Conservative Photography

[MarylandBill]

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

Modern progressivism (called liberal in the USA, socialist, labor, etc. in other countries), essentially believes in government as a solution to problems. Therefore a photographer with a progressive viewpoint merely need to document the existence of problems to motivate their intended audience.

In contrast, the various stripes of conservatism generally have a tougher job. They tend to be pessimistic about either government's ability to fix anything or about the wisdom of changing the rules that govern society (whether by government or social convention). Now there are clearly examples where government action made things worse than they were before. The conservative's problem is getting that message across without motivating the progressive to do more "fixing".

--
Bill

 

[dallard]

I've seen several projects done on guns:
http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2011/10/chicks-with-guns/#slideid-17055
http://www.armedamerica.org/
Both would probably qualify as "conservative photography."

I agree with the others here that often it's editing or captioning that lends a political viewpoint to a body of work. Someone could, for example, take a photograph of a shooting in Chicago and title it "Guns=Death" and it would be considered liberal propaganda while the exact same image titled "82 Years of Democrat Rule" would be considered conservative propaganda.

As for ideas for projects, if you want to do something about the unintended consequences of minimum wage laws you could do an essay on the high level of teen unemployment which is considered to be an effect of the minimum wage.

Also, if you're a small government guy you could do a series photographing some of the palaces in Washington and the opulent lifestyle of the people who live there in order to bring attention to the way they enrich themselves with our tax money. (I might be wrong but I believe something like 6/10 of the richest zip codes in the U.S. are in the D.C. area).

Hope that helps give you some ideas.

 

[airfrogusmc]

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.

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.

A quote by Adams that to this point:
"It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment." - Ansel Adams

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.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If you'll please refer to the original post of the thread. 😉 I'm talking about exploiting photography to push a political point. An example of which was telling people why they should drop minimum wage.

As for commercial, think along the lines of if you are a car salesman what are you going to hand a prospective customer? A sales folder of glossy photos, or the repair manual?

Sorry, I'm beginning to lose all grasp on what you're saying. You're the one who brought up the river and pollution, and I think I've demonstrated that it was a poor example.

If you wish to reduce all human interaction to the level of a car salesman peddling motor-cars, well, all I can say is that I'd take a different view. In any case, there are some cars for which I'd rather see the repair manual than the glossy pictures.

To return to what I see as the point queried by the OP, I've already suggested two ideas where a right-wing agenda could (or could have) been promoted through photography. Would you care to give me an idea of how one might promote the idea of dropping minimum wage through the medium of photography? Note 'through the medium of': this is not 'exploitation' any more than I am 'exploiting' the English language here.

I'd also appreciate replies to my question about whether you seriously believe that Capa, Chim and Taro were not 'documenting' the Spanish Civil War (an extremely political event) and how they could have 'documented' it 'better'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[02Pilot]

Ah, I see your point: thanks. Even so, I'm not sure how much 'deep understanding' a polemicist needs. Obviously in theory, as you point out, the more, the better; but are the best theorists necessarily the best polemicists? Is there not a visceral aspect to politics that is at least as important as political theory? All practical study of politics seems to indicate that this is so.

Thank you too for your reply to my query about political science, though again, I'd suggest that the important word in 'relatively rigorous' is 'relatively'.

Cheers,

R.

Point well taken - political statements need not be anything more than effective in transmitting their message to their intended audience. However, if one seeks to present a more refined message, one that might endure beyond its immediate circumstances and stimulate more than just simple agreement, greater understanding is often helpful.

Let me compare it to photography. A person with a capable camera and opportunity, but lacking any real understanding of photography as a discipline, is certainly capable of producing images that will please many people. A skilled photographer (which I should point out I certainly am not) will be able to far more carefully construct their images, producing work that may not be as easily accessible but is far more enduring and ultimately more meaningful.

 

[airfrogusmc]

First, I'd suggest that in general, the left believes in change and progress, and the right believes in stasis or regression (going back to a mythical 'golden age'). It is easier to photograph things that 'need fixing' (left) than things that are 'fine as they are' (right). Things that are 'fine as they are' tend to be taken for granted: we don't want to change them, and besides, what would they be? Old buildings? Yosemite? Children playing in a safe environment? I think the left can rejoice in such things as readily as the right.

Second, as many others have pointed out, caption and context can completely change the message of a particular picture. Again, in general, the left tends to be rather more skilled at propaganda (captions, and defining context) than the right. Why? Hard to say; but I think it's because they (we) are better at sounding reasonable than the right. Whether we are more reasonable is a legitimate subject for debate, but those who complain about 'left wing intellectuals' might reflect on the third word, 'intellectuals'. Certes, among my intellectual (and media, and teaching) friends, more hold left-wing views than right-wing. To me this suggests that left-wing views and a certain kind of intelligence may be correlated to a modest degree. Another kind of intelligence, such as that required to succeed in business, may be more correlated with right-wing views, but for either side to pretend that theirs is the only kind of intelligence that matters is, well, unintelligent.

Third, in general is a very important qualification. Even though they are greatly outnumbered by intelligent left-wingers, I know plenty of intelligent right-wingers. And of course, as others have pointed out, both reality and political views can be quite complex. 'Right wing' doesn't necessarily mean 'religious fundamentalist' or 'climate change denier'. The late Maggie Thatcher was something of a hawk on trying to prevent or mitigate human-influenced climate change, and few would call her left-wing. My father, a long-time Telegraph reader (the Torygraph is the paper of the right in the UK, just as the Grauniad is the paper of the left) still, at 84, believes that trades union have done far more good than harm.

Fourth, some views that are 'left wing' in the USA, such as socialized medicine and gun control, are taken for granted in the vast majority of the developed world: they are seen as neither 'right wing' nor 'left' wing, but as common ground. It might be interesting, though, to shoot a series on French pistol-shooting clubs, in favour of relaxing the law. Whether or not this would be seen as 'left' or 'right' in France is debatable, but I think it would count as 'right'. Then again, in France, 'liberal' means the exact opposite of what it means in the United States. It is used as a general term of abuse by the left, because they take it to mean 'economic liberal' (selfish, in favour of atomized society), whereas it is used as an insult by the right in the USA because they take it to mean 'social liberal', or suggesting (counter, again, to Maggie Thatcher's famous statement) that actually, there is such a thing as society.

So, in sum, I'm not quite sure what 'concerned right wing photography' can consist of. Zauhar pointed out the shock pictures of aborted foetuses, and that's certainly concerned right-wing photography, but it's something of a niche. I suppose that photographs glorifying war might be taken as right-wing, were it not for the number of ex-military men I know who are less than enthusiastic about military solutions when there is any other option. Likewise, photos glorifying extremely polluting new cars -- 'progress' of a sort, but at a price that ever fewer people are willing to pay -- but again, we have the Leaderene on the other side. For that matter, it is possible to argue that all advertising photography for consumer goods is right wing, but then we get into the nature of necessary and unnecessary goods.

Cheers,

R.

I think you've made some very strong points Roger and there is a book that was written by John Dean (he started writing it with Barry Goldwater but Mr Goldwater died) that deals with the different minds sets of the different sides. Altemeyers work in these areas are a large part of the book. Look like you might have read it.
http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Without-Conscience-John-Dean/dp/0143038869

 

[Roger Hicks]

Modern progressivism (called liberal in the USA, socialist, labor, etc. in other countries), essentially believes in government as a solution to problems. Therefore a photographer with a progressive viewpoint merely need to document the existence of problems to motivate their intended audience.

In contrast, the various stripes of conservatism generally have a tougher job. They tend to be pessimistic about either government's ability to fix anything or about the wisdom of changing the rules that govern society (whether by government or social convention). Now there are clearly examples where government action made things worse than they were before. The conservative's problem is getting that message across without motivating the progressive to do more "fixing".

--
Bill

Dear Bill,

Not necessarily government. What, after all, is government but a reflection of public opinion? Influence public opinion, and you influence government. But you also influence the way that people interact with one another. Today, the UK is probably safer than it has ever been: certainly, a lot safer than it was in the 18th century, and in almost all ways, a great deal safer than the 19th. And yet the perception of danger is very high: terrorists, muggers, spongers on the social system... I believe it is the same in most other developed countries: it seems that way in France.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tunalegs]

Sorry, I'm beginning to lose all grasp on what you're saying. You're the one who brought up the river and pollution, and I think I've demonstrated that it was a poor example.

My point was that you can approach a subject, and document everything about it that you see. If you approach a subject with the idea of promoting a prejudice you have about the subject, then you're not really documenting it anymore. If I want to document a bike trip I've taken, and it rains or I get a flat tire, then I should mention that happening. If I want to make a brochure promoting how much fun cycling is - then I probably don't want to mention it.

Which is why...

If you wish to reduce all human interaction to the level of a car salesman peddling motor-cars, well, all I can say is that I'd take a different view. In any case, there are some cars for which I'd rather see the repair manual than the glossy pictures.

...I mention this. The repair manual HAS to cover a lot more than a promotional booklet. It DOES contain far more information about the car. But it's not an effective sales tool. Because it tells "too much", and it tells about the smallest bits and biggest bits. When you cut all of that information away so all you have left is a photo of the car and a few specs that sound like they might be impressive - you have advertising.

I didn't address the other questions because they appeared to me to be red herrings and beside the point.

 

[airfrogusmc]

But I feel as many do its really almost impossible not to bring your own baggage to the party because we see what we have come to know from everything we've lived.

 

[Sparrow]

EDIT

I'd also appreciate replies to my question about whether you seriously believe that Capa, Chim and Taro were not 'documenting' the Spanish Civil War (an extremely political event) and how they could have 'documented' it 'better'.

Cheers,

R.

... I've always pondered on those wars where the loser got to do the documentation, and why that happened. I've no conclusions just observations of those first photojournalists (Capa, Chim and Taro et al) and the literature of the time. They clearly had a very left wing position by our standards but at the time were published by a very establishment press ... I've always wondered who was using whom?

 

[tedbare]

Modern progressivism (called liberal in the USA, socialist, labor, etc. in other countries), essentially believes in government as a solution to problems. Therefore a photographer with a progressive viewpoint merely need to document the existence of problems to motivate their intended audience.

In contrast, the various stripes of conservatism generally have a tougher job. They tend to be pessimistic about either government's ability to fix anything or about the wisdom of changing the rules that govern society (whether by government or social convention). Now there are clearly examples where government action made things worse than they were before. The conservative's problem is getting that message across without motivating the progressive to do more "fixing".

--
Bill

Indeed. Documenting examples where government action made things worse would be a relatively easy project.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Point well taken - political statements need not be anything more than effective in transmitting their message to their intended audience. However, if one seeks to present a more refined message, one that might endure beyond its immediate circumstances and stimulate more than just simple agreement, greater understanding is often helpful.

Let me compare it to photography. A person with a capable camera and opportunity, but lacking any real understanding of photography as a discipline, is certainly capable of producing images that will please many people. A skilled photographer (which I should point out I certainly am not) will be able to far more carefully construct their images, producing work that may not be as easily accessible but is far more enduring and ultimately more meaningful.

Possibly, but then again, I'd adduce the Spanish Civil War. I've now read several quite thick and reasonably scholarly tomes on that unhappy conflict, and each time I finished one, I felt I understood less about the underlying issues. I felt the same, too, after reading Orwell's Homage to Catalonia.

But the combined oeuvre of Capa/Chim/Taro speaks viscerally of the horrors of war and argues that people very seldom even tried 'jaw, jaw' instead of 'war, war'.

As for photography that is more enduring, or more meaningful (highlight), I don't really agree. It may be true in some cases, but equally, think of Lartigue (enduring but disputably meaningful), or of HCB's frankly shaky grasp on exposure (I spent an instructive half hour or so talking to one of his printers once). The 'eye' mattered and was there from the beginning: I don't think that anything that either of them learned, artistically or technically, made much difference to their work afterwards.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tunalegs]

Response to post #82.

But I feel as many do its really almost impossible not to bring your own baggage to the party because we see what we have come to know from everything we've lived.

But that's different than confirmation bias. You can bring your personal bias into a project that explores opposing ideas. But if you simply cut out the opposing ideas altogether because you disagree - then you're not really documenting the situation. You're just marketing your point of view and pretending it's all there is to it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

My point was that you can approach a subject, and document everything about it that you see.. .
I didn't address the other questions because they appeared to me to be red herrings and beside the point.

And my point is that you can't. As I said an hour ago, "Document" doesn't mean "take pictures of everything". It can't mean that, or where would it stop? A document can only ever deal with one or more aspects of something -- and even then, it's selective. Why stop at ten pictures? A hundred? A thousand? A million? The fact that you don't run a million pictures (or even a thousand) means that inherently, photographic documentation of anything remotely complex is going to be selective -- or as a detractor might say, 'biased'.

Also, I can't see why it is a red herring to demand a simple answer to a simple question about what is, or is not, "documenting". Either you agree that Capa, Chim and Taro did 'document' the Spanish Civil war, thereby destroying your own arguments about 'photographing everything', or you say they didn't, a viewpoint with which many (most, I suspect) would disagree.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

Personally, I don't think it's possible for a photographer to photograph anything without their own ethos and ethics being visible in the finished image ... this whole idea that there is some neutral way of "documenting" "recording" or "reporting" stuff is complete twaddle the OP should go out and take photos I'm sure they will have right wing bias, how could that not be the case? ... perhaps he would share them here, to accompany his provocative posts?

 

[tunalegs]

And my point is that you can't. As I said an hour ago, "Document" doesn't mean "take pictures of everything". It can't mean that, or where would it stop? A document can only ever deal with one or more aspects of something -- and even then, it's selective.

You can however write comprehensive documentation about a subject without necessarily having to write a book in infinite detail about every single aspect of the universe. 🙂

Also, I can't see why it is a red herring to demand a simple answer to a simple question about what is, or is not, "documenting". Either you agree that Capa, Chim and Taro did 'document' the Spanish Civil war, thereby destroying your own arguments about 'photographing everything', or you say they didn't, a viewpoint with which many (most, I suspect) would disagree.

It is not a yes or no question.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . It is not a yes or no question. . .

Uh... Yes it is. If they documented it, the answer is yes, and if they did not, the answer is no.

Cheers,

R.

 

[airfrogusmc]

But that's different than confirmation bias. You can bring your personal bias into a project that explores opposing ideas. But if you simply cut out the opposing ideas altogether because you disagree - then you're not really documenting the situation. You're just marketing your point of view and pretending it's all there is to it.

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.

 

[02Pilot]

Possibly, but then again, I'd adduce the Spanish Civil War. I've now read several quite thick and reasonably scholarly tomes on that unhappy conflict, and each time I finished one, I felt I understood less about the underlying issues. I felt the same, too, after reading Orwell's Homage to Catalonia.

As for photography that is more enduring, or more meaningful (highlight), I don't really agree. It may be true in some cases, but equally, think of Lartigue (enduring but disputably meaningful), or of HCB's frankly shaky grasp on exposure (I spent an instructive half hour or so talking to one of his printers once). The 'eye' mattered and was there from the beginning: I don't think that anything that either of them learned, artistically or technically, made much difference to their work afterwards.

Cheers,

R.

And thus we arrive at the scholar's paradox: the more we learn, the more we realize how little we know. It calls to mind (besides Aristotle) a fascinating article I read years ago entitled "Unskilled and Unaware of It" that showed that the least skilled among test groups performing specific tasks were also those who assessed themselves the most capable; it also demonstrated that the only way to convince those least skilled that they were in fact deficient was to teach them the skills they lacked.

The very complexity and nuance that you were able to use in contesting my photography analogy speaks to a far greater knowledge of the subject than I possess. Which, I suppose, just serves to reinforce the point above.

 

[Roger Hicks]

... I've always pondered on those wars where the loser got to do the documentation, and why that happened. I've no conclusions just observations of those first photojournalists (Capa, Chim and Taro et al) and the literature of the time. They clearly had a very left wing position by our standards but at the time were published by a very establishment press ... I've always wondered who was using whom?

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.