Week 12–Docu

by evanbaden

WFPL

The first thing that I needed to do with the reading this week was look up what the Worker’s Film and Photo League was. From what I could find, the Film and Photo League was a group of photographers and videographers who began making documentary photographs and films that were supposed to bring light to class inequalities and instigate social change. Their intentions were to:

awaken the working class, to support its political activities through meetings and boycotts, and to establish a film and photo school that would produce and exhibit politically committed photographs, newsreels, and films. (Barsam, Richard M. Non-Fiction Film: A Critical History)

Both readings this week deal with the idea of the documentary photograph and it’s ability to create social change. I feel like neither reading believes that the documentary vein of photography can create any real social change. Some of the reason for this is pointed out in the Sekula reading when he is recalling the “coal mine” he visited at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry. He says:

“Hoarse-voiced men–retired miners– led the tourists through a programmed demonstration of mining technology. when the time came to deal with safety, one of the guides set off a controlled little methane explosion. No one mentioned black-lung disease in this corporate artwork, although the evidence rasped from the throats of the guides.” [emphasis mine] (Sekula, 131)

Coal Mine Exhibit

What struck me as interesting was the mention of “corporate artwork.” The inference is that the reason that black lung disease was not mentioned as a safety hazard was that whoever had funded the exhibition did not want it mentioned. Most likely because an energy company had donated the money (in some round-a-bout way) that paid for the exhibit in the first place. Sekula again mentions this corporate influence specifically when talking about Hare’s work. He says:

It is unlikely that this work will ever be exhibited at the Rockefeller-backed Museum of Modern Art, which is, after all, a cultural edifice built on Standard Oil Profits, notwithstanding the “relative autonomy” of John Szarkowski’s cultural decisions. (Sekula, 135)

I had never really thought about these financial considerations in great detail, even though I worked at a museum and we actually talked about these things in our meetings. I think that this is also relative when talking about the coverage, at least in the early days, of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Many of the media companies have financial connections to the banks that the protesters are criticizing and while the reporters may have been interested in reporting on the movement, those financial pressures may not have allowed it.

I think a more obvious version of this would be Fox News in general. They have a specific agenda, which is pushed by their owner. Either you say what he wants you to say or you are not on the air. Personally, I think that the media lost any illusion of non-biased reporting (not that there ever was actual non-biased reporting) a long time ago.

And if it is not too off tangent, this same type of relationship can be seen with Congress. I know that the readings were specifically referencing media, but I think it is worth noting that when the average personal value of a U.S. Senator’s assets is $50,000,000 it may actually be against their own best interest (those who actually write the laws) to reduce the income disparity between rich and poor.

Jacob Riis

I also thought Rosler’s idea that the only reason that documentary stories (which neither writer seem to care much for) are only published–not to raise awareness about a problem that affects a lower class–but to awaken the self-interest of the privileged. Riis and Hine’s work seemed to fall into this category. Since it is the privileged that own the media outlets, read or see that media, and have the power (or governmental control) to actually change situations, it is in their best interest to keep the lower classes (which greatly outnumber the higher classes) just happy enough that they don’t revolt. So when things get slightly too bad, social documentary wakes the elite up and they realize they must slightly correct the problem, but just enough so that the lower classes stay where they are.

Chauncy Hare

I found Hare’s work of particular interest. While he still relies on the same pictorial mechanisms that other documentary photographers have relied, he differs when it comes to “his identification with it’s inhabitants.” While he shows his subjects with “dignity and grace”, he also captures captures the idea of “something flawed, something invaded by the horrific sameness of a consumer culture.” I think this type of work become relatable because it is so recognizable to a sizable chunk of the population. I also think it can be successful because it can be read two different ways. The work can be somewhat ambiguous about the exact meaning. That ambiguity can help it get by the powers at be. I also see this same type of ambiguity in the work (and the way he talks) of Paul Shambroom.

Paul Shambroom

Hare’s work can be seen as different from those wandering the streets of the Bowery photographing unconscious drunks, mostly because he knows his subjects. He can relate somewhat to them as he is from the same industry and has worked with the people that he photographs. It is this relationship that allows him into the personal spaces of the workers. Access that would be denied (and misunderstood) to most others.