On The Release Of Sebastiao Salgado's "Genesis" As A Book

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

''Salgado is too busy with the compositional aspects of his pictures - and with finding the "grace" and "beauty" in the twisted forms of his anguished subjects.''

 

 

Too busy?! ... and with finding, grace and beauty ...

 

So, what exactly is wrong with that, if I may ask?

 

Spot on, but I would add dignity to the description of his photographs of human subjects.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[zlatkob]

But she's not saying that. She's saying they deserve better, not worse.

 

You may not agree with her, but she's making a legitimate point, that the impact of some photographs can be shifted away from the subject matter by, and to, the aesthetics. This is undoubtedly true. Whether it applies in the case of Salgado is a matter of personal opinion, but it is not a "terribly unfair" point of view, and I think you have misrepresented it.

 

His photographs bring our attention to their subjects; the aesthetics support that, rather than shift attention away. And here is what she actually writes:

 

"The manufactured poetry that is so dominant an aspect of his aesthetic could turn the people in the Sahel into emblems on greeting cards for all of us who want to express our humanity. These photographs are less than their subjects deserve. We can be sure that if truly appropriate images should ever surface they will not be so 'beautiful' that they could work as packaged caring."

 

The so-called manufactured poetry is just the photographer practicing his art: being mindful of composition, light, subject matter, etc., to create striking, memorable photos. That's bad? She blames him for using "beauty as a formula" but doesn't explain the formula or prove that claim. It's just an unproven assertion in her essay. I would argue that his work is striking and memorable, but distinctly lacking in "beauty as a formula".

 

The problem she sets up is a straw man: such photos could appear on greeting cards. Such photos could be misused. Well, all sorts of photos can and do appear on greeting cards. Any photo could be misused. That's not a valid charge against them. That doesn't make them sweet or syrupy or sentimental. Looking at his photos, who gets "sentimental" about working in the pit of the Serra Pelada gold mine or starving in the Sahel? Does anyone get sentimental when looking at Salgado's drab and joyless version of a wedding photo?

 

To solve this imagined problem, Sischy suggests that the subjects somehow "deserve" artless, non-beautiful photos. Her thesis is that photos of very difficult situations would somehow be better if the photographer did not apply his skills at composition. Taking this criticism to heart, a skilled photographer would have to look at those subjects and make a decision that they did not "deserve" the best photos he could make, but rather that they should be portrayed with artless photos, worse compositions, worse lighting, less compelling subjects, and less care in editing and printing. That is: take away everything that contributes to this supposed problem of aestheticization.

 

To satisfy this criticism, which tries to portray excellence in photography as a deficiency, a photographer would have to throw away compositional skills and turn off the aesthetic sense. Indeed, taking her thesis to its absurd conclusion, Salgado might as well have handed his cameras to non-photographers to document the scenes as they saw fit. For example, at a refugee camp, he could have handed a camera to a doctor (or anyone) and asked for artless photos of malnutrition and disease, as if for a medical textbook.

[Wallyvision]

I read Sishy's critique and the following remarks in this thread and am somewhat bewildered by the feeling that perhaps the beauty and or composition of Salgado's images detract from their intended message.

 

A couple of months ago I showed some of the photos from the Sahel to my photography students. This is a class in an alternative high school where most of the students are, themselves, in need. Some are "floaters" (students who have no homes and sleep at whichever friend's family will take them in for the night. Others have been bounced from foster home to foster home. With that in mind, the images I showed them were met with gasps and some students had to look away. I doubt that their reactions were because the images were too beautiful. These unsophisticated young people were profoundly moved by the plight of people even less fortunate than themselves. I guess I thought that was the job of the concerned photographer but perhaps I've missed something.

[azzo]

...

 

To satisfy this criticism, which tries to portray excellence in photography as a deficiency, a photographer would have to throw away compositional skills and turn off the aesthetic sense. ...

 

And not call himself a photographer anymore!

[IkarusJohn]

I guess there is an alternative to being either beautiful or artless, and I think that is Mitch's point - the pictures could be more shocking, more gritty, less beautifully composed, as Sischy observes.

 

I just disagree with that analysis, and I also disagree with the way Sischy goes about her analysis.

 

Nachtwey also takes some beautifully composed and compassionate images (his TB series has one with a mother sitting on a bed with her son, a mosquito net gathered above), but many also shock - that is not the only route to drawing attention to the plight of others.

 

Therein also lies another criticism - taking pictures of poor people, simply because they are poor (Alex Webb?). I can understand the anger of people living in poorer communities getting aggressive to photographers wanting to capture their poverty. I would rather see images which captured such things with compassion ...

[Ecar]

At the risk of sounding too consensual, I actually happen to like the work of Salgado, Nachtwey and Webb. All of them are amazing photographers, for one good reason:

 

His photographs bring our attention to their subjects; the aesthetics support that, rather than shift attention away.

 

They have very different aesthetic strokes, of course - but when it comes to formalism, Webb's bold angles and colors are a match for Salgado's rather academic compositions and incredibly subtle b&w tones. Equally, Nachtwey's seemingly 'raw', often in-your-face framing and gritty, disturbing atmospheres are formal, recognizable features of his style.

There's no such thing as "repeatable spontaneous art" in photography - at the very least, this is negated by the strict editing self-discipline that even the greatest photographers go through.

 

And I don't think either one of those three photographers is focused on the content and careless when it comes to the form - or the other way round. They all know too well, I believe, that by catching the eye of the viewer through striking aesthetics, they have more chances to make their point. Actually, if we could follow each one of them, perhaps we would find that Salgado is not the one who's the most obsessed by the form of his pictures.

 

Then of course, each individual responds differently to what he sees. I'd figure that if someone likes the work of Klein, Moriyama or Petersen, Nachtwey's pictures will probably resonate more. Conversely, if one enjoys looking at pictures from Strand, Lange or Evans, then perhaps Salgado's images would work better for him/her (OK, I know, these may not be the best examples and it's not as clear-cut, but I'm just trying to make a point).

 

If Salgado was not Ms Sischy's cup of tea, then so be it: a critic is entitled to (must) have his/her own opinions - providing food for thought, not some kind of washed down universal truth, is what matters (btw, thanks to Mitch for bringing this piece to the table - a very interesting an thought-provoking read).

AFAIC, I respect her point of view, but I allow myself to disagree with her.

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ecar, I don't disagree with her. I think she raises important questions, although I think she overstates her case.

 

And I agree with you.

[Guest malland]

...The problem she sets up is a straw man...To solve this imagined problem, Sischy suggests that the subjects somehow "deserve" artless, non-beautiful photo...To satisfy this criticism, which tries to portray excellence in photography as a deficiency, a photographer would have to throw away compositional skills and turn off the aesthetic sense. Indeed, taking her thesis to its absurd conclusion, Salgado might as well have handed his cameras to non-photographers to document the scenes as they saw fit. For example, at a refugee camp, he could have handed a camera to a doctor (or anyone) and asked for artless photos of malnutrition and disease, as if for a medical textbook.

You do a pretty good job of setting up a straw man yourself by using your reductio ad absurdum example. But your statement is merely a logical fallacy, like the following amusing wikipedia example:

An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:

Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."

Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[Guest malland]

Ecar, I don't disagree with her. I think she raises important questions, although I think she overstates her case...

Peter, of course the issue of aestheticization of tragedy or poverty is not a new one. There is a case in the reverse sense in Caravaggio's two paintings of Saint Matthew and the Angel: in the first one he painted Saint Matthew as a poor, simple, bald headed man with dusty feet, which was rejected because it did not show enough respect for the saint; in the second one he painted Saint Matthew in line with how people expected a saint should look like, and the painting was accepted. Of course, the second painting is still a good paining, but it is less sincere, honest and real than the first one had been. You can see both paintings here, but I think you can find better images of these paintings on the web — I chose this site because both paintings are shown together.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Paris Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

[zlatkob]

You do a pretty good job of setting up a straw man yourself by using your reductio ad absurdum example.

 

So she wasn't suggesting that Salgado should have turned down his compositional skills and turned off his aesthetic sense? Or that he erred in using his photographic skills, such as by selection of compelling subject matter?

 

It seems to me that Sischy's critique naturally leads to this question: how would his work look if it had actually satisfied this critic? As the critic doesn't provide an answer, I tried to infer an answer based on her arguments. You are welcome to infer your own answer.

 

I don't buy the argument of "manufactured beauty". Salgado's work isn't beautiful in a conventional sense. It is serious, grim and gritty, and sometimes shocking. If, despite that, some photographic beauty comes through due to the photographer's masterful aesthetic sense, how does one remove it? Should a photographer want to remove it?

[azzo]

...

 

... If, despite that, some photographic beauty comes through due to the photographer's masterful aesthetic sense, how does one remove it? Should a photographer want to remove it? ...

 

 

 

Impossible to remove it.

It's in him.

It is what makes the difference between a photographer and A Photographer !

[Peter H]

..............................

I don't buy the argument of "manufactured beauty". Salgado's work isn't beautiful in a conventional sense. It is serious, grim and gritty, and sometimes shocking. If, despite that, some photographic beauty comes through due to the photographer's masterful aesthetic sense, how does one remove it? Should a photographer want to remove it?

 

That's where we differ. I get a sense in some of his photos that the aesthetic impact has overtaken the subject matter, whereas you see it quite the other way round.

 

One reason I feel this is that he chooses to shoot these photos in B&W. This is a deliberate choice and one made for its aesthetic effect. I know from many other conversations on this forum that B&W photography is regarded by many as a pinnacle of photographic achievement, and I am relatively unusual in not sharing that view.

 

I think B&W photography is a highly aesthetic and appealing medium that has the ability to concentrate the eye and the mind on certain aspects of an image or scene that in colour would be more confusing, less coherent and therefore less expressive of the photographer's vision. Depending on the nature of the subject, B&W can (but is not guaranteed to) get closer to the essence of the subject by removing extraneous detail and finding, examining, preserving and emphasising just what matters, which sometimes is the core, the very heart of the subject.

 

And I expect that's what Salgado and his fans feel about his photos. I feel differently, sometimes. I feel that sometimes (its important to keep repeating that it is only sometimes) the shape and form and fall of light and the resultant beauty of the photo that he has deliberately created detracts from the starkness of the squalid reality in all its dimensions and manifestations that was actually in front of him when he reached for his camera. He has changed the scene for our benefit. The heart of the matter of some of his photos is not what it looks like, but what it is.

 

Its as though, by choosing to make the photos more beautiful then the reality, or more striking or whatever qualities he feels B&W imbues, the reality is inadequate to express to us what it expresses to him. Perhaps this is what we want from our artists: to interpret reality and present their version of it. In which case we have to accept that it is a highly subjective reading of something, meaning that the reality may well be quite different from what we are seeing in the photographic and artistic interpretations. Fine. But since the only way we as casual and remote observers can get a taste of the reality is through his photos, I want them to be as realistic as possible.

 

So, by my terribly subjective standards, Salgado does not always do his subjects justice.

 

I recognise that this is all very personal and that mine are minority views. But they are an attempt to address your questions in a serious manner. But not, I hope you understand, an attempt to prove you or anyone else wrong, because I don't believe its a matter of right and wrong: if it were, it would hugely diminish the importance of photography as an artist medium.

[zlatkob]

That's where we differ. I get a sense in some of his photos that the aesthetic impact has overtaken the subject matter, whereas you see it quite the other way round.

.....

 

So, by my terribly subjective standards, Salgado does not always do his subjects justice.

 

Peter H, perhaps I'm not familiar with these photos in which the aesthetic impact has "overtaken the subject matter". The subject matter is always there in Salgado's photos. I welcome evidence to the contrary.

 

The problem of black & white photography is that it is a step removed from color reality, and thus more abstract. That is the medium. There was a time when black & white wasn't an aesthetic choice, but the only choice. By Salgado's time it was probably mostly an aesthetic choice. It is arguably more artful than color photography. It certainly offered more artistic control than color in the pre-digital era.

 

However, as tar as I recall, Sischy doesn't specifically criticize him for using black & white. Such criticism would be surprising considering how much of the history of photography and how much of the best work in photography had been done in black & white up to the time of his work.

 

Sischy suspects that "truly appropriate" photos may come along, but doesn't describe or define them. Do "truly appropriate" photos have to be in color? Would it be fair for a critic to look at Salgado's (or Nachtwey's) amazing work and say: "Sorry, but you should have done all that in COLOR!"? Of course, it is easy to be a critic; a critic can say such things without having to go out in the world and make pictures.

 

I disagree with your view that "He has changed the scene for our benefit" because he didn't literally "change the scene" -- that is, alter the subject. And yet all photography changes how we see the scene by means of all of the choices the photographer makes (composition, etc.). That's inherent in the medium. Because it's inherent in the medium, a photographer has to make such choices. A photographer must do so. So, the question is, what choices should a photographer make?

 

That's why I asked, "If some photographic beauty comes through due to the photographer's masterful aesthetic sense, masterful aesthetic sense, how does one remove it? Should a photographer want to remove it?" If the answer is "Yes", then there is a simple way for a photographer to comply: hand the camera to a non-photographer and ask for medical photos (preferably in color).

 

In a sense, Salgado's photos are more beautiful than the reality. That's because they are far, far, far, removed from the reality. They are just 2-dimensional pictures, without color, not the vast reality in real time. And they've been masterfully composed by someone with a superb aesthetic sense. But, again, they are not beautiful in the conventional sense; they are not at all like what we see in advertising or movies or greeting cards (although Sischy tries to dump them in the greeting card category). They don't make us sentimental or desirous about working in a gold mine or starving in a desert.

 

So, we have to ask, if these photos don't do their subjects "justice", what sort of photos would? What would meet Sischy's standard of "truly appropriate" photos? Well, she doesn't exactly tell us. But we can infer from her arguments that the photographer would have to turn off his aesthetic sense, be less mindful of light, and be less careful about choosing subject matter. It seems to me that the practical effect of her argument — the advice or the takeaway — is that the photographer should look at some subjects and decide that they deserve worse photos.

[Peter H]

......... Do "truly appropriate" photos have to be in color? Would it be fair for a critic to look at Salgado's (or Nachtwey's) amazing work and say: "Sorry, but you should have done all that in COLOR!"? ...................

 

Talk about straw-man arguments!

 

There are so many matters of personal opinion being presented as fact and so many things I'd take issue with that it wouldn't be sensible or interesting to carry on discussing these photos in this manner.

 

Salgado is an admirable and skilled and brave photographer. He is not infallible and, fortunately, he is not a machine.

[zlatkob]

Talk about straw-man arguments!

 

Addressing your complaint about black & white photos was a straw man argument? Now it is uninteresting to discuss it? You stated your problem with black & white — that it contributes to the "aesthetic impact overtaking the subject matter". The alternative to black & white is color, so should have have shot in color to avoid that problem?

 

Salgado is an admirable and skilled and brave photographer. He is not infallible and, fortunately, he is not a machine.

 

No one claimed he is infallible. But it is easy to be critical, much harder to be instructive. If a critic is so presumptive as to believe the he/she can teach Salgado how he should have made his photographs, then the critic should be able to answer some straight questions:

 

... if these photos don't do their subjects "justice", what sort of photos would? What would meet Sischy's standard of "truly appropriate" photos?

 

It's so ridiculously easy to claim the photos don't do their subjects "justice", but much harder to answer those questions.

[azzo]

...

 

One reason I feel this is that he chooses to shoot these photos in B&W. ...

 

 

..

 

One thing one has to keep in mind is the fact that, a B&W shooter envisions the final outcome of a photograph even before s/he actually trips the shutter !!!

[Peter H]

Addressing your complaint about black & white photos was a straw man argument? Now it is uninteresting to discuss it? You stated your problem with black & white — that it contributes to the "aesthetic impact overtaking the subject matter". The alternative to black & white is color, so should have have shot in color to avoid that problem?

 

 

 

No one claimed he is infallible. But it is easy to be critical, much harder to be instructive. If a critic is so presumptive as to believe the he/she can teach Salgado how he should have made his photographs, then the critic should be able to answer some straight questions:

 

 

 

It's so ridiculously easy to claim the photos don't do their subjects "justice", but much harder to answer those questions.

 

The reason I said its no longer interesting to discuss the photos in this way is because the thread, like so many others, seems to have degenerated into a point-scoring competition. As soon as the "its so easy to criticise" argument comes out, its time to keep quiet.

 

I have already explained as clearly as I could my reservations about some B&W photos. I said it was a personal opinion. I said it applied only sometimes, which you consistently ignore and try to apply it to all Salgado's photos. Disagree by all means, but please don't deliberately misinterpret.

 

And of course its easier to be a critic than an artist. But that doesn't invalidate criticism, let alone expressions of personal opinion. I'm not defending Sischy either, who wrote her article twenty years or so before the Genesis project which is the subject of this thread. She makes some valid points, some of which I think are appropriate to the Genesis project, but this also is a personal opinion of the type that doesn't lend itself to forensic analysis, because it is just an expression of our different reactions and probably different personalities and so on: it cannot be a matter of right and wrong yet it feels to me you are trying to portray it that way.

 

I believe I have answered the question you pose: yes, I do believe that some of his photos MAY have benefited from a different treatment, that a some of the photos of tribes-people for example MAY have more appropriate and telling impact if they were in colour, and I have explained my reasoning. I may be wrong, and its such a subjective matter that we could never know anyway but I can see no benefit in entering into an argument with you if you continue to insist that what I, or Sischy, or anyone is calling for is worse photos, which you have repeated a few times, or that unless we produce "better" photos, the criticism must be invalid.

 

I think its better if we accept that our opinions are quite different, even though we both admire Salgado, and stop trying to prove the superiority of any one point of view.

[Guest malland]

Peter, I agree entirely that this thread has degenerated into a point-scoring competition: just look at the reductio as absurdum arguments that are being made and how many times the same ones are repeated. But there are interesting things to discuss, including the role of the critic, but one should not forger that the critic does not have to be a skilled photographer; nor does he or she have to demonstrate what the photographer should have done.

 

As you point out, Ingrid Sischy's critique was written over twenty years ago, but it has been an important document for discussion of "concerned photography" since then, and it's been used in discussions in photo schools, which also provide documents with the opposite or different points of view: that is what discussion is about: for exchanging points of view and for mutual enlightenment, not for treating the other participant as an opponent that needs to be ground into the dust, which is what makes many internet discussions so boring.

 

This thread is about Slagado's Genesis project, of which I just found this recent review in the Observer (London). The reviewer, Laura Cumming, says a lot of good things about Salgado's work and calls the photos of the Nenets people in northern Siberia "superb" and writes:

The Genesis photographs...are conspicuously the size and shape of easel paintings and with a full emphasis on photography as art. And not just any art: caimans float in the water like Monet's waterlilies. A forest of ferns becomes a Jackson Pollock. Look at Salgado's photograph of the snowcapped peak of Mount Hudson floating like a mirage across the waves and you are looking straight at a Japanese watercolour.

But she also writes:

...Salgado doesn't always resist the obvious...The difficulties start when people begin to appear...Salgado has often said his work is political. So it is, in a human rights, save-the-planet kind of way. But his images have grown quite neutral by contrast, as if showing the untouched world in a democratic fashion, image by image, simply spoke for itself. This principle has two adverse consequences. First, it means that there always have to be hundreds of images: everything must be shown or the democratic point is lost. But this has an opposing effect, for the eye cannot sustain the same level of interest (his Grand Canyon looks like anyone else's, his giant tortoise staring curiously back is superb).

 

But more signally, it leads to an evenness of tone. No let-up in energy, no shift in pace or aesthetic, the same regard for everything he sees. This leopard might be about to leap but Salgado looks as calmly back at it as a field of wheat. The Genesis project looks at – but not into – life. It shows us the wonders of the world, to be sure, but it declares nothing beyond the irresistibly obvious, that we all co-exist.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Paris Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[zlatkob]

Peter, I agree entirely that this thread has degenerated into a point-scoring competition: just look at the reductio as absurdum arguments that are being made and how many times the same ones are repeated. But there are interesting things to discuss, including the role of the critic, but one should not forger that the critic does not have to be a skilled photographer; nor does he or she have to demonstrate what the photographer should have done.

 

The arguments were repeated not to "score points" but to try to get to an answer to an interesting question. You say there are interesting things to discuss, but you don't seem to want to discuss any of them. Sischy's review leads to an interesting question: if Salgado's photos were unsatisfactory (according to the critic), then what sort of photos should Salgado have made? No one seems to have an answer to that question. Certainly not Sischy in that review. Nor anyone in this thread. If it's a difficult question to answer, that may be because his work is so good. The critic doesn't have to demonstrate how to make a picture, but should at least make convincing arguments. Lumping Salgado's work in with greeting cards was completely unconvincing and came across as gratuitous bashing. Moreover, criticism would be more convincing if the critic at least offered some constructive examples from the world of photography of how the same or similar subjects should have been treated.

[Peter H]

................ Sischy's review leads to an interesting question: if Salgado's photos were unsatisfactory (according to the critic), then what sort of photos should Salgado have made? No one seems to have an answer to that question. Certainly not Sischy in that review. Nor anyone in this thread. ...............

 

I have proposed an answer to this question several times.

 

Quite early in the thread I explained why, in my opinion, some of Nachtwey's photos of similar subjects are more successful.

 

If you simply want more detail and for me to expand on what I've already said, I can do that, but it would probably be extremely tiresome because I couldn't avoiding repeating myself yet again.

 

But if I haven't made it clear already, I apologise. Tell me what you don't understand and I'll try to clarify it, if you are interested.