Who are we? Who are they?

[Dunn]

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about what the point is for me taking photos. I like the concept of doing documentary and photojournalism, but why? My thoughts sort of went from there.

Is it important? Does it change anything? Etc.

Then I started thinking about the people who are typical subjects of documentary work. Usually ordinary people in their own castes, whatever caste they may belong: poor, sick, forgotten, blue-collar, indigenous, etc.

These people have lives that usually aren't anything special. They live day to day working or whatever they do. Some of these people have lived in the same place their whole lives or maybe haven't "accomplished" much to today's standards, but we respect them. It's honorable, to me, work hard and be there to support your family, and I would like to show that with photos. But, on the other hand, I would, most of the time, never want to live like that. I'm sure many photojournalists feel the same way. I expect the photographers that go out on in-depth projects or cover some story like Egypt meet people and form a connection and respect their subjects but, in most cases, wouldn't want to give up their lifestyle to live with their subjects that they portray in photos. They want to move on to another project after while. They don't want to put down the camera and just "live." We want to show people other's lives. But why? I think it would impact me a lot to do serious stories, but where does the time come to take all those feelings and really try to change something? Or are we just a catalyst? Like, it's our job to show people and then, maybe, someone else will be moved enough to really try to help people.



I tried to explain what I'm thinking the best I could. I just needed to get it out there.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I'm working on my masters degree in history now; it is my other love in life aside from photography. Historians never tell the story of the ordinary people who really make the world work, only the rich, powerful, 'important' people. Most people's lives are forgotten a couple generations after they've died, the only evidence they existed being some files in a drawer in some government records office. Today, in our computerized world, it may be even less, some bytes on a hard drive that might die and lose these people's memory forever.

We photographers who record the lives of the commonplace people ensure that their memory will live forever. This is a good thing.

 

[Dunn]

I agree, Chris. I think it is important to document with photos, even just for history's sake. These people are the ones that really make the world work. But, as a photographer taking photos of these people, do you really want anything to change? Or expect anything to change?

There are many people "living the dream" - driving nice cars, with nice homes, going to nice dinners. Do you expect those people to see the photos and try to fix any injustices that may be portrayed in any photos? Or do we need the balance of classes?

Do you just believe the people need to be remembered in some fashion for the lives they tried so hard to live? Or do you expect more from the photos?

It's a lot to wrap my head around.

 

[Dunn]

Also, sometimes I feel like the only people that really SEE and care about the photos are other photographers that are involved in the field. I think besides the front page of the New York Times and the like, most people never see the photo stories that some photographers spent so much time on.

 

[GSNfan]

Also, sometimes I feel like the only people that really SEE and care about the photos are other photographers that are involved in the field. I think besides the front page of the New York Times and the like, most people never see the photo stories that some photographers spent so much time on.

You're indirectly asking the million dollar question, if there is any point in taking photos?


Yes or no does not make a difference, with all the time and money invested, you'll just do it for the sake of doing it otherwise you have to accept the fact that you have wasted a lot time and money on a useless pursuit, an eventuality that is not easy to stomach.

Once pessimism sets in, its hard to shake it off by thinking alone. You have to be realistic and make the call at some point, no one else can tell you what to do.

 

[filmtwit]

This depends on what "school" of history your studying. For instance Social and Oral historians are all about the common man's perspective, the first uses tables and statistics to the tell the story, while the later uses interviews.

I'm working on my masters degree in history now; it is my other love in life aside from photography. Historians never tell the story of the ordinary people who really make the world work, only the rich, powerful, 'important' people who make history. Most people's lives are forgotten a couple generations after they've died, the only evidence they existed being some files in a drawer in some government records office. Today, in our computerized world, it may be even less, some bytes on a hard drive that might die and lose these people's memory forever.

We photographers who record the lives of the commonplace people ensure that their memory will live forever. This is a good thing.

 

[shadowfox]

Dunn,

A pauper or a millionaire *can* make a difference in this world. The key is whether they are motivated or not. And being motivated starts from a change in perspective.

A change of perspective happens because we hear or see something outside of us, not from within. That's where photography come in, as one of the various ways to present a perspective.

So if you photograph the real world, that has the potential to change viewer's perspective. How many viewers would depend on your connection (as in network). And in turn, how wide is your connection, depends on your effort.

Make sense?

 

[Chris101]

I'm working on my masters degree in history now; it is my other love in life aside from photography. Historians never tell the story of the ordinary people who really make the world work, only the rich, powerful, 'important' people. Most people's lives are forgotten a couple generations after they've died, the only evidence they existed being some files in a drawer in some government records office. Today, in our computerized world, it may be even less, some bytes on a hard drive that might die and lose these people's memory forever.
...

I partly agree with this assessment Chris. It is the anthropologists who are responsible for discovering the lives of the people who History glosses over. And it is often those stories that give meaning to the dates and names that History records.

You are fortunate to live in a part of the world that has a very active and fascinating cultural anthropology - I'm speaking of the mound-building societies of three thousand years ago. Those mounds, while likely occupied by kings and merchants, also tell the story of an agrarian society that is as complex as any study of today's 'people of the earth'.

Congratulations on your endeavor, and good luck with your degree!

 

[ChipMcD]

My expectations of photography, and maybe even art overall, are more modest than described here. I think we do it to please ourselves and those with whom we share our photos. Photography or art are worthy pursuits in themselves. If the work also serves some didactic function, that is gravy. Similarly, regarding our work surviving to tell the tale to the future, while that is possible, beyond several decades, or perhaps several generations, it is unlikely. If it does, that is gravy too. Just as the few cave paintings or flint tools that have survived and been found are gravy.

 

[Roger Hicks]

We are they and they are we. We're all in it together. We try to help others because they are ourselves.

Also, I completely disagree with Chris. Read (for example) The Classic Slum by Robert Roberts, or any of numerous acounts of the American Civil War by ordinary soldiers, or, really, pretty much any primary source. If "Historians never tell the story of the ordinary people who really make the world work, only the rich, powerful, 'important' people," then either they're rotten historians or you're only reading simplified summaries designed for children.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MC JC86]

There are mountains of primary source documents regarding , for instance, the American Civil War (War Of Northern Aggression? where's memphis?) but do they inform a true understanding of the conflict? The big picture? I don't know that they do, anymore than say watching Restrepo would make you understand Afghan history. I think what Chris C. is saying is somewhat true.

The millions of photographers that take it upon themselves to document the goings on of their surroundings do a commendable job, the effect of which is not just the storage of memories for posterity. The internet and the proliferation of readily shareable images is impacting people and governments all over the world. Photographers aren't just documenting history, but more than ever, helping to create it too. I guess the first and last opinion are somewhat at odds.. oh well.. silly stream of consciousness. Have a great weekend everyone.

 

[rkj66]

This is perhaps the biggest question for a photographer ever. We all have to try to handle this question one way or another at some point in our "career".

As someone else said earlier, one have to figure it out by oneself. But then one should check out what the "masters" did and get inspired. Try to figure out why they did it. Maybe there is some truth there that fits you. Maybe not.

My advise would be - be 100% honest to yourself about what (you figure out that) you like - and go for that. If it is street photography - figure out what it is that makes your heart tick about it. It can probably take long before one "sees the light", but it is important to get there to really make great photographs.

Just my 2 cents

 

[bwidjaja]

I think this is one of those fundamental questions that is not unique just to photography. In fact I think it is another way of asking the question "what is the purpose of life?" How can we go along enjoying our lives while witnessing injustices, poverty, abuse, etc. At the same time, we feel so powerless compared to the rich or powerful people in positions that it seems there is not much we can do.

Well, I really believe that it is all a matter of perspective. First of all, I believe whether the "outside" world is beautiful or ugly is a projection of our own mind. We ourselves project the world from the "inside". So, I think it is important that we learn how to control our "inside" for us to be able to appreciate the "outside".

Being able to control the "inside", we can then do what is most beneficial or helpful to the "outside". Some of us may have influence over hundreds or thousands of people from their work (e.g. photography). Yet some, may only have influence to just a few people, for example immediate family.

However, quantity should not be the first measure. Whether hundreds or one, the most important thing is the quality of the influence. If it is positive, it's good, if negative, it's bad; and it will permeate from there.

I guess what I am trying to say is, do the best you can within your limit and capabilities. Try to do as much good as you can to others. Enjoy the journey while you can (take more photos).

P.S. Sorry if you think I digress, but that's what come to my mind when reading the OP post.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think this is one of those fundamental questions that is not unique just to photography. In fact I think it is another way of asking the question "what is the purpose of life?" How can we go along enjoying our lives while witnessing injustices, poverty, abuse, etc. At the same time, we feel so powerless compared to the rich or powerful people in positions that it seems there is not much we can do.

Well, I really believe that it is all a matter of perspective. First of all, I believe whether the "outside" world is beautiful or ugly is a projection of our own mind. We ourselves project the world from the "inside". So, I think it is important that we learn how to control our "inside" for us to be able to appreciate the "outside".

Being able to control the "inside", we can then do what is most beneficial or helpful to the "outside". Some of us may have influence over hundreds or thousands of people from their work (e.g. photography). Yet some, may only have influence to just a few people, for example immediate family.

However, quantity should not be the first measure. Whether hundreds or one, the most important thing is the quality of the influence. If it is positive, it's good, if negative, it's bad; and it will permeate from there.

I guess what I am trying to say is, do the best you can within your limit and capabilities. Try to do as much good as you can to others. Enjoy the journey while you can (take more photos).

P.S. Sorry if you think I digress, but that's what come to my mind when reading the OP post.

One of the best analyses I have ever read, if not THE best analysis. Assuredly NOT a digression.

Thanks,

R.

 

[wgerrard]

This depends on what "school" of history your studying. For instance Social and Oral historians are all about the common man's perspective, the first uses tables and statistics to the tell the story, while the later uses interviews.

It's all really a matter of how many people are affected by the decisions we make. The decisions we ordinary folks make influence only a few people. The decisions of governments and rulers affect us all. That's the reason historians pay attention to them. Also, for pre-modern times, not nearly as much documentation exists about ordinary people. E.g., we can write about England's Plantagenets in much more detail than we can about the people they ruled. Is that fair? Probably not.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's all really a matter of how many people are affected by the decisions we make. The decisions we ordinary folks make influence only a few people. The decisions of governments and rulers affect us all. That's the reason historians pay attention to them. Also, for pre-modern times, not nearly as much documentation exists about ordinary people. E.g., we can write about England's Plantagenets in much more detail than we can about the people they ruled. Is that fair? Probably not.

Dear Bill,

If not, why not? We need an overview before we can go any further. Otherwise we're in the situation of trying to run before we can walk, cf questions about exotic developers and stand development times from someone who doesn't know what D76 is and why it is so popular.

Today I bought two books on the war in the air in the Vienne, where I live. But in order to make sense of them I need to know when WW2 was; when the Americans finally got around to joining in (despite powerful lobbying by Nazi sympathizers and defeatists); the meanings of abbreviations such as SOE and SAS; and quite a lot more.

This is, of course, an agreement with the main thrust of your argument, but I hope it will be read by those who complain that history ignores the common man. We have to learn about the Common Man after learning about the milieu in which he existed. Otherwise it's just a reiteration of the simple truth that all sentient beings seek happiness and the causes of happiness, while avoiding suffering and the causes of suffering.

Cheers,

R.

 

[benji77]

An interesting topic I must say.

Its tough for a normal 'man on the street' to try to change the world, or should I say, to change the way we live. We can photograph pain, suffering, joy and all sorts of subjects for all to see. Post them on Flickr or any web hosting site. What good does that do? Who do we really engage?

What will this 'engagement' change?

Nothing. Yes nothing.

For its merely a visual treat. To see suffering, weeping, death on a newspaper or TV is merely that, a visual.

To really induce change, people have to live it. To feel it for themselves.

Look at the poor, are they greedy? No. They want a simple meal. Look at the rich who dine in restaurants. Do they finish their food? No. They say its 'not salty enough or something to that effect.

Now, will a photograph of a starved kid change their way?

No.

 

[DanOnRoute66]

If I thought I made even just a few photographs as good as the work of the many photographers I admire, I'd be happy with that. If others liked them as well, that would be a bonus.

 

[Ranchu]

I just like to take pictures, no reason. You have a lot more flexibility aesthetically if you're not wanting to 'say something'. World's heavy enough without me trying to yank anyone around.

 

[scarletfawth]

Your images can 'change the world'. Whether they will or not is largely down to circumstance.

Any system input has the potential to change the output. Perhaps only slightly, but it will change it. If your images are significant enough (and this is a whole lot bigger than them just being good), they will change the system.

It might need many, a few, or just one. It might be a collection, a 'movement', be in keeping with the zeitgeist, but the potential to change the system is there.

Keep snapping, you're contributing.