The ethics of aesthetics (cont...)

Exercise 41 - read the WeAreOCA blog post 'The Ethics of Aesthetics' including all the replies and add your own comment.

I found both sets of images interesting and engaging; I would suggest both sets of images are 'staged' albeit to differing degrees - this is not a criticism, merely an observation.

To Amano's points "wonderfully constructed and portrayed" and "these images raise questions that are impossible [for us] to answer". Generally, if we are left without sufficient information we are inclined to investigate further; specially with regards the Chaskielberg images I found this was the case - stylistically there is something not-African about them.

I found Jose's comments re the success or failure of any project very interesting and indeed concur with our pessimistic Western view of failure - even a partial failure means that overall project is a failure. When investigating problems at work, if a particular route does not yield resolution then the result it is considered another failure, rather than providing us with more data that enables us to make better informed decisions.

Brian refers to "Rankin's honest photos" and whilst I don't disagree with the Barthes 'surprise' reference, I do feel the need to challenge the word honest in this scenario because it implies that Chaskielberg images are dishonest. I think "Rankin's understated photos" would be more appropriate. 

Much later in the comments Edith discusses how these people portray themselves "straightening their backs and putting a smile on their faces" - this took me back to images created by the photographers employed on the FSA project - "poverty with pride!" Can you image the impact of Chaskielberg style if he had been one of the FSA team - I've no doubt that the images would have surprised America.

Back to Edith and her comment "These are not helpless people, but they need help at this moment." - it really is beautifully put!!!

With regards to Stoddard's image we have used interesting descriptors: powerful, haunting, penetrating, impactful... I wonder if this is simply because the legs appear to have been 'transported' to the Western world? The background is so spares, clean that it could be a photography studio and unless you look very carefully you don't notice the little tuft of grass at the woman's feet. The legs appear to have been completely taken out of their own context and moved into our context - "Starvation coming to a photographic studio near you!" 

Throughout the comments there are questions about the efficacy of 'beautiful' images to convey an 'ugly' truth and rally the appropriate level of support to deliver sustainable action. Jo (from Oxfam) describes the rationale behind this type of image - hope and dignity, plus belief in change. I don’t doubt this and I respect this ethical approach, however, I also suspect that in general we have become inured to shocking images and that we find them difficult to process at an individual level because we have never had that degree of personal exposure. In answer to Marmalade's question: "have we just stopped looking?" I think we perceive the scale of the problem to be so vast, that we feel impotent and thus rather than beat ourselves up over something we cannot change, we stop looking.

Gareth mentions ‘The Cruel Radiance’ by Susie Linfield - it is a great book and does really challenge our relationship with images.

"The flood of photos sweeps away dams of memory. Never before has a period known so little about itself. In the hands of the ruling society, the intervention of illustrated magazines is one of the most important means of organising a strike against understanding.... The 'image-idea' drives away the real idea."  - Siegfried Kracauer's (1889 – 1966) was a German writer, journalist and sociologist; reference The Cruel Radiance.

I appreciate Kracauer was referring to a completely different situation - post war Germany, however, I think it is apt for this discussion. One could ask, do the individual styles of Chaskielberg and Stoddard strike against our understanding and drive away the real idea? Or do they constructively challenge our erroneously pre-conceived ideas?