Photojournalism, Advocacy & Eurocentrism: An Introduction Or A Post With 17,000 Words Is Mercifully Broken Up Into Smaller Pieces

…Since 1945, the decolonization of Asia and Africa, plus the sharply accentuated political consciousness of the non-European world everywhere, has affected the world of knowledge just as much as it has affected the politics of the world-system. One major such difference, today and indeed for some thirty years now at least, is that the “Eurocentrism” of social science has been under attack, severe attack. The attack is of course fundamentally justified, and there is no question that, if social science is to make any progress in the twenty-first century, it must overcome the Eurocentric heritage which has distorted its analyses and its capacity to deal with the problems of the contemporary world.

(I Wallerstein, Eurocentrism and its Avatars: The Dilemmas of Social Science New Left Review, Issue 226, November-December 1997

Around the colonized there has grown a whole vocabulary of phrases, each in its own way reinforcing the dreadful secondariness of people who, in V.S. Naipaul’s derisive characterization, are condemned only to use a telephone, never to invent it. Thus the status of colonized people has been fixed in zones of dependency and peripherality, stigmatized in the designation of underdeveloped, less-developed, developing states, ruled by a superior, developed, or metropolitan colonized who was theoretically posited as a categorically antithetical overlord.…Thus to be one of the colonized is potentially to be a great many different, but inferior, things, in many different places, at many different times.

Edward Said, ‘Representing The Colonized: Anthropology’s Interlocutors’, Reflections On Exile: And Other Essays, Page 294

The characters in the game would be based on people in the field: doctors, nurses, aid workers, journalists, photographers, child soldiers. NGOs would be involved in the game’s design so that the user is educated as well as entertained. These organizations could also benefit from revenues generated by the players, which could aid real world projects in specific places.

The photojournalist will hopefully be the link between the aid/NGO world and the people who are impacted by the conflict. They will be able to go behind rebel lines to see the use of child soldiers and to report on the violence, displacement, and desperate health situation. In this way, the photojournalist will be the eyes for the game “world.”

(The photojournalist Marcus Bleasdale, talking about his new video game venture Zero Hour: Congo, described as ‘…an immersive game based on the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo’)

Marcus Bleasdale is perhaps amongst the world’s most well known photojournalists. His near twelve year work on the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has won him international recognition, awards from most all photojournalism competition of note and various foundation grants. A member of the famous VII photo agency, he represents for many, the finest in the tradition of concerned photography. Marcus has dedicated the better part of his career to the conflict in the DRC, and has extended his work with an extensive set of engagements with both human rights organizations, international media and international bodies such as the United Nations. As he describes it himself, his aim has been to make people:

…see the consequences of our actions and of our need to consume. This war [in the DRC] is all about natural resources, natural resources that no Congolese uses. If we did not demand Gold, Coltan, Cassiterite then this would not be happening. We must increasingly see the links between our behavior in the developed world and wars in the developing world and accept the responsibility we all have in creating the conflict and accept the responsibility we all have in trying to make it stop. As a photographer I feel I can supply the tools to the people who have the power to make that happen.

It was because of such a commitment that he was recently selected to participate in the Magnum Foundation / Open Society Institute’s ‘Photography Expanded: Rethinking Engagement And Impact’ conference. According to the official statement of the conference, it was designed to:

…explore how to use technology and new media to expand the reach of [a photojournalist’s] images in order to maximize their impact and help effect social change.

Marcus Bleasdale, in collaboration with the British digital games developer nDreams, is producing a video game called Zero Hour: Congo. His reasoning, offered in an interview on the Photography Expanded conference website, is that:

Grassroots users of electronic products (smart phones, tablets, laptops, cameras, and game consoles) are largely unaware that they are involved [in the DRC conflict because of their use of electronics equipment that relies on raw materials from the DRC]. Developing a game that could entertain and at the same time guide people to increased awareness seemed to be the right direction to follow. We increasingly see youth today not engaging in mainstream news. If they are not coming to traditional platforms for information, I figured I would bring mainstream news to them.

In the same interview, when asked how he intended to ‘…connect that audience to ongoing advocacy or conversations about what’s happening in DRC?’ Marcus replied:

The characters in the game would be based on people in the field: doctors, nurses, aid workers, journalists, photographers, child soldiers. NGOs would be involved in the game’s design so that the user is educated as well as entertained.

Further adding that the ‘character’ of the journalist / photojournalist will be to act as:

…the link between the aid/NGO world and the people who are impacted by the conflict. They will be able to go behind rebel lines to see the use of child soldiers and to report on the violence, displacement, and desperate health situation. In this way, the photojournalist will be the eyes for the game “world.” 

Photography Expanded wants to be at the cutting edge of photography, technology and advocacy, exploring ways in which new media and the creative possibilities offered by the medium can help photographers gain wider audiences, and more effective strategies for achieving change in society. And Marcus Bleasdale’s idea for a video game that educates a younger generation about the connection between their consumer habits and the forces that fuel the war appeared, was featured during the conference as an example of some of the most interesting thinking in this regard.

Suffice it to say, all this provoked a lot of questions and concerns, and gave rise to this rather long and detailed exploration of the assumptions and ideas that underpin the idea and how they fail to reflect the world that we today operate it. There were many problematic statements here and I think many of us may already know what is to follow. Regardless, this is a critique of a world view in general that seems to continue to influence how we work as photojournalists ie. how we frame our stories, how we see the world, and how we perceive our place in it. 

I believe that it is an important critique and though people may disagree with the specifics of my criticism I hope that they can at least understand the need to engage in it. The photojournalism industry – its editors, photographers, curators, critics and hangers-on, seem very reluctant to allow serious and important issues of method, structure, assumptions and intellectual frameworks to be discussed in open and honest exchange. There is an obsessive focus on technology, technical innovation and aesthetics of the digital darkroom, but a near complete silence about the fundamental intellectual and structural platforms informing it. I believe this silence comes from simply being unaware of the need to examine some of the social, cultural, and power assumptions that underpin Western photojournalism. As a photographer working from outside this self-affirming world, these assumptions are perhaps more obvious to me and the short-comings of the entrenched methods more visible.

This is a small attempt to provoke this conversation.

Let me begin by quickly pointing out that there are are a number of questionable idea behind a video game as advocacy approach. I want to dispense with a few that came immediately to mind because I will not be concentrating on addressing the, but merely listing them here for consideration. For example:

  • Whether a game based on a rather cartoonish world-view – doctors, nurses, aid workers, journalists, photographers, child soldiers, can be expected to transform real world behavior of a younger generation of European / Western technology product users who will clearly not be exposed to the real issues driving the conflict, nor the complexities of Congolese history, politics, colonial legacies and the myriads of ethnic, political and other conflicts that are key drivers of the conflict?

  • How a product that can only be used on the very technologies the photographer claims are fueling the conflict – coltan and other such minerals, expected to then argue for a reduction in the use of such technologies? What happens if the game is a runaway success, and the sales of game consoles, hand-held devices, and associated accessories goes through the roof? Pity the Congolese then!

  • Why we, despite there being absolutely no evidence of a causal link between video game playing and social behavioral change, believe that this is even something worth considering? On what basis is this even being attempted when it is not even clear that it has any ability to raise awareness? Violent video games are played by kids all over the world, and yet we do not believe that this reduces their opposition to war or violence.

  • How can we expect a virtual world experience that actually disconnects the users from the real world – a feature that may be one of the reasons why people love video games in the first place, to translate itself into a greater awareness of perhaps one of the most intractable conflicts in modern history?

  • Would a private corporation investing hundreds of thousands of dollars n the design, development, testing, production, and marketing of this game commit itself to the priorities of social change, or to the priorities of turning a profit? And what happens when there is a severe conflict of interest between those two ends?

These are some of the unanswered question and unverified assumptions behind this idea which on the surface appeared very cutting edge and innovative. I am sure that there are more, but this is what came to mind immediately. And even if I accept that all this would be effective – that people could learn by playing a video game, and change their consumerist behavior as a result, there were other, perhaps more serious, problems.

For what lies behind this entire idea, and the markets it was aimed at, was a deep Euro-centric prejudice about not only how to speak about the world, but whom to speak to.This model continues to influence how we as photographers and photojournalists go about attempting to change the pathologies we witness, and how we speak about the subjects we assume the right to speak for.

I spell out some of my concerns in more detail in the following sections as it is the main concern of this essay.

Western photojournalism remain deeply trapped in an Euro-centric worldview. This rather limited way of seeing and understanding the world not only limits the kinds of stories that are produced, but more seriously, cripple the photographer’s understanding of her role, her ability to affect social change, and the kinds of advocacy campaigns she engages in.

The first of these issues- the limited kinds of stories produced, and the rather limited issues and topics photojournalists tend to focus on, was addressed in at least two earlier posts – see Digressions On Photojournalism Or Why I Argue What I Argue and The Limits of Photojournalism And Things More Worthwhile.

In this post I want to address the second of the two concerns – the Euro-centric world view of Western photojournalists producing works about the world outside their Western markets, and some of the unspoken assumptions that underpin their attempts at social change and advocacy.

But what do I mean by an Euro-centric world view? Specifically, the set of assumptions that:

  • The European / Western actor in the field (whether a NGOs, aid organizations or individual) are the most meaningful if not the only interesting and effective actors, and that local activists, organizations, and other actors are simply marginal, if not completely irrelevant.

  • The attention and ‘awareness’ of the European / Western audience in the photographer’s markets is what really matters as far as genuine acts of advocacy and pressure for social change action is concerned

  • The Western journalist is a neutral ‘eye’ to the world, unaffected by bias of her history, political understanding, and the structure and priorities of the media industry she works within.

  • The world is ‘looked down’ from the heights of a civilized European cultural and political space, where the assumption of the right to intervene and act on the lives of ‘the other’ is a given.

Now, before people get all upset and start accusing me of reverse bigotry and what have you, let me clarify something before I continue. Euro-centricity is not about ethnicity, but about a world view. It does not refer to the white-man so to speak, but to a certain way of seeing. For example, there are many Bangladeshi, Indian and Pakistani photographers who are extremely Euro-centric in the way they document and produce their works – the assumptions about their society, culture, its history, agency and the actions required or even the issues identified reflect a deep affinity and absorption of ‘a distant’ eye. They have become accustomed – through education, life experiences, market sales possibilities and other influences, to seeing their own world through the eyes and agency of The West. So this is not about ethnicity, or being an indigenous photographer, but about a certain way of looking at the world, and understanding how it operates, that I wish to discuss. As an aside, I believe that one of the best archive of Pakistani photographs belongs to a German photographer who has spent the last 15 years working in the country.

This Euro-centricity carries within it a number of ideas that are hang-overs from an earlier world. But in an industry which remains very reluctant to build a culture of critical, and intellectual thought, the presumptions and prejudices continue to color so much of today’s photojournalism. It could be argued that it has only gotten worse in the post-9/11 world, where an entire host of orientalist and bigoted ideas about a large swath of humanity began to become mainstream journalistic, political and cultural currency. (For example, see some of my recent critiques of works features on Time Magazines and its LightBox photography blog site here, here and here). Rather than progress with the times, and arrive into a more inter-connected, articulate, and egalitarian world, photojournalists remain determined to ignore modernity and its developments and continue to document societies in way that echo works from twenty, or thirty years earlier.

Mainstream photojournalism appears to be immune to some of the radical changes that have affected so many other fields of human creativity and inquiry. I had argued in my post Digressions On Photojournalism Or Why I Argue What I Argue :

Photojournalism (photographers and photo editors) has been oddly immune to transformations that have affected other fields. The subaltern has spoken, in a language of his/her own, and can finally be heard. An entire literature has broken through from world’s previously silenced. New histories are being revealed, and counter narratives to debilitating colonial histories being offered. The voice of the [previously] marginalized now reside alongside those once considered the ‘canon’ and do so by integration and expanding out understanding of our own pluralist heritage and history. In American alone the voices of women, African Americans, the indigenous and so many others can no longer be ignored and have enhanced and illuminated our understanding of ourselves and the experiences of history.

The changes that have taken place in so many other fields seem largely absent from the craft of mainstream photojournalism which still remains largely about silencing the other, and reconstructing their worlds and lives as defined by pathos, victim hood and hopelessness. Photographers still transgress into the worlds ‘other’ with an impunity and indifference that can leave one shocked if not outright dismayed. They return with stories right out the works of Joseph Conrad, revealing the ‘darkest’ Africa, the direst of Asiatic ‘despotisms’. And unlike other fields – literature, arts, politics, there seem to be few … counter voices that challenge these simplistic representations. And if they are, then they fail to make it to the pages of our finest magazines or the podium of our finest awards.

Some clarifications are in order. I realize that these questions will provoke people, and I will do my best to be specific in order to avoid confusion and encourage an engagement with this essay rather than a rejection and simply refutation:

First, I will be using the terms ‘Europe’ and ‘Western’ not as spatial categories, but more as a set of cultural, historical and political assumptions. The term ‘Western’ refers to Europe and North America. My use of the term ‘photojournalist’ refers to documentary photographers, news photographers and other photographers working on issues of social and human concern.

Second, this is not in defense of some alternative -centrism. I am not advocating the supplanting of an Euro-centric world view with an Afrocentric or Islamocentric or some other equally invalid, ethnically particularist perspective.

Third: This is also not a criticism of individual European / Western photographers, but a criticism of a series of prejudices, assumptions and perspectives that inform the work of photographers from across the globe. European and American photojournalists continue to dominate the industry in terms of creativity, courage, determination, ambition and financial and publishing support. It is about a way of seeing and understanding the world that remains deeply colored by some specific attitudes, presumptions and imaginations. There is no doubt that Western photojournalist remain at the peak of the craft (though an argument can be made that the Bangladeshis have really raised the bar, but that is a different post!) , and that their works, perspectives and methods influence photographers around the globe.

No one can deny that Western photojournalists are frequently emulated. It is the well-justified global influence of the European / Western photojournalist that compels me to speak about their work, and the ideas that inform and define it because they are now seriously crippling a more nuanced, intelligent and creative engagement with societies that have previously been dependent, dispossessed and distanced by narratives about their history, agency and capacity.

This post – broken up into five parts – will focus on these key areas:

  1. Part 1: There Is No Other But Us: I begin by looking at how the very people photojournalists claim to be speaking on behalf of are missing from their works and appear only as victims. There is a long legacy for such erasures, and I attempt to highlight this.

  2. Part 2: Angel Of Mercy, Have Mercy! Here I discuss the long held assumption that NGOs, international aid and humanitarian organizations are neutral, apolitical and doers only of good. Their influence – political and other, within the regions they work is now coming under critical scrutiny and criticism and this has yet to make it to the photojournalism world.

  3. Part 3: A World Really Small: Here I examine at how the European / Western consumer / audience becomes the principal focus of all advocacy appeals, and how issues that would matter to this market become the goal of advocacy. This has disastrous consequences for the people photojournalists are trying to help, but also reduces all advocacy to nice sound bites, and charity give aways, exacerbating the situation on the ground and avoiding the harder, more complicated work required.

  4. Part 4: Witness To The World: In this piece I look at the continued depiction of the photojournalist as ‘eyes to the world’ and carrying about her work without political, economic and cultural baggage. It questions the assumption that journalism is a neutral, eye-witness only craft, and tries to highlight how journalists are complicit in power relationships and political hierarchies.

  5. Part 5: The Burden Of Proof: Here I summarize my previous pieces and discuss the constant pressure photojournalism feels to justify its existence by having to indulge in advocacy, and socially conscious actions.

Part 1 will follow in a few days. In the mean time I hope that this introduction is provocative enough to get us to start to think about some of these issues.

 

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

The Most Dangerous Nation

The obsession with things ‘Islamic fundamentalist’ and ‘Al Qaeda” has been turned into a veritable multi-billion dollar industry and this despite the very little concrete and independently verified evidence to suppor the many claims of underground ‘Islamic/Al Qaeda’ cells and networks. Details »

New York City Experiments

I arrive in New York in a few days to try out a new experiment. It has been a few years in the making, and it has taken a few months of find funding for it. But now it is ready to be performed. The Polis Project‘s first Un/Do-Photography workshop will start in New  York on November 13th, 2019. And it represents the latest version of a practice of photographic teaching that I have been working on since 2013 when I first tried a new pedagogic practice at CounterFoto in Dhaka, Bangladesh. These workshops are unique because they are less about the practice, craft and mechanics of operating photography technology and primarily about deconstructing social, political and economic assumptions and myths that underlie so much of today’s mainstream photojournalism and photography practice. The Polis Project Un/Do-Photography workshops specifically engage the students on questions of Eurocentrism, imperialism/colonialism, capitalism, commodity fetishism, femo/homo-nationalism, the ‘gaze’ and power, the myths of Western liberalism, technology utopianism, humanitarian racism among other topics. Our goal, unlike any other workshop out there, is to produce critically aware, and intellectually outspoken photographers producing complex, multimedia projects that refuse the easy comforts of mainstream corporate owned media, and pursue complex projects that challenge us to see deeper and clearly. 

 

Details »

The First Un / Do-Photography Workshop Announced

We at The Polis Project are conducting our first ‘Decolonise Photography’ workshop in New York, from 19th to 23rd November, 2019.

You can learn more about them by going to the link shown above, or here

The workshops are open to all. And they are completely free. 

Over the course of five intensive days of presentations, seminars, discussion groups and project design sessions, participants will be encouraged to think about some of the most critical questions facing our communities. Less a workshop about aesthetics or the technology of the camera, this workshop instead concentrates on developing ways of thinking, researching and designing complex and multi-layer projects that reveal social, political, economic, corporate and other structural factors that create inequality, injustice, repression and violence. In sum, we will work to design and develop visual media projects that do justice to the lived realities, struggles and collective resistance of our most marginalised and silenced communities. 

Join us.

American The Beautiful And The Dreams of Pakistani Liberals

We have become accustomed to certain ways of seeing and speaking about the world. The Pakistani liberal – a caste that has been educated and nurtured on Western educational, political and cultural ideologies absorbed during years abroad at college, or careers, and through popular Western visual and literary media (fiction, non-fiction books), offers a particularly stark lesson in how certain forms of speaking, expressing and justifying arguments remain unchanged by thought, critical inquiry or self-doubt. The thoughtless regurgitation of American / European universalism, exceptionalism, and social sophistication  – all of which mind you are as much myths as anything, is an excellent example of this.

Details »

A Man In The Sun

This is an essay without reason. It emerges as a result of recent discussions with a friend and colleague about decolonialisation–what it means, how does it apply to various areas of human knowledge, and what can it mean for photography. Actually, this essay without reason emerges as a result of discussions at The Polis Project as we design a “Decolonise Photography” workshop series. Our discussions have led us to think about what new and different ways of seeing and doing could emerge in a documentary and photographic practice that recognises that “…the target of epistemic de-colonisation is the hidden complicity between the rhetoric of modernity and the logic of coloniality,” and is based on a need to learn to “unlearn” [See Walter Mignolo, Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and the Grammar of De-Coloniality, Cultural Studies, Volume 21, 2007].

Details »

msnbc

How Not To Critique A Photographer

Image Manipulation: A Manipulated And Confusing Debate

Screen Shot 2015-10-17 at 13.04.10

Photojournalists are once again being asked to offer perspectives and opinions on the apparently growing problem of image manipulation, staging and ‘truth’ in photography. The New York Times Lens Blog ran a piece a few days ago inviting a group of highly experienced photojournalists to speak about the issue. I say ‘apparent’ because there is obviously no objective way of measuring the suspicion that photographers today are more guilty of manipulating their images than photojournalists in the past. It may be a lot easier to carry out post-processing manipulations in Photoshop today, but that hardly confirms the fact that photographers did not do this in the past.

Anyone who has closely studied the works of one of the greatest photojournalists ever, Eugene Smith, would know well that image manipulation and staging were critical parts of his method. A number of his most famous and iconic images were either staged, had elements removed and added to them, or heavily processed in the darkroom to a degree that the final image had no resemblance to the negative. It has been argued that Eugene Smith got away with all this because he was Eugene Smith. As Cosgrove argues:

The sort of tinkering Smith engaged in with that one, iconic Schweitzer photograph might be frowned upon today. Any contemporary photojournalist who admitted to such behaviour would probably be excoriated by his or her peers, as well as by the general public.

W. Eugene Smith, on the other hand, has largely escaped such censure for one reason, and one reason only: he was W. Eugene Smith, and for better or worse, when it comes to aesthetics — and even, to some extent, when it comes to ethics — genius has always played by, and been judged by, a different set of rules than those that govern the rest of us.

One of the icons of the craft, and most likely, many more, engaged in what we would call ‘authorship’ – the right of the photographer to tell a story. In fact, of all the photographers invited to offer their opinion in this New York Times Lens Blog discussion, on Donald Weber gets right down to it, and demands that the photographer’s authorship be considered as something real, meaningful and important. He argues that:

Today, there are no limits, so our struggle is to liberate our reliance on technical capabilities and place our faith in the voice of the story and the author.

There can be no one way of doing anything, and a code of ethics should not hinder the aims of photography. In fact, it must work to liberate the story from stultifying confines, and help the photojournalist to engage an audience. How do we begin the transformation?

Weber can see that what is being argued and demanded can only lead to the erasure of the photographer as a voice, a point-of-voice and a creative. What is being asked is that photojournalists reduce themselves to simply button pushers on location, attempting to capture to the nearest degree possible, all the colour values, situational reality, and immediately unfolding event, as it happened at the moment of pressing the shutter. That their only role is recording the obvious, and that they are closest to the ‘truth’ when they are entirely absent intellectually, creatively, and visibly i.e. not influencing the situation around them. Such a posture of course is the mythical and imagined ideal of photojournalism. I call it mythical because most of the people who argue for it ignore the fundamental fact that even what is being recorded / documented / photographed, is based on human choice, prioritisation and opinion. That is, you cannot erase the human from behind the machine. Who asked the photographer to be at the location? Why did the photographer press the shutter when she did? What compelled her to aim it towards a certain group vs. another group? Why was even that particular unfolding situation important? In the end, authorship imposes itself on any form of documentary and editorial work.

But I am getting ahead of myself.

What I want to point out here in this post is the fact that these discussions, opinions, statements and arguments, lack a structure and a discipline. Photographers are speaking about a number of different things, and referring to a number of different situations and problems and calling all of them ‘manipulation. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the entire discussion ignores or avoids perhaps one of the most important influences that leads to manipulations and staging – the role of the editor in setting expectations and the struggle to delivery work to those expectations.

We can get a grasp of the different arenas of manipulation if we look at the entire production chain of photojournalism. We have to do this because photographers, and photojournalism work, is part of a chain of activities, and does not stand alone, and apart. To understand the way it is produced, and the issues of manipulation or staging that may be adopted at times, we have to place it in its industry and see the photographers and their responses from this wider perspective.There are four key and distinct forms of image manipulation that we have to deal with, and often argue about. It is critical to be clear which of these forms are the focus of our concern, and to make sure that we are not conflating one form with the other.

Why is this important? Well, first, because these are interrelated and influence each other. For example, a certain form of post-processing manipulation e.g. darkness a bombardment cloud, or cropping an edge of an image to make it more relevant to the editor, can be driven by a photographers need to make the image fit the editorial mandate.

At a very high level, a rather simple framework would allow us to define it as follows:

  1. The Issue Itself: Here I include editorial selection of stories to cover, stories to not cover, perspectives to show, and those to ignore, what to highlight and what to downplay. photojournalists do not work independent of editorial direction and discussion. many work alongside writers and closely with editors who advise them on what they are looking for. with growing influence of corporate and advertising money, and collaborations with the government, this area is a critical arena of manipulation and determines what photojournalists cover and what they ignore.
  2. Execution: Here I am referring to photographers staging and arranging photos, influencing the situation to get a photo they need, hiring people to perform a situation and then claim it for real, goading or encouraging people at the scene to create a situation that will get them the picture, or placing or setting up situations or objects to get the necessary images.
  3. Post-Processing: This is the most obvious – the use of post-processing image tools to conduct image editing, colour correction, erasing / adding of elements and so on.
  4. Publishing / Editing: This is the process where once the work in the field is done, editors and writers and photographers begin the process of editing, selecting, arranging, captioning, layouts and placements inside articles such that their meaning and idea is defined and determined.

Our discussions to date, as reflected again in this recent New York Times dialogue, focus on Execution and Post-Processing arenas. Editorial and Publishing manipulations are rarely if ever discussed. Stanley Greene talks mostly about 2 & 3. So does Santiago Lyon, McNally talks largely about 2, so does Sim Chi Yin and Darcy Padilla. In fact, categories 2 and 3 are the ones most everyone will talk about and discuss, to the exclusion of 1 and 4. Everyone argues that what is missing is some sort of bizarre ‘ethical’ standard, an honor code among professionals that would apparently go a long way towards reducing these ‘breaches. This is very much like the argument against doping in sports – it focuses on the athletes, demands greater ‘ethical’ standards, but ignores the fundamental market and profit pressures that are placed on the individuals and teams, and which often compel people to do whatever it takes to win. And which often provide the chemists, doctors, physiotherapists and other technicians to help enable the doping. Because winning is all that really matters in the end and in photography, getting the image is all that matters and to do this requires the involvement and collaboration of many people. Not the least, that of the editor.

It is only if we broaden the discussion that we can begin to understand not just why photojournalists may make unethical choices, but also what the impact and relevance of these choices are. It is critical to discuss the entire cycle because editorial demands, expectations, discussions, and decisions, play a powerful role in what a photographer does on the ground, and how s/he goes about getting the images that are necessary. I am not suggesting that editors compel photographers to manipulate – though that has been known to happen, but what I am arguing is that photographers face pressure and can be influenced by these pressures to manipulate things.

And there are times when that pressure comes from the growing demands of 24/7 media, the high stakes game of advertisement dollars and the need to be ‘first to the scene’, and the cut-throat nature of the craft where just ‘getting the picture’ is the only demand – ethical or otherwise, being placed on the photojournalist. These pressures come before the photographer even steps into the field, and we have to consider their role in how photographers end up working. We are in a world where more of us are being asked to do more, for less – less time, less money, less publishing space, and less voice. With more and more competition – from professionals and amateurs, and fewer and fewer assignments that allow a photographer the time and patience to produce necessary work, we should not be surprised that people will cut corner, make adjustments, set things up, just simply to get the job done. This is not a justification for manipulation, but simply to point out that we should not be so ‘shocked’ and certainly not be naive about the fact that the industry has increasingly veered towards

In fact, it is with some amusement that I read Michele McNally’s rather thoughtlessly offered comment – given that the New York Times has always used embedded photojournalism which is definitely perhaps one of the most egregious examples of Execution Manipulation, and passed it off as ‘truth’, that:

There are many societies where photographers work without accepted ethical guidelines, but with a long history of producing propaganda disguised as “news.”

Indeed, it would appear that the USA is right there among these ‘societies’ though I suspect she is not referring to her own country, or even to her own publication which has repeatedly crossed ‘ethical’ guidelines in its coverage of America’s wars, or Israel’s occupation and even its cheerleading of the build up to the invasion of Iraq. But we will not get into all that in this post as I have frequently written on that issue in previous posts. By not being aware of the complete cycle of photojournalism, McNally not only ignores her publication’s own ethical breaches, but she entirely leaves out the role of editors in creating these breaches in the first place.

What is striking about the framework outlined above is this: that it is easy for people to understand the necessity of choices and points-of-view when it comes to Issue Selection and Publishing / Editing, but not when it comes to Execution and Post-Processing. But given that a

My Struggles With Masculinity

It’s fascinating to see the return of so many mid- 18th century Orientalist troupes and obsessions : this bizarre and needling determination to categorize and then – as if the categories created are genuine and natural, to analyze. The French are of course persistent and unrepentant Orientalists, and the more educated the worse. And so this gaze that first categorizes – ‘Arab masculinity’, and then pretends to analyze it.

What is ‘Arab masculinity’? Need we ask? Dare we ask where this object of study even comes from? Is it even real? Is there a unique Arab conception and manifestation of ‘masculinity’? Do a dozen stylized, fashion-shoot type set-up images of men who happen to be Arab provide enough material to explain not only the category, but its real existence? Do these men live in cages, isolated from the world and its influences? Do they experience whatever we may think are pure ‘Arab’ experiences, and not any spilling across geographical, intellectual, cultural, emotional and physical boundaries? An ‘Arab’ is an ‘Arab’ is an ‘Arab’, and damn is s/he is anything but a pure representation of an easily isolated and studied species.

And what of the claim of reversals ie the female looking at the male as a change from the male gaze on the female? Is this even a thing? Is this not a discursive distraction from the fundamental question of power which yet again is not addressed directly? The Orientalist gaze was a possessive gaze, and a dispossessing one. It possessed the power to represent, and define, and dispossessed the subject of voice and history.

And so, when Marianne Roux of On Orient describes this work as:

“Mectoub is fascinating because of this unveiling, made possible because the photographer is both female and a foreigner. It plunges us deep into our representations and overturns them. Scarlett Coten holds up these copies for us to see, Homo Orientalis specimens of the new generation, in an unfiltered way, just as they are.”

…one is left feeling a little quesy at the crassly familiar phrasing and erasing. The use of words such as ‘unveiling’ or ‘Homo Orientalis’ are in amateurish poor taste, but the suggestion ‘in an unfiltered way…’ a profoundly troubling reminder of classical Orientalisms conviction of simply offering facts unaffected by power, politics, prejudice or personal ambition.

Arab masculinity. African masculinity. (I wrote about this in an earlier post:

http://www.asimrafiqui.com/…/rethinking-africa-or-how-not-…/

Gender. We construct categories but then forget that we constructed them. Foucault can scream till hell freezes over, but in a decade where Orientalism’s reductive and debilitating simplicities are back in style, I must say that I am not surprised that this body of work is taken unquestioningly seriously, but am also disappointed that it is.

We need to question Coten’s constructions, despite the claims to overturn representations, and see the ways in which they belong to a long tradition of colonial photography that wants to capture individuals, sans individual histories and social, cultural, intellectual and psychological interconnections, and offer them up as general representations of a unique, manufactured category. Today more than ever – with travel, education, the internet, magazines, television and big-screen media, social media and more, it is untenable to argue or justify the existence of isolated and insulated social ‘categories’.

In a world that is as integrated, inter-connected, and intermingled as it ever was, where influences from around the globe and the digital globe, from travel, from readings, from relationships, from education and knowledge, from experiences that transcend a local culture or geography and then influence the construction of the self, ideas of identity, style, voice, intellectual development and even emotional expressions, its near impossible to speak of ‘Arab masculinity’. But of course, when it comes to ‘Arab’ – as the Orientalists once did and now as we are once again reaching for these debilitating categories and reductive generalizations, these ideas are being given new currency by European institutions if not European / Western photographers. If it’s not the ‘hijab’, or ‘women’s liberation’ or other some such tiresome and idiotic arena of focus, it’s simply a continuation of the use of gender and sexuality to cage and label. It is an act of cultural and intellectual violence to castrate these subjects from their many relationships and broad influences, and pen them into a construction that suggests that they represent something entirely ‘Arab’ – whatever that is, and something entirely ‘masculine’, whatever that is too.

Note: Hester Keijser reminded me that I need to differentiate the way this project was depicted by the Oskar Barnack Award committee and the goals and intentions of the photographer. She is correct to point out that institutions can run away with the work and give it an entirely new voice. She also pointed out that Coten herself has a difficult and complex relationship with this work, one that she continues to work through. I respect the photographer’s perspective and would love to have a discussion. My comments above are based on the public statements about this work, both from the Oskar Barnack announcement and from Coten’s own website. I look forward to, and hope, that Coten will some day pen a concise and clear argument, where she isn’t  afraid to express her process but also her doubts and self-questioning, as we all do about the works we pursue. The convention of ‘bombast’ and ‘confidence’ required of photographers, where they speak of their works without ever revealing their own struggles and self-questioning, has to end.