For more reading please see Chapters 3, 5 and 6 in La Grange, A. (2005) B​asic Critical Theory for Photographers​. Burlington, MA: Focal Press.

If you’re interested in the critical debates around photojournalism, try and make time to find out more about at least one of these critical positions during your work on Part One.

Here are some questions to start you off:

Do you think Martha Rosler is unfair on socially driven photographers like Lewis Hine? Is there a sense in which work like this is exploitative or patronising? Does this matter if someone benefits in the long run? Can photography change situations?

Do you think images of war are necessary to provoke change? Do you agree with Sontag’s earlier view that horrific images of war numb viewers’ responses? Read your answer again when you’ve read the next section on aftermath photography and note whether your view has changed.

Do you need to be an insider in order to produce a successful documentary project?

Martha Rosler

After reading Chapters 3, 5 and 6 in La Grange, A. (2005) B​asic Critical Theory for Photographers​. Burlington, MA: Focal Press, I have developed a better understanding of the debates around photojournalism, but even in this more accessible format I do struggle to take in the subject matter coherently. Rosler used imagery of the Bowery, a skid row in New York as an example of why it is of no benefit to photograph it in terms of helping or exposing the occupants. She argues that it does little else other than reinforce the gap between the rich and the poor. Perhaps this is true but is this argument clearly justified. Wouldn’t such an idea need factual detail behind it to back up this idea. One thing that brings to mind is tourist photography, it doesn’t matter how many images I’ve seen of the Tower of Pisa (and there must be an infinite number), it certainly doesn’t dissuade me from going there. Perhaps it can be said that it further heightens the desire to fulfil the fantasy. How can the viewing or famine, poverty or a skid row in New York ever stop us from wanting or actioning help, to right the wrongs in our society? I would argue that it is much more about bridging the gap than reinforcing it. I would suggest that social and political events do much more to reinforce this than the photograph. Personally I believe the argument is purely opinion, and perhaps one photographer looking over the shoulder at another. It does seem a dated and quite extreme argument that the poor rely on the rich for sustenance, but if indeed that were true then it should surely not fall off the social radar, we need to be continually aware of this. I would suggest that this type of photojournalism is only dangerous if manipulated in some form or another, as long as its context is objective and the narrative is clear, then it can only serve as being beneficial. Like any form of muckraking journalism such photography can be derogatory, but it could be argued that the muckraking journalists are the real problem, perhaps not the unwitting documentary photographer. It again comes back to the external context of an image which will ultimately finalise its place within the medium. All genres of any medium face the same price of sweeping generalisation, and it could be said that it is often true that become tarnished with the same brush. I believe this could be considered as to what happened with Lewi Wine and his work which ultimately set out with social ethics at heart and the righting of the all to evident wrongs in our societies. I also believe that it serves not to only highlight the specific place in which such images are taken, but also comes with it is the realisation that we have a Bowery in our neighbourhood, our towns and our cities all over the world. Photographers such as Hine are more than aware of this and harness the power of the camera to raise awareness and facilitate a period of social and ethical change. With any change comes discourse, conflict and often times wholly untrue opinions raised in argument against what is represented. To stand up and challenge in the world of photojournalism such as Lewis Wine did is a measure of the man, who most probably was more than aware of the pitfalls he faced, but felt strongly enough to carry on with his crusade admirably. If people or indeed photographers did not continue to challenge but merely lay down and succomb to such ideology as Roslers, then we would loose our identity altogether and freedom of will would be eternally lost. We cannot and should not get lost in any form of generalisation. Any form of documentary or photojournalism must be clearly considered, as im sure Rosler did, but the outcome must be objective.

Exploitive is quite a frightening word in reality and one im sure we are all quite familiar with. Anything can be and often is exploited in todays social and liberal world. But what should be brought to attention is that some things need to be exploited. We need to know about the way are prisons are run, the way the government treats our NHS and journalism goes along way, rightly or wrongly to do this. We need to know about the poor area of our town that is being left to fester and add to the problems we face as a social community. Is the work of Hine and others like him patronising? Only in the wrong context, only if you look at the images in a way that was not perceived or wanted by the photographer. The photographer should not be laid to blame for this, the reasons surrounding this mentally run far deeper than this essay. If hierarchal structure exists in society due to capitalism then that needs to be exploited not manipulated into fuelling the gap. Any photograph will be of benefit to someone, sometimes only to the person who took it. It is when the benefit is outweighed by wrong doings that that image becomes deconstructive. Or does it…..? Perhaps it would and does take years for that balance to be addressed but without that catalyst in would never occur.

Susan Sontag

I personally can only agree with Susan Sontags argument that bombarding the public with sensationalist images of war and poverty has a numbing effect on public response. Like an overplayed song on the radio the listener switch off (or changes channel) as does the viewer when something becomes overly repetitive. “Compassion fatigue” again something I had never known about but to my knowledge makes perfect sense. I believe in many circumstances, particularly in the journalistic context benefits from short, sharp dialogue, concise, clear and direct. “To shock, photographs have to be novel and so they become increasingly horrific” suggest Sontag (Chapter 3 pg. 33 La Grange, A. (2005) B​asic Critical Theory for Photographers​. Burlington, MA: Focal Press) whereas an overplayed scene can only become banal. Perhaps it could be noted the timescale in which successive images are released in the journalistic world has some relevance, also the on a basic level the amount of images that would complete a set or series. For instance war photography will always be overplayed when it is documented whilst be taking place. This perhaps can be justified. It is perhaps even more prevalent now that in the age of social media that wherever we turn we will be succumbed to such images on Twitter, YouTube or Instagram. This will surely deaden any impact and im sure that most will ultimately switch off. This ideal and the current digital age perhaps sparks an entity new debate. It is now something that cannot be controlled in the citizen world, and perhaps lays a greater responsibility on the shoulders of the professional photojournalist.

Aftermath photography

It cannot be argued that aftermath photography carries an equally powerful message but again the images have to be taken on context and meaning. David Campany argues that the work of Joel Meyerowitz documenting the aftermath of 9/11 is to “safe” and not clear in “depicting the horrific scenes of terrorism” (2003 Safety in Numbness; Some remarks on the problem of late photography” David Campany). Aftermath photography should not be safe or beautiful unless it carries the meaning of survival and celebrate the resounding force of the human will to overcome such devastation and loss. After all we need and should celebrate the right that comes with the wrong. By looking at the work of Meyerowitz and this 9/11 series, it cannot be argued that photography is not beautiful, but what he has photographing most definitely is not. But he so gracefully depicts the way the light falls on such a dramatic scene and how the harsh glow of manmade light enables emergency services and construction workers to work through the night. We need to see this, this is REAL. Its doesn’t need to be monochrome or grainy or film like, it needs to be pure and angelic, and certainly in this instance adds great poignancy to what was a terrible act of terrorism. The context of Meyerowitz images is one that is purely based on reality, light and the detail in what is going on right there and then. Is the way light falls on this unspeakable scene beautiful? Yes, but they does not detract from th horror and the search for justice and truth. Whilst these images differ greatly from Paul Seawright’s 2002 series of the war in Afghanistan, for me what is important firstly is that it is a entirely different subject and would provide the same dynamics of shooting the aftermath of 9/11. But could it be argued that even such barren landscape against a backdrop of huge mountain ranges and weathered rock beautiful? They are two scenes that provide completely different fields of view for the photographer and the are also documenting two separate events. The knowledge of what happened must surely be in the forefront of the photographers mindset, but he or she must remain objective. A photographer will always consider and execute his work in an artistic fashion and this is where the lines and boundaries becomes blurred. Any photograph is perhaps equal parts document and equal part art. To remove the art would make it only vernacular. But also now vernacular photography is considered a great source of artistic relevance. Would a citizen journalist armed with a smartphone be able to contextualise the aftermath in a more realistic or aesthetic fashion? Yes and no perhaps, but to be truly informed we need difference, we need to challenge the norm and we have to let the camera free to become its own identity within a time and a place. I believe that in utter conflict with the reality, the work of Meyerowitz in this instance perfectly reflect freedom, how the world keeps turning, how the sun keeps rising. That is brilliance and understated intelligence that the camera imprisons. You just need to let the camera into your heart and soul to free it.