Challenge: Post Faces from Far Places: Ethnic portraits, travel among peoples!

[Angela Weil]

Faces from far places....

Yes and thanks, Kevin, your remarks reflect my considerations in the context of this thread. The exotic other tends to be outside. Outside of what?
Angela

 

[Perry Haines]

You know, I can't help but feel that a common element is many of these pictures is a social equation that goes:

poverty = exotic​

A photographic formula that goes back as far as Street Life in London and in literature yet further.

Personally I find it troubling, though at the same time it's important to balance this concern with an acknowledgement that for at least some viewers, the photos may elevate their understanding rather than just confirm and conform to their social assumptions.

One thing I've noticed about many of the great journalist/portraitists is that very few of their subjects are described as, say, "the lady with the red bag," but rather as "Helen." Bruce Davidson was at SFAI a couple of nights ago & it was surprising to find that he knew the families of people he shot on assignments in the 1960's ("the little boy in the back is a lawyer now, and the one on the right bought a new truck last week"). Davidson, Eugene Richards, Mark Ellen Mark, Robert Bergman... none of them back away from "the agency of the subject."

When we photograph across linguistic and cultural divides, we almost always nullify this agency. It seems the inevitable poison of most vacation and street portraiture, and a real struggle to overcome.

I was once faced with this issue as I traveled the state of Oaxaca, Mexico. A few felt like I wanted to photograph them to show how they lived in "poverty." For that reason I always tried to get to know them to some extent before asking for the photograph. This seemed to reasure them that I was interested in them.

Keep the beautiful photos coming everyone!

Perry
www.perryphoto.com

 

[MArk Le]

well said, Kevin

I agree completely: may I add this equation (as follows)?

povery = exotic = no model release needed (and no compensation for any commercial use as well)

still the photographer makes money, or gets a publication next to the ad of Rolex on the Time

(not my own words, somebody elses words... can't say here ...) and the magazine will sell because of the poor people in it.


Let's call things for what they are: it is "politically correct" to sell poor people on books and show around rich (and pretty much exclusive) places the "good work" (for the money, of course)

well: THAT I do not like . me thinks that it's another way to sell. So be it: I'll call it sales with less expenses (the model won't come out and sue..)

/sarcasm off

 

[Asher Kelman]

My thoughts have always been that we photographers are all hunters. The lion does not ask Bambi the deer, for permission. But that is where we start. It is part of being civilized to have insight that we should not exploit other humans in this primitve way!

Ideally, we want the dignity of subjects to be enhanced not hurt by us and we should at least try to compensate people who are poor. This is as difficult and important as knowing what ISO, lens and f stop to use!

Power says what you can do. Ethics says what we should refrain from doing. That applies to photography too.

Asher

 

[MArk Le]

asher,
that was nicely put. Elegant and altogheter true.
If it wasn't for the political and monetary gain coming out of it: associated to a clear double standard. To make things even better the "target" of the essay is the rich part of the world , and that part is the same part called wrong. In the end nobody will do anything if not for the money going to the screamer. Nothing changes: why? because in order to change something (if the intention is genuine) the artist supposed to work from the inside, not touch base and then run back to the rich society in the hurry to show (and get paid) for the scandal. (medicine without borders for example do it, for real, and that's not a joke because they take all the challenge and stay there, until it ends: big difference!, besides.. they don't get paid, another big difference!)
in other words: in order to make some money I do this: scream to the abuse and then I abuse myself. Disgusting? yeah. it is

 

[MArk Le]

Asher,
one more thing, and this I really need to take it off of my chest even if off topic (or maybe not that much) : on 9-11 I was unable to touch my cameras for at least 2 months. No pictures, none. I live and work in the City.
And I see that some colleague is selling books with a bunch of shots, and the money goes? where?
Help me to understand this, better, because I don't know how they can possibly do it. The books don't come cheap. Art? Feelings? our feelings? their feelings? money? their money? what is it? Reportage? I was unable to report, but one thing is reporting and another thing is selling books (in case).

hmmm, let me know if I'm going out of line here.

 

[Antonio Correia]

Faces from Far Places.
I am in Portugal.
India is a far place for me.
USA is a far place for me.
Portugal is a far place for you.
A young face to relax from those good and interesting posts before.
I will do better than this. Next Saturday, or next Sunday... Meanwhile ...

 

[Clayton Lofgren]

Relative poverty

I was raised in a homestead comunity in northern Canada. We had no luxuries like electricity, and money was scarce, but we children never felt like we were poor. I see the same situation in many of the places I visit.
These people obviosly live a tough life

But I remember my childhood as being at least as happy as this youngster.

These are f30 pics from Morroco. They are straight from the camera except for downsizing- I have no software here. Am really wishing I had brought my "real" camera, but am getting some decent shots.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Clayton,

You obviously have empathy with your subjects and they are so proud to pose as a family. The first picture represents a lot of the human condition. First we have a dependence on nurturing (which has inheritance in a way from Antonio’s baby picture with a comforter in his mouth!) The family is a unit. Here there is no religious or political debate on the definitions of family. The latter is an essential unit of survival.

The animal with them indicates their closeness to labor, a partnership between domesticated animals and their own bare existence. The children know the mule almost as well as they know each other.

The straws of grain that litter the worked field to the right indicate an active farm. The road to the distance is the path of their life through their rural landscape.

The mule anchors the image in the for ground and that is satisfying and gives some stability and strength to the scene. We don't fear for them and there's no tension at all in this scene. The father loves and protects them and they are secure with him.

I am impressed by this ability of humans to relate to and trust strangers; this is to the family important and also to us.

Thanks for sharing,

Asher