there’s conscientious, and then there’s conscientious
I’ve spent the last couple of hours surfing for more photography blogs to return to later for information and inspiration. One of the few that engaged me for more than a few seconds is conscientious by Jorg Colberg. Anyways, one of his posts linked to portraits of crack addicts by Tony Fouhse, though he questioned this kind of photography with :
“I’m somewhat torn about “User”, though – not so much because of the photography, but because of the subject matter. I’ve lately seen a quite a few series on drug users, and I’m not sure whether turning drug users into a fine-art photography fad is going to help them too much. Needless to say, this concern applies not just to Tony’s work, but to all the other photographers who have produced similar work as well.”
Now, I suspect I need to state my bias towards this very kind of photography (to see Fouhse’s images, go to the Personal menu and choose USER – I can’t link directly to it because his gallery uses Flash). I’m fascinated by street people (and I use this term to include drug addicts and people with severe mental illness) in photography. It seems that street people are at once visible and invisible, that as a society we would prefer not to see them at all.
I find myself reacting quite strongly to Colberg’s comment for a few reasons. First off, I’m not convinced that anybody’s “fine art photography” is obligated to “help” the people, things or places pictured in them. I do think photographs shouldn’t harm the people in the pictures, but even that can be argued, I suppose, if a greater good is served.
Second, I think that making portraits of drug addicts DOES help them. Why shouldn’t they be the subject of art photography? They’re people just like the rest of us, and there is no us and them, except for the walls we build around ourselves. In revealing the individuality of their subjects as human beings, good portraits also reveal the same spark of humanity that’s in all of us. And Tony Fouhse’s portraits are brilliant. Despite the candid feeling of each image, it’s obvious he interacted with each person, from the names of the people being used as the titles, and from his sensitive treatment. There is no judgment in these images.
* * *
As I wrote this, I explored Fouhse’s site a bit more, and discovered his blog, where he undefensively responded to Colberg’s comment. I dug through his archives a bit, and sure enough, he’s posted stories of the people he photographed.
This is the kind of work I’d like to aspire to.
* * *
Going just a little bit deeper into his archives, I see he got lots of media coverage, and the stories were written by a writer who interviewed the people they could find after his show opened. The writer did a great job to capture the same sensitivity as Fouhse did in the images. And, just so you don’t miss it, he posted an email he received from a social worker at a local homeless shelter who said that one of the people he photographed asked to have her print from Fouhse put in her file so she wouldn’t lose it or ruin it. “It was obvious that the time you took with her meant something, and I’m sure it’s something she will always remember, and keep with her.”
Oh – and the pics of him shooting one of those nights? Holy crap, I have long, long way to go…
*******
Other bloggers have picked up on this discussion, and expanded it. Check it out.
March 30th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
thanks Kate, you made my day.
tony
March 30th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I’m afraid you didn’t quite understand what the problem is. The problem is simply that drug addicts are turned into yet another visual cliche and/or fad in the art world (and we’re right on track to achieve this, if we’re not already there) – where, in the end, people react to such images with a shrug (”Oh, I’ve seen stuff like this. I want to see something new.”). That would/will put drug addicts into an even worse state than they’re in already.
March 30th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
JM, I did understand that component of your comment, but I disagree. I don’t think it’s a fad to look at people and see another human being instead of looking away.
I think Fouhse’s images will make viewers see people on the street with more compassion, next time they’re out and about. I really do.
March 30th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Oh – and to me, it’s about the interaction of the photographer and the subject. I think pictures of street people run the risk of being visual clichés if there’s no interaction. But human interactions show, and I think that’s what keep portraits from being a cliché. Because ultimately, that person is the only person in the world who is exactly like that person.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:25 am
Tony here again……
I want to state from the get-go that I don’t need to agree with someone in order to respect them. And (like I mention in my blog post) I do respect what Joerg is doing. I can see his point when it comes to the whole representation of drug addicts thing. I personally hate fads…..I think that anyone who knows me would tell you that I’m just not a faddish guy. In fact, the opposite is probably true. I never set about to do the USER portraits to be faddish. I just sort of fell into it….almost as though they chose me as much as I chose them. It seemed right to me.
Putting all the art world aspects aside, though, I can report that on a macro level, working with the subjects on the ground, there has been positive change because of this work. I won’t go into them here, you’ll have to take my word that many of the people involved in this project (the addicts, their case workers and the people who have seen the images) have told me that the images have changed their minds a little bit, had a positive effect.
Perhaps it’s true, what Joerg says….that in the larger context these are just another batch of shots that will further numb the population. I’ve never held out much hope for any real positive change from anything, really. My contention is that human beings are poorly evolved mammals and the most anyone can do is to try to find their own meaning.
So we get differences of opinion and that seems right too.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:01 am
Tony’s photos on their own don’t generate the fad, but seeing a whole bunch of series like his recently does. That’s what it comes down to, and that’s what you have been missing (as has Tony). In the end, this kind of photography can easily generate the same kind of response that we now get when confronted with war photography or images of starving people in Africa: We’re used to the images.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:55 am
Does this mean, Joerg, that no one should go to document war anymore? Or that staving children should be off limits for photographers? I can’t follow that argument, it just seems to be too categorical.
I’m not missing your point, I’m (respectfully) disagreeing with it.
I know that imagery of war and starvation and pestilence affects me. Not all of it, of course….but it does go into my brain and I do think about it. I, for one, am not used to certain of those images.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Thank you both for coming back and continuing the discussion. Like Tony, I wasn’t missing your point, JM, I just disagreed with it (not sure if your name is spelled Jorg or Joerg?). The thing is, I’m not used to images of war or starving people or drug addicts or sick people, especially if they’re good photos. I’m also coming at this question not as an art critic or even really as a photographer so much as someone who has been changed, in real life and in small, daily actions, by things I’ve read and seen. I’m not saying those actions are changing the world, but I think it makes a difference to a panhandler to look them in the eye as I pass.
That said, I haven’t looked at the sheer number of images that I’m sure you have, and maybe if I did I would become numb to these kinds of images, but I hope I never do. I know I see lots of photography that bores me, that feels like a cliché. But it’s not the subject matter alone that makes an image clichéd, in my opinion. It’s viewpoint, treatment, and a million other things that you’d be much better at articulating than I am.
I hope I haven’t offended you; that wasn’t my intention at all.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
[...] the series has provoked. I won’t regurgitate it here but I do encourage you to go here and here and and then come back home and comment below on this interesting debate about what art should and [...]
May 4th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
[...] a genre necessarily focused on subject matter. But to me, and as I mentioned in relation to an earlier post, I don’t think photographic clichés are so much about subject matter as treatment. I think [...]