Conservative Photography

airfrogusmc said:
I think Robert Frank had a bias in one of the really great photo books after WWII "The Americans" and I also think that most of the FSA photographers had a bias to show how hard the times were on many Americans and I know W.Eugene Smith had a bias in his photographs of Minamata the fishing village being poisoned by a Chisso factory dumping heavy metals into water sources. So sometimes a bias is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Confirmation bias is the disregard for facts which conflict with your ideas about a subject. For example if you think a problem was caused by sexism - you will seek out facts which confirm this, but ignore facts which contradict this.

One can be biased but still acknowledge the existence of facts which do not support their conclusion - and wonder of wonders - document them. I don't really think that is too complicated to wrap one's head around.

I'm not claiming that it is possible for a single person to present a situation entirely 100% objectively. That is of course impossible. I'm just suggesting that if you claim to be documenting a subject, but you're cutting out everything that doesn't shore up your argument, what you're doing is more akin to making an advertisement for a product, than a documentary. It's like if you were attempting a "science experiment" with no controls.
 
airfrogusmc said:
Adams work was not the same as say the work of the FSA but he did have strong views on the environment and in todays society would be labeled by conservatives as a tree hugger. And he did very much like the work of Evans, Lange and may others that were documenting the human condition.

Though his work does surely appeal to the mainstream and is conservative in the fact it has little shock value and loved by the masses it still has an underlying environmental message which many in todays world would label liberal.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I was trying to say, not that Ansel Adams was a right winger. As for the environmental message, this doesn't always have to be left-wing. In my country one of the most right-wing (irrelevant) fringe parties (which borders on being a full on Nazi party) has protection of the environment as one of their main messages. The problem is they aim to protect the environment by kicking out all the foreigners.

Again, I'm not labelling Adams a conservative or right-winger but this thread was about whether or not there was such a thing as conservative photography and that's one of the few examples I can think of.
 
Perhaps it would be interesting to give a few of our favourite examples of polemicist or 'socially aware' photographers from the past. I've already harped on the Spanish Civil war at some length, but there are also people like Rodchenko in the USSR; numerous FSA photographers; Lewis Hine; Bill Brandt; Margaret Bourke-White... Like the OP, I'm having some difficulty in coming up with polemicist or 'socially aware' photographers on the right. Any offers from the past?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
An intriguing point. My suspicion is that even though the Republicans were a motley and often unpleasant crew, the media (and most politicians) saw Franco's fascists as even worse: a harbinger of what was to come from the rest of what were, at the time, called 'the dictator countries'. Also, remember that the Republicans were the legitimate government: Franco's so-called Royalists were insurgents, and few people can look on the overthrow of a legitimate (if wobbly) government with equanimity. Some small pockets of the British press did in fact support Franco, but then, Hitler had his fans in the English-speaking world too.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I think it was probably a much closer run thing than that myself ... I had a great uncle in Spain and his assessment of the left was very similar to Orwell's, it would have been very different had Halifax become PM who knows what photos we would have now ...
 
tunalegs said:
. . . One can be biased but still acknowledge the existence of facts which do not support their conclusion - and wonder of wonders - document them. I don't really think that is too complicated to wrap one's head around. . . .
Click to expand...
Would you care to name a single noted (or even known) photographer who has ever produced an acclaimed work of 'documentation' that meets your standards?

Cheers,

R.
 
Socially concerned photography often comes out of the desire to raise social awareness in order to effect action by public institutions. And since the right is often wary of public institutions it doesn't feel the need to effect anything on that level.
 
tunalegs said:
One can be biased but still acknowledge the existence of facts which do not support their conclusion - and wonder of wonders - document them. I don't really think that is too complicated to wrap one's head around.

I'm not claiming that it is possible for a single person to present a situation entirely 100% objectively. That is of course impossible. I'm just suggesting that if you claim to be documenting a subject, but you're cutting out everything that doesn't shore up your argument, what you're doing is more akin to making an advertisement for a product, than a documentary. It's like if you were attempting a "science experiment" with no controls.
Click to expand...


I don't see how others are having trouble with this concept. A desire to 'document' any subject, in any medium can (and in the opinion of many, *should*) strive to give as complete a description of the subject as is possible or feasible within the limits of the scope of the project, while still making every attempt to keep the documentation as unbiased as possible, leaving it to the viewer/reader/listener to take the information and form their own conclusions/opinions/etc.

I also believe that it's completely possible to set out with the intent of 'documentary photography' without any sort of agenda or bias. Perhaps this gets dismissed as trivial snapshots by some, but I'd have to disagree. Take, for example, a natural disaster. A photographer could go to an area simply to document the effects of said disaster (flood, wildfire, hurricane, earthquake, etc.) and show many facets of these effects without necessarily having a bias or attempting to push an opinion or agenda. For example, they might show riots/looting, destruction, things spared from destruction, animals, cooperation & teamwork...all to simply give a more complete picture to the end viewer, so that the viewer gets a better idea of what went on. Someone with a bias might, say, only show pictures of wrecked buildings, vacant homes, etc. to convey desolation, intentionally omitting the restaurant that opened its doors to any without a home, and prepared food for any that needed it, or the small neighborhood that worked together to stave off the worst of the event.

True, it's incredibly difficult to give an account of a situation without including any of your own bias; indeed, that bias is part of what will make certain scenes jump out as being worthy of documentation, but to say it's simply impossible to even make the attempt at objectivity seems evidently impractical.
 
Cold said:
. . . True, it's incredibly difficult to give an account of a situation without including any of your own bias; indeed, that bias is part of what will make certain scenes jump out as being worthy of documentation, but to say it's simply impossible to even make the attempt at objectivity seems evidently impractical.
Click to expand...
I'll ask the same of you as I asked of tunalegs: Would you care to name a single noted (or even known) photographer who has ever produced an acclaimed work of 'documentation' that meets your standards?

In other words, it may be possible to make the attempt, but even if it were, why would anyone bother?

Cheers,

R.
 
RObert Budding said:
I disagree with your definitions. They are overly simplistic. There are shades of gray. Many people believe that there is a role for government. They just don't agree on what the role should be.
Click to expand...

I was addressing the notion of using photography to demonstrate conservative ideas and therefore was making a contrast between conservatism and progressivism. Of course it was simplistic since the categories of progressive, liberal, conservative, democrat or republican are all pretty much simplistic categories for describing peoples opinions about government or society. But this is a forum for photography, not politics. I suspect that it would be very hard to photographically document center left and center right view points.. which is why my definitions tended to the extremes.

--
Bill
 
Roger Hicks said:
Would you care to name a single noted (or even known) photographer who has ever produced an acclaimed work of 'documentation' that meets your standards?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

If somebody was particularly successful at removing themselves from the equation or at least giving the appearance of such, they would not be particularly famous I would imagine. On the other hand there are plenty of photographers who do work on topics that they're probably disinterested in, for instance documenting a museum's collections. I don't think at that point they're going to say "no let's not photograph the stuffed wombat, I don't like that thing". :D

Roger Hicks said:
I'll ask the same of you as I asked of tunalegs: Would you care to name a single noted (or even known) photographer who has ever produced an acclaimed work of 'documentation' that meets your standards?

In other words, it may be possible to make the attempt, but even if it were, why would anyone bother?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that popularity was directly equated to validity or importance. I stand corrected, forgive me.
 
tunalegs said:
If somebody was particularly successful at removing themselves from the equation or at least giving the appearance of such, they would not be particularly famous I would imagine. On the other hand there are plenty of photographers who do work on topics that they're probably disinterested in, for instance documenting a museum's collections. I don't think at that point they're going to say "no let's not photograph the stuffed wombat, I don't like that thing". :D



I didn't know that popularity was directly equated to validity or importance. I stand corrected, forgive me.
Click to expand...
Then again, I never thought that 'acclaimed' necessarily meant 'valid' (whatever you mean by 'valid' in this context), though it may often mean 'important', so we're both learning new meanings of words today. If it makes life any easier for you, feel free to name a single known photographer who has produced a 'valid' or 'important', er, 'document', meeting your standards. Consider also the fundamental point that if a 'document' is to influence anyone (surely an underlying consideration in this argument), then 'popular' is some way from irrelevance.

Nor can I comprehend your choice of examples for things to 'document': So far we've had a river you know nothing about, a car salesman, and a stuffed wombat. I think I've adequately demonstrated that the river was a thoroughly bad example to choose. Would you care to explain more about the politics of car sales and stuffed wombats?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Nor can I comprehend your choice of examples for things to 'document': So far we've had a river you know nothing about, a car salesman, and a stuffed wombat. I think I've adequately demonstrated that the river was a thoroughly bad example to choose. Would you care to explain more about the politics of car sales and stuffed wombats?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Sometimes one compares a similarity between two different subjects to make a point. This is called analogy. ;)

I only brought up the automotive repair manual to contrast against a sales folder. The repair manual is an exhaustive description of the vehicle and documents every part that makes it up. The sales folder is some flashy photos and a short list of specs.

If your "documentary" is just some arresting photos aimed to get people to believe your specific point, then it more or less is like the sales folder. It's not really a documentary. It's an advertisement for a point of view.

To be sure, it may contain actual documentation. But if it leaves out bits, and further makes no mention that bits were left out - then it's not really what a proper documentary should aim to be.
 
Jamie123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Potentially. They could also be liberal. Are they being viewed a conservationist, preservationist or exploiter of resources? Possibly somebody who is a mixture of two or three of those views. They are whatever our individual way of looking at the world tells us they are. IMHO.
 
If one adopts a libertarian stance on conservatism, as the OP appears to do, then wow, living in America, you can't escape Conservative photography. We're soaking in it, all day, every day. We're a celebrity-obsessed culture: celebrities occupy most of our media, we make celebrities out of cable news "experts" and CEOs, and generally lionize all those who are winning at the Free Market. This is what conservative photography looks like. Or, more seriously, this is what it looks like.

I'm reminded of the great Harry Lime line, "In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed - they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love and five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock!"

The greatest art generally arises from struggle and rebellion. Art that celebrates the successful and the strong is generally hollow and forgettable.
 
Hmmm... maybe defining the subject matter would be the difficult part because both parties have all of our collective best interest in mind right?

So how on earth do we decide to vote if both sides are right? If I took an aerial photograph of a middle class suburb wouldn't both sides argue that they represent the American dream? Furthermore, wouldn't both sides argue they have middle America's best interest in mind?

What if the photograph was of a Yacht club party on the east coast. Would all those people living the life of luxury be conservative or democrats? What does the viewer garner from that image?

I guess my point to the OP is that if you hate NGO's in Africa take a picture of a starving child and caption it: NGOs fail to accomplish goals in Sudan. Or take a photo of a tired McDonalds employee coming home to the projects and caption it: Minimum wage is inhibiting Tony's ability to compete with robots.

There are plenty of ways to capture your thoughts, and you have every right to do it, maybe your sub-conscious is what define your initial gut feeling, and just maybe your gut feeling upon seeing a child in Sudan covered in flies naked in a field is not NGO suck.
 
Propaganda in photographs is not always inherent in the image itself. It is the caption that contributes its full intention. I think it is a hard thing to do within a socially minded context, to have a photograph deliver its full intention or meaning without an explanation.
 
I really think this is an pointless thread.

If you want create an image that reflects your political philosophy write a work of fiction like 1984 or Atlas Shrugged.

If you want to take photographs, then you will have to let your viewers interpret the result...
 
N.delaRua said:
I really think this is an pointless thread.

If you want create an image that reflects your political philosophy write a work of fiction like 1984 or Atlas Shrugged.

If you want to take photographs, then you will have to let your viewers interpret the result...
Click to expand...
Only because, I suspect, you do not actually understand it, and have never been a journalist. Anyone who does not understand the inherent and inevitable biases of journalism; anyone who entertains fantasies of objectivity; such a person would be unable to be a successful journalist, even a modestly successful one. Read pretty much anything by John Simpson of the BBC if you want to see how this works.

Cheers,

R.
 
Whilst I've never been a photojournalist, shooting an assignment for a high school every year the administrators would say things to me like look for diversity, shoot for diversity. Its an a majority white catholic school, and I would shoot their Thanksgiving drive, a charitable event focused mainly on the poor who look nothing like their student body.

I get it. There are agendas, and the media most definitely has them and there are needs for powerful images.

I just think ultimately, the viewer decides the meaning of photograph regardless of an photographer's or editor's point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom