photography from the source

June 15, 2007 9:26 PM

Sue Carpenter is a photo journalist from the United Kingdom. She has been working with abused and neglected girls in Nepal teaching them photography skills in an effort to give them an expressive voice. Here are 12 examples that will be included in an upcoming exhibit. Related to this, on a wider scope is the notion that the overwhelming majority of photos from developing countries are taken by outsiders, i.e. Americans and Europeans. Dubbed development pornography (SFW) this is perhaps to be somewhat expected because of the levels of income differences. However, there are emerging efforts to address this disparity. Included globally is Majority World and Kijijivision. Regionally - Pathshala, South Asia. Specifically - Out of Focus, Bangladesh.
posted by edgeways (11 comments total)

Wow, nice pics. Thanks.
posted by volk at 10:15 PM on June 15, 2007

Great stuff, thanks!. Photovoice (a Nature Conservancy project iirc) did something similar with women in rural Yunnan.
posted by Abiezer at 11:01 PM on June 15, 2007

If you haven't watched the documentary "Born Into Brothels" go get it now. It's about a photographer who gives cameras and photography lessons to kids in Calcutta's red light district. It is phenomenal.
posted by arcticwoman at 11:02 PM on June 15, 2007

Excellent post, edgeways - thank you for bringing these great links and stories here.

Also in the "local voices" genre - Press Institute for Women in the Developing World.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:15 AM on June 16, 2007

Fantastic! Thanks for this post.
posted by piratebowling at 6:44 AM on June 16, 2007

I'm a photojournalist travelling through Asia, and have really been pondering these issues recently... thanks for the link!
posted by BobsterLobster at 9:37 AM on June 16, 2007

The concept of "development pornography" is a dangerous one. Sure, we should encourage grass roots photojournalism throughout the world for the sake of broadening our visual perspective, but not at the expense of the "outside" photographer. Often times, a native to a country/city/village can provide a view of that place that only an insider can. Encouraging local documentation in the developing world is key for the sake of building a healthy local media as the foundation of a functioning democracy. However, there is a great deal to be said for the outsider's perspective. One of the best photographers of American life I know is a native of India. It's the Tocqueville effect and it an essential perspective.

The concern that photographing starving brown people strips them of their dignity and is exploitative is only valid when that is the photographer's intention. It is not relevant who documents human suffering. What is essential is that someone bear witness to it and communicate to whoever may listen. Photographs not only have the power to guilt rich white folks into donating money to NGOs, they have the power to change global public policy.

There are instances where a native photographer would not enjoy the freedom to document his own people given the political situation of his homeland. Does that mean someone with the means to document atrocities should forgo doing so just because it might seem to have an air of imperialism to some?

I have a problem with photographers who take pictures of foreign people smiling at the camera for the sake of a portfolio. There are indeed photographers out there who could care less about the people they are photographing in favor of the image they are creating. They don't bother to talk to their subjects, learn their names or backstories. These people are hacks, but there are many working photojournalists who care very much about the people they shoot, and the broad label of "development pornography" is insulting and inaccurate.
posted by TheGoldenOne at 4:20 PM on June 16, 2007

This is great. Thank you.
posted by flibbertigibbet at 10:47 PM on June 16, 2007

I understand what you are saying TheGoldenOne but I respectfully disagree with some of the specfics. I wouldn't agree that the concept of "development pornography" is "dangerous", nor do I think anyone is saying that the only photos that should come from area X should be taken by residence of area X. Rather, if anything is "dangerous" it is when the overwhelming preponderance of images coming from an area are being taken by those that have limited knowledge of the area and domestic daily life because they are simply not from there, they arrive, poke around a bit and leave, even if they care, even if they take time out and talk to the people living in the area, they will never be of that culture, nor have near a full understanding of what is everyday life.
Of course there is something to be said for outside observance, but how many Tocqueville moments do we need in a given land which hasn't had adequate self expression? Tocqueville was brilliant, but only because he came after Franklin, Twain and a whole host of other cultural identity enforcements, and because he was the exception, not the norm. The indivdual from India you mention no doubt has a great perspective on American life and sounds like s/he does a wonderful job. But what if nearly every single image you saw of America was from an Indian? It doesn't invalidate those images, but it certainly puts them in a whole different class.
I think something can be exploitative by it's institutional nature, whether or not individual actors specifically mean for it to be exploitative, taking a picture of a starving African may not be exploiting, but if that is the only thing being documented, then yes that is misrepresentational. Just as if everyone who traveled to Georgia only took photos of poor people who are black and live in run down houses. What should be documented goes beyond what gets reported on the BBC or elsewhere. Yes, photos of starving African children help convey the need, but even though it may not make the media outlets also having images of people living their everyday lives, even if they are not starving, is important.
The thing is we need both sides, right now the proportions are out of whack by a staggering margin. Wherever it is possible, as acts of self determination, local population should be the primary source of documentation of culture. I fail to see why "development pornography" is insulting and inaccurate, and stating such seems just a little overly defensive.
posted by edgeways at 12:11 AM on June 17, 2007

First off, considering Twain was born the year Tocqueville released Democracy in America, I think it would be difficult to make a successful argument that he preceded Tocqueville.

Secondly, I'll say it again- "Encouraging local documentation in the developing world is key for the sake of building a healthy local media as the foundation of a functioning democracy."

Thirdly, let me reiterate- "There are indeed photographers out there who could care less about the people they are photographing in favor of the image they are creating. They don't bother to talk to their subjects, learn their names or backstories. These people are hacks"

My main beef is with the phrase "development pornography" itself. It's pejorative in the way that "liberal media" is and I feel it undermines the essential work being done by photojournalists all over the world.

Yeah, it's important to document daily life for the sake of global understanding as well as historians and anthropologists down the line, but the reason we take pictures of tragedy and suffering more often than not is not to sell papers- it is to draw attention to a problem that must be fixed.

Perhaps some day developing nations will have the luxury of a thriving native Fourth Estate, but until that time comes, these areas should not be neglected for the sake of appearances.
posted by TheGoldenOne at 4:12 PM on June 17, 2007

Excellent. If I hadn't known the context, I would have thought the Nepali children's photographs had been taken by professionals.
posted by desjardins at 7:14 AM on June 18, 2007