5 responses to “Photography and Politics: The Right and the Left”

1. 

   Mark Windsor

   July 11, 2024 at 9:35 am

   Photographic commentators, photographers even, often fall into the trap of thinking the medium is ‘objective,’ above or beyond politics. Or that as an artform it offers a legitimate escape from politics – certainly from the narrow confines of party political wrangling. It can open doors and be an avenue to a completely different way of thinking. Or it can so often be a dead end street of immitative moribund cliché as photographers struggle to find ‘their unique vision’ in a world absolutely drowning in photographic based imagery.
   In quieter, pre-digital times. John Szarkowski, Director of Photography at New York’s Museum of Modern Art put together the Mirrors and Windows exhibition. This pared down the variety in American photography up to the 1960s, to a dichotomy between two apparently opposing approaches to photography: one offering – through the ‘objective’ nature of the lens (and the intent of the photohrapher) – a window on the world. And the other approach, photography as a means of self expression offering a mirror to the human soul. It was a good model for thinking about photography as a cultural process.
   It was inevitable that we should recognise these two strands of thought as being inextricably entwined. For instance, with the benefit of hindsight we imputed artistry and expressiveness to the legacy humanitarian photographers of Magnum, who we had been led to believe were telling us the ‘truth’ about the world we live in. In fact they were constructing a particular view of humanity (one that I continue to admire – though it has been superceded – certainly in ‘art’ photpgraphy – by an approach that pretends to be more intellectually considered and less sentimentally attached).
   Photographers like Lee Friedlander and Gary Winogrand forayed into the intersection between the objective nature of reality and individual subjectivity, taking pictures of ‘the real world’ that reflected an apparent detachment from it. This apolitical detachment was in itself a form of politics.
   When the ‘objective’ nature of ‘documentary’ reportage became politically suspect (it privileged the position.of mainly, white middle class male photographers), would-be art photographers beat a hasty retreat from expressionistic humanistic photography and reportage to a far more introspective, self reflective approach that avoided treading on another people’s turf. White male photographers could no longer presume to speak for other nations’ peoples, they could no longer objectify women. ‘Documentary photography’ was a cultural construct that needed to be dismantled and reconstituted in more egalitarian or as cynics would call it, more politically correct ways.’ This, by and large critically engaged photographers have tried to do. But photography in itself doesn’t challenge anything. It comes down to the honesty and integrity of the photographer and their intentions. Magnum formed as a photographic agency to circumvent – as far as it could – the limitations then imposed on photographers by the mainstream print media. Today photographers continue to be strung up on the strictures of editorial, publication and exhibition policy dictated by people with greater privileges than they. Photographers can continue to remain politically nieve if they want.
   Alternative media offers one of the only ways out for the modern ‘concerned photographer.’ But even that has limitations. Nevertheless, ‘real stories’ continue to take place with or without professional photographers in attendance. These days photographers can’t go to war unless they are vetted by the military and ’embedded’ with them on their terms. The military control the narrative, that’s the fodder we receive through the mainstream media. Back in the time of the Falklands war, Don McCullin, arguably Britain’s greatest war photographer – certainly at the time, was prevented from going out to cover the conflict. Such was the establishment’s fear of his brutally honest approach to the atrocities of war.
   Today one has to ask: how much, in real terms has the mainstream media offered us of ‘unembedded’ photographic coverage of the war in Ukraine or Gaza? None or very little. And as for Gaza, ‘left or right,’ neutral independent observors and journalists aren’t even allowed in.
   In Britain we live in relative safety compared to these war ravaged places. Keir Starmer’s election offers some short term hope to British people who are suffering the consequences of 14 years of Tory imposed austerity. But British tax payers money will continue to fund the British arms trade to Israel, making us complicit in the Genocide of the Palestinian people. That is a terrible indictment on the British people who have failed to protest this. I would have thought humanitarians of left and right would be in unison in opposing atrocities recognised as crimes of war by the World’s highest court – the International Court of Justice.
   Photrography has a role in all this – regardless of whether one is a Tory or Labour voter. Citizen journalists and photographers show a completely different picture of Gaza to the one presented to us by the British and American mainstream media. That’s modern digital technology for you – we ignore it at our peril. I can only say l am surprised that social media has had such a dearth of imagery from Ukraine, where by all accounts the mortality is far higher.

   Loading…

   Reply
   1. 

      gscott2012

      July 11, 2024 at 10:08 am

      Thanks for the extensive response. You raise different points to the ones I raised but that’s okay.

      Loading…

      Reply
2. 

   Martin Hulbert

   July 10, 2024 at 10:11 am

   Change: Progress, evolution, necessity or dark sinister motives?

   Fortunately I live in Scotland so have had some protection from the excesses of the tory government. The last 14 years have seen many changes made and I am hard pushed to find one that did not have sinister motives behind it. These sinister motives often have a lie as the headline “positive” message [eg Electoral fraud is a big issue in UK elections – cf America with Trump] shouts out the need for change while obscuring the real reason [eg we do not want certain people voting because they will vote for our opponents].

   But let’s turn to photography: something with large equipment, very technical and incredibly slow to operate for wealthy scientists and artists that could be seen by the chosen few became something that is held in a hand, is universal, almost instant and can be seen worldwide in seconds… or can direct a missile or drone with poor intelligence onto a school or hospital, killing hundreds … 180 years of progress?

   I learnt photography with film, no zooms, no autofocus, no exposure meter, and a wait to get your results – even if later I processed and printed myself. Polaroids were high quality test images for large /medium format cameras or with an instant camera produced poorish results. But as we ‘progressed’ or changed, camera prices dropped and £0.99 or free film developing and processing became fashionable… a large consumer market developed and fortunes were made and lost.

   In 2000 digital photography had appeared with normally fairly poor results. Two years later CanNikOly had digital camera that could produce good results. In 2004 I used a digital camera for ‘photographic notes’ alongside a 6×12 film camera for my documentary photography masters.

   Whilst apart from Leica and medium / large format cameras you had to select whether you wanted digital or film and buy accordingly, the change was really in progress. Chemical disposal had suddenly become a ‘problem’ that was discovered, and Ericson then Apple put cameras on their phones.

   Like many others I regret not keeping my film cameras and selling them for about 1/10 of what they cost now. Film has become alternative and your digital camera is soon replaced, takeovers, mergers and diversification have removed some names or resourced others.

   Of course digital now feeds 24/7 “news”, while the ordinary person can see their phone image on television. But more seriously even by 2004, “news’ was created for digital photographers as attacks happened in time for CNN breakfast broadcasts [from Afghan war photographers].

   But now … digital has both created a larger market and become a big industry while film continues with those who want a more contemplative and slower art form, accepting the high costs of material to produce unique images. In the background some go back to alchemy, experiment and are content for a few to see their original work in the ‘Real’, not electronically. While others try to recreate /reinvent this digitally.

   But sometimes change goes full circle, or goes down avenues that no one wanted apart from the big businesses… Supposing you had a device on your phone that could capture what you imagined and transfer it to your ‘followers’ phones to send to their imagination…

   That in the hands of Trump or the far right politicians and media would be…

   Loading…

   Reply
3. 

   Olybacker

   July 10, 2024 at 9:16 am

   Dr Scott, wrong on two counts. Firstly the Conservative Party were only in power for nine years, since the General Election of 2015 and the ‘war’ between analogue and digital is well and truly over as film is still manufactured and Pentax have even recently introduced some analogue ‘hardware’ albeit half-frame. I expect other manufacturers to join in the ‘analogue hardware revival’ as a means to make money in the face of some boredom from consumers with yet another black digital box. I use both systems by the way.

   Loading…

   Reply
   1. 

      gscott2012

      July 10, 2024 at 10:01 am

      I am afraid you are wrong. Cameron was elected in 2010 as part of a coalition government which took no notice of its political partners and the analogue war is over, just a few people won’t accept it.

      Loading…

      Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.