I
came across an article on a group in FB called Ethical Photojournalism. It
talks about VICE magazine sending a couple of photographers to cover Appalachia. One lives in Appalachia and
calls his style of photography autobiographical. The other photographer is
Magnum's Bruce Gilden, who's been quoted as saying during an interview, "you
need to be sneaky to get the shot..." I personally don't agree
with this approach. I'd like to think I'm more along the lines of: Treat thy
neighbor as yourself.
One
way or another, this got me thinking about what I was taught in journalism
school about aiming to become the proverbial Fly on the Wall when it
came to documentary photography. However, as much as we'd like to
think that we are achieving this maxim of photojournalism, the truth is we all
carry within us our own built-in prejudices and preconceived notions.
When
we do manage to straight-out document a scene and or a subject without
affecting the outcome these instances turn out to be the exceptions and not the
rule. That is not to say it never happens but alas is rare when a photographer
can continuously achieve such purity of documentary photography.
It
is my belief, It is during spot news situations when we are reacting
reflexively and “shooting from the hip” where we are are most likely to
find our purest documentary style.
I'm
including an example of mine below where I wasn't thinking but reacting
instead. This was covering the ousting of Haiti's president Jean Bertrand
Aristide in 2004. A couple of other journalists and I, were running towards
Cite de Soleil where we'd heard shots fired. I veered away from my group distracted
by some commotion on a side street.
I
ended up stumbling upon civilians trying to help a soldier who'd been shot in
the foot. They were trying to carry him to safety while a soldier in the back
guarded their escape. Had I been thinking more clearly I'd have move my camera
a fraction of an inch higher and I'd have gotten the full image of the soldier
returning fire in the background. But alas, I wasn't thinking, I was
reacting.
Point
and case of reactive shooting is that of Boston Globe’s John Tlumacki’s image
of the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing and the fallen runner and the three police
officers. After publication his editors looked at the time line between the
first bomb going off and the moment when he shot this image and only seconds
had passed between both actions. Now THAT is pure documentary.
But
even at this highest level of pure documentary photography, Tlumacki’s
considerable acumen of experiences as a professional photographer still played
a role on how he shot this image. Maybe not at any conscious level but all
those years of shooting played a role on how he shot that image the way he so
superbly shot it on that day and on that moment.
But
when covering extreme situations such as wars and disasters become our norm,
then the human brain tends to adapt to help us cope with such realities. It is
at this point where once more our own perspectives, opinions and points of view
end up affecting our photography.
So
now lets extrapolate. If our brains can adapt so we can get used to covering
horrible situations, then imagine what happens when we are given an assignment
before hand.
The
moment we find ourselves having the time to figure out "the how" of
covering a story or subject, that is the moment where our own personalities and
life experiences start getting involved in our decision-making processes when
it comes to making photos.
We
do not live outside of the laws that rule our universe. We were all first sons,
daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers, sister, etc, before we became
photographers. There is no escaping our humanity.
After
all we are all humans. And as such, we are nothing but extremely complex
apparatuses made up of millions of inter-acting parts unique-to-the individual
and held together or “sparked” to life by – call it what you may- a spirit, a
soul, or an energy force.
But
one way or another all of these variables will end up playing a role in the way
we do all things. This includes photography. Therefore it can not be considered
a great leap of deductive reasoning to think our experiences and personalities
will at the end affect the outcome of our images. Thus by just being there and
observing we are affecting the outcome of a situation.
If
not, what do you think our personal style of photography truly is? Why do you
think someone with the personality of Bruce Gilden creates images like the ones
he made in Appalachia?
On
a lighter note: If you want further proof of our capability of producing
built-in biased photos, then take a look at this:
