A question I often ask myself - Is capturing the below image and displaying it ethical?
Traditional Shangaan Dancing. (Photo – Tao Varty)
Today I am discussing a problem that photographers sometimes face. Something that is food for thought and will help us as creatives in our pursuit for authenticity.
So here is the problem; time and time again I have looked upon photos of African people that hang on the walls of various wealthy establishments and viewed them with unease. Portraits of Maasai tribesmen, Zulu women in traditional clothing, Xhosa herdsmen, Mozambican fisherman. All imagery I admire for their beauty and uniqueness. But this admiration is paralleled by an unease and a feeling of injustice. When I look upon these images the same recurring thoughts come to me - Have the people in these photos benefited? Have these photos brought about change? Or have they merely been sold by a photographer who did not quite understand his/her subject matter to a wealthy establishment all to happy to line its walls with people they do not care for and use only for the aesthetic quality they provide as the ‘exotic other’.
To clarify, the 'exotic other’ refers to the clumping of people who don't adhere to a western way of living into one big group. This clumping is often done due to a lack of understanding or care for anyone that does not operate from a Eurocentric point of view. This is done despite the fact that there are large groups of people outside this point of view who are extremely diverse in terms of their geographical positions, beliefs and ways of life. Often depicted as beautiful, wild and exotic these people are captured by photographers and sold off to decorate game lodges, resorts, and hotels. The fact that these people often do not benefit is wrong but the use of this aesthetic, known as the ‘exotic other’, makes it even more immoral. It highlights a desire from westerners to disregard accurate portrayals of various groups of tribal people for a more uniformed style simply because it looks pretty and is easy to understand. This type of photography and representation does not aim to promote and explore diversity but aims to emulate an idealized, wild and inaccurate aesthetic purely for the purpose of decoration and hegemonic understanding.
In artistic terms the recreation, idealization and usage of non-western people is known as Primitivism. Artists such as Picasso and Gauguin have been accused of using such an approach. The drawing of inspiration from other cultures is not unethical, however, where it becomes wrong is when the creation of artistic work is built on a lack of understanding and disregard. The presentation of people and their cultures inaccurately to accommodate the artist’s fantasized preferences results in the idealization of tribal people and a misrepresentation of them, which is then absorbed by western society and feeds stereotypes.
Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going? — a painting by Paul Gauguin, 1897.
Unfortunately this misrepresentation is very evident in the world of photography. There is already a lack of understanding among western people of other cultures and with this misrepresentation it only serves to create more confusion and misunderstanding of non-western cultures. This is where the main problem lies. To a lesser extent western ignorance of what they looking at and enjoying is somewhat dubious as well. However, this ignorance is not altogether criminal. I am no expert on the ways of tribal people and so I am not saying for one second that just because you don’t understand something completely means you can’t appreciate and admire it. Naturally most westerners would not understand the ways of tribal people and it's only human not to know everything. All I am saying is one should try make the effort and we as a western collective should own up to our ignorance and acknowledge that it is there.
It then may be asked where does the main villain lie in this discussion and how can one be the hero? It has already been established that the commercial trade of images of tribal people that do not benefit the people themselves is highly unethical. The photographer and establishment that purchases the images are already vilified unless they actively try to benefit the people presented within the images. This alongside the use of the aesthetic known as the ‘exotic other’ hence serve as the main villains in this discussion. But what if one takes these images purely out of enjoyment and for artistic expression? Here it gets a little bit tricky. For me it is about two things; firstly, a conscious effort from the photographer to understand his/her subject matter as best they can in order to capture the subject matter accurately and convey authenticity. Secondly, the action of using their photos to benefit the people in them and educate others. If these two rules are met than I think you (the photographers) are ethically in the clear to take such imagery.
There is an exception to this. We as humans are curious things and there is so much to explore and learn. I am sure there are many people seeking to understand and document our world and the people in it. So if one takes images of tribal people with the intention being for the documentation and sharing of information in order to create understanding (even if they do not quite understand their subject matter in that moment) and simply have to take the images due to circumstance or timing of what is happening in front of the lens at that moment, than I feel that is fine too.
For me this is somewhat a rough compass to what is morally right when photographers are faced with this ethical dilemma. Maybe there are more exceptions and issues to be discussed around it, I am only human. If you feel like there are then let me know. Until then, keep up the pursuit of authenticity!
Comments