RP Newsletter #6 - Who gets to photograph? Who protects the photographed?
Reacting to representation in photography, privacy of the photographed, plus my efforts in trying to emulate John Szarkowski. Longest newsletter yet. Sit back and enjoy.
Photo of our Onsen during my honeymoon vacation 4 months ago. Wasn’t so long ago but it was the last time the I felt there was still semblance of calm.
Who gets to photograph?
Phil Montgomery’s vanity fair coverage of the police brutality protests are amazing but I’ve seen several posts with him on it questioning why Vanity Fair chose to go with him (A Mexican American if I’m not mistaken) as opposed to an African American photographer. Now I admit I don’t have extensive knowledge of racial and identity politics (save for the one time I was in immigration check going into the US and one immigration officer upon seeing me shouted out loud, “Well that boy ain’t going home anymore” then laughed as he walked away.) and I know it is a complex matter. I will answer that by sharing a personal experience instead. Feel free to check out the comments in Phil’s photo as well for more context.
I remember some time ago (2017 I think), there was a huge photography exhibition in the National Museum about the indigenous tribes of Palawan by a French Photographer. The pictures are in the old-school “Nat Geo” photojournalism style. Nothing wrong about it but I was angry. I was seething even. I remember ranting to it to photojournalist friend and being noisy when I vented my anger over a drinking session.
I’m one of those clamoring that the National Museum of the Philippines opens a photography section to store and highlight the historic moments of our country or photographers who gave a significant contribution to the craft. That I don’t need to go to the University of Michigan to look at their Philippine Photography Archive or to Spain to look at Felix Laureano’s archives. That I don’t bug older photographers to grant me access or encourage them to do their archives. But to highlight a French Photographer’s work? It felt like a slap. It felt like I was told that we Filipinos are not worthy to tell our own stories and experiences by our very own institution which, according to its mission vision “Aims to protect, preserve, and disseminate the legacy of the Filipino People”.
For all, I know that French photographer (I refuse to name him because I am a coward but he claims he spent 30 years photographing here) did all the proper procedures and upheld the highest standards of photography ethics and practices. Heck, he might even be the greatest person ever and worthy of being called a saint. I don’t know. I will forever defend anyone’s right to photograph. I prefer it if he told the story from a foreign point of view. No matter how deep or shallow his understanding of the Philippines and the indigenous tribe he photographs, his experience is still valid. The tribe’s experience without him and their experience with him is valid. All experiences are valid.
What I want is the capacity to empower us to tell our own stories especially if it came from within the same community. Photography is a democratic medium. A phrase which I will say until my dying breath. We have to uphold this democracy but just like in politics, democracy is nothing if only a select few have this power. Access to photography is not the only thing that should be democratic but in the whole infrastructure. From the production, distribution, curation, and most especially the funding.
Maybe if he armed the community with a camera to tell their own story or even juxtaposed his photographs with theirs to reflect the experience he had with the tribe and them with him. All I got was this old school national geographic approach of going into a place and propping the discovery up on high from his perspective and not the people he photographed. I really don’t know and probably moot at this point.
I guess I really don’t want to care about his identity and his race. What hurts me the most is why our very own national museum chose to do this.
One thing I see didn’t see in the conversation with Montgomery’s photos is Vanity fair. As a business, they are free to do as they please. They most likely went with Montgomery because they feel he has the capacity to tell the story and deliver. As someone who is photographed an LGBT bar on their drag nights as a straight cisgender male, I do get it. I was given trust by this community and I learned things I probably wouldn’t learn. I did my due diligence. I did the work. I say Phil Montgomery and that French Photographer did too. Should Phil drop this work so that another photographer, preferably somebody within the African American community? Heroic if he does. I don’t know if he needs this gig to pay the bills or anything but we shouldn't be questioning the capability of a fellow practitioner. If that’s the case, aren’t we being prohibitive? We should instead demand from publications, editors, and other gatekeepers to add more pages and increase the visibility of these projects. Show more of this. Never drown this out. We increase the size of the pie instead of taking a slice from another.
Thing is, maybe we shouldn’t put Vanity Fair into such a high standard. Maybe those clamoring for their own voice should seize the means of distribution. The internet exists and the tools are available. Utilize it to dismantle systems and disrupt the status quo. Might as well tell your stories to your very own community. As always, funding or access to those funds will be a challenge. For that, I have no answer except in the belief in divine justice and that we should all look out for each other.
It makes me remember what Marian Pastor Roces said in a talk: “I never like critiquing individuals because more often than not they are doing the work. Kawawa naman diba? I prefer institutional critique as these institutions are the ones that can make these systems possible and the ones that can make the change.” It’s oddly comforting to hear.
Who protects the photographed?
I was supposed to publish this newsletter a few days than it should but this article by Poynter university. I wanted to include my thoughts especially when Ezra Acayan asked for insight from various folks in the industry (myself included).
I always see a protest as a 3-way dance between protesters, the organization or “protestees“ if you will (the ones who the protesters are opposing. Usually the government, corporation, and institution), and the media. The media acts as a buffer for both sides. They cover the events as news and given special access to both so the protestors can air their side and their grievances with the other in a civil manner. On the opposite end, the protestees are protected if there is an escalation from the protestor’s side or opportunists inciting chaos. The media is the middle ground airing both sides and looking at evidence and truth to broadcast to the public. That’s in an ideal world. (Actually, in an ideal world there will be no need for protest but I digress. For the sake of argument, in these assumptions, everyone is innocent.)
This 3-way dance/social contract of sorts is gone. So what happened?
It used to be simple. The two sides are open to the media being present and welcomed. However, the rise of citizen journalism, police state tactics, an abundance of petty criminal opportunists (looters and rioters), etc. the balance has shifted. The media as a buffer between the two has disappeared. An after-effect of the distrust in the media, post-truth era, and death of privacy. The visual journalist wields a double-edged sword. Remember that it is online visual materials that protestors used to identify cops the same can be used to identify protestors. It’s already a lot for protestors that put themselves in a vulnerable position risking safety and comfort. The police have to ensure safety is paramount by being constantly ready and aware of any sudden action. As a result, the protestors don’t want to be covered by the press and the protestees would rather not have the media since they have CCTV surveillance anyway. Everyone is on edge and the media is not welcomed.
So where does that leave us? Is there a way for media to get that trust back for all sides involved? Should legal observers be present to reinforce the buffer? I don’t have any answers. We are all treading new ground. I trust that the boots in the ground photojournalist will document with sincerity and respect to protestors and “protestees“. I have no worries with the boots on the ground journalist. They will do their jobs with due diligence but questions have to be raised: Are you there for the pursuit of the iconic image? Is it in the effort to document the current? Can you really mix both? The visual documentarist must at all times uphold journalist ethics, practices, and integrity. If it includes the right not to be photographed, then so be it. All I hope is that it would be enough.
(Postscript: It’s with Instagram clout chasers or “street photo bros” who don’t have a lick of journalistic integrity that I’m worried about. What’s going to happen when the police forcefully take their photos and hard drives? Will they buckle? Will they fold?)
Looking at Shelter
Szarkowski is one of those folks I look up to. I always wanted something similar to his Looking at Photographs book (hint hint for those wondering why I named my blog, reading photographs). I told myself “You know what? Screw it. You make one”.
So I’ll be looking at 100 images from the amazing shelter fund photo collection on the Reading Photographs Facebook page. I’m currently at No 3. I have done Renzo Navarro and Sonny Thakur. I’m not sure if I can reach 100 images but the challenge lies in looking closely. Not every photo there is considered beautiful (One criticism you can pin at the photo collection but to do so is to miss the point of being a “Shelter fund” for photographers) At the very least, 50 looks like a solid number. Either way, it’s a reason to write and do something about the archive.
It’s a huge time investment but since museums and galleries are closed, well this should suffice. I should be writing more often anyway. Please do check it out under the hashtag #LookingAtShelter on Facebook.
Misc. stuff
A lot of things out there in the world right now. Continuously praying that may time be uninteresting soon.
It’s been tough. Please be safe. From the virus or otherwise.
Do take care of yourselves and each other.
If you have any thoughts, suggestions, comments feel free to email me at contact@readingphotographs.asia.
What I’ve watched (Movie) - Once upon a time in Hollywood. Quentin Tarantino’s love letter to the “golden age” of Hollywood. Not the biggest Tarantino fan but I have a soft spot for movies where the director shows their thesis statement about movie-making or why they make movies.
What I’ve watched (Series) - Itaewon Class. Not the most artistic or creative K-drama series but the central themes of forgiveness and patience plus a slew of quirky characters make for a decent brain fart watch.
What I’m reading - Deschooling Society by Ivan Illich. I love his speech, To hell with good intentions Working in higher education, maybe I can gain some new insight into how I can improve teaching.
Always stay kind.
Until the next,
A.g.