photos by the kids in "Born into Brothels"

<p>There is a documentary film opening today entitled, "Born into

Brothels". The filmmakers lived in India off and on for 6 years,

documenting life in a red-light district. At one point the filmmaker

decided to give the children cameras and this became the theme of the

film.

 

<p>Some of the resulting photos are street photography at its most

engaging. You can see a selection at:

<a href="http://kids-with-cameras.org/purchaseprints/">http://kids-

with-cameras.org/purchaseprints/</a>

George, thanks for the heads up, looks interesting.

I hope the kids somehow get some of the money from this project

<p>

Looks interesting though, I'm going to be a teacher, I've thought about having a project every year where I somehow get all my students a camera (probably just a disposeable) and let them all take pictures and then we'd get them developed and make an album from their pictures and keep these albums for every year that I teach... just a thought...

{I hope the kids somehow get some of the money from this project }

 

Photo subjects always get a windfall - right after the publisher and photographer.

the site indicates:

 

100% of the net print sales goes directly to the children's education and all contributions are fully tax deductible.

Thanks Ken. Always better to have the facts when posting.

Two very favorable reviews of this film in the "Washington Post" online, one of them <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33691-2005Feb17.html>here</a>, and the other <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32466-2005Feb17.html>here</a>.

I'll be honest. The photos look like snapshots any kid might take. Exotic locale: bonus.

{Thanks Ken. Always better to have the facts when posting.}

 

What facts? Define net without glossing over the money fundraisers consume to sustain themselves.

Brainbubba:

I disagree. Compare Avijit's "Kids" (row 5, column 2) with

Bruno Trematore's

http://www.photo.net/photo/2889389

(rated Aesthetics: 5.40/7 Originality: 5.53/7)

 

And Compare Avijit's "Dog" (row 4, column 4) with Edmo's

http://www.photo.net/photo/2608903

(rated Aesthetics: 5.43/7 Originality: 5.29/7)

 

And take a long close look at Suchitra's "Boys" and

put yourself in her place. What do you see?

I have watched it. Excellent film!!!!!!!!

<i>The photos look like snapshots any kid might take</i><p>

 

maybe.. but there's a lot of shots in there that i wish i had taken.. with a child's eye! nice film and a nice project!!!

gee, cat pictures <i>are</i> universal.

"...innocence of eye has a quality of its own. It means to see as a child sees, with freshness and acknowledgment of the wonder; it also means to see as an adult sees who has gone full circle and once again sees as a child - with freshness and an even deeper sense of wonder". -Minor White

 

I agree with Balaji...I too wish I had taken some of those pics.

I also wish I had taken some of those pictures... and I was thinking that some of those are actually better than mine, thanks George for pointing that out!

 

Of course there is a quite big difference: I'm trying to sell the picture you pointed for 110? (11x16 inches on fb-paper), while the ones of the kids sell at 250$ (a larger size)... I still didn't sell a single picture, but I don't know how many the kids are selling.

 

Maybe I should put something like "all the money incoming from the sales of my prints will go in the education of a guy who's 33 and doesn't know how to take a picture better than a kid"... by the way, thanks for your 7/7 on my shot.

 

I find, instead, edmo's dog better than the one shot by the kids.

 

Oh, just to make it clear: I'm not pissed off at all, I find this whole thing quite funny!

By the way, there was an italian poet of the early XX century, Giovanni Pascoli, who always said that the secret of his poetry was to continue to see things with the same wonder that a kid has.

 

Pascoli's poems, by the way, are of a real good values for grown-ups, but can be enjoyed also by children.

Er yes, if you give a bunch of kids cameras, and then have the ensuing deluge of images vetted (and printed) by an experienced, professional photographer (or anyone with a discerning eye), you are going to get some "good" photos. If the kids get some coaching on basic composition the odds might improve. You could also strap a camera onto a dog's back and turn it loose (this has actually been done), and also manage to harvest some "good" photos.

 

The chance element in photography, perhaps moreso than other art forms, is undeniable and indeed something of a conundrum for serious students of the medium, who would like their work to be seen as somehow better than the 'lucky' shots of naifs and rank amateurs.

 

The story of ghetto kids momentarily uplifted by photography, which is hardly new or original (though it's been a decade or so since such a project caught our jaded imaginations), has a kind of dickensian appeal based on sentimental identification with individuals, rather than any meaningful interest in addressing the horrific issue of massive and pervasive child poverty. Go ahead, buy a print and help this or that kid afford a pair of shoes this year.

 

But if you scratch beneath the surface of those undoubtedly gorgeous prints, I think you'll find this terrible situation has roots largely in Western conspicuous consumption, of which the kind of photography we generally espouse here is a splendid example. Isn't is ironic?

Yes, but this doesn't deny the fact that some of those pictures are more than fine. Pointing the one Geeorge compared to mine, I frankly say that the tones there (I mean, in the kid's picture) suck... but I can't pretend that an 11 y/o can print a picture in the darkroom, neither can use ps (if they've ever seen a computer in their life).

 

But the immediate feeling the picture gives, what we might call composition is more than ok... and if you see the one with a kids taken on from the shoulders and the two sitting on the wall... that's another beauty, IMO.

 

Another thought: I just wonder what that prints look like, on a pc you can have everything look sharp... in a large size print, maybe it's completely different.

 

But, I don't see no difference if they had to edit 100000 shots to get those, or just 10. At the end, is what we all do... it's rare, for me, to get more than 3-4 good shots from a roll... it's the chance element in street photography, that works for everybody.

OK, fair enough. Explain why <I>these</I> pictures, by <I>these</I> kids are any more (or less) remarkable than what may be found on any coupla hundred-thousand cellphone cam bloggers' websites right this second. In a week or so, when the next earthquake / famine / tsunami / whatever comes along, these kids and their pictures will be forgotten, again.

I think also my pictures will be forgotten very soon, as well as the pictures of the majority of us. Some pictures remain, although not of highest pictorial quality, for the message they bring... think about the guy with the black hat tortured in iraq... badly exposed, unsharp, awful composition... a2 o2, would be the comment on photo.net... but it's been in the headlines in 2004 for months. And now it's forgotten, as well.

 

Do you think there are photographies of pictorial quality (no news reported) which people do remember? Do you think people out there know who Ansel Adams, Edward Weston or HCB are, do they know Capa or Salgado or Natchwey? The only photographer average citizens know is Helmut Newton, and I don't like him too much... the only photo they recognize is the photo of che guevara taken by Korda, but they don't know who Korda is.

 

Photography is just a game. Don't take it too seriously.

I sent the invitation of my exhibition to a colleague of mine. He used to do it's own b/w stuff years ago... I never saw a picture taken from him... anyhow... his comment was "these kids are utterly poor, they have nothing at all, but they look happy".

 

I was happy myself, because this was the message I was trying to convey through my pictures.

 

And I think that the pictures of those kids hit us for the same reason. Regardless of "quality". Now, just compare the life of these kids with the life of whatever teenager rotting in front of a tv or the playstation... who's happier? Who smiles more?

<p>photography is an art form and often it's meaning and impact is based, like other

art forms, on context. while i prefer images to stand on their own, some work is

enhanced or given more meaning by the contextual

questions...who?what?where?.</p>

<p>these images...while i think many are very strong on their own...derive their

impact by asking those contextual questions. childrens photography in general is

always interesting when you consider that they are not weighed down by pretensions

or lofty artistic aspirations. very different when viewed this way as compared to

photographers posting images to prove some artistic worth. too bad some have to

basically resort to the tired "i could have done that" argument as a critique.</p>

<p>as for this situation being rooted in anything western...that's a pretty shaky

argument. poverty and prostitution have been around quite awhile.</p>

>too bad some have to basically resort to the tired "i could have done that" argument as a critique.

 

I haven't seen any posts here that remotely resemble that statement. Was there something in particular you wish to cite?

remotely resemble? don't you think your comments about dogs making good photos

or photobloggers cellphone cameras fall into that vein.....it's saying essentially the

same thing don't you think? or are you that literal? just curious.

No Mark,

 

Nowhere did I make that literal, or even implied statement, a careful reading will reveal. Thank you for at least pointing your accusation (albeit at my prompting), rather than let it continue to hang over the entire thread.

 

The point of my postings on the topic is not that specific shots by these children are 'unworthy' (recall that I used the term, "no doubt gorgeous prints"), but that empty and insincere praise, with utterly no discussion of the context, is irresponsible.

 

And yes, Western conspicuous consumption is implicated in worldwide child poverty and prostitution, certainly in this particular era, however unwelcome that news may be.