Conservative Photography

[Pioneer]

I think that most photography describing the social condition is not political in and of itself. It is only descriptive of a situation or of some change where there can be winners and losers. It is how that photography is used and presented that becomes political. Dorothea Lange is a great example. Much of her photography was documenting a great economic change occurring within the United States. That change was then used by the Roosevelt Administration to help support the need for many of their programs, a lot of which were actually causing that change to occur much more rapidly.

To my way of thinking, the opposite to Dorothea Lange's photography, as well as any number of her contemporaries, is found in Norman Rockwell's work. They are not photographs, but they could be, and they were frequently being used to show that the American Dream was successful. He didn't paint pictures of starving children. He painted pictures of happy children playing with wagons, or feeding their happy dogs ice cream.

The images themselves are only records of a particular condition. It is the response, or the way they are used, that becomes political.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Not sure. There's a very high degree of idealization of The Worker, The Aryan, etc., in "EXTREME conservative art". This is not really very safe and cautious. Just a thought.

Cheers,

R.

Well I do agree about the worker being idolized in the work and they certainly approved representational (safe) work. They didn't like work that stepped into abstract territory or anything not representational.

 

[Pfreddee]

For another take on the subject, Susan Sontag's "On Photography?"

With best regards.

Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[redisburning]

I am thinking how easy it would be to show a happy family with same sex parents and how it is basically impossible to demonstrate the moral fabric of society.

and how easy it is to show a floating pile of trash in the ocean the size of Texas.

or how easy it would be to show the difference between a school in rural Mississippi and one in Massachusetts.

 

[aizan]

Like people say, photographs are evidence, not proof. You can use the same photograph to support different theses. For example, you can take a photo out of Paul Graham's "Beyond Caring" and use it to support a conservative perspective.

Also, "The Family of Man" is the best politically conservative photobook I can think of. Definitely worth a look.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Franz, I don't see the problem you describe as one of having conservative beliefs. As others have noted, it can be very difficult to photograph complex concepts, whether they be conservative or liberal.

I shoot for a number of liberal publications and I struggle with the same issues you describe.

So I try to go for the small over the big. Find a particular aspect of an "issue" and work with trying to convey that through my photographs. And I am also slowly learning how to include writing in my photo stories. It's been quite a challenge and learning experience. A quick story I just shot last night can be seen at the link below:

Candlelit Vigil for Sensible Gun Laws

I think the images are somewhat powerful, but without the writing, I'm not sure they would convey as much.

Though we see the world very differently, I wish you luck on your journey to convey what is in your heart and mind.

Best,
-Tim

 

[aizan]

it wouldn't be that hard to do a politically conservative photobook on guns. you just need to illustrate qualities such as responsibility and self-reliance. if you want to see a positive portrayal of guns in a movie, watch "winter's bone."

 

[zauhar]

One use of photography for a typically conservative aim has been to display photos of aborted foetuses, or to to show in utero images of the developing foetus .

Didn't see that mentioned yet, sorry if I'm repeating.

Randy

 

[Brando]

Conservatives (classical liberals) have has this problem forever, the seen benefit vs the unseen cost. Frédéric Bastiat wrote about it in the 19th century in his "fallacy of the broken window" essay, and it's the reason FDR kept winning elections in the middle of a depression.

 

[cz23]

Franz, what you are talking about is expressing your values photographically. Personally, I think that is a great goal. But photography can be so subjective that it's a difficult medium by which to communicate a specific message. One approach you might consider is combining your pictures with words. I think this is particularly true of more focused issues and points of view, such as the minimum wage issue you cite.

The other possibility that occurs to me is to address broader conservative sentiments, whatever those are to you. Typical examples are family values, the dignity of hard work, faith, sanctity of life, etc. More general themes might make personal expression easier.

One important thing, I think, is to work to express your values though a body of work, rather than single photographs.

And for these more general themes, brief captions, photo and gallery titles, and even an introductory paragraph can help align the viewer with your intentions.

John

 

[Kanamit]

You might have a difficult time photographing a false premise. I guess you could go out and photograph all the robot fast food workers taking our precious extremely low-paying food service jobs.

Alternatively: bootstrap yourself a studio and become the photographic equivalent of this dude.

 

[Pioneer]

Ahh. So many voices and the internet is the chosen forum for most of them.

 

[semilog]

Taking one micro issue as an example, I don't believe that minimum wage laws are a good idea. I think they actually work against their intention by causing employers to move towards automation and less hiring. I believe they eliminate entry level jobs and make it harder for people to gain employment, experience, and self-respect.

Minimum Wage Machine. There's some conservative art for you.

 

[Brian Legge]

Where are the ideas demonstrated successfully and what visuals can present those ideas?

Where could the ideas be applied to improve a situation that can be presented in an ideal way?

I think part of the fallacy here is that photographing the downtrodden, inner cities, etc is viewed as appealing to more liberal positions. They are just people in trouble and pain - that in and of itself shouldn't suggest a political affiliation.

Though there was a bunch of controversy at the time here, I was one of the people who photographed an early Occupy rally. I specifically photographed with the intent of capturing the range of people and ideas. I still view it as one of my more successful series not because of the topic but because I felt like I was able to present the range of ideas participants and emotions present.

My goal wasn't to advocated a particular agenda that day. One avenue for you may be to look for events which align with your ideas and figure out how to present what you see there.

 

[Jamie123]

Perhaps what we photograph is a better indicator of our political leanings than the way we vote, and than what we think we believe because of the way we were brought up. What have YOU (anyone here) tried to photograph in the interests of political change? I'll put my hand up to Tibetan freedom, the increased use of bicycles and (in the 70s) Save the Whale aka Wave the Sail. If you HAVEN'T photographed anything with a political slant, why not? Indifference? Complacency? Laziness?

As you say, what we photograph as how we photograph. In that vein I think many of Ansel Adams' pictures can be regarded as conservative photography (though I do not know what his political views were) simply because he decided to not point his camera at the way his contemporaries lived and instead made idealized pictures of nature.

Personally, I've never engaged in any photographic political activism. Indifference and complacency surely play some part in it but mostly I think it's because I've never felt that I want to use my photography simply as a means to an end.

That being said, I think one needs to differentiate between political activism and political content. As an example, when you photograph a model and then later edit the pictures it says a lot about gender politics. You may or may not be aware of it but it's there nontheless. The same goes for many other subjects.

 

[Rodchenko]

Every image I take is political. Not because I am some kind of propagandist, but because everything we do is political.

The first photos I was involved with (as director, before I had a camera of my own) were taken in an abandoned steelworks in 80s Sheffield. The place had closed down so quickly that there were ledgers open on a desk. That led on to my longest and most extensive series, on human absence. I've been reminded of those times lately, with the passing of Margaret Thatcher.

I'm a socialist - red/green - and all my photos, including nature and family snaps - fit a narrative related to the respect of all people, and of nature. However, I recognise that may not be obvious to the external observer of a single image, and that doesn't necessarily matter.

Last week, I went to an exhibition at the Photographers Gallery of images by Bert Hardy, who was definitely political. But, while his images individually were beautifully composed examples of decisive moments, and you could construct some kind of story from each, it was likely to be inaccurate.

Where the photos really come alive is as part of a sequence. Hardy was one of the prime exponents of the classic photojournalistic style in Picture Post, which gave you a series of views of a subject, exploring the issue.

It's a problem for the left that, while it's easy to take an emotive picture of a ragged, hungry child or a mouldy, ramshackle dwelling, it's much harder to use images to explain the complex processes which create and sustain that position, and why, or how to get beyond this towards a better solution. Whereas the right-wing politics is easier to condense into an iconography. Any photographer working for the Mail or Sun knows the score. That doesn't mean there isn't subtext - quite the opposite. Lange depicted a woman with dignity in the most awful poverty, suggesting we regard her as a fellow human.

I guess it is possible to create conservative (small 'c') photos which present traditional values without demonizing an 'out group' to create a sense of cohesion through fear, but I can't see the point.

Incidentally, a lot of my photography depicts traditional values, but I may view them differently from a conservative, which just goes to show how much depends on the way an image is read, so we're back to Sontag, Berger, and Spence.

Although I don't agree with your politics, I wish you well with your project.

 

[Chris101]

... I think many of Ansel Adams' pictures can be regarded as conservative photography (though I do not know what his political views were) simply because he decided to not point his camera at the way his contemporaries lived and instead made idealized pictures of nature.
...

Excuse me? Manzanar, Suffering Under a Great Injustice was a series by Adams that exposed the conditions and life in the internment camps that United States citizens of Japanese decent were involuntarily confined to during World War II.

 

[Jamie123]

Excuse me? Manzanar, Suffering Under a Great Injustice was a series by Adams that exposed the conditions and life in the internment camps that United States citizens of Japanese decent were involuntarily confined to during World War II.

I'm familiar with that work. Doesn't refute my point about his landscapes, though. I refered to the work as potentially conservative, not the man himself.

 

[thegman]

Assuming you're in the United States...

Basically, what you're saying is that you have conservative/right wing views and that you have trouble finding photos which sympathetically reflect those views?

Perhaps it's because the situation is much more complicated than "left wing bad, right wing good"?

I think it's fair to say that the running of a whole country, with almost 300 million people, all with different views and circumstances, all bound by the effects of history, and all blinkered by their own views is far more complicated than any of us can understand. Maybe you could consider reflecting the grey areas and confusion of politics, rather than come down on one side?

Very few people can show true intellectual honesty about their beliefs. 99% of people will ignore evidence and trump up evidence to make themselves look correct in their views. If you take photos to reflect a right wing view (or left wing), what you're actually making is propaganda.

If you made honest photos about politics, your work would at least be unusual.

You've got some right wing views, I tend towards left wing (by USA standards), but the fact is we're both probably pretty mistaken about lots of things, and we can both likely learn from each other. Maybe consider your photography to be asking questions about left/right politics rather than acting like you already know the answers, which probably none of us actually do.

All the best

Garry

All through photo history we've seen how photography can be used to move public opinion towards legislation. Photographs inspired the creation of the National Parks system; photographers like Lewis Hine helped pass Child Labor Laws; the FSA photographers helped promote Roosevelt's New Deal and so on.

Right now I can go into the city and photo the poor children running around improperly dressed. With a little homework I can follow the Sheriff serving eviction notices. I can find a street corner drug dealer in about 15 minutes, gangbangers not much different. Without much thought or effort I can photograph derelict storefronts and schools in shambles, marking me a concerned photographer pointing out our social ills and injustices.

Except I am a conservative, philosophically (and not following any knee-jerk Republican party line). Taking one micro issue as an example, I don't believe that minimum wage laws are a good idea. I think they actually work against their intention by causing employers to move towards automation and less hiring. I believe they eliminate entry level jobs and make it harder for people to gain employment, experience, and self-respect. And they are an intrusion on a person's right to hire whom they want and pay them for their true market value.

Yet I can not imagine a photograph that can express my feelings. I can show plenty of poor and suffering and caption those photos with sympathetic pleas for social justice. I can show a photo of a frustrated job seeker not being able to find anything, but that picture doesn't begin to describe the underlying causes for endemic poverty that's caused more by inept attempts at social engineering than by any evil Capitalist plot.

Same for showing starving African children... how can the photos be anything but tragic, yet the causes of this suffering are often compounded by the good intent of the NGOs and do-gooders who end up prolonging and expanding the suffering by propping up corrupt regimes and helping the population to survive and expand without any consideration for what the next generation might subsist on?

How do you show that though?

Are there any examples of concerned, right wing photography?

No Leni Riefenstahl jokes please ;-p

 

[tunalegs]

I think the problem is approaching a situation with a prejudice and a plan to produce propaganda to support that prejudice. Rather than simply looking for an issue, documenting it, and then drawing conclusions from what you've seen. I think this is a problem with a lot of documentary work these days - somebody says we need to make a documentary that shows X point, rather than actually just documenting the issue. It's different than the photographer's discrimination of what they photograph. It's different than simply being biased, say by focussing on the aspects which the photographer is sympathetic to. It's creating a work to parade around as a document - but which was from the start only made to show one point of view to influence rather than to inform.