Documentary Photography: Exploitation Issues
When Does Documentary Photography Become Exploitative Photography?
As I have gained more and more knowledge of documentary photography, I have found that there is a big issue with exploitation in the genre. And as a photographer wanting to better their skills in this specific style, it’s important for me to understand the ethical boundaries when participating in said style.
In their article, “Disaster Photography: When Is Documentary Exploitation,” Richard B. Woodward discusses the contemporary idea, “Ruin porn,” and its connection to the exploitative practices of documentary photography. “Ruin porn,” also known as ruin photography, is a recent photography movement that takes the decline of the built environment as its subject. Woodward writes, “The bloody mayhem of Russia’s invasion and retreat from Afghanistan, and the two U.S. invasions of Iraq, created what became known as “war porn”… We’ve had the “nuke porn” of Chernobyl and “September 11 porn… Photography is superbly equipped to describe the results of events but is inarticulate or misleading when it comes to explaining their causes,” (Woodward). Woodward states that documentary photography becomes exploitative when it does not provide enough information to give full context of the scene captured. This is the case with much of ruin photography.
I agree that one of the main purposes for documentary photography is to record events happening in the world to then be supplied to the public. And it’s very important for documentary photography to demonstrate sufficient visual information for its audience to fully understand the story behind the photos. When this is not achieved, the photography emanates a misleading story that then can exploit both its subjects and viewers.
Sarah Pruitt’s article, “The Real Story Behind the 'Migrant Mother' in the Great Depression-Era Photo,” addresses the woman in Dorothea Lange’s famous documentary photo “Migrant Mother” (at the top of this page) and explains her side of the story. Pruitt writes, “One of them, Troy Owens, flatly denied that his mother had sold their tires to buy food, as Lange had claimed… By 1983, five years after claiming her identity as the ‘Migrant Mother,’ Thompson was living alone in a trailer. She suffered from cancer and heart problems… her children had to solicit donations for her medical expenses,” (Pruitt). Lange provided false information about the subjects and didn’t give anything in return to the subjects even after gaining much recognition and money off the photo.
I think in this particular situation, the false information that Lange provided wasn’t very harmful, but in other circumstances incorrect information can create a negative and unnecessary view of the subjects. I think the bigger issue with this particular situation is that the mother in the photo was never supported even after the photo made thousands. This brings me to a controversial documentary photographer who has been accused of exploitation.
American documentary photographer, Shelby Lee Adams, is best known for his images of Appalachian family life (see above), which are also the cause for his accusations. The documentary, The True Meaning of Pictures: Shelby Lee Adams’ Appalachia, explores the politics of representation in his controversial photographs of Appalachian “mountain people.” In the documentary, Adams states that after looking through all his photos, he gives the rejects away to the family photographed, and described it as his “charity case.” Adams is arguably known solely for his work in Appalachia, and with this recognition he has also acquired plenty of money. So for him to not give back any of the money to the families he photographed, who were clearly in need, is very exploitative and understandably contributing to his controversial status.
Some may claim that the photographer is entitled to all the rewards coming from their artwork, because the photographer is doing the work. I disagree, I think it’s the photographer’s responsibility to include their subjects in the earnings of the artwork. Yes, the photographer is doing most of the work to produce an exceptional photo, however the exceptional quality of a photo is partially due to the subject and their willingness to participate in the process.
There are many ways in which documentary photography can become exploitative, however I think this only happens when the photographer does not prioritize ethical practices in their process and outcome.
New Question for Next Week:
How Has Documentary Photography Been Used as Political Art?
Citations
Pruitt, Sarah. “The Real Story Behind the 'Migrant Mother' in the Great Depression-Era Photo.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 8 May 2020, https://www.history.com/news/migrant-mother-new-deal-great-depression.
Woodward, Richard B. “Disaster Photography: When Is Documentary Exploitation?” ARTnews.com, ARTnews.com, 18 Nov. 2019, https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/the-debate-over-ruin-porn-2170/.
The True Meaning of Pictures: Shelby Lee Adams’ Appalachia. Directed by Jessica Baichwal, performance by Shelby Lee Adams, Mercury Films Inc., 2002.