Roger Hicks
Veteran
This is from one of my AP columns last year. I'd say it's 'about images'... I've abridged it slightly, or it would be an even longer post.
Babies drool. Spotty adolescent pop stars commonly stare vacantly into the distance with their mouths open. This is hardly breaking news. So why do so many people want to document such scenes?
Give me fantasy every time. I want pretty girls to look pretty, babies to look adorable, children to look carefree and happy. There's enough misery and sorrow in the world without adding to it via our photography.
Of course there are exceptions. If British police start laying into defenceless demonstrators, or indeed passers-by, with batons, that's news. If Chinese police kick and beat bound Tibetan monks, it is not entirely unexpected, but the world needs to be reminded of it. We do not, on the other hand, need to be reminded of drooling babies or vacant adolescents.
[para deleted]
Part of the urge to photograph drool and unpleasantness is the realization, which comes to most of us when we first become half-competent at photography, that photography doesn't have to be twee idealization; we don't have to document only the good side of life, photograph only attractive places, make portraits only of pretty girls and good-looking men. How many of us, especially in our youth, have not photographed down-and-outs, drunks barely conscious, stinking old tramps?
But don't we owe it to those down-and-outs, drunks and tramps to preserve, or even enhance, what little dignity they have? Otherwise, are we not kicking them while they're down, adding to their degradation and misery?
Again, there can be exceptions. We can try to hold these people up as an Awful Warning, so that others do not slide down the same path of degradation. Hold on a moment, though. One possibility is that they are actually happy the way they are. This is not outstandingly likely, but it is not impossible. If they are happy, even if only fleetingly, even if not completely, do we not owe it to them to portray their happiness in the same loving detail as we photograph their misery? When I say 'loving detail', you know what I mean: grainy, pushed Ilford HP5 Plus, properly wet-printed on Multigrade Warmtone. If we're going to exercise that degree of photographic expertise, shouldn't we think about how, and why, and for whose benefit?
Another (and rather likelier) possibility is that they are not happy. Then again, few people are either completely happy all the time, or completely unhappy all the time. As the Buddha himself put it, all sentient beings desire happiness and the causes of happiness, and to avoid suffering and the causes of suffering. Happiness, in this context, may be a few minutes' human interaction with the photographer; maybe even a few hours. It may be the temporary oblivion that comes from a bottle of cheap cider, perhaps paid for by the photographer. And it may be the knowledge that the right photograph, in the right place, may save someone else from their misery; in which case, they may well suggest pictures that show their dignity and occasional happiness on one side, and their misery on the other. That will be a far more effective Awful Warning.
Nowadays, I very rarely photograph down-and-outs and beggars. I have too much of a sense of there, but for fortune, go you, go I. But whether I photograph them or not, I try to give them a pound, or a euro, or a dollar, depending on where I am, and instead of dropping the money in the cup in an embarrassed sort of way and hurrying past, I try to smile, and exchange a word or two, and generally to treat them like an equal who's down on his luck. There, but for fortune... Maybe some see it as patronizing. Gratifyingly many don't.
[last couple of paras cut]
Babies drool. Spotty adolescent pop stars commonly stare vacantly into the distance with their mouths open. This is hardly breaking news. So why do so many people want to document such scenes?
Give me fantasy every time. I want pretty girls to look pretty, babies to look adorable, children to look carefree and happy. There's enough misery and sorrow in the world without adding to it via our photography.
Of course there are exceptions. If British police start laying into defenceless demonstrators, or indeed passers-by, with batons, that's news. If Chinese police kick and beat bound Tibetan monks, it is not entirely unexpected, but the world needs to be reminded of it. We do not, on the other hand, need to be reminded of drooling babies or vacant adolescents.
[para deleted]
Part of the urge to photograph drool and unpleasantness is the realization, which comes to most of us when we first become half-competent at photography, that photography doesn't have to be twee idealization; we don't have to document only the good side of life, photograph only attractive places, make portraits only of pretty girls and good-looking men. How many of us, especially in our youth, have not photographed down-and-outs, drunks barely conscious, stinking old tramps?
But don't we owe it to those down-and-outs, drunks and tramps to preserve, or even enhance, what little dignity they have? Otherwise, are we not kicking them while they're down, adding to their degradation and misery?
Again, there can be exceptions. We can try to hold these people up as an Awful Warning, so that others do not slide down the same path of degradation. Hold on a moment, though. One possibility is that they are actually happy the way they are. This is not outstandingly likely, but it is not impossible. If they are happy, even if only fleetingly, even if not completely, do we not owe it to them to portray their happiness in the same loving detail as we photograph their misery? When I say 'loving detail', you know what I mean: grainy, pushed Ilford HP5 Plus, properly wet-printed on Multigrade Warmtone. If we're going to exercise that degree of photographic expertise, shouldn't we think about how, and why, and for whose benefit?
Another (and rather likelier) possibility is that they are not happy. Then again, few people are either completely happy all the time, or completely unhappy all the time. As the Buddha himself put it, all sentient beings desire happiness and the causes of happiness, and to avoid suffering and the causes of suffering. Happiness, in this context, may be a few minutes' human interaction with the photographer; maybe even a few hours. It may be the temporary oblivion that comes from a bottle of cheap cider, perhaps paid for by the photographer. And it may be the knowledge that the right photograph, in the right place, may save someone else from their misery; in which case, they may well suggest pictures that show their dignity and occasional happiness on one side, and their misery on the other. That will be a far more effective Awful Warning.
Nowadays, I very rarely photograph down-and-outs and beggars. I have too much of a sense of there, but for fortune, go you, go I. But whether I photograph them or not, I try to give them a pound, or a euro, or a dollar, depending on where I am, and instead of dropping the money in the cup in an embarrassed sort of way and hurrying past, I try to smile, and exchange a word or two, and generally to treat them like an equal who's down on his luck. There, but for fortune... Maybe some see it as patronizing. Gratifyingly many don't.
[last couple of paras cut]
Last edited:
