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 Maybe I could say that I was a little less naive about war and some violent, outdated tendincies that man has held on to for quite too long.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 absolute depravity human beings are capable of and give the lie to those today who deny that those events ever occurred. Photographs give scandal in this way, not in the superficial modern sense of that word, but in its classical theological sense; they are stumbling blocks, obstacles in the way of those who benefit from forgetting the past entirely or from presenting a carefully edited version of that past to a public too young to remember that past for themselves. So, perhaps, in the long run, there is something important about someone saying, I was there, this is what I saw, here is the evidence of the things I saw there. It may not be much, but sometimes that’s all there is.

Chip asks “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?” and entirely misses the point. Anyone of Nachtwey’s stature will by virtue of their award-winning public profile be open to scrutiny. And should especially be when they make claims to give “a voice” to the disadvantaged “in the face of poor political judgment and political inaction”. Anyone who cares about the voice of these people ought to be able to think through the issue of the effectiveness of images towards empowering people. It’s not about financial disclosure – sure its great if photographers want to donate to organisations that are genuinely helping people articulate their needs in difficult and hostile environments. But that does not relate to the question as to whether photographing victims ipso facto bestows upon them a voice. When a beautiful body of images such as Nachtwey’s is accompanied by a claim that documentary photography acts as an ‘intervention’, it is only fair to be able to assess that claim critically, unless of course we would prefer to exist in a mindless state of admiration.

Amber slates me on a personal level for not having done my research before “attacking people”. Yet it is not a personal thing; I am interested in than the claim that documentary photography is a “kind of intervention”, whether or not it is Nachtwey saying this or anyone else, it doesn’t really matter. She says “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. There are too many to list here”. I’m not so interested in what VII is doing, but ‘putting names and photos behind causes’? Behind what ‘causes’ and ‘behind’ in what way? Too many to list? Well, I’ll start with one: Nachtwey helped create a 30 second World Food Program public service announcement for television, featuring 8 black and white images from Sudan. That’s a contribution, sure. But others? Interested to hear three more. Forgive my sarcastic tone – maybe this all misses the point. I suspect Nachtwey’s claim to empower people with a voice through photography doesn’t rely at all on a list of NGOs he has worked with. It is very likely based upon the notion that raising awareness in the mainstream media can effect positive change. But just ‘raising awareness’ – and largely to the wrong audiences to effect relevant and sustainable change – just doesn’t cut the mustard if we are interested in assessing the notion that one’s photos are speaking for people. In actual fact, if we care about people we should be helping them speak for themselves.

Am I bitter at James Nachtwey’s success? Hardly. In a sense I admire his determination and single-mindedness, and like many of his images. But I think the notion of a ‘witness’ belies the primacy of the beholder. I am more interested in Nachtwey’s success than jealous. I do not share his goals or modus operandi but I am interested in what he does and says, and how photography can make an impact. Personal attacks on me – jealously, bitterness etc – are really missing the point. As for LS being a community, it should encourage healthy debate, not attack ad hominem members who cut across the grain from time to time. Dave’s description of my argument as “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” is remarkable. I am interested in the honest examination of issues, not in taking the moral high ground. But I think the question as to whether photographing victims ipso facto bestows upon them a voice, and the larger issue of whether and how people can be empowered through photography, is extremely worthy of consideration. It’s not a given and far from disrespectful to anyone to examine this. I have nothing but respect for photographers who risk their lives to inform us about our world. I am not saying photography does not inform us of our world. Of course it does. Photography can be incredibly useful for decision makers to make informed choices that affect people’s lives. But it can also be used to misinform. I am more interested in the issue of empowerment, and not to examine this issue would be the greatest disrespect to the millions of disadvantaged in our world.

Max adopts a more conciliatory approach but says he believes there is a gap in my 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.” The mantra “the events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated” includes a clear value statement toward making a positive change. And the claim to give a ‘voice’ to the disadvantaged is tantamount to claiming to make a positive change. This is quoted from the TED website. In fact, the award is given to those “who have shown that they can, in some way, positively impact life on this planet”. I grant that Max’s point is that photographers don’t claim to directly make a positive impact. Most don’t. Most photographers do not set out to give people a voice, or believe they are helping people articulate their problems and needs. But the notion that documentary photography has a galvanising effect for positive change is one that is often bandied around without much thought, and deserves examination. Once we start saying we are photographing to ‘intervene’ or ‘give voice’ to the disadvantaged we have a responsibility to those to which our photographs are purported to help. It is not clear to me that we can assume that political judgements and actions are – even indirectly – influenced by photo documentary.

Dave offers us examples of instances where photography has, allegedly, been the cause of major political and military decisions: “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.” He also mentions Ethiopia and Vietnam. Yet it is far more complex than this. Just because a president says so, should we believe this must be true? Public opinion affects what governments do, and yes, photography (but more so video) has some influence on public opinion. But its influence on public opinion is not easy to measure and it shouldn’t be assumed that photography – or public opinion for that matter – is the straight-forward cause of government action. Strategic geopolitical, electoral, and economic factors make the decisions. The production and use of images is also a product of politics, as much as it influences politics. People and organisations using images has a far greater impact than being the passive subjects of images.

I think Mark’s comment in this thread is spot on in making an effort to understand the issues:

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

Indeed. But some would not wish to hold photographers or photo agencies to their words at making positive change, and refuse to accept the inherent subjectivity in photo documentary and journalism more generally. Neal points to what he considers an ‘important fact’ that “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.” Then why the talk of photo documentary as an ‘intervention’ and of giving people voices? The pretence to objectivity whilst claiming to intervene and give people voices is confused, contradictory, and fundamentally misleading. If a photographer wants to make a positive change, the best way is to be an advocate. And this involves an appreciation of truth in the context of a value system, and making deliberate choices on what issues are important and how to address them.

I appreciate Jon’s calm-headed comments here, as well as Eros’s, and have to say its heartening to be taken seriously by the few of you that do, since I am getting the impression that LS is no place for dissension or discussion. I guess I have struck a nerve because people think I am attacking the whole business of photojournalism. I am not. I think Eros is totally right that there is nothing wrong in photographing for selfish reasons. But some are loathe to admit this to themselves and believe in the mysterious power of the media. If you don’t want to make a positive change through photography, then fine. But if you do, then i don’t see how you can do so without being honest to yourself and making an effort to explore the most effective way images can be used for specific, not vague, causes.

A previous attempt to grapple with this subject: http://www.lightstalkers.org/how-can-photography-really-make-a-positive-impact-20060417

Eros:

and who has ever thought the world was not filled with the cowardly shadows of our delusions, that the world is made up of our silly, self-important blinded and blinding selves, that the entirety of this place is scratched wide by all of all who think we’re smarter, wiser, more gifted, more earnest, more selfless. for those mofos who still fail the idiocy of their own delusion i have very little interest in, for as you pointed out, we’re all generally in the business of whatever the fuck we do for either selfish or mercinary or deluded or superficial or misguided reasons. this not only applies to the world of photography and photojournalism but also to the world of writers singers editors bankers postal clerks waiters hookers engineers politicans businessmen laborers ngos and even those addled street urchins for whom the rest of our easily messy life as become too much. I would be the first one and have often done so here to say: yo, wake the fuck up ya’ll we aint, none of us, priviledged and impoverished, as important or filled by grandeur or meaning or commitment as we imagine: this goes for both the bad-ass, scarf-wearing, award-slurping, country-prodding, festival-attending, agency-chasing, gallery-nosing photographers and for the trash-picking crack-broken addict whose children lay yelping in the night or the addled village-leader whose feathers are stiffened why a child runs encircling in the panther-night, none, none of us can abridge our baseness or rather none of us has the right to NOT assume that there but with grace go i and i weary as quickly as you as quickly as damon by the mechanisms and dress of the pompous and the glittered….and fuck if i aint just as pretentious, and yea, i too make photographs and scribble words under the firmament of delusion that it means something, not to some other poor sod-off human but to me, means something to me and even then its purpose and proport pretty fucking lame and emptied…..but what i still cannot fathom is how this is any indication of the original post. Your friend’s pithy and ironic comment, while clever, speaks more about the group he probably has to deal with indeed: “news” (i imagine that means tv, web, magazines, etc) as a respite of connectivity: people think they’re connected through the process of watching, reading, downloading and of course that’s bullshit and yes, there is a certain human hedonism in the swallowing of suffering, other’s suffering, under the aegis of “being informed”...though i’d ask your friend how fucking smart are those smart people who can’t distinquish “news” from life, passing of events….”news” is entertainment but this is NOT the same as the speaking or telling of what has happened….at night, i tell my son that in october i watched a woman fall 17th flights of floors in the middle of an october friday and lay scattered, leg wrapped around her neck, arms folded around her waist, her bracelet 2 meters beside her sneaker away and by the time i arrive there is nothing nothing nothing but the sound of my panic’d heart and bone and shouts of fuck, fuck, fuck and this never makes the news and still i tell my son and try to explain what had happened and try to understand and try as a measure to, not re-arrest that flying breaking life, but maybe that he shall know what it is that is never reported, to cite one simple example….

and that if y’all think im holier than thou and that if my argument against the basic tone of Damon’s post that’s too bad, cause im not interested in attacking damon personally (i like his photography by the way) and im not interested in supporting whatever nachtwey thinks about the architecture of his own life, i know one thing however: the moment that one person replaces the mechanisms of his own life, the byways and highways of how he/she does things for an argument about another is in fact an indication that the delusion still has not been clipped….

damon:

let me iterate that i am not personally attacking you nor do i question the veracity of the statements about photography you’re concerned with and have made, over and over and over again, the same with regard to what photography is what it “accomplishes” and that photography, pictures, by their strange, unknowable execution, accomplish: in other words, regardless of the photographer may believe or claim, the images mysteriously end up having a life of their own and end of enacting what we most often never understood….in otherwords, the simply pictures, unreal things, carved from an oily substance of light and moment, and photographs are not real, are not truthful, but we embrace them and understand, strangely, we suspend our understanding, that that moment did not happen but somehow often speaks of what did (and sometimes what did not happen), that the world is scattered by globe trotters, mostly priviledged and high faluent pricks, chewing upon moment within a game of advocacy for themselves or for the ideas that those prividledged people wish to confirm….i am a selfish prick too, who isnt, ‘cause i make things and am too torn by the more fundamental question: what is the purpose and why is it that we feel that clocking at image to a think, materialization, somehow transforms, inspires, ignites, for it does not, but again, i think you’ve made a fundamental error: that the mechanics of everything we do becomes an arragement by which in the end withers away….that the strange irony of images is that it cannot be argued through a alegbra of conditions: long term projects are inherently more deep, more insightful, more truthful, more helpful (i know you’re not aguiing this, but citing an argument made above by another), but again, given one’s position in life, one’s commitment toward what “cause’ it is they are bond to (by cause i mean manner of life, be it politics, or geographic or eternal, such as family, ‘hood, time, etc), and that must dictate the pendulum by which you tick-tock out your life…..

the problem Damon is that you used in your initial argument some pretty viciously-loaded words “fantastical, naivity, ridiculous” and you began your concern by suggesting that the images don’t detail the complexities of war as much as they proport (no photograph or word is capable of rednering the horror and complexitgy and suffering) begins a very specific attack: .....

unfortunatley, i have to run, that’s my son calling, but i think while the discussion is critical and important, that it still ends up in a lexicon of irony and contempt is deeply distressing….

respectfully,
bob

Damon, thanks for continuing to discuss this, your recent comments shed a much better and clearer light on your argument. And Eros, I couldn’t help but laugh when reading your comments about ‘combat photographers’. It instantly brought to mind the dozens of overly earnest young photographers with scarves wrapped around their necks at last year’s VII seminar. Scarves, in Pasadena, in April?

Damon is currently arguing that documentary photographers can do the most good by being advocates. I agree and disagree. I think a lot of good can come from being an advocate, and same with being a journalist or documentarian. But you can’t do both. The public is currently pretty jaded about the notion of objectivity (a whole nother argument, but i think it’s impossible to be objective – fair is a good goal). Sure we can go the route of Fox News and wear our political allegiances on our sleeves and then have the public always viewing our work through that prism. Or, we can strive to be fair observers that hope to inform our audiences about the world.

Personally, I strive to be a journalist and historian. Nothing more… But occasionally, that does help the subject, and shouldn’t be taken for granted.

May I ask how one strives to be a historian? It’s not the first time I have heard this mentioned, rather as if it had more modestly taken the place of anything more morally ambitious (and naïve). Archivist of images of certain events considered to be important at the time, perhaps. Supplier, maybe, of visual documents for the future histories of our times. But ‘historian’? I don’t understand what this means…

Well, maybe I’m taking the definition of historian a bit loosely, but here’s what the American Heritage Dictionary has: “One who writes or compiles a chronological record of events; a chronicler.” Substitute photograph for write, or really your phrase: “Supplier, maybe, of visual documents for the future histories of our times.” – works for me. It all sounds a bit technical and unfeeling for my taste, but so be it.

Isn’t all journalism, as the cliche says, “the first rough draft of history”?

Damon, three more examples? Easy.
Ron Haviv contributing and helping to organise Darfur/Darfur (www.darfurdarfur.org) (along with Lyndsey Addario, Mark Brecke, Helene Caux, Paolo Pellegrin, Ryan Spencer Reed, Michal Safdie, and Brian Steidle).
Ron Haviv, Antonin Kratochvil, John Stanmeyer, Gary Knight, and others contributing their time for workshops for winners of an eBay/American Photo auction for charity.
And proceeds from the book Tsunami by Gary Knight, Antonin Kratochvil, Joachim Ladefoged, Jim Nachtwey and John Stanmeyer go to Doctors of the World.
They’ve also collaborated on an exhibit on the DRC for Medicene Sans Frontier.
Photojournalists aren’t aid workers, but I’m sure most do what they can, when they can.

Jon and Eros, very well said. Although what Damon says is a bit one sided, it does hit a nerve.

Let’s not forget that news is a business and as a business it follows market forces. I grew up in Africa and have seen first hand enough of the disaster, war and general wreckage that is so often depicted in documentary photographs from that continent. For those of us who lived there, making pictures of it wasn’t that important. Feeding, healing, rescuing, making peace are what make a difference. To the degree that documentary photographs drive those ends, they are useful. But how often do they get caught up in the industry of news, feeding a clear market need in the west for images of suffering and devastation? If history has taught us anything, awareness is no solution to any problem. Clear action and policy change is. Even massive popular efforts such as “We Are The World” that generated so much support for aid to Ethiopia frequently end up doing much less good than they could do to a complete lack of understanding of the politics involved.

Ultimately this becomes a discussion of aesthetics, for that is the field on which this breaks down. Do pictures drive policy change or do they reinforce a passive experience of compassion and empathy in the viewer?

‘Do pictures drive policy change’

Yes they do. Ask Steve Du Pont. His photo of the American Army burning the bodies of Taliban fighters
got the US to change the policy on what was done with the Taliban fighters remains.

Sometimes they do, and that is a great example.

Jon, I disagree, I don’t think Damon hit a nerve at all. He took a cheap shot at an easy target. None of it is remotely original thought. It’s just unfiltered cynicism. If it were a properly digested argument it wouldn’t be riddled with wildly absurd assertions.

There aren’t many idealized professions that are ethically uncomplicated. Unfortunately, photojournalism can be a bit sticky at times. However, what Damon conveniently refuses to do is offer his alternative vision of what the norm should be. No photographic coverage of misfortune at all? Only the independently wealthy being morally free to photograph tragedy, lest the photographer sell a photo and “victimize” someone by recouping some money? He’s just on a hysterical chest-beating, hair-pulling rant that isn’t thought out. If it were a cogent argument I’d respect it even if I found it disagreeable.

There are plenty of insincere charlatans in this business who do it for a lifestyle image. So what, that’s the makeup of society. There are others who take it seriously, and they should be defended.

Damn Bob, I’m not sure I follow you. But I’ll give it another go a bit later. I’ve always had some kind of what they now call “reading disorder” and while no doubt your prose is exquisite, sometimes it’s a bit rich for me. I got the part about the lady who jumped off a building. As for smart people and news, well, I got that part too. Generally speaking, in my opinion most people are stupid – but then I’m not really a fan of the species.

Dear Damion Lee Perry

When criticising organisations and individuals, whoever they may be it always helps to get your facts straight. I’ll let Jim defend himself, but you are factually incorrect in making the following statement and I offer you the chance to withdraw it.

“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.”

VII set up a foundation in the USA – a 501 3C about 5 years ago, I think we are the first agency to have ever done that. We have given our images and our labour for free to MSF and Medecines du Monde who produced books and exhibitions on the Congo and the Tsunami for them to use as fund raisng tools. They have been well publicised and by their accounts very succesful – why not ask them yourself – a simple search on Google would find evidence of this work them if you had bothereed to do any research. All of us at VII have given numerous prints every year to raise thousands of dollars at auction for well known NGO’s. I have started a festival in Cambodia that educates street children and land mine victims for no profit and with little fanfare. Jim has raised over 100,000 dollars for a family in Indonesia that live on a railway track that he photographed a number of years ago, money that came from Times readers I believe and it was a sum that has radically changed their lives as I am sure even you could acknowledge.

You are welcome to criticise VII any time but please get your facts straight when doing so.

By the way – what have you done?

Gary Knight

Bravo, Gary.

I think there are many such efforts that are low profile and well under the radar, things you won’t find in a Google search. I have a friend, David Gilkey, who if I remember correctly raised a considerable amount of money for Rwandan relief after the genocide there, using his photos to do it. And I have other friends who’ve done similar things.

This is a topic always worthy of discussion, it’s only a pity that it had to come under the umbrella of such an errant post.

Thanks Gary for putting me squarely in the picture with the humanitarian work of VII and its photographers, including Nachtwey. Also to Amber for pointing out some of VII’s good work. Its truly admirable what VII has done for the people you mention, Gary. You are right, I should have spent more time looking into what VII had done before expressing doubt as to its humanitarian activities. I apologise for being so rash and sardonic, though I did say “maybe I am wrong” and that I was interested to hear about any charitable work VII, including Nachtwey, had done.

I also said in my previous comment regarding giving money or services to NGOs, “maybe this all misses the point”: the claim that documentary photography acts “as a kind of intervention” that empowers people with a ‘voice’ is an independent issue that should be open to critical assessment. This was my starting point in my first comment, which is why the thread is called “the fallacy of empowerment”, and not something like “VII’s questionable ethos” and why the sub-heading was called “Documentary photography as a kind of ‘intervention’?”. I don’t think this is a non-issue, since I believe many photographers honestly believe that raising awareness in the mainstream media is somehow a galvanising factor for positive change for the disadvantaged. I strongly doubt this claim and belief, which is why I think targeted advocacy work is precisely the best way to go for photographers that do want to ‘make a change’. It is also why what VII has done in this respect is heart-warming.

I firmly believe in advocacy over the pretence to objectivity, and think cooperation with NGOs on well-designed PR is far better than mere publishing in the mass media, and the question as to whether photographing victims ipso facto bestows upon them a voice is a serious one we must not treat flippantly. This is part of the larger issue of whether and how people can be empowered through photography – extremely worthy of consideration if we care about the disadvantaged people we are photographing. Like I said before, and this is not levelled at VII, but rather at the notion of photography as a voice-bestowing intervention: just ‘raising awareness’ – and largely to the wrong audiences to effect relevant and sustainable change – is insufficient. If we care about people we should be helping them speak for themselves.

Let’s be clear: leaving aside issues of sustainability, which is an issue for all assistance programs, VII’s advocacy and charity work is admirable (the more of this the better); photographers are not aid workers, true, but then not all photographers claim to be giving the disadvantaged a voice through public-awareness; anyone making or supporting this claim ought to be interested in exploring its worth; and any photographer with a conscience has to ask why they are shooting what they are shooting and think about how the positive impact of their work can be maximised.

Since you ask, Gary, I have come to question the extent to I can use photography to make a change. Despite not achieving anywhere like the success of VII photographers, I have opted to take a different path at least for the time being, resuming a previous line of work. I now work for a major international development agency funding a number of assistance programs in China and Mongolia. I am exploring ways of combining photography with this work, but I think of photography as a tool; I am not in love with the medium for its own sake. But it doesn’t really matter what I am doing though. This is not a personal thing, however much people want to drag the debate back that level.

Damon,

First of all, the highest purpose of NGO PR is to place their photos and information in this mass media which you belittle. Now, why would that be? What do you think PR does? They are thrilled when they get good placement for their projects-not only because of increased exposure to their project and even “brand,” but it adds legitimacy and credibility, valuable in all sorts of areas like fund raising. Tell me, since you admire the work of NGOs so much, why is it that they crave good photography to illustrate their cause? Surely it can’t be because it’s ineffectual-last I heard, most of them don’t have a lot of money to waste.

And how is it not hypocritical that you’re “exploring ways of combining photography” with your new work, if photography doesn’t do the disadvantaged any good? This makes no sense at all. You’re condemn it, but at the same time you say you’re devoting yourself to using it to augment development work. I presume you won’t be using any photos of people who are disadvantaged, right? After all, you say it’s victimization, insincere and doesn’t help them anyway.

And considering the direct nature of your criticisms of certain people and organizations, or the indirect inferences, I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to ask whether you will be drawing a salary for this work you will be doing on behalf of people in China and Mongolia, and in what way you think your intervention on their behalf will directly help them. I’d be curious to know why photographers shouldn’t be entitled to entertain the faith or hope that their work is meaninful, while you are.

Thank you Damon.

You and others have attacked the character and integrity of Jim and VII, not just the work, so you have made it personal. What I find unpleasant about all of this is that you and others have made statements about Jim and VII that are based on conjecture and reading through this string you may forgive me for thinking this was levelled at Jim and to some degree at VII.

I have no problem justifying my work or of being criticised and I know Jim will not either. I have no problem if my work is not liked or appreciated, its not the point, I don’t work to be liked or appreciated and nor does Jim. I – like you – have my own personal tastes and I find it re-assuring that we can express them. The problem I have with what is written here – not only by you – is that giant assumptions about our character and our motivations are made yet as far as I know no attempt has been made by any of the writers here to contact Jim or VII to ask us to account for our selves or even get some facts straight. It is important to differentiate between ones taste or opinion and fact. Everyone at VII is very open and very approcachable – we consider ourselves accountable as we hold others accountable and we do not consider ourselves to be anything other than a bunch of motivated people trying to do the right thing, sometimes without success, sometimes with.

With all due respect I think – if you ask – you will find that many of us at VII have been among the first to the barricades – and I think you may find that some of us wear our politics on our sleeves, others do not, we are all quite different you see. Most of us however are very issue motivated and see our photography as a form of criticism or outrage and a means to hold others accountable. We may not always succeed but we are trying and have risked much to do so. Its the act of trying, the hope that that embodies that is important.

When I first saw Lightstalkers I thought it was a nice idea, but having read some of these posts attacking Chris Anderson who had just won an award, Spencer Platt who had just won an award, now Jim who has just won an award, its hard not to summize that many members just don’t like other peoples success.

I applaud your the path you have chosen – I am sure if I scrutinised your development agency I would find flaws – but that is not the point – I applaud the intent.

You will forgive me for retiring from this dialogue now. I have nothing else to add

Best wishes

Gary

Gary, and others, I hope nothing I have written has been perceived as an attack on any individual, and if so I can only hope that the perception is due to my ineptitude writing clearly on the forum, for i assure you all I have no truck with my colleagues. I was one of the people who wrote about Chris’s Latin Am project, and I do think that the doubt I expressed there may have been unclearly stated and thus could be misinterpreted as a criticism of Chris’s work, whereas what I really wanted to express was a problem regarding the media’s take on Latin Am and I need to flesh that out more. Chris has written to me by email and I am in the process of formulating a response for him, but it takes time and his work merits a thoughtful response. as for what I have written here, I dont think that any of it is unfair or ad hominem, and I certainly didnt intend such. writing on a forum like this is tricky though and can easily lend itself to misinterpretation. We live and work in grey areas, so we need to be questioning ourselves constantly, holding ourselves to account; but it is also quite true that we need to be generous and forgiving with each other, give each other a bit of the benefit of the doubt. Maganimity is a great virtue but hard to achieve.

This is a conversation I’d really like to get involved with, I often have it face to face with friends, and much as I love lightstalkers, I just don’t want to try that here. Body language, and a generous helping of beer, have ways of making it easier to raise difficult subjects. At any rate, it’s been an interesting conversation to read.

this really did deteriorate quickly into a ‘bar fight’ did it not?

i was waiting, and hoping that some where along the line this discussion would build towards a broader discussion about the news/media as a social and economic structure that operates not just on pure moral imperatives but also on politics and business necessities. indeed, the fight for justice and humanity may drive media and its practitioners, but not without a reasonable awareness of the political climate and financial considerations.

so i will try to say something, though i realize that it will probably not be well articulated and possibly even misunderstood.

photojournalists work within a system, and few have the freedom/independence to work completely outside of it. some photographers can be eaten by it, losing their way and their original idealism, others can mature within it and find ways to use it to further their ideals, passions and convictions. in the end, photographers/photojournalists are reporters, documentors and they are given the task by the society to go out and report that which is considered important. for many this begins as a job and can later become an independent effort or even something more (political career for example). regardless, journailsts are part of our modern civil society, they are messengers of the good, the morally repugnant and there remains an interest in what they produce and tell us about ourselves, the state of our nation, and the state of others (the latter usually prioritize by how the actions of others may relate back to us). photojournalists have very normal lives when you cut through the hype; salaries, taxes, personal aspirations, bosses to report to (even freelancers have to be cognizant of the needs of an assigning editor), expenses to pay, children to raise, retirements to plan for. this is human life, a daily civil life, and photojournalists confront the same pressures and constraints as a bank teller. to imagine them as anything else e.g. mother theresa’s with digital cameras is to misunderstand the business and the way mature, intelligent professionals to work within it.

damon, i believe that you criticism is unjust because it fails to recognize the nature of the system of photojournalism. it misunderstands the entire place and structure of the venture, confusing it as some sort of one-man show driven by righteousness and indignation, bombarding the world around with evidence of its moral ineptitude. it suggests more an idealism that fell through after a few years as a photojournalist. the hard daily grind of what it takes to survive in this field, and the compromises and personalities that have to be dealt with proved too much. this is not meant as an insult, but merely as a comment on what many have gone through before you. and i too face this frequently though so far i am still plugging through this morass.

i think that you would do well to understand the structure and systems of your NGO so that in a few years you are not disillusioned when you NGO too, (and it will) fall short of your expectations. you have to know the system within which you work and be realistic about what you will achieve and do. you have to be aware of the economic, political and social forces that fuel the daily workings of the organizations you work with, work for or work to engage.

i sounds to me that you are primarily offended by the rhetoric. a large number of your quotes are from the TED text, not nachtwey himself. regardless, i can understand why some of it may sound self congratulatory and even self aggrandizing. i think that we all have met photographers who seem convinced of their messiah status, making claims about the importance and impact of their humanitarian work rarely supported by realities on the ground. we meet a lot of such individuals at photo festivals and such. that being said, such individuals are notorious for their lack of focus on issues, or even on their commitment to a certain form of work. i believe that no one can accuse nachtwey for example of not having maintained a consistent focus on issues of war, and its associated consequences. so i can understand your annoyance at what may appear to be just chest beating and back slapping.

but i am surprised that it is nachtwey’s words that set you off. his commitment to his chosen path is absolute. and his lucid awareness of how he fits into the structures of mainstream photojournalism and media (he is after all a contract photographer for Time magazine) a testament to his intellect and his ability to achieve amazing things from within it. as a Time magazine contract photographer he has used the structures of the system he works in to the most effective possible use, while maintaining a iron clad commitment to a his vision and his personal goals (i hypothesize of course based on his record). furthermore, he is under no illusion about who he is, what he does, how he works and what he must do to make a difference through the system he works in. just the sheer consistency of his work, the extremes to which he has pushed to get the images, tells you that he believes in every word he says and frankly, it is not for us to say that this is just ‘bullshit’, certainly not in his case. he believes. his pictures say it. but more importantly, he knows where in the process he fits and what his individual responsibilities are inside the system. when he speaks of his images being an intervention, he does so with a clear idea of where in the institutional structure of intervention he fits. for example, he knows the distance between him and the UN secretary general and realizes that his act of intervention is to produce a story/image that may compel someone on the next level of the intervention structure to do their bit.

we are all part of a system. even the accountants at MSF are critical to their ability to work. not just the actual doctors. in fact, one could make an argument that the accountants are more important to the organization than even the doctors! after all, who defines where resources are applied when resources are limited? you will see this in your NGO and i hope that you are able to see it for its limitations and its possibilities and how you individually fit into the system in which the NGO functions. if you believe that you are however some sort of ‘mother theresa’ figure out to directly transform the lives of individuals you may find that you are 1) deluding yourself in much the same as the messiah photojournalists and 2) setting yourself up for disappointment. in the end, you, as a member of this NGO, are part of a system – a system that provides you with certain resources and responsibiities and expects certain things back from you (they are paying you a salary, housing, etc. no?). in the end, your personal measure of success may be the end of world hunger, but i bet that is not the NGOs measure of success.

photojournalists work with a lot of organizations because they are members of a society. even a lone photojournalist needs to put his work in some form of public space for the work to have an impact. newspapers, magazines, NGOs and even private galleries are all in the system within which information is disseminated to the public. our works are journalists, as members of the media, is centered on the public that we hope to inform. our language of urgency, or immediacy is often a way to put ideas into the minds of the audience that perhaps may not grasp what is at stake. its just communication.

VII and many other photographers are an important part for example of Doctors Without Border’s (MSF) organizational structure. they are not just an appendage, an afterthought, but a fundamentally relevant function of their humanitarian work. when UNICEF/WHO used Salgado for its global polio campaign, he was a fundamentally important part of their business planning for this campaign. they provide an important service i.e. that of v

now there was one other thing i wanted to say here- a little philosophical. its something that mohandas gandhi said when speaking about personal motivations, about action. he said that we must assiduously avoid the temptation for a desire for results. read that line again. it speaks to the need for the pure will to simply act, with little or no concern or care about whether your motivations for action are reciprocated by actual change. it is only when our ‘goal orientedness’ towards change is removed, and we are compelled to act on pure moral motivation will our actions be most effective, though we may never figure how or where. you disappointment comes from a rather self centered need to know that you are making a difference i.e. you are important in the scheme of things. this is narcissism of sorts. what is important is not you, but your motivations. change, effective change can come from many sources, most of them unknown to you. this may sounds weirds, but it is not really. it is just a reminded that we need to step away from our need to ‘feel important’ and concentrate on the simple importance of acting on our motivations and not measuring the goals. it is more likely that we will fail in our idealist intentions, but that would not be a reason for giving up if you original motivations were just and morally true. only the motivation matters. all else will be taken care of. as you walk away from photojournalism because it seems to have disappointed, be careful that you do not walk into another minefield of disappointment. i hope that this does not sound patronizing; it is said with the most generous of intentions.

photojournalists i believe are mostly a rare bread; humanists married to a will to act. there are many more armchair lamentors. but some get out there, suffer the most uncomfortable of conditions (crappy hotels, crappy food, travel, disease, contacts, etc. etc.) and do so repeatedly just for the need to tell a story and the undying belief that their words, pictures and stories will be complemented by others who can then understand where their actions are needed. at least some of the relevant ones do.

i wish you all the courage, success and achievement in your new career. and i hope that you will find a way to see that the little things that we photojournalists continue to do have some indirect relevance to the process of intervention and change. i think that for many if not most even that indirect relevance is worth risking it all for and not something to dismiss

asim

oh..and a few minutes later i read this:

http://counterpunch.org/marsh03092007.html

the magnificence of photojournalism is that it can only, unlike celebrity fund raisers or even NGO work, be done by a complete immersion in the lives of others. so whoever does it, and does it without the comforts of 4X4 or a a 4 star hotel in a 1 star country, will not hear my complain about them too much.

there is more bullshit elsewhere – photojournalists are the least of the problem in the ‘intervention’ world

asim

I don’t mean to question the integrity of anyone’s intentions. Hats off to the many photographers, including those of VII and Salgado and thousands under the radar, who are striving to bring some light to much needed issues in alliance with organisations dedicated to helping people. What I find extremely dubious, however, is the idea that people are somehow empowered by their images in the western mass media.

I disagree with Dave’s defence of the mass media, indeed that “the highest purpose of NGO PR is to place their photos and information in this mass media”. The mass media is not the most direct line to potential sponsors and donors. It ought to be part of an organisation’s communications strategy but is not to be confused with one. NGOs, multilateral development agencies, etc, do not just raise funds from putting adverts in newspapers or on TV, though you may see some of the high profile organisations such as UNICEF doing this very effectively. They do so most effectively in targeting multilateral or bilateral donors, including governments of developed countries. This distracts from the point though. It’s not about the extent to which NGOs rely on the mass media (there are organisations other than NGOs, governmental and commercial, that are also funding programs to assist disadvantaged people). It is about the effectiveness of photography in the mass media to empower disadvantaged people.

I also disagree with Dave that it is hypocritical for anyone to combine photography with development work while doubting the effectiveness of merely publishing photo documentary in western news magazines. I didn’t say photography per se can’t or doesn’t do the disadvantaged any good. Of course it can and does. But how? Its not automatic or straight-forward.

I agree with Asim that it is misguided to expect photographers to be Mother Theresas with digital cameras. But many documentary photographers do want to make a positive impact and do care about their causes. Photojournalism plays an important role to inform us about our world, and many photographers are happy sticking to fulfilling this informing role. But information and photojournalism are never interest-independent. News and photos are always embedded in a political matrix, however overt. And there are many photographers who believe that they are ‘doing good’, however direct or indirect, and why shouldn’t they? But ‘doing good’ is something we ought to be able to assess and discuss. Photo documentary does not have an automatic galvanising impact, and this is why we do need to think through how its effectiveness can be maximised. What seems to greatly oversimplify and hinder us in this respect is, as Jon put it “the whole rhetoric of empowerment”. Whether it is Nachtwey or anyone else saying it, as Jon rightly said, “terms like ‘giving voice’ and so on are so bankrupt it is unbelievable to me that thinking people bother to lend them credence”. A voice is an ability to speak for oneself, which is crucial for the empowerment of disadvantaged people. But the issue of how to help people speak for themselves is something we ought to be discussing, not assuming. It is a key issue in the development world, and far from settled.

And of course I am critical of the entire development sector. Anyone that cares about the people it is supposed to benefits ought to be.

Ok, Damon you say, or paraphrase Jon Anderson,

‘“terms like ‘giving voice’ and so on are so bankrupt it is unbelievable
to me that thinking people bother to lend them credence”. A voice is an ability to speak for oneself…’

And if you are a deaf mute?

Damon I suspect that this whole thread has more to do with you questioning your own motivations of
‘doing good’ as you say, than discussing empowering ‘disadvantaged’ people.

I have returned to this thread to follow the debate and unfortunately all I have come to realise is that
you in fact have no argument to validate your intial statement and really it just reads like sour grapes ‘cos
Natchwey is a big name getting a prize.

Sorry, but that is my interpretation of your posts.

Natchwey said “a photo that showed the true face of war would almost by definition be an antiwar photograph.”

Most of the truly ‘good’ and decent people I know in this world are people that do boring,
9 to 5 jobs and contribute part of their weekly income to sponsoring children in third world countries.
They live ordinary kinds of lives and are generally kind to their families and they come in all
colours shapes and sizes. And believe it or not they actually appreciate
photographs that they see that make them aware of the misery and suffering in the world.
‘Cos then they get to share some of their resources with people they may never meet but feel
connected with because they have seen a photo of them in the newspaper. It makes them feel good
to give and upset that such miseries occur. So Natchwey actually gets it right.
This photo that shows the true face of misery is intrinsically a photo that causes people to revile misery.

You have written ‘Photo documentary does not have an automatic galvanising impact’
perhaps not, but then what is really an automatic response to anything? Can you quantify that remark?
If I walked up to you and slapped you in the face I am not sure what sort of reaction you would have
So how can you be so certain that everyone can assess ‘doing good’ in the same terms when a short
sharp sudden response or a long term thoughtful response are just two of the possibilities?

Damon I am sure that you are trying to deconstruct the system to improve on it but unfortunately
you are not allowing for human nature and certainly not your own.

I am in complete agreement with Asim. We are too goal driven.
If you really want to give people voice you listen and if you want to empower people you give.

it is, fundamentally, above all else the charter of a person’s life, the beat and direction and movement of their acts which means infinitely more than the drum and strum of their words…..that Nacthtwey, like photographers and aid workers and writers and humanitarians around the world, has been pillaried for the parsing of his language instead of the fruition of his work (again, by work i mean not only photography but the raising of funds, contribution of images, community of agencies, community of cooperation by which he has augmented his life’s endeavor: to contribute to this swilled life in the most specific and effective manner he himself knows possible for his talent and life), is a profoundly discouraging indictment….

that we’ve anesthetized our actions and thinking by the rigor (or less-ness) of intellectual mandate is indeed a gelding moment….

in the end, we have only ourselves to confront and that confrontation is a profound and difficult one and that most of us choose to criticize from afar instead of carving out from within is a sight of the age and reason of things….

the measure of ourlives cannot be scrutinized through an algebra of didacticism:

those lives that have and havenot been help is the measure by which this, it seems to me, can be wrestled….

sadly, as the proverb properly details, and we shall be known for who we’ve become instead of who we really are…..

like gary, i too am retiring from this post….

good luck
respectfully,,
bob

leaving aside james nachtway(i agree with those who suggest he is not the correct peg to hang this discussion on),this is a valid topic of discussion.i found this piece the other day,and the author discusses many of the topics on this thread in a far clearer way than i could,so if you are interested,go here-http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol2_2/coulter.htm.