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

After more than 150 years of photography—of millions of photographs showing humans shredded, burned, drilled by bullets, eviscerated, or hacked to pieces, we must acknowledge that murder, genocide, slaughter and natural disaster continue undeterred by the witness of photographers and photojournalists.

Words may reveal the mind of the victim or the perpetrator and thereby teach us something, but never the photograph. It can only re-present that which was visible. You will not get blood on your fingers by dragging them across the photograph of a dead soldier or accident victim. You will not hear the victim’s dying screams or last words. You will not smell the stench of the body’s decay. Still photographs remain still—odorless artifacts.

Most of the photographs of war and suffering are made to sell—not just to teach, witness, document or chastise. The photojournalists who make these pictures expect to be paid for taking the risk. And the news agencies expect to be paid for the use of the images.

Such photography panders to the viewer/reader’s anxiety and need to feel safe. It is expected they will find comfort in knowing they have been spared the horror shown in the photograph. But is this real journalism? Does it truly educate and serve any noble or practical purpose? Or does it principally titillate, stir fear and fan prejudice?

Eddie Adams won the Pulitzer Prize for his photograph of General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan executing a handcuffed Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon. This picture helped turn American sentiment against the Vietnam War and hasten its end. However, it has done little to prevent America’s involvement in subsequent wars. Likewise, the highly publicized photographs of the My Lai massacre, of more than 347 unarmed men, women and children, by U.S. troops, on 16 March 1968, has done little to prevent subsequent mass murders and genocides from happening around the world.

Photojournalism’s demonstrated failure to prevent or end wars, genocides and disaster makes it cynical if not immoral for photojournalists, news agencies and publishers to continue profiting from the photography of people’s suffering, pain and tragedy—photographs that are sold and peddled as a commodity to be consumed like coffee at breakfast. Is this what it means to be civilized? Is this being informed or simply inflamed? Who really benefits?

© 2010 Michael Maurer Smith

The individual or small business that can only afford to spend a few hundred dollars will now ask what’s the point? If giants like AIG, General Motors and Exxon Mobil can spend millions of dollars to hire the best writers, designers, photographers and filmmakers to make their ads in support of their favored candidates, political parties and issues, how will the small business or individual get heard? Politicians remember and favor those who get them elected and big money buys access.

So far the protests against this ruling assume that the relative financial disparity is the problem. I’d like to suggest otherwise.

As a designer I develop communications intended to extend the client’s message to their target audience. The message is crafted to persuade and encourage action. To do this I use various typefaces, photographs, illustrations, formats, colors and media to set a specific tone and to bring content and form into an integrated whole that promotes a specific point-of-view and sets a tone. When doing this more money certainly allows more options. This is why WalMart’s advertising is typically more polished and effective than that of the small business owner.

So it seems to me that fairness would be a law that required all political campaign and advocacy advertising to be limited to type only. No sound, illustration, photography or color, other than black and white, would be permitted. Likewise, only a single typeface could be used, say Helvetica or Arial—something precise and modern but lacking a suggestive character. Everyone would be required to use this same typeface (or Braille for the blind).

Type set in Helvetica.

All this would assure visual neutrality and a kind of equality. It would compel and challenge those who write the copy to persuade their audience using only the written word—appealing to the intellect. Unlike colors, photographs, illustrations and sounds, which are responded to immediately, viscerally and emotionally, the written word must first be read and interpreted—it requires thinking and understanding.

These restrictions would apply to everyone rich or poor, individual or corporate. The individual or corporation could say whatever he or she wanted to but only using words, no pictures and no movement or sound. The emotional appeal of color and imagery would be unavailable and the need for big budgets for production costs would disappear. Anyone with access to a desktop computer could prepare typewritten copy ready for use in print, online or on television.

Taking this a step further designated sites on the Internet could be made available for these ads and statements. Such sites would be open to all and at no cost.

Of course some people write better than others, and the better writer will be more persuasive. However superior writers may be found at all income levels and writing requires little in the way of production costs. So restricting published (print or online) political advertising and advocacy to the written word would go a long way toward assuring that everyone will have a fair and equal opportunity to be heard, regardless how much money they may have.

It is worth remembering that before the Internet, radio and television and before the halftone process permitted photographs to be reproduced in books, magazines and newspapers most publishing and advertising took the form of the printed word.

In the end it is our choice. We now have to accept that corporations have been granted the same rights of free speech formerly exclusive to human beings. However we can insist that equal opportunity, access and methods be available to permit the exercise of free speech for every citizen (Can a corporation be a citizen?) regardless of their finances, power or connections. Indeed we must do this if we are to remain a Democracy and not become a Plutocracy.

© 2010 Michael Maurer Smith

Berger, for his purposes, proffers a modern and Eurocentric view of primitive art and writes from a Marxist perspective. He locates the definitions, explanations and analysis of art primarily in the contexts of class, culture and economics. His emphasis is upon art as something that may be possessed, valued and exchanged. He says little about the subjective nature and satisfactions of the art making process. It’s as if the quality called art only inheres in the object.

Reading this essay got me thinking about my own practice of Art. I hold both a Masters and Bachelors degree in Studio Art from Michigan State University. I am a painter, photographer and communications designer. So I work in the realms of fine art and applied—the sacred and profane.

It also happens that I grew up underprivileged. My great-grandmother raised me and until I was old enough to work, we had only her Social Security check and a welfare allotment with which to meet our needs. Her formal education ended at the ninth grade level. So I did not grow up in a home that exposed me to high Art. Nonetheless, I went on to obtain a university education by means of the G.I. Bill, a benefit of my service as a Marine during the Vietnam War.

As a boy I liked to draw and was good at it. I liked looking at pictures. I loved the varieties of color and texture and the joy I found in pleasing shapes and arrangements. I checked out art books from the local and school libraries and took art classes in junior high and high school. I gained a reputation as being artistic. Becoming an artist seemed natural and right for me.

So when I arrived at the university I too was presented with the model Berger describes—the modern and Eurocentric model of art—the Capitalistic and consumerist model. I then began to understand art in the context of culture and class—as a signifier of status. Likewise I became aware of the artist’ status within our contemporary class structure.

Like most artists, I was and am an observer. I prefer the periphery from which I can analyze, assess, compare and contrast what I see, hear and feel. I knowingly keep a distance to preserve my options. A Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory I once took revealed me as an Intuitive, Thinking, Judging type and I agree. Being an artist demands being an outsider—a step out of sync. It demands the freedom to ask what if? Why not? Says who? It demands the courage and willingness to defy that which is commonly accepted, known and “understood.”

I concur with Berger’s analysis as far as it goes. However, I believe it is limited to understanding Art as an object within the purview of economics and politics.

In this essay, Berger does not address the artist’ subjective experience of art making. He does not examine the reason(s) the individual artist may have for making art. Nor does he consider the artist’ own definition(s) of art.

It is the confused and collapsed definition of Art that is problematic. Art in common parlance is variously used to mean: an object, a quality, an action or a practice. It is like the word love, which in one context may describe the mechanics of the sex act (they made love) and in another, the Greek concept of agape—selfless love.

The ascription of Art, as a quality, to anything is always a political and cultural decision.

Can something made intentionally for purposes of trade and commerce ever be real Art? Can real Art be made by the naïve and untutored person? Can it be made by accident? Can a computer produce it? Or must real Art evidence the freedom of the artist’ hand and mind and the caprice of momentary inspiration?

What makes art Art? And who says? The answer locates the politics. Is it Art only if the artist says it is? Or is it Art only if culturally accepted institutions, like galleries, museums and universities judge it so? Is it enough to be Art because it is skillfully and beautifully made? Or must the work show evidence of deep thought, meaning and imagination by its maker? Must a work of art be unique? Or can it be one of many machine produced and identical multiples? Why or why not?

Berger correctly posits economics and politics as the arbiters of what is culturally and socially accepted as Art—at least in modern Western society. However, the need for artistic expression—the need to make marks and objects, whether utilitarian, symbolic or purely decorative, is innately human and preexists any political ideology or economic system. In fact it is a defining feature of humans that they can make symbolic marks—marks that stand for shared meanings and concepts. This is the basis for written language and thus for the codification and sharing of mathematics, science, history and religion.

To bring this discussion into focus I want to discuss my brother Tim. Tim is five years younger than me. We have the same mother but different fathers. We did not grow up together. Early in his life Tim began having trouble with the law. This led to his incarceration in prison for several years. During that time he began to draw. His drawings betrayed a lack of formal instruction. Size relationships owed more to emotional meanings than observed differences—like those of children’s drawing. Objects were drawn as outlines and filled with color. There was little understanding of renaissance perspective and chiascuro. These were the drawings of a naïve artist. Yet they were expressive works that made manifest his feelings and did so in ways that were visually compelling and provocative. They were art as act, and art as process. They were art as personal expression. But they were not high Art—not the kind of art a museum would seek to acquire. Tim remains undiscovered.

After his release from prison Tim stopped drawing and began making carvings and constructions out of wood and scrap. He fashions detailed sailing ships, stagecoaches and windmills using humble tools. He does this without regard for efficiency or profit. He places no value on his work hour. He has no business plan or portfolio and his continuing personal and emotional problems make a professional approach to his art making and craft practically impossible. Yet he continues to make his art, probably because it is the one meaningful thing in his life. It affirms his being and gives him a sense of purpose and accomplishment—something that is uniquely his.

Tim and his art © Michael Maurer Smith 2009

Tim’s artistic expression is genuine. At the same time it is derivative. He tries to copy things he’s seen but his mental demons, lack of formal training and proper tools conspire to deny him the skill and discipline necessary to make convincing replicas at a marketable and profitable rate. Instead his pieces are improvisations, born without the pretense of theory and historical justification. They are akin to a journal compulsively kept, markers of a passage. But are they Art? I think they are. He doesn’t.

© Michael Maurer Smith 2009

This September 11^th I was stunned when I arrived home and checked my email. A message from my sister tersely read, “somebody killed the sign guy.” The “sign guy” was a fixture in Owosso, Michigan. He often stood on street corners, hooked to his oxygen tank while  holding up graphic anti-abortion signs and shouting slogans at passers by.

At 7:30 a.m., across the street from the Owosso high school and in front of several students, James Pouillon, the 63 year old anti-abortion activist was gunned down by a man shooting from a passing truck. The shooter was Harlan James Drake.

After killing Mr. Pouillon, Drake then drove to a nearby gravel business where he shot and killed the owner, Mr. Mike Fouss. Shortly after this and before he could reach James Howe, his intended third victim, Drake was apprehended by the police. According to media reports Drake has confessed to the murders.

I did not know the victims personally. However, I grew up in Owosso and graduated from Owosso High School. I attended school with Mr. Pouillon’s younger brother Don and was acquainted with Mr. Fouss’s younger brother Jim.

Knowing Owosso as I do it is disturbing to witness this tragedy being exploited by the media and those groups greedy for anything they can turn to their profit and purpose.

Thus far no specific motive for the murders has been made public although the police say that Mr. Drake held grudges against Mr. Fouss and Mr. Howe. As for Mr. Pouillon, Drake claimed he was offended by the graphic images of aborted fetuses displayed on Pouillon’s signs. It has also been mentioned  that Drake’s mother had worked for both Fouss and Howe, and that this might have something to do with the motive.

The day after his arrest Drake was admitted to the hospital for a “serious gash” to his arm after cutting himself with broken glass from a television set in an apparent suicide attempt. He was treated and returned to jail.

Little else has been made publicly known about the killer, although in a statement in the Owosso Argus Press his family claims he was a “gentle giant.” It has also been said he had been taking anti-depressants because of his involvement in an accident in which two people were killed when they pulled in front of the semi-truck he was driving. It is speculated this may have contributed to his recent actions.

Drake had no criminal record, seemingly nothing that would indicate he might do what he did. Yet, after he was taken into custody his truck was searched and it contained 10,000 rounds of ammunition and 8 guns, including both 22 and 45 caliber pistols. Clearly this man was on a mission.

All of this would have been just another case of a disturbed man committing murder—a regrettable occurrence but not that unusual in our times. However, this particular tragedy has taken on a prominence that is disturbing.

Anti-abortion activists immediately latched onto Mr. Pouillon’s murder, making him into a martyr for their cause, yet comments submitted to the Owosso Argus Press website, allegedly written by his own son, Dr. James Pouillon, suggest that the senior Mr. Pouillon was no saint and that he had been an irresponsible father. Other comments by writers claiming to be relatives suggested he had a pathological anger toward women.

To be fair, comments posted on websites are difficult to verify and there are many sides to every story. However, this story has gained national attention based upon many unconfirmed and possibly specious facts.

On 15 September 2009, at 6:49 p.m. EDT Reuters reported on its website that president Obama had condemned Mr. Pouillon’s murder. No mention was made of whether or not the president mentioned, Mr. Fouss, the other victim. Every major news and media organization across the nation has reported Mr. Pouillon’s death and his connection to the anti-abortion cause. Mention of Mr. Fouss, the second victim, has been minimal.

Why Mr. Pouillon was killed has not been conclusively established. It may not have been because of his anti-abortion activism. He may simply have been a convenient target for a deranged killer. It has been reported that Harlan Drake will undergo psychiatric evaluation.

But facts do not stand in the way of those who will churn any set of events to make their own brand of butter. The anti-abortionists have seized upon this tragedy to advance their cause. They assume they know the killer’s mind and reasons. And they largely ignore the other victim Mr. Fouss, and the intended victim, Mr. Howe, because it appears these two men had no connection to anti-abortion activities. Their victimization is apparently less worthy of note because they are not politically useful. Glaringly apparent in all this is the nearly complete disregard for the lost life of Mr. Fouss and the suffering of the Fouss and Howe families. The death of Mr. Fouss and the threat to Mr. Howe have been treated as insignificant principally because they don’t fit the right-to-lifer’s political agenda. The media has focused on Pouillon’s murder because of his connection to the right-to-life movement. The attendant sensationalism drives ratings and ratings drive profit.

On the 16^th of September a memorial service for Mr. Pouillon was held at Willman Field, in Owosso. This is the stadium in which the Owosso High Trojans play their football games. It is the property of the Owosso Public Schools. The reasoning was that so many anti-abortionist activists would be arriving from out of town there was no other place large enough to accommodate them all. However, it was requested that this be conducted solely as a memorial service and not as a demonstration. By most accounts it was. Final attendance was estimated to be around 250 people. The Fouss family did not participate.

As of this writing, Harlan Drake remains in jail and the media has found other stories to churn. According to Friday’s (18 September 2009) Owosso Argus Press Jon and Jim, the brothers of Mike Fouss have returned to work at their gravel company. The bloodstained carpet has been removed from the office. Life, though altered, goes on.

(NOTE: Since this piece was written Mr. Harlan Drake, was declared mentally incompetent to stand trial. Subsequently that decision was reversed. A recent article about the case, appearing in the Lansing State Journal, 7 November 2009, reports that Mr. Drake’s record, and confession, will be reviewed by mental health experts for a possible defense of insanity.)

© Michael Maurer Smith 2009