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:
1) 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?
2) 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. See also: http://lightbox.time.com/2014/01/28/
when-photographs-of-atrocities-dont-shock/#1 [accessed 24/02/14]
3) Do you need to be an insider in order to produce a successful documentary project?

1) Martha Rosler : Work can be exploitative or patronizing if it is taken from a distance and no relationship is developed with the people involved who are the subject of the story. Anthony Luvera, a British socially engaged photographer made work called “Taking Place” about the homeless. The approach was that the subjects were heavily involved in the process by taking their own images, learning photography so picked up a new skill, and through the process creating self worth and a sense of identity again.
As part of this project, questions were asked of local councils about what provisions are made for the homeless and effective change was made at government level that placed a legal obligation on councils to provide information to the homeless about where they can access basic facilities in the town or city they find themselves in. I am inspired by how this project has made a positive change to how the homeless are treated by local councils.

2) Susan Sontag’s  views that the viewer is becoming numb to horrific images was 39 years ago in her book “On Photography” written in 1981. This was true then but even more so today, but my view is that it is the same image in the same media format shown repeatedly that will numb the senses, so rather than the image numbing the senses, it’s the repetitive similarity that numbs the senses.

I agree that images of war are still necessary to provoke change, but people in today’s digital age take on information in a very different way to the way they used to in the 1960s and 1970’s the time period referred to by Susan Sontag’s book “On Photography” he best way to transmit information today is digitally and in sound bite format or a powerful image, or a combination of both, but the image really does have to be something that moves people, something that stands out as being unique or different – the lifeless body of Syrian refugee boy, Alan Kurdi dead on a Turkish beach was a photo that initiated action, it wa’s shocking and as it states in the Daily Sabah’s online article “Few photos shook the collective public conscience like that of the lifeless body of Syrian boy Alan Kurdi washed ashore in Turkey’s western coast”. Several EU countries including the UK and Germany relaxed laws to allow more migrants to enter. I agree that the same images of war will numb the senses, different images or an image that comes from a different angle either in its narrative or the image or both will still invoke a reaction of empathy and could be used as a vehicle for change. The process of making the images can be a vehicle for change too, socially engaged photographers like UK’s Anthony Luvera involves the homeless in taking photographs of themselves and their surroundings and this has helped raise the public and government awareness of the plight of the homeless around the UK. The difference in the image of Alan Kurdi and also Anthony Luvera’s work with the homeless is that the work breaks down stereotypes and forces us to think of the subjects differently, they are portrayed in a more human way that evokes more of an emotional response from the viewer.

Susan Sontag, despite saying that images of war have numbed the senses, she still makes reference to how a still image is more powerful than video which is moving images as moving images cancel each other out, she uses the example of Nick Ut’s photograph of the screaming napalm bombed Vietnamese child having more of an impact than moving images. Given that the Syrian child, Alan Kurdi’s photograph provoked similar outrage several decades on means that photography of this nature is still effective in creating change.

I find it interesting how Susan Sontag discusses the ethical stance of photography and what we think we “have a right to see” – this seems to have shifted significantly over time where more graphic violent images have become more acceptable viewing.

I enjoyed Susan Sontag’s five reasons why photographs fail (Pg : 23 On Photography) I can see how through these five points she may think that images of war can be less effective than initially intended :

i) “A photograph is both a piece of time and of space. By including or
excluding things its arbitrary boarders both create and break relationships. This temporal and spatial dislocation results in social reality being presented
as small discontinuous particles”.

ii) A photograph only shows us the surface, so it has many meanings
and encourages us to deduce or intuit what the reality was like.

iii) Photography can only give us knowledge of the world if we accept the
world as we see it ‘But this is the opposite of understanding, which starts from
not accepting the world as it looks’. Photographs have a use in giving us
mental picture of things, but they always hide more than they reveal. She
quotes Brecht as pointing out that a photograph of the Krupp works show
very little of that organisation. The ‘amorous function’ is based on looks but
understanding is based on functions, which takes place in time and so can
only be explained in time. ‘Only that which narrates can make us understand’

iv) While photographs can arouse conscience this is only a semblance of
ethical or political knowledge because it is always sentimental (whether it be
cynical or humanist).

v) By duplicating the world in such a comprehensive way it has made the world seem more available than it really is

3) I don’t think it is necessary to be an insider to produce a successful documentary project. I think it is how photographs are taken and the narrative the photo, or series of photographs portray. The plight of wildlife and plastic invading their environment is evidence of this, one does not have to live with and get to know the animals or the people, it may help you get the job done quicker and add a richness to the narrative though. With patience and tenacity and fully understanding the issues at hand through research and talking to people who know about the issue at hand, successful work can be created and a desired response achieved. There is a lot more to a documentary project than simply being on the inside of the story, it is choosing the correct series of images, telling the story with different image types, placing the images in the correct medium at the correct time to name a few considerations that all make a successful documentary project.

Bibliography

DailySabah. (2020). West deaf to migrants’ plight four years after Alan Kurdi’s death. [online] Available at: https://www.dailysabah.com/syrian-crisis/2019/09/02/west-deaf-to-migrants-plight-four-years-after-alan-kurdis-death [Accessed 24 Feb. 2020].

Anthony Luvera. (2020). Anthony Luvera: Taking Place – Anthony Luvera. [online] Available at: http://www.luvera.com/taking-place/ [Accessed 24 Feb. 2020].