulted in the issues being taken up more widely by the media”. Great, he paid for this trips himself, and more of the public got to feast their eyes on some starving or mentally handicapped kids over Sunday breakfast, but being ‘taken up more widely by the media’ does not in itself constitute an innovation or an ‘intervention’. It is inspiring photography, but let’s be brutally honest about its effectiveness as making a difference. It’s unbelievable that people can be so mesmerised by the fallacy of empowerment that photography purportedly brings to those it more often victimises. Where is the evidence for the beneficial impact of photo-documentary in general and Nachtwey’s images in particular? If it is so obvious that photography has the power to intervene or bestow upon a voice upon the dispossessed, then there must be some evidence, surely. Are these images contributing to a debate about how the problems of the disadvantaged are best addressed by those that can make decisions and take action in their favour? Are they connected with any programs advocating for these people’s needs? Are they helping these people to help themselves, articulate themselves in a relevant way to ensure their active participation in remedying their lives? There are myriads of NGOs, both international and domestic, as well as government organisations, research centres, community organisations, universities, multilateral organisations, development banks, even commercial organisations, that are trying to combat the problems so boldly presented in photo-documentary. There is a machinery, often struggling and often weak, in all of the ravaged places in our world that is attempting to actually tackle poverty, injustice and conflict. But it is seemingly unenaged with by photography. Yet this is where potent imagery can make a difference. I am afraid the beauty of Nachtwey’s images stuns our critical faculties, especially important since they are purported to make a change. It’s a different issue with sports photography or blatant art photography that makes no such pretensions. Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t see many photographers, including Nachtwey, racking their brains as to how they can genuinely help their subjects, or being kept awake at night as to how their images can make a genuine impact beyond being published in big name magazines. From the TED website again, where Nachtwey expresses how the TED prize can fulfil his ‘wish’: “I'm working on a story that the world needs to know about. I wish for you to help me break it in a way that provides spectacular proof of the power of news photography in the digital age.” It seems to me that the real subject of his endeavours is the ‘power of news photography’ rather than aiding people. Which is fine, but not if you are purporting to help solve problems through the mere act of publishing albeit wonderful photos in the big magazines. Why isn’t Nachtwey photographing the occasional and valuable success stories within conflict and hardship, to give positive examples in how people can better their lives for others to learn from? Or take an issue, like Bleasdale, and get deep into it, and join forces with those that are mobilising against it? Nachtwey: “a photo that showed the true face of war would almost by definition be an antiwar photograph.” This is the equivalent of saying that a portrayal of some unwanted reality is by its nature ‘anti’ whatever that unwanted reality is. That to draw attention to something horrible is somehow necessarily combating that horror. This is incredibly naïve, and bordering on the dangerous. It sounds morally admirable to seek 'the' truth, but truth itself is a battleground: what is ‘true’ in war has to be fought for against competing forces. What war is Nachtwey, or for that matter photojournalists in general, fighting for? The Platonic ideals of Truth, Justice, and Beauty? The truth, contra the idiocy of cultural relativists, is real, but it isn’t just ‘out there’, devoid of a context or vested interests. It exists in a forcefield of shifting powers. The problem with Nachtwey is that he believes he is making a difference to a cause (‘war’, ‘suffering’ etc) so far removed from any context that it is almost meaningless. ‘Anti-war’ is such a ridiculous adjective; it assumes total objectivity. Yet this reflects the detachment in the images – a pretence of transcendence. It is precisely at the point of being aware of the reality of a given situation that action needs to be taken. For any socially conscious photographer that wants their work to make a difference, their work ought to be connected into machinery that somehow connects with the powers that affect people’s lives. Publishing in the western media and holding exhibitions does raise awareness of issues to a very limited extent, but does not help people in the most effective way possible. <a href="http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/03/bill_clinton_ou.html">&#8220;I am a witness and I want my testimony to be honest and uncensored. I also want it to be powerful and eloquent and do justice to the people I'm photographing.&#8221;</a> Beautiful images, yes, But doing ‘justice’ to the disadvantaged? <a href="http://www.jamesnachtwey.com">&#8220;The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated.&#8221;</a> No one with a humanitarian heart wants to see conflict and suffering. But the moral imperative to never repeat resounds with fantastical naivety. Conflict is something that needs to be managed, not willed away with the help of photos unconnected to the forces that affect people's lives. Raising awareness is a crucial part of making a change but it is not the only part, and I think we ought to be humble about what photography can achieve before we can begin to explore how images are best utilised in favour of the disadvantaged. 54 2007-03-09T13:59:12Z 0 2008-03-12T12:55:37Z false 12122 false 7580 2007-03-14T15:34:55Z Beijing true false the_fallacy_of_empowerment 1 2008-03-12T12:55:37Z 6874