#interim synthesis

In a group of two, we were given other student’s blogs to look over and assess their interim synthesis essays and comment on certain points which were listed on a sheet provided. This was a very helpful exercise because we don’t only learn to analyse other people’s work but we also learn to assess our own work if we are trying to be critical of it and try to make it as best as it can be. 

From the feedback I’ve received on my synthesis essay, there was a few good points mentioned about my text. It said, I was very clear throughout my essay and the basic message about social boundaries of documentary photography was easy to recognise. The text was very focused on the image I’ve chosen to to write about and there was one strong argument throughout. Everything was well-researched and my understanding of different concepts was discussed. The referencing system was followed correctly. It said that the text includes both very strong analysis and description. Under the question “What has the author done well?”, it says my use of language was very good and my text was flowing correctly (easy to read) but also specific enough. 

Now focusing on the things I need to improve:

- There’s repetition throughout the text which needs changing

- Only one strong point

Interim Synthesis

The focus of this synthesis essay is to look at the writings of Abigail Solomon-Godeau, Denise Keim and Graham Clarke, which all relate to the subject of documentary photography, as well as a photographic source from the photographer Lise Sarfati, an untitled image depicting two russian children living in poverty, from her series ‘The Yakovlev Family’. I will examine the concepts, theories and views expressed by the writers and, furthermore, respond to the chosen image in reference to the various essays’ arguments.

The essay ‘Inside/Out’ by Abigail Solomon-Godeau, published in 1994, is essentially a critique of certain statements made by Susan Sontag, which include her assumptions expressed regarding Diane Arbus and her intentions, as well as particular approach, to documentary photography. Sontag felt Arbus was coming from an ‘outside’ position and, therefore, she was a deeply morbid connoisseur of the horrible (Godeau, 1994). The title of the essay ‘Inside/Out’ refers to the photographer’s position of being either ‘inside’ or ‘outside’ the situation of the photograph- a binary characterisation of Sontag’s. Godeau (1994) describes inside as the photographer being in a position of engagement and privileged knowledge, the outside position, however, meaning alienated, distanced and voyeuristic. The main point being made is that where documentary photography is concerned, so are ethics and morality especially in the cases of ‘outside’ photographers. Photographing those seen as social deviants (Godeau 1994, pg.49) brings up many ethical issues, which Godeau discusses whilst looking at the works of Arbus, Goldin and Clark. Godeau goes on to argue Sontag’s views of the duality of photography. She confirms that there are more factors that go into the art, it is more ambiguous, more complex than Sontag’s opinion. Furthermore, Godeau (1994, pg.59)) speculates that the binarism of inside/outside only has meaning within the context of particular practices. Godeau concludes with a quote from Walter Benjamin, ‘it is a different nature that speaks to the camera than speaks to the eye’ which essentially dismisses Sontag’s theory concerning the photographer’s position of inside or outside.

As Godeau (1994) writes, Nan Goldin is one of the forefront ‘insiders’ of documentary photography, as she was fully involved in the world she photographed. Throughout Goldin’s work, there are running themes of identity, ritual and appearance. Goldin felt there to be no distance between her and her work, but a deep, emotional connection, metaphorically calling it her ‘family’ and ‘history’. In this way, Goldin can be perceived as almost maternal in regards to her work. Even Godeau (1994, pg.52) uses the word residents in place of subjects, which conveys a strong sense of involvement and closeness from Goldin in creating her photographs. Despite Goldin being one of the more obvious insiders, Godeau (1994) still questions this notion, asking; how does this insider position determine the reception of these images or even the nature of the content? Without Goldin’s statements alongside her work and the viewer being unaware of Goldin’s relationships with her subject, it could be seen as invasive, especially as certain images are very intimate. Godeau presents the fact that Goldin’s insider position allows her to create ‘perfect simulation’ as her personal work and photographic collaborations have very few differences structurally. Even with Goldin’s intentions, there are ethical issues of exploitation of the ‘other’, there is still a voyeuristic quality to her work, all due to the camera’s presence. The exact same can be said of Sarfati’s (1993) image, which without explanation can seem unethical as her documentation focuses on the lives of minors in what seems a desperate living situation- of which she is not sharing.

Larry Clark is the second true ‘insider’ that Godeau (1994) chooses to discuss. Clark’s work, although raising similar issues, is completely different to that of Goldin, mainly as it’s coming from a male perspective so it lacks compassion prevalent in the work of Goldin. For example, alongside certain portraits is simply the word ‘dead’. There is something truly unapologetic and raw frequent in the work of Clark, Godeau (1994, pg.56) even goes as far to describe it as artless. The photobook ‘Tulsa’, Clark’s first publication begins with a ‘certificate of authenticity’ as if needing to prove himself as an insider.  Due to the often brutal nature of Clark’s photographs, they can very easily be misconstrued as exploitative, for instance, his subject matter commonly includes drug addicts, sexual acts and the burial of babies.

From the blog ‘Nieman Reports’, ‘Exploring the Relationship Between Photographer and Subject’ by Denise Keim, communicates the author’s thoughts around the topic of documentary photography. Keim (2001) states that for her, documentary photography is ‘purity and freedom’ and within the art, ‘creative possibilities are endless’. There are clear similarities between her views and those of Nan Goldin’s, as Keim believes she ‘nurtures the subject matter’ in her work. Keim (2001) sees the situation of her, the subject and her camera as an intimate experience, which is a contrastingly different idea to the one of Godeau. Godeau (1994, pg. 55) ponders on the presence of the camera and summarises that the desire for transparency is inevitably frustrated by the very mechanisms of the camera. Keim (2001) concludes that all photographers photograph for themselves, which infers some kind of selfishness of a documentary photographer, in particular, as if they are stealing others’ moments with their by photographing them. However, Keim does not explicitly argue against the exploitative or distant nature of documentary photography whereas, in the writings of Graham Clarke (1997), he realises the fact that the camera is just a form of recording, which instantly creates a distance between the subject and photographer.

Chapter 8 of ‘The Photograph’ by Graham Clarke covers the topic of documentary photography. Clarke (1997, pg.145) begins by claiming that documentary photography has dominated the photographic history of the twentieth century, which is debatable as many photographic practises progressed greatly over that period. Clarke inserts a quote from Beaumont Newhall stating that documentary photographers of the 20th century sought to ‘not only inform us, but to move us’. Using this logic, in contrast to Sontag’s theory, if documentary photography only has these two purposes, does it matter if the photographer is on either the outside or inside, as long as the outcome is both informing and moving? Clarke (1997, pg.145) also mentions that the classic subject matter of the documentary photographer be of poverty, social and political injustice, war, disaster and suffering- all of which raise moral and ethical issues and are problematic depending on the photographer’s approach.

The photographer Lise Sarfati, creator of the Yakovlev Family series, could either be seen as an insider or outsider, like many intimate documentary photographers. Safarti inserted herself into the lives of a family, once strangers to her, and documented parts of their lives, to expose to others and to display as artwork. There is no way of telling just by simply looking at a photograph if the photographer had any emotional investment or not with the subjects, writing or annotation is almost always needed. In this way, Godeau’s exploration of the meaning to be an insider or outsider as a photographer has an effect on Sarfati’s ‘The Yakovlev Family’ project. From the inside/outside essay, we can assume that it is more the viewer’s choice than the photographer’s if their work is ethically correct or exploitative of the subject. As Godeau (1994, pg.60) writes regarding the work of Chantal Akerman, one does not particularly have the sensation of intrusion and expropriation despite the fact Akerman’s work could easily be seen as that of ‘cinematic tourism’. A particular work of Sarfati’s (shown above), can be seen as controversial or even shocking to some as the main focus of the series is children living in Russian poverty, their nature very similar to the work of Larry Clark. The photograph depicts two expressive children who are outdoors, one of whom is smoking. They have dirt on their clothes and one of the children appears to be cut. It is a very raw documentary photograph, which has the ability to make the viewer emotional. However, the children depicted appear to be cheerful and relaxed leaving the viewer to create their own narrative. When the photographer chooses sensitive subjects such as these to photograph, once again, issues are raised and, as Clarke (1997, pg.150) states, ‘private areas are declared as public property’. Through documentary photography, the photographs are intended to be released and therefore exposed to the public, allowing the subject and their life to be judged. Delicate subject matter can often conflict viewers emotions, which makes it easier to associate particularly harsh images with negative connotations, as Sontag did of Arbus’ work.

From the exploration of these texts, I believe that limitations would occur if the illogical theory announced by Sontag was taken seriously by all photographers. Photography is about no boundaries and artistic freedom, as Keim writes and what I agree with. Documentary photography allows viewers into the lives of others, it’s initial purpose as told by Clarke, and an opportunity to witness carefully captured moments they would otherwise be completely ignorant to. The photographer’s perspective should always be considered- if they didn’t think it appropriate to take certain photographs, why would they take them? However, it is almost inevitable in documentary photography that the subject doesn’t become a spectacle, that they don’t become objectified in some way. Documentary photography is based on documentation, on visualising moments across all areas of history, therefore the main concern of documentary photography should be representing the truth, or some kind of reality. Godeau affirms that this representation of truth ‘depends on the notion that the truth or reality are in fact representable’. To be a documentary photographer, to want to capture parts of others’ lives so closely and intimately, one must naturally have voyeuristic tendencies and therefore, cannot escape being as least partly an ‘outsider’, if taking Sontag’s views into account. Both Godeau and Clarke bring awareness to the fact that documentary photography is problematic by nature, and it’s often impossible to escape the moral dilemmas attached to the art.

1682 words

bibliography:

Soloman-Godeau, Abigail. Inside/Out, 1994

Keim, Denise. ‘Exploring the Relationship Between Photographer and Subject’, 2001

Clarke, Graham. ‘Documentary Photography’ The Photograph. Oxford University Press, 1997. 145-150.