The Fallacy of Empowerment

Wow. What a pithy diatribe. Amongst all the gems of cynicism, this one takes the cake for utter stupidity:

"That to draw attention to something horrible is somehow necessarily combating that horror. This is incredibly naïve, and bordering on the dangerous."

I’m not interested in defending Nachtwey, but geez… you have to be wilfully ignorant to not be aware of the many issues and conflicts that photographers have shown to the world and thus contributed to their being addressed…

Dave, admittedly, it’s cynical, but the hit-and-run jibe of stupidity is entirely lacking – my point was that ‘drawing attention’ to an issue, especially in the mainstream media, is not ipso facto equivalent to addressing it. It’s not stupid to point this out, and if you think this is wrong, then you’re welcome to provide substantial comments. But I think you buy into the fallacy just like many others: sure, photographers have helped ‘raise awareness’ of many issues and conflicts, but, in all seriousness, the effects of photography upon the human condition are indirect and difficult to measure in most cases and cannot be assumed to be galvanising or emancipatory. You are simply begging the question that all documentary photographers that purport to make a difference ought to ask themselves.

“Where is the evidence for the beneficial impact of photo-documentary in general ”- back in the sixties at the height of the vietnam war Life Magazine ran some photos by Larry Burrows. I can remember the exact place and time I first viewed them and the profound( and lasting) impact they had on me. Maybe I could say that I was a little less naive about war and some violent, outdated tendincies that man has held on to for quite too long. Anyway -to cut to the chase – I carried this “reaction” with me when I sought my conscientious discharge -while being in the military.So, my experience suggests some empirical evidance concerning your above question/statement.

A “hit-and-run jibe” is about all that article deserves. I see no solution offered up by the author to save the world, only a jab at Nachtwey in the search for self righteousness.

People used to look at LIFE as a definitive statement about the US and the world…..its importance
was a combination of 60 minutes and the nightly news, but on a weekly basis. LIFE found
trends in society at that time, and told us something about ourselves that resonated in a meaningful way.
Magazine photographers were an important part of that process.

With all due respect to the good people who
work a magazines in 2007, the role of the magazine in society has completely changed, and their influence
has changed as well. Partly this is because the magazines, in my opinion, have become predictable and
formulaic, and unwilling or incapable of doing new things.

Nactchwey is a great news photography, and
the best known photojournalist of this decade, but his influence is in proportion to that of the magazines,
and that influence is relatively small, partly because important images (Qana is an example) are hitting the front pages of newspapers taken by very talented newspaper photographers, and they have completely undercut the importance of magazines like
Time and Newsweek that were known in the 80s for coming up with the “big” pictures at the end of each week, by
the “better” photographers, as opposed to the wires, etc.

As far as vii goes, some of those photographers really need the money from the book sales, I wouldn’t confuse celebrity status with big financial success.

Tommy, if someone of Nachtwhey’s stature is going to make public statements like photography is an ‘intervention’ giving people ‘voices’, then this is rightly subject to scrutiny. Criticism is a sign of a healthy community/society, and it is shame that you interpret this as self-righteousness. I have said nothing of myself in this piece. My tone is admittedly sardonic, but the interest is real. Yet you expect me to provide you with a “solution to the world’s problems”. LOL. If you read the piece properly you might see that I am advocating greater links between documentary photography and organisations that are working to better people’s lives – putting images to a more targeted, active use. Rather than aimless publishing to a general audience. This might be elaborated upon by a dialogue of those working in the development sector and the media. It is not a discussion that has yet taken place in the public arena.

Thanks for your comments Wayne, Andy. Wayne, you hit a nerve. If VII is so concerned about the people that appear as victims in its images, why doesn’t it set up a foundation and contribute to a cause? Or ally with a reputable NGO and divert resources and proceeds to make a difference? I suspect because it is suffering and shock value that it is interested in, since this makes money in an increasingly competitive market. Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t think VII operates according to an ethos of humanitarianism, supporting peoples or causes. If anyone knows of any charitable work it has done then interested to hear. Wayne, I think your example is a good one of how photography can make a difference – perhaps small but nevertheless significant. I just wish there was more honesty in this business. And that more people felt free to express their mind without fear of what photo editors might say or do as a result.

I don’t think the problem is vii or Nachtwey.

‘the public wants works that exalts its illusions’ – flaubert

Do photographer’s that attain a certain amount of reconition need to defend their “stature” be giving their audience in indepth account on how, where and why the spend their income? Do they become truly humanitarian upon financial disclosure? Must they as individuals or as an agency brag about the money they have possibly given to what we deem just causes? Are you certain that they as individuals or as a goup have not already done so?? Maybe they prefer some privacy in these matters.

Do your research before you start attacking people. The VII photographers aren’t interested simply in suffering and shock value, and they put their names, photos, and reputations behind all kinds of causes—some of which you may not hear about shouted from the rooftops. And I find it really ironic that it seems like because they’re successful and known outside of the photojournalist community, they’re criticised within it for the fact that they actually earn a decent living from it.
Your vitriol comes across as simply as bitterness at James Nachtwey’s success. Chip, I agree with your posting 100% and I suspect the reason there’s not more discussion on this thread is that most members aren’t interested in discussing this kind of attack on a fellow photographer.
Lightstalkers is supposed to be a community, and a supportive one at that.

Damon,

I believe there’s a gap in your argument. Nachtwey never claims to directly “make a positive change.” I read his comments as a claim to indirectly help his subjects. I don’t think any documentary photographer believes their work will directly improve a subject’s life, but that it will bring attention to their plight. NGOs, for the most part, are funded by charitable contributions or grants. How do those contributors come to donate $$? I don’t think they just woke up some morning and decided to do so, they learned about an issue from the media (which includes Nachtwey’s work).

One personal example I have: I used to work at a small daily newspaper, and one day had an assignment to do a story on this family who lost their house, all their possesions, and the family pet in a fire the night before. I made a nice picture of the woman sobbing in her burnt-out home. A few weeks later, I run into her husband at the gas station and he runs up and gives me a big hug. He said that his family had received clothes, housing, and other assistance – all from private individuals who all commented that the photo had moved them to help. He couldn’t stop thanking me… Sure, I did not give the subject assistance, but my photo sparked others to do so.

Bob also touches on the nature of being a witness. This is a very important thing to me as a photojournalist. We are recording history. Photographs make history seem real, even to those who can’t read. Our photographs will tell future generations how we lived. The good, the bad, and the ugly. So maybe Nachtwey’s photos won’t help the subjects, but maybe they’ll prevent our children from having to record and/or live through the same shit.

Here’s a quote from Jean-Francois Leroy (http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0409/stoddart.html):
“So, we could ask ourselves what the whole point of all this actually is. Cynics will always question the need for such pictures, and it is, of course, naive to say that photojournalism can change the world. However, it cannot be denied that there are pictures or photo essays that have profoundly influenced our perception of “what really happened” at certain world events. Who could dare to claim that Nick Ut’s picture of the naked girl, running down a road in Vietnam, was not a decisive factor in revealing that that particular war, like all the others, was a dirty one? Who would dare say that this picture had no influence on the shift in public opinion towards the war in Vietnam?”

Read here how Tom Stoddart’s famous photo from southern Sudan in the late 90s raised over 500,000 GBP (40,000 in the first day!):
http://www.reportage.org/PrintEdition2/Sudan/PagesSudan/04Sudantextsweeney.html#Anchor-The-49575

Finally, if you don’t believe documentary photography helps the subjects, why do you do it?

Damon:

I think I know where you’re coming from with this. It seems that you are saying, when trying to make a positive change to difficult issues, the most effective way to do this is by taking on the issue personally, over the long-term, and working with a team dedicated to the same cause. I think you are also suggesting that inspiring people a world away to throw money at the issue is not necessarily “helping”…I agree with both of these statements…and the gripe about Nachtwey and VII being held as ideals for inspiring change…instead of photographers like (LS’r) Marcus Bleasdale, who spend years grinding it out over a single issue…that sounds fair.

Development workers understand that positive, long-lasting change is slow and it comes from within affected communities, not from the outside. The honest development agencies understand that…though they need money…they know that just throwing money at an issue has the potential to cause more trouble than it solves.

In northern Ghana where I was a Peace Corps Volunteer, there was a big, abandoned rice mill in my town…people still grew rice, mostly for themselves, but the mill was no longer cost effective. The market was flooded with cheap, food-aid rice from the US and Europe…such a strong, misdirected need by the good-hearted people in the West to help the starving of Africa, they created a market where subsistence farmers couldn’t make a profit on their best harvest.

Team up, dig in, grind it out and focus…Development Agencies are much more effective in making positive change than Photo Agencies.

…at least that’s the message I got.

sorry that i deleted my post (accidentally while editing it :(((( .......will re-post when i get home tonight…..
bob

Well, in terms of public interest support, Damon, you should be aware that VII was one of the first entities to step up and support Lightstalkers, a non-profit community for sure. And a majority of the members of VII, and nearly all of the staff, are members of Lightstalkers, have been for some time, and actually post when something interests them. I can go on a bit on this point but I know of some of the positive social activities that they have individually and collectively undertaken, and it is significant in terms of quantity and substance.

But bear in mind another important fact—journalists should not be advocates on the subjects they cover. If they become advocates they are no longer reporters. The VII group consists of serious photojournalists, and they know the difference between photojournalism and photography (and advocacy). So you won’t find them leading the march to the barricades, only following it to convey a vision of it.

That what we imagine our responsibility, that what we carve out of this life by the way we nimble-foot our ways, that what we imagine our hope is for our work is very very different from what it will accomplish. In other words, there is a profound difference between what we imagine our responsibility to be, what we deem our navigation, what we require of ourselves, and that which others imagine our enacting to be. Rightly so, Nachtwey speaks simply: that his mandate is to speak, is to witness, is to intervene: that he, as a photographers, as a human being, speaks of what he has seen; that his intervention is comprised of his witnessing; that intervention is really about INTERVENING IN THE GAPS OF DISTILLED AND SPREADING SILENCE; that his photography and his words and his actions (including the work he does with NGO’s, y’all who don’t know this already) act: that the catalyst for intervention does not mean prevention or transfiguration or ending, but that intervention means just that: he, and we, have an opportunity to speak of things that leave the world bereft and broken, and yes, fuck yes, this IS an intervention: an act of speaking is an intervention in the sea of silence and unknowing….this does not mean his photographs prevent slaughter or stem the suffering or make a difference, but in fact are one kernel of action that gardens itself and plants with other kernels (reporters, aide workers, ngo’s, politicians, etc) in the fecund, yes, fecund community of action and witnessing…..

how could you Damon, not have understood this….

How simple and nible-appearing it is to judge someone, their work and worth and wobbling life by the apparent steps of which they leave their mark upon this disappearing life…....That this post suggests an appearance of a calculated and well-thought out argument against the Nachtwey’s work and his life (I think it is inseparable to parse his work as a photographer from the person he is as a human) as an example of deluded arrogance and pontification (o, the great Nachtwey) seems to be grandiosely arrogant or worse, just baleful. I honestly think Damon’s comments reflect more about a certain mind-set and ilk that often misconstrues words for the architecture that lay inside, misconstrues deed by the surface of things, misinterprets appearance (in this case the photos, the pronouncements, the awards) for the soilbed that lay beneath the channel of the truth of things. That Damon questions Nachtwey’s comments, or disagrees with their content or meaning or suggestion or orientation is one thing, that he goes on later at great length to impinge his credibility as a impassioned and dedicated person, for whom the photographs are simply a manifestation of his relationship to this waking world, is startling arrogant and more than that incredibly unfortunate. Debate the content of what was said, argue against the manifest lifethread and methodology, distain Natchtwey’s take on his responsibility as a photographer/documentarist, but to assail his commitment as a person is really quite an heroic accusation…..

Let me say that I don’t give a fuck about Jim’s awards or accolades or his fame or what others think of him. I will say that I value his work profoundly and that I respect his dedication and his commitment to NOT be world-weary, not to be a celebrity fuck, not to wear the mantle as his generation’s finest/most-reknown photojournalist as anything other than that it is: meaningless. That he has in the face of sorrow and suffering and the death of thousands in front of his eyes and the death of friends and the attacks from others, both publically and privately, that he has maintained is one unerring commitment to being a photorapher who speaks about those lives and moments that most, in both the priviledged west and the underpriviledged places he has documented, would have no awareness of if not for his commitment to take the small talent he has (small in the sense that all, all of our human talent is trivial in the face of what we are in the scale of things, thought his talent for seeing and rendering that in beautiful and ugly and sorrowful and brutally powerful ways is no small at all but quite humbling) has been harnessed to the more powerful obligation that he, again and again and again, has articulated as the fundamental purpose: to witness and to speak of things and of people and of suffering and of sorrow and of disappearance: there is only one story to tell in this life and that it is: that there are others, that we exist side-by-side and brutalize one another and forget one another and dip our skins into barrels of time and blood and horror and that this never seems rid, that those of us you can must, fucking all hell, must speak of that for there are those who CANNOT, or will not, speak, for we must speak of what we have seen and what we have thought and what we have encountered and no, fuck no, it is not enough, it is never enough and no those photographs are not the true depth of sorrow, spannered-broken bones, carved upon skin by fingers, bones stiff through flesh like tent poles, tears that are only salt, without liquid, but tracks of salt ‘cause the bodies of the starved have lost their underlying nutrition to bequeath satin water, that children are curled upon each other like dried-in-the sun fruit, stink and stone and stiff, christ, that he and others speak about this and speak and speak and speak with the hope that others will here, and that IS NACHTWEY’S REMARKABLE AND ESSENTIAL IMPORTANCE…..not that his images are truth, but that he gives voice to those who cannot, pretty or not, the pictures are about something else….

Above all, Nachtwey is and always has been, foremostly, a WITNESS, and witnessing is an act of intervention, above all else: that that act amounts to consequential change is in fact subject to the nature of this passing life and while most of the work done by Jim or anyone has no substantial (ontological?) effect in terms of change or prevention or transformation does not, not ever, mean that one’s work, and in this case Nachtwey’s, does bear a difference, an imprint, a judicious feeding for those suffering whose lives are document. None of us, honestly, believe that photography, intrinsically, will alter the baleful suffering that we continue to impose upon one another; however, it is not photography’s mandate or essence to change but something simpler, and often more essential: to speak, to bespeak as a means that others are in fact suffering and we cannot hear them. That war’s do not stop and famines do not end does not mean that those working hard to depict and help (and yes damon nachtwey works with others to aid and simply doesnt just run from place to place snapping pics for his shows and awards, his skin is trench-mud stained, and he has continued to speak and put assistance for groups actively working to make a difference: that you do not know this is not his problem, but it is a specious assumption on your part that vitiates the heart of your polemnic…)

. I found the post quite troubling and profoundly disorienting (intellectually and logically) and i’ll try to post a thoughtful and thoughtout comment later tonight, but let me simply assert that Damon is absurdly mistaken when he charges Nachtwey’s work (his life’s work, which begins in the act of photographing but has NOT BEEN LIMITED to picture snapping) with inaction….in fact, i know that he, aside from shooting, contributes time and effort to making a difference and joins with many many ngo’s and other organizations…what a pity that Damon doesn’t know, for example, of the work he’s done with the UN’s World Food Program (WFP) and dealing with Darfur, to use one well reported example….

Im afraid damon’s seriously confused the act of photorgaphing with the act of one man’s life: he’s inverted these pricinples. That differences can be made or not, that the act itself of photographing is a preventative measure (it is not), that photographers change and harness and bespeak the befallen world a delusion that Nachtwey has never, not once, embraced, but to the contrary he’s ridden his bones against a more fundamental issue: that because it is and has become the wobbly and fleshy carriage of his life, he has spend is days and nights (and fuck yes, many sleepless) carrying his small tool of contribution: that as a photographer and a talented one at that, he has again and again chosen to speak of what we have continued to do against one another…..that he is the most bestowed by awards and most well known/recognized is an irrelevancy to his conduct as a photographer or more substantially a human being….

if there is bombast in his statements (and which of us never flails about with bombast, for the act itself of photographing is, a priori, bombastic), then it is because he is driven by the fundamental principle of choice: it has become his life’s obligation to witness and to disseminate the suffering that the world has carved itself by: that he cannot change this, that even his work cannot convey the real face and real song of the story is true but this is true of each way we live: we cannot, not ever, detail what it means to be another, only ourselves, but in the recounting of ourselves and others we hope to dig as deep as possible the trench that may stem the soil-burn of our collective, human misunderstanding and errant destruction….he has not said that his work is preventative (whose is?) but instead something simpler: remedial in the sense of reminding….

that damon, writing “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 peopleтАЩs lives….” doesn’t even know the ngo’s that nactwey has worked with, is shameful and misguided….

i dont care about jim’s awards or $$ or fame only about this: does the carriage of his life suggest the same as his work, and Im stunned that this simple abacus hasnt been applied to the derisive post above…

...no photograph will ever, not ever, prevent horror, nor will any photograph ever change the ineluctable tide of our undoing, but plant a camera in the hands of someone, a child, a parent, the rich, the impoverished and stories begin to become undone….that Jim continues, no matter how rich the level of others attack him, that he has perservered against the against of “beautification” of sorrow, that he has perservered against the onslaught of his own unending fame, that he has perservered against the cyncism and the irony and the dubious self-importance of others…..slings and arrows, nothing more….

because Jim, like most of us, shoot because we believe that if not for the seeing, if not for the witnessing, if not for the telling, if not for the speaking, we’d be mute humunculi in the damp and ill-lit caves of primordial emptiness…..

that we as a community have still not understood that severely depresses me….funny, turn the table: if it were some lesser known photographer who’d remarked, i wonder if the post would have been so vitriolic…...

I’m willing to through away my cameras to state, gone like bursts of gold ash from a fire, that his nights are indeed sleepless and that his work and the work of others have done more to at least attempt to bridge the chasm of destruction and broken madness of those lives than most of the baitors (here and elsewhere) have done…....

forgive my sloppy writing this evening…i havent the patience for editing or thought: but thought it was much more important to speak, sloppy-hair prose and all…...

a burlesque abatoir, this company we keep…..

in the end, he and the rest of us will be vanquished and only then, our fingers and toes and nails curled up like yellow’d wall paper will be able to answer: what and for what have we done….

broken wide those short bursts of light, so quick, so globular, so tail-broken than once gone we barely remember that we failed to recognize what is REALLY was that we’d seen…...

voice, that is what natchtwey and the rest of us try try to accomplish, even in failure, that, in the end, is the accomplishment….

bereft, we do not give up, until the earth and sky and air chew upon us like frenzied flies…..

witness: what else do we have…..the creek of our voice, the broken tents of our lives,

i’m so wearied by cynicism…..so bloody wearied…..

bob
/.

in other words (forget the ridiculous bombast of my engorged comment), its really this:

tell a story as well and as cleanly and as honestly and as directly as possible:

speak of that which has entered you and though it may not and cannot be the story of those who have also seen tell it cleanly and well as well….

to me, in the end, nachtwey and all story-tellers are grappling with accomplishing this, only this, nothing more:

if at all, all we have is our stories and the truth that we’re in this mess together even when we deny that and gallop against one another like cartoon-spartan soldiers….

to speak, to speak of what you’ve seen, and to hope that you aid, if possible, as well, through speaking but also through the act of helping…...

photography can accomplish nothing, nothing but coupled with the arch’d-urge of our action, tandem, can accomplish: that we endeavor to help:

is this not what he spoke of?......

simply…
b

p.s.: can i be so arrogant (obnoxious ;)) ) as to recall Pinter’s Nobel Speech:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html

Damon,

Yeah I apologize for the stupid remark. I think your argument though is nauseatingly dramatic, self-indulgent and self-righteous, not to mention utterly disrespectful to the photographers who risk or have lost their lives doing this line of work. You want evidence that it does any good: I want evidence from you of victimization.

However, I do not blindly fall into the “fallacy” as you describe in the rest of your reply. I am a believer only after a lot of consideration. Off the top of my head, I remember the first president Bush telling the press that the US was intervening in Somalia “because of the pictures,” and then it was again because of pictures (marine being dragged through the streets) that the public demanded a withdrawal. Intervention in the ethiopian famine was due to photos. Vietnam was brought to a close largely because of photos. It is pretty much only due to photographic evidence that the holocaust deniers have no chance of prevailing. The list goes on and on. You just have to clear your head and look.

Whatever the criticisms possible (they exist…), Nachtwey’s work gets produced, seen and commented on, which is already a great deal. Being ‘taken up by the media’ is better than being ignored. I think far more critical faculties have been stunned by Paris Hilton and Britney Spears than by the ‘beauty’ of Nachtwey’s photography.
The opposition photographer (bad) / NGO (good) is a spurious one. Many NGOs have incoherent projects and dubious political agendas. Some appear to exist as much to furnish a therapeutic sense of purpose for their volunteers as to produce any lasting positive change in their areas of intervention.
‘Drawing attention’ to an issue which is then ‘taken up by the media’ can allow it to be ‘addressed’ by a greater number of people than the original nominal witness: the debate, potentially, can become wider and the possibilities for finding solutions, increased. The blame for the fact that there appears to be, globally, neither sufficient motivation nor a coherent agenda for achieving social justice cannot be placed at Natchwey’s (or any other photographer’s) door.

Folks, there is a nasty edge to some of the commentary, which you may write off as a reaction to the acid you perceive in Damon’s comments, but which I think comes as well from the fact that he has struck a nerve and that his comments are not entirely off the mark. It would be well to reflect on the general themes he raises and forget the ad hominem form of the original post.

I think that some of what Damon has to say ought to be your food for thought everytime you go out there and shoot, because the fact is this issue is murky, and each of us deals with it in a personal way that is probably never completely satisfactory to any of us. I know I have wrestled with it and the solution has always been somewhat ad hoc and fraught with compromises. These sometime are not easy to live with. I have some bad memories of such moments, and while I believe to this day I did the right thing, I am left with some gnawing uneasiness.

Moreover, there are plenty of examples right here on LS of shooters who have felt that simply shooting is not enough and have, each in his or her own way, crossed the line and rolled up their sleeves alongside the NGO workers or others who directly intervene in situations. But, as Neal points out, this can be a very tricky thing to accomplish and to do it well it usually requires that one lays down one’s cameras. At least that has been my personal experience. I found in my case that I am more effective as a shooter and storyteller, because that is my particular skill, and so I vigilantly keep those roles very distinct and work at what I do best. It may not be perfect, it may not achieve tangible or measurable results to assuage one’s conscience, but that doesnt mean that our discipline and our work are for naught. There is definitely great value in what we do, whether we do it with the idea of fomenting change or with the more subtle, perhaps problematic but no less valuable idea of bearing witness simply for sake of comprehending our humanity—testimony is not, or ought not to be, limited merely to the idea that we are here to correct undesirable behavior. Would you be so callow as to accuse Thucydides of fecklessness because his great history of the Pelopponnesian War was written from the viewpoint of a man who saw quite clearly that war, for all its reckless destruction and insanity, was not something you can eradicate, so in fact his history is something of a meditation on the tragic nature of human fallibility. And while that may not serve to prevent further brutality, it is certainly no less valuable a statement. sometimes simply understanding things is as important as changing them.

Which brings me to another point. I certainly would love to see things change for the sugar workers here, but I dont go out and shoot this material simply because I want the images to foment change. I have a larger historical interest in the material too, and there are elements of their culture that I would be very sorry to see disappear, elements which ironically stem in part from the adversity they suffer. Such is life.

” “The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated.” No one with a humanitarian heart wants to see conflict and suffering. But the moral imperative to never repeat resounds with fantastical naivety.” I have to agree with Damon here, frankly. “should not be forgotten” is a solid formula; but “must not be repeated” is hollow rhetoric. Nachtwey above all knows this, and I think the problem lies in the formulation rather than an understanding of history, humanity or our jobs. All I am saying is that Damon has a few points worth considering here, and we all ought to reflect on this issue with care and deliberation, as no doubt Nachtwey himself has—that he be Nachtwey, however, is no guarantee of the fact that his meditation is necessarily or entirely better or more solid than any other point of view. I myself am not entirely in agreement with his thinking.

PS: I also have to register some dissatisfaction with the whole rhetoric of empowerment that is so often paraded about when discussions of this type take place. Terms like “giving voice” and so on are so bankrupt it is unbelievable to me that thinking people bother to lend them credence.

I am sorry but I stopped reading at your first sentence Damon. In fact I have not read any of the other
replies either.

“Why is it that people are still fooled by the value of portraying human misery”

I don’t really give a rats arse whether someone wins an award or not. I figure if someone- by any means,
or any how- directs attention to people that don’t have the ability to defend themselves against the greater
powers then they are doing their job. If that job is as a photojournalist then its to take pictures and tell
stories, if its an aid worker then it is to build shelter, provide water and food.

Dunno if you do a lot of documentary work. Maybe if you did you might stop to listen to some people’s stories.

Perhaps then you would never be as grossly ignorant as to make the statement that I have just read.

Photojournalism is a responsibility. Natchwey understands this.

More power to him!

Can I contribute with a link to an Oxfam article.
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/generationwhy/yoursay/articles/yoursay176.htm

Jon: each person must see fit to the workings of how they register the effect or lack of their life upon the living. This is primarily and profoundly what i find troubling about Damon’s post and others whove attacked photographers. I don’t think that there is an honest and self-criticising photographer or writer who believes that through their work alone, isolated and cut off from the source of the lives and waking material of which they’re working, material change can occur or that their work without connection to others (be it workers, ngo’s, funds, or as you correctly point out, historical understanding.) Nor do i think Nachtwey or any other deeply thoughtful person beleives that their voice IS the voice of those people and moments they’ve been entrusted to immortalize through images or words. In fact, often photography and photographers get it exactly wrong and this becomes even more profoundly troubling ‘cause they believe theyve got it right or that the images or the words are the truth of the matter. This, if you suggest that this lay at the heart of Damon’s comment, is a critical and important notion that not enough photographers speak of, and i know i’ve been trying to write about this for more than 2 years here, but i don’t think at all that this is undercutting what nachtwey had and has to say. that he “gives a voice” is in fact the truth: the voice of what we cannot hear or cannot have seen or known. are those photos the voice of the people, of course not and no where has he ever suggested that (im going on not only what he’s quoted as saying at the teds but elsewhere in interviews and films where i’ve listened to his comments). I find it heroically arrogant to suggest that his words or actions are comprised of a “fantastical naivety”: that’s really stupid rhetoric. As i’ve tried (sloppily i know cause i wrote that long-ass response as a blister-sped spit out comment) to mention above and as others have so succinctly pointed out (‘nam, africa, shoah, central america, etc) that photos have a relationship, in tandem with other modes of action, to intervene. I feel his understanding of the word “intervention” is a superficial one: for nachtwey DOES work often in accordance with others (writers, ngo’s, aid workers etc, and that damon neither knows (knew) this or bother to pop out some research before lambasting him is another example of recklessness) as do a large number of photographers (at vii and elsewhere).....using much of the same argumentation, your own important work would come under attack: affluent, ivy-league educated white dude trying to spend time among the disenfranchised, how can he possible speak, distill, document through camera and words unless you were using the grant money to help contribute to the betterment of the lives of cane workers and all the dispossessed in the DR:...see, its absurd…that your work and orientation is different than Jim’s (you’ve soil planted yourself their like good strong grain in order to drink up and speak about the life there, and fuck if your own form of ventrioloquism isnt going to occur and the fact that your voice will join with their voicelessness IS PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT!) is not a working argument against nachtwey’s mode….that natchwey simply runs around shooting and then proclaims the importance and significance of his work cut off from any real-life remove or change or blood is really what damon is suggesting when you read carefully and i find that troubling deeply troubling….are this photographers who do this: fuck yea, and it depresses me and i think most often that’s the world of photography including pj’s,...but he’s dedicated his life to a different standard and anyone familiar with the length and breadth of his work, including his early work with prisoners understands that while he is a globe trotter he is not what that post suggests….and if my comment was nasty (i hope not) it is not because damon;s words have struck a nerve with me about the essence of photographers or photography, but something more fine tuned about his way of shooting/acting vs. nachtweys….though i commend him for his “long-term projects” (which by the way runs closer to my own point of view: spending your life photogrpahing what it is that is close to you, deeply and painstakeningly and hungrily) or the other photographers he cites, like David’s long-term work, i think it is absurd to foam an argument of my ethic vs your ethic, which in the end is what it has come down to….

again, some of his arguments might be legitimate if nacthwey didnt also harness his work to that of others to try and promulgate change, but he has and will continue. And if the Nachtwey’s rhetoric is high soaring and demigogic it is because he has chosen to speak of the suffering that he has continued to witness upon in the hope that at some point that will effect change….ngo’s and aid workers, by many, are slogged off as narrow-minded, self-important, shrill/shrewish ‘cause theyre screaming for attention to their plight and damn hell good for them, ‘cause most of the world doesnt give a fuck about anyone and i say if there is a person, anyone, famed or not, alone or collectivized, who runs the risk of making themselves look like a fool cause they believe in the effort to recognize others, i say more power to them….

the world is filled with too many photographers and not enough volunteers and aid workers, everywhere (not only in the undeveloped world but just as crucially in the developed world), but to condemn a person for who he has become which, at the heart, is to speak out with a camera is a simple-minded assault…

change comes, if at all as ghandi reminds, from the giving of one’s life, the conduct not the words and so, for me, it is his conduct that matters…..

the seemingly self-important tone of nachtwey’s words, for me, are borne of the anger and frustration and sadness that he has witnessed and hopes to remind others of…..

my hope is that an ngo worker here will step up to shut the rest of us up ;))))))))))))))))))......

cheers,
bob

Testimony, the act of bearing witness, its creation and reception is an incredibly complicated issue.

I have just understood what bothers me so much about Damon’s original post: it is sentimental and vague rather than rational and precise. I think it shows an indignant misunderstanding of what photography can and can not do, how work gets created and published, the distinction between professed and actual motivations and the necessity of distributing tasks according aptitude.

Neither does it address the matter of short and long-term impact. Remember Roman Vishniac? His photographs didn’t (as far as I know) save one person from the gas chamber but I don’t think anyone believes he would have been better employed doing something else…

Damn Jon, you are on point. A nerve was hit here.
I think too many people fool themselves as to why they are photojournalists, or documentary photographers or what-ever they want to call themselves.
A few years ago in Iraq, this place was flooded with photojournalists who rolled just like cartoon characters. They seemed more into the percieved identity of what a war photographer should look and act like than making good pictures, just like the hoards of shooters in 1980’s El Salvador or the most recent Haitian coup. That shit is a riot. Callous and silly. “Look at me, I’m a baddass war photographer.” But I think I am more annoyed by the “I don’t think thats funny” crowd. Those who purport to be out there to save the world one underrepresented downtroden subject at a time. It just reminds me of that priveledged western attitude of “I’m going to help you poor brown people now, because you’re just not quite good enough to handle it on your own.” Now, I’m sure there are true believers out there, and Nachtwey may be one of them (I personally think he is, and that’s cool – it’s not my trip, but I suspect he is very genuine). But I do get a little tired of the delicate veils of bullshit that often come along with “concerned photojournalism.” I personally think most of us do this for mostly selfish reasons. I know I do, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with it if you understand those reasons. And they need not be explained to anyone but yourself in my opinion. I used to be more idealistic and all that, but that mostly faded away after I saw too many people screwing themselves with the help of no-one else. Anyway, on to the anger I sense in some of these posts: People often become angry when caught lying. I’m thinking there are a lot of people in this game lying to themselves, and maybe they just don’t know it yet. I truly don’t mean to offend anyone here (I think), there are a few good points made against Damon’s arguments, but Damon makes some good points himself and I think we all need to consider them. Or not. If it werent for the holier than though world-changers or the badd-ass “combat photographers” things might just get too stale for my tastes. Now if you wanna hear some cynical shit, a decently traveled reporter buddy of mine said something that I think has a good ammount of truth to it: “News is just entertainment for smart people.”

i haven’t met james nachtwey…and perhaps that has no import to the discussion, but i had the privilege of spending an extended period of time with two of his colleagues at VII. they’re both impressive pros, genuine and compassionate people, and generous to a fault…and take the responsibility of their profession exteremly seriously. i have no doubts that nachtwey is of the same ilk. while i instinctively and respectfully disagree with Damon’s opinion, i am glad to read it. i’m also glad to read sensible, mature and reasonable opinions like that of Eros Hoagland…and that of Bob Black. this is what LS is all about.

“…for poetry makes nothing happen; it endures…”

Photography, no less than poetry, makes nothing happen. The powerful of this world will continue to do as they please, as they have always done, and the powerless will continue to suffer the consequences, as they have always done. Photography changes this not one bit. All photography can do is show that at this time and in this place, something happened. How do I know that? Because a photographer was there, they saw what happened, they photographed it. It this important? Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. Photographs of my brother’s wedding, beautiful as they are, are not important, except to remind us all of the hazards of marrying psychotic blonds; Margaret Bourke-White’s images of Buchenwald are important, because they testify to the absolut