There is a genre of photography known as “humanitarian photojournalism.” It seems a laudable practice and most of the photographers who do it are dedicated to the causes and organizations they photograph for. However, it is also a commercial practice, and where money changes hands expectations and obligations are present and they will shade the results.
I have recently been listening to podcast interviews (Depth of Field with Matt Brandon) with some of the most accomplished humanitarian photographers. They all tell compelling stories. They talk about what they pack for their trips and the difficulties and unexpected encounters in their travel. They tell about what gear works, what doesn’t and why. They give tips on lighting and how to work with the native populations and conditions—all of which is fascinating and useful to other photographers. Likewise, they all speak of the real needs and suffering of their subjects from around the world.
But missing in most of this discussion is a larger perspective—one in which bigger questions are raised and wrestled with.
Every one of these photographers claim it is a privilege for them to inform the rest of the world about what’s really going on in places like the Sudan, Haiti, Afghanistan and the Amazon rain forest. So they report on the work being done by the major Non Governmental Organizations and many relief agencies—their clients and employers. And they do it well because they are professionals.
The result is yet more images in a media saturated world—images targeted at people living far from the source of those images—affluent, well educated, socially committed readers of magazines and buyers of photo books and joiners of groups dedicated to helping causes—the pool from which the NGOs and relief organizations seek their support. So the humanitarian photograph must be compelling though not repellent. It must not tip the balance politically, culturally or aesthetically in any way that might offend the targeted potential donor.
It is this need for balance that pushes the humanitarian photojournalist more and more into the realms of marketing, advertising and public relations. And to the extent humanitarian photography is a business both the photographer and those who hire him or her have a vested interest in the continuation of their subject’s abject conditions.
It is notable that many of the humanitarian photojournalists routinely leave their own countries (mostly developed nations) to travel on paid assignment to remote locations, there to record and report on their subject’s pain, poverty and suffering. But surely pain, poverty and suffering exist in the photographer’s own home country and community? There is plenty of it here in the United States and it probably exists in places like France, Canada, Germany, Britain and Australia too! Surely it must be more environmentally, morally and economically defensible to address the problems of pain, poverty and suffering at home before trying to right the wrongs in places thousands and thousands of miles away.
Humanitarian photographers should ask themselves how much what they do is really done in service of humanity—really makes a difference—and how much of it is done to expiate guilt (theirs and that of their clients) for being able to live a life of privilege and choice not enjoyed by those they photograph.
The people devastated by the earthquake in Haiti, and those left impoverished if not homeless and demoralized by Katrina and more recently by the incompetence of British Petroleum in the Gulf are not now flying to Santa Fe, Palm Beach or Shaker Heights to photograph the plight of the wealthy—are they?
What are your thoughts?
© 2010 Michael Maurer Smith
Note: This blog also appears at beyondappearance.wordpress.com
Without a doubt all photographers and i feel any professional should have some ingredient of intentionality self examination. however i think it might be short sighted to assume there is something wrong with being paid to photograph the harsh realties of life. As a photographer that has traveled the globe photographing the work of Non-Profits i can tell you i could have made more money staying at home photographing weddings and head shots for would be actors then i ever could have made on my paid assignments with non-profits. Which by the way, Non-Profits while they scream and cry for money are doing just fine. It should be noted that most of the photographers i know that shoot for NGO’s are often seldom paid. The do this work because they care. Yes there are the parasites out there, but its been my experience that often times its the directors and staff of the NGO that have more issues then the photographer.
Don: Thanks for your comments. Your points are thoughtful and well taken.
I agree that professionals deserve fair compensation for their work. Likewise, I believe most humanitarian and documentary photographers are well intended and try to work with integrity. I also believe it is important to report war, injustice, poverty and suffering and tell the stories of those who are helping make things better. However, there is so much of this coverage that more and more people are tuning it out as background noise and compassion fatigue is common.
Each day the media delivers more grim news, more body counts, more harrowing stories. And to what end? For all this information (news?) there is still no peace in the middle east. Wars continue to rage around the world. Intolerance, corruption and injustice are rampant. And everyday we can expect to learn of yet another terrorist attack, plane crash or natural disaster.
I wonder about the photographer(s) so eager to travel half way around the world to get the important story or to encourage relief efforts while they miss or ignore the important story just around the corner.
Photographers must ask themselve hard questions about whose interests they are really serving? Whose truth(s) are they telling? Why? And who does their work really benefit and enrich? The answers aren’t always comforting or simple.