Post-documentary photogrpahy

Exercise 48 - read the article on 'Postdocumentary photography, art and ethics' by Ine Gevers and summarise the key points made by the author in your learning log.

Gevers states that "This essay will touch on a number of difficulties that are widely acknowledged within the post documentary discipline and that inspire critical, action; that said the essay focuses on the ethical position of artists." Throughout the essay Gevers offers references for different methods of documentary communication; then discusses their efficacy, the benefits and the challenges of each.

Originally, the principle of aesthetics was straight forward:

 aesthetics = beauty = good

... and from there, logically followed, the development of the 'ethics of perception' (in other words) the ability to take on board and appreciate the new and the different.

Latterly (post 1930's), there has been no requirement for the new to be classically beautiful, in fact, regularly the new was very specifically 'collected' because it was not beautiful; ironically only to become 'beautiful in its own way' when exposed to greater scrutiny (and often better understood) - this re-evaluation radically shifted world view on the definition of 'beauty' (in photography).

Aesthetics/ethics used to be defined by personal experience, now in our media saturated

environment, other peoples experiences, tastes and influences have become ours; thus every bodies 'aesthetics' are out in the world to be shared! Aesthetics now has a life of their own and no one culture can control them.

Rigidly sticking to your own (set of) aesthetics will result in somebody considering you draconian. Open-ended aesthetics are here to provide knowledge and insight, however, this relaxed view-point appears to be having the opposite effect. We all have our own frame of reference and individual views are bound to differ; so in order to avoid the risk of offending others, regarding topics we either don't agree with or don't want to be involved with, we put up internal barriers and avoid the situation.

Photography has educated (the nation, the world) intentionally and unintentionally - it shows us more than any other media medium can. This can be beneficial because it shares experiences and removes stigmas, however, the downside is it can objectivise the subject and make common-place things that were previously special.

History argues, falsely, photography's ability to "capture reality faithfully" when from its earliest days the medium was used as a tool for propaganda and dramatisation. Gevers states" although nobody believes any more in the 'reality effects' of documentary photography, everyone is still expected to behave as though they do."
This essay was written in February 2012 (two and a half years ago) I'm really not sure that today that is the case - I think it is more normal that people don't' believe and challenge what the see/hear.

Gevers further states that "in this way image, perception, language and consciousness continually reproduce and confirm each other" - I believe that is still the case.
The age old question of objectivity then becomes the focus, initially defining the collection of 'objective' facts from medical observation (back to exercise 36 - On Foucault: Disciplinary Power and Photography) and whilst this type of recording can now only be done with the express permission of the patient; one has to ask whether these documents (like it or not) advanced science in the same way as the 'primitive' surgeries that used to be carried out. Will we be talking about genetically modified food in the same way in 30 years time?

The follow on, discusses the objectivisation or the de-humanisation of the individuals observed, rather than people they became their syndrome. This assumes that all doctors, by default, become professionally detached (loose their human touch) and that their patients become ailments rather than people. Whilst this is a disconcerting notion, it's difficult to think of any other reality - does this go back to  "once you've seen one famine picture you've seen then all"? Similarly, once you've seen one heart transplant you've seen then all?

Part of the issue with documentary, is that it can so easily be brought into question. Regardless of the 'facts' everybody engaged in any particular debate will have a subjective view, not all of these will be informed, balanced or logical and some will not even be relevant; add to this that the initial 'document' and it's presentation was also subjectively created and questions are bound to arise.

Gevers references Rosler in terms of her ethical approach to projects and her need to give 'voice' back to her subjects. Rather than using only images, she engages directly with the individuals (and uses mixed media - photos, text, video) enabling them to speak for themselves to avoid the risk of de-humanisation at the same time as presenting a more balanced view of the situation. Similarly, Gevers references Sekula because of his alternative approach to projects. Sekula also uses mixed media but only provides partial scenarios to his audience - he requires that the audience engage and finish the 'story' for themselves.

Just because an exhibition is extolled as a success, it doesn't actually mean it delivered what the photographer and/or the curator had intended. This again goes back to the fact the aesthetics and ethics are specific to the owner of the views and potentially slightly (or completely) different to other peoples. A number of examples are given, the most notable being the portraits by Douglas Niven and Christopher Riley entitled S-21 of the genocide in Cambodia. Whilst the intent was to 'show the inhumanity' of the situation, because of the location and the presentation of the work it was 'transmogrified' into art and the more success full the exhibitions, the further removed from its origins it became!

Today 'ratings' drive behaviour and push stories way beyond what used to be acceptable, as such 'documentary' images that were originally meaningful suffer from over exposure and loose their meaning e.g. the falling man from the Twin Towers. What was initially shocking, becomes common place and is then ignored. How then do we move forward from this situation? Gevers proffers an option from Alfredo Jaar - the black box exhibition of Rwanda, where he took thousands of images but showed only one. Is this Jaar's trade mark form of communication? To not communicate, not being prepared to sensationalise the horror of the situation? Similar to his mini-movie 'The Sound of Silence'.

Is Debord correct? Do we act rather than live? Taking this further, do we relate to life only if we have already seen it 'demonstrated' in a film? Are films a form of universal crystal ball for us? We know what to do and what to say because we've seen it 'played' by somebody else.
How does what we see inform us? If we are spoon-fed everything, are we actually capable of take it on board and genuinely understanding it? The expression 'you learn from your mistakes' springs to mind - if we do not make mistakes because we only live vicariously, do we actually learn?

In today's world, are we in a permanent state of over-stimulation because of the continuous stream of information? Accepting that there is no way that we are capable of processing all of this information, does this lead to a feeling of alienation? Both Tester and Badiou believe this to be the case. Badiou takes this further and relates it to our current 'format' of unachievable and unrealistic contemporary ethics. How can all of us work to and believe in one standardised set of norms? Badiou's view is that 'ethics should become the enduring principle of individual process', in other words, since nothing is 'normal' how can standardise how we behave and how we view things; each situation has a unique set of circumstance and should be assessed on its own merits. Hence 'truth is not something that can be communicated, it is something that must be encountered'.

Is it possible to change the world? Rosler believes it is, these photographs and films challenge viewers to see beyond what is already known, beyond their own limits - it is up to the viewer as co-author to give weight to the image. As per my essay for assignment 4, the viewer is just as culpable as the photographer and the editor in their subjective interpretation of the image - ignorance is not innocence but sin.