4 ms·

I’m sincere when I type this so I hope someone can help me understand. This type of “art” seems exploitative to me. Certainly many viewers are shocked by the po

I’m sincere when I type this so I hope someone can help me understand. This type of “art” seems exploitative to me. Certainly many viewers are shocked by the poverty on display in the richest nation on earth. And that’s valid and understandable, and.. obvious? It feels like the people and their condition are cheapened and objectified by the pictures.

pigsty 4y ago
I grew up in a town very similar to this in the 90s. It’s nostalgic for me. Showing the conditions people live in isn’t necessarily exploiting them. Some of these people look very happy—take joy in their joy being captured and seen by hundreds of thousands of people decades later.
ggm 4y ago
Since the victorian era, photography has been used as part of welfare campaigning. It was heavily used to document the condition of the working classes in the UK, as part of the victorian attempt to alleviate systemic poverty. Photographs of the east end of london, Slums in britain at large, Slums of Glasgow, the tenaments. It continued throughout the 20th century. I am sure there were US equivalents documenting the condition of housing in Chicago, New York and surrounds. It was used during the depression as part of the WPA activity to document the conditions of migrant workers and displaced people in the dustbowl. It has been used consistently by primarily left wing parties to document social conditions as part of their campaigns for political change. "art" is a label. So is "agitprop". -If it was shot as "agitprop" but became "art" or it was shot as "art" and became "agitprop" does it really alter anything here? Diane Arbus was I think looking for the extreme in the social condition and individuals as "types".
- mc32 4y ago
  For the UK (England, specifically), Chris Killip (specially In Flagrante): https://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/chris_killip/ https://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/chris_killip/ https://www.magnumphotos.com/arts-culture/society-arts-culture/chris-killips-enduring-connection-with-the-people-he-photographed/ https://www.magnumphotos.com/arts-culture/society-arts-cultu...
- akiselev 4y ago
  > I am sure there were US equivalents documenting the condition of housing in Chicago, New York and surrounds. A famous example is photography of the Five Points slums in New York [1] that led to significant changes in the city. [1] https://allthatsinteresting.com/jacob-riis-photographs-how-the-other-half-lives https://allthatsinteresting.com/jacob-riis-photographs-how-t...
mc32 4y ago
They do straddle a line. It's the same line that ruin porn photographers face (though I think they have fewer scruples). Sometimes they are exploitative, but they are also being documentative (for example, the Dustbowl internal migrants captured by Lange, among others). If you go to Today's Russia or Ukraine, you will find very similar conditions, often captured by wealthier European photographers. Are they being exploitative, are they documenting. It depends on the photographer and how they approach it. You can still grant the subject respect and decency.
AviationAtom 4y ago
I think many people would be surprised by how many people lived this way into the late 90s. Even now, venture to mountainous regions of West Virginia and you can still find households without electricity or running water. I think in this modern times people assume all such folks want those amenities, but are too poor to afford them, when really some of them couldn't be any happier to live as they do.
gkanai 4y ago
> seems exploitative to me It would have been had the photographer made a lot of money off of the images, for instance. He didn't. He was an art professor for most of his life- certainly did not significantly profit off of his art. He interacted with the subjects and sent prints to them after the fact. Would it be better if shocking poverty is not photographed?
duxup 4y ago
The images in the article I think shows character, people surviving in difficult situations. There is humanity in every photo. Maybe they wanted to be remembered? For people to see the truth of who they are, where they are?
nl 4y ago
I see these pics and I don't see poverty - I see beauty, pride and happiness. Look at the guy lounging with his back to the car or the guy with his back to the tree in [1]. Can you imagine trying to tell them they are being exploited? Or that the photo of the girl in [2] isn't a stunningly beautiful image? And once needs to be careful considering poverty and the date these pics were taken. These people look well dressed, and the couple kissing clearly have jobs (see the hard hat hanging up). I had cousins who grew up in the 1980 in conditions that weren't massively different to this and we never considered them poor at all. Or consider this: Are the pics in [3] of 1980's SF more of less exploitative? [1] https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/bee576fea518043e1164ded4f42cadae9bbf5c92/0_0_2048_1627/master/2048.jpg?width=1000&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/bee576fea518043e1164ded4f42ca... [2] https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/802853306d66c60d2e1dedb8ec2e25459f7aa828/0_0_6000_7552/master/6000.jpg?width=1000&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/802853306d66c60d2e1dedb8ec2e2... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/30/public-matters-photography-janet-delaney-san-francisco-interview https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/30/public-matters...
- svachalek 4y ago
  I'm with you. I look at these pictures, and it's kind of intriguing to find the hints of the degree of poverty in there. The people in them dominate the pictures, and they seem well dressed, comfortable, healthy. The faces are fascinating, there are entire stories in the faces.
IOT_Apprentice 4y ago
I'd imagine people who throw around "woke" and being anti-"CRT" are the type who want nothing to do with photography of this type. Documenting what IS, is not exploitative, it simply is showing a snapshot of life in a particular place. Why put the word art in quotes? We actually have one of our two political parties trumpeting about being anti-woke, and billionaires decrying "woke" as an evil mind virus to their legion of devoted followers. Woke candy, woke railroads, woke banks. Billionaires will be billionaires. Ordinary people will take photographs of people living their lives, exploitation may arise, if the purpose is to demean the subject and denigrate their life, their culture or circumstances. It appears as though that did not happen in this case.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  > Documenting what IS, is not exploitative, it simply is showing a snapshot of life in a particular place. Surely you can grant that some things that exist are exploitative. Your reasoning here amounts to exploitation not existing. Documenting something that exist (which is just documenting) can be exploitative.
- throwayyy479087 4y ago
  A lot of wokeism is prefaced on a caricature of conservatives, and a denial that there's any possible valid ideologies driving these issues other than White Supremacy. For the record, White Supremacy ideologies ARE how they got to the state put in the photos - but that doesn't mean that the people currently in charge are all neonazis. We don't apply that logic to NY state government w/r/t NYCHA or Newburgh or Far Rockaway, and we should extend that courtesy to people like Nikki Haley.
- throwaway1492 4y ago
  I hope you understand that not everyone shares your pre-occupation with the current era of culture wars that you show here. To one not in your "space" this comment reads very odd indeed; as in attributing malice where this is, implying things that aren't reasonably implied, manufacturing conflict?

pigsty 4y ago

I grew up in a town very similar to this in the 90s. It’s nostalgic for me. Showing the conditions people live in isn’t necessarily exploiting them. Some of these people look very happy—take joy in their joy being captured and seen by hundreds of thousands of people decades later.

ggm 4y ago

Since the victorian era, photography has been used as part of welfare campaigning. It was heavily used to document the condition of the working classes in the UK, as part of the victorian attempt to alleviate systemic poverty. Photographs of the east end of london, Slums in britain at large, Slums of Glasgow, the tenaments. It continued throughout the 20th century. I am sure there were US equivalents documenting the condition of housing in Chicago, New York and surrounds. It was used during the depression as part of the WPA activity to document the conditions of migrant workers and displaced people in the dustbowl. It has been used consistently by primarily left wing parties to document social conditions as part of their campaigns for political change. "art" is a label. So is "agitprop". -If it was shot as "agitprop" but became "art" or it was shot as "art" and became "agitprop" does it really alter anything here? Diane Arbus was I think looking for the extreme in the social condition and individuals as "types".

mc32 4y ago
For the UK (England, specifically), Chris Killip (specially In Flagrante): https://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/chris_killip/ https://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/chris_killip/ https://www.magnumphotos.com/arts-culture/society-arts-culture/chris-killips-enduring-connection-with-the-people-he-photographed/ https://www.magnumphotos.com/arts-culture/society-arts-cultu...
akiselev 4y ago
> I am sure there were US equivalents documenting the condition of housing in Chicago, New York and surrounds. A famous example is photography of the Five Points slums in New York [1] that led to significant changes in the city. [1] https://allthatsinteresting.com/jacob-riis-photographs-how-the-other-half-lives https://allthatsinteresting.com/jacob-riis-photographs-how-t...

mc32 4y ago

They do straddle a line. It's the same line that ruin porn photographers face (though I think they have fewer scruples). Sometimes they are exploitative, but they are also being documentative (for example, the Dustbowl internal migrants captured by Lange, among others). If you go to Today's Russia or Ukraine, you will find very similar conditions, often captured by wealthier European photographers. Are they being exploitative, are they documenting. It depends on the photographer and how they approach it. You can still grant the subject respect and decency.

AviationAtom 4y ago

I think many people would be surprised by how many people lived this way into the late 90s. Even now, venture to mountainous regions of West Virginia and you can still find households without electricity or running water. I think in this modern times people assume all such folks want those amenities, but are too poor to afford them, when really some of them couldn't be any happier to live as they do.

gkanai 4y ago

> seems exploitative to me It would have been had the photographer made a lot of money off of the images, for instance. He didn't. He was an art professor for most of his life- certainly did not significantly profit off of his art. He interacted with the subjects and sent prints to them after the fact. Would it be better if shocking poverty is not photographed?

duxup 4y ago

The images in the article I think shows character, people surviving in difficult situations. There is humanity in every photo. Maybe they wanted to be remembered? For people to see the truth of who they are, where they are?

nl 4y ago

I see these pics and I don't see poverty - I see beauty, pride and happiness. Look at the guy lounging with his back to the car or the guy with his back to the tree in [1]. Can you imagine trying to tell them they are being exploited? Or that the photo of the girl in [2] isn't a stunningly beautiful image? And once needs to be careful considering poverty and the date these pics were taken. These people look well dressed, and the couple kissing clearly have jobs (see the hard hat hanging up). I had cousins who grew up in the 1980 in conditions that weren't massively different to this and we never considered them poor at all. Or consider this: Are the pics in [3] of 1980's SF more of less exploitative? [1] https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/bee576fea518043e1164ded4f42cadae9bbf5c92/0_0_2048_1627/master/2048.jpg?width=1000&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/bee576fea518043e1164ded4f42ca... [2] https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/802853306d66c60d2e1dedb8ec2e25459f7aa828/0_0_6000_7552/master/6000.jpg?width=1000&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/802853306d66c60d2e1dedb8ec2e2... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/30/public-matters-photography-janet-delaney-san-francisco-interview https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/30/public-matters...

svachalek 4y ago
I'm with you. I look at these pictures, and it's kind of intriguing to find the hints of the degree of poverty in there. The people in them dominate the pictures, and they seem well dressed, comfortable, healthy. The faces are fascinating, there are entire stories in the faces.

IOT_Apprentice 4y ago

I'd imagine people who throw around "woke" and being anti-"CRT" are the type who want nothing to do with photography of this type. Documenting what IS, is not exploitative, it simply is showing a snapshot of life in a particular place. Why put the word art in quotes? We actually have one of our two political parties trumpeting about being anti-woke, and billionaires decrying "woke" as an evil mind virus to their legion of devoted followers. Woke candy, woke railroads, woke banks. Billionaires will be billionaires. Ordinary people will take photographs of people living their lives, exploitation may arise, if the purpose is to demean the subject and denigrate their life, their culture or circumstances. It appears as though that did not happen in this case.

nonethewiser 4y ago
> Documenting what IS, is not exploitative, it simply is showing a snapshot of life in a particular place. Surely you can grant that some things that exist are exploitative. Your reasoning here amounts to exploitation not existing. Documenting something that exist (which is just documenting) can be exploitative.
throwayyy479087 4y ago
A lot of wokeism is prefaced on a caricature of conservatives, and a denial that there's any possible valid ideologies driving these issues other than White Supremacy. For the record, White Supremacy ideologies ARE how they got to the state put in the photos - but that doesn't mean that the people currently in charge are all neonazis. We don't apply that logic to NY state government w/r/t NYCHA or Newburgh or Far Rockaway, and we should extend that courtesy to people like Nikki Haley.
throwaway1492 4y ago
I hope you understand that not everyone shares your pre-occupation with the current era of culture wars that you show here. To one not in your "space" this comment reads very odd indeed; as in attributing malice where this is, implying things that aren't reasonably implied, manufacturing conflict?