Slumdog Tourism - on the other side of the lens

<p>I posted this article in its entirety earlier tonight, but apparently it was taken down by an administrator for some reason. At any rate, here is an article appearing in the Aug. 10 NY Times that gives the perspective of someone being photographed in an African slum:<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/opinion/10odede.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=slumdog&st=cse">Slumdog Tourism </a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you reposted the text of the article on PN (which is how I interpret your statement that you "posted this article in its entirety") then it was probably taken down because PN doesn't want to attract a copyright infringement lawsuit from the New York Times. Seems kind of obvious to me.</p>

<p>You should merely provide a link to the article, not copy it!</p>

<p>As above. We remove anything we consider a violation of copyright. That includes other people's articles as well as other people's images.</p>

<p>Interesting article. I never really thought of slums or other impoverished areas as tourism destinations. I can easily see how the tourists would quickly objectify the people living there, especially if they're on a tour with no time to meet and speak to individuals...which in itself would carry some risk if doing so alone as a comparatively wealthy tourist with presumably valuable possessions in tow.</p>

<p>Sure, some tourist will objectify but others might change for the better, perhaps. It's really no better or worst than, say, your neighborhood ghettos except the slums in Brazil, India, China etc...are much poorer. As far as losing their dignity etc..., in practice, most don't care enough.</p>

<p>I've to to confess: I spend a good deal of time taking pictures on the "other side of the tracks." I seek an antidote to chain fast-food places and strip malls. Sometimes people end up in my photos, and sometimes they "make" the photo. But I am really shooting "artifacts" rather than individuals.<br>

Once I saw a six- or ten-unit motel that had given itself over completely to residents on the public dole. As you can imagine, families living in a single room spread out into the parking lot. The scene was chaotic and poignant at the same time. I have to rely on my memory since I did not want to barge into their de facto living rooms and begin snapping pictures.<br>

The issue that Jon and the NY Times writer addresses is complicated, because it gets personal if you are on the other side of the lens. I do not have a mission that lets me rationalize taking photos of individuals who are experiencing a rough patch (or whose existence is rough).<br>

I am reminded of Jennifer Baichwal's documentary <em>The True Meaning of Pictures: Shelby Lee Adams' Appalachia. </em>Reviewer Kathleen Cummins quotes Adams and adds a question of her own: " 'By getting in there with the camera, by creating some distortions, I'm hoping to make everyone think.' That is a noble thought, but like the "dramatic lighting events" Adams creates in his work, at the expense of the dignity of his subjects, might that not just be part of the theater?"<br>

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JSF/is_41_11/ai_99984457/?tag=content;col1<br>

(If the link breaks, the review is in TAKE ONE, March-May, 2003.)<br /><br /></p>

<h2><a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JSF/"><br /></a><a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JSF/is_41_11/"></a></h2>

<p> </p>