Salgado essay

[nesrani]

I had a bit of time to while away here, so I wrote a short essay on

Salgado. I'd be interested in any comments.

 

www.robertappleby.com/texts/salgado.pdf

[michael_bender]

My first and general imrpressions are that:<br>

(a) criticism of Salgado is very much justified, the humourlessness and gloom being its 2 predominant qualities in depiction of no less than "humanity" in whole (humourlessness often claims to express ultimately deep truths).<br>

(b) that in repeating your thesis again and again you only proclaim that a different approach is possible, but give no reference to examples of inspired and godly rather than hellish views. It might be you were cautious not to open yourself to counter-criticism once the idols you pray are known, or it may be one has to look at your published photoessays to see what you actually mean.<br>

and © that it is written more to express your political views than to analyze Salgado. Salgado however serves well as a starting point.

[Spearhead]

I have to say that this is the first time in years I have seen Debord quoted.

 

It's a fascinating read, Rob, you certainly display a level of insight well above the usual "criticism" and an ability to express yourself. It is interesting as a reading of "hell," and if Salgado did not wrap so much extraneous stuff around it, maybe it would be sufficient as a documentary of hell on earth. However, you are right that it appears to offer no exit.

 

Other photographers have done much more positive documentary work on the "third world" and it would be interesting to see similar commentary from you on their work. For example, Abbas' work in the Middle East is very different from the typical photography of the region that you mention. The same is true for a lot of photography coming from Latin America. However, it is interesting that it is often the work of people in their own culture (and I am aware of Salgado's work in Latin America) that has the positivist viewpoint. Outsiders' photographs are often that, the work of outsiders.

[johann_fuller]

What I have never understood is why, if he believes so much in his cause, he chooses the medium of monochrome documetary photography in it's most classical and traditional form. If you want to tell the world - make a film!!!! His pictures, and by definition, message get their say in art galleries and on coffee tables (sadly). In short - there is nothing of originalty in his work on a pure photographic level (although he is a master of his craft in the tradition of HCB etc) and in the 21st century that medium is not the most effective way of getting across the (very important)message. Er does he use a leica??

[preston_merchant]

It�s odd, Rob, that you would declare Salgado the chronicler of Hell when James Nachtwey�s �Inferno� appeared at about the same time as "Migrations" and covered similar material. Nachtwey�s vision is darker and more brutal than Salgado�s, but he seems always to get a pass for being a war photographer; that is, his vision is necessarily the result of his having been a witness to the atrocity. When Salgado comes on the scene, in the aftermath some months or years later, and snaps his luminous photographs of the unnamed and unknowable, the critics (not just Mr. Appleby) have a field day.

 

I have yet to see any negative criticism of Nachtwey, or even any discomfort with his approach. I assume it�s because he seems wholly without an agenda other than to chronicle armed conflict. Salgado�s humanist-socialist agenda seems ingrained (pun intended) in his photos.

 

Salgado is a fabulist, but I don�t know that �passive sentimentalism� is the viewer�s natural response. We quarrel about Salgado regularly�and I submit that it is the fact the he is �writing� an epic that gets under your skin. He shoots themes, trends, tragedies, small dramas (like the miner and the gun), large sweeps of history. If he does not appear concerned about the individual, he never set out to document individual concerns. He�s a socialist, remember�collective history is the goal, and his large windows on the Third World remind us here pecking away on our laptops that �their� history is ours as well.

 

Nachtwey never bothers with individual concerns but for a short essay here and there. But his work usually appears, unlike Salgado�s, as spot news. His pictures illustrate (or amplify) a journalist�s prose. We ask less of his pictures when we see them in TIME because we have an article to read.

 

I don�t believe that Salgado presents the condition of his subjects as immutable (that the poor will be with us always) or that we, the wealthy viewers, are exonerated. How would Salgado as a photographer question the world order? He does appeal to human sympathy, which easily becomes sentimentality on expensive gallery walls and in $100 coffee-table books. But that fault is not his. His fables are not melodramas from the outset, even if they transform later. Are his photos more readily sentimentalized than Nachtwey�s? Yes. But for that fact Salgado�s audience is much larger, and the discussion he generates is far more reaching. That has to be worth something.

[kevin m.]

I don't disagree with you Rob, but why pick on Salgado? Why single him out? Why treat him as an individual when he doesn't extend that courtesy to his own subjects? Consider him another member of the herd of commercially successful artists who deal in sentiment and generalities and then go about your own work.

[joshroot]

Interesting essay Rob. And for what it's worth, I agree with you.<P>I also very much agree with Preston about how we expect so much less of Nachtwey because we have the luxury of a written story to go with most of his images.<P>The missing element of humor and the softer side of humanity (that is such a large part of any class struggle), is a big problem of mine with Salgado's work. It's all just so depressing. No, you can't ever imagine that these people will be any better, no matter what happens in the world. It's almost as if he says to himself "oh man, I'd better not show any slight happiness in my subjects. Otherwise my viewers might think 'oh look, than man is happy! I guess all the miserable people in this book must actually be happy underneath it all.' And then where would I be, my grand message will be lost!"

[joseph_chen1]

Yes, well one should not look at Salgado's work as being an even-handed documentary exercise. He clearly has a political agenda to promote - the remarkable images are a vehicle primarly of political expression.

[douglas k.]

I read Rob's essay recently after Lutz sent the link to me. A couple of thoughts:<p>

--Salgado's photos have always struck me as iconic rather than personalized: he tries to express the grand messages, the universal (and timeless) conflicts without showing us individuals' lives. This tendency is mitigated, but only slightly, in his books, which increasingly (Migrations, Workers) present almost numbing quantities of photos.<p>

--Rob didn't comment on the frequently recurring Christ-like figures in Salgado's work. He seems drawn to men who, by appearance and/or circumstance, remind one of Christ. Without pouring over his books again, I can think of two: the main character in the sequence on (Corsican, I think) tuna fishermen that appears in Workers, who strongly resembles a gray-haired version of the Jesus we often see in medieval renderings (and he was a "fisher of men"), and the young man on the cover or Workers who, by virtue of the iron piece he's holding above and behind his head (I think it may be an old flywheel) reminds me of Christ at the crucifixion, with his crown of thorns. I also recall such a photo in another of his books that I've no longer got. <p>I'm wondering, Rob -- do you see these parallels, and if so, why (do you think) does Salgado seem drawn to them? I have my thoughts, but would like to read yours.

[robert goldstein]

Oh, Rob, you poor, sad intellectual boy. Bless your deconstructing heart. How

difficult it must be to live a life in which it is your obligation always to look beneath

the surface of things, to get down to the molecular level, and then to the atomic level,

and then to the subatomic level, and finally, ultimately to the quark level, only to find

that everything is made of quarks. That's all there is, folks, just quarks. What you

thought was beautiful and moving and meaningful is just a bunch of quarks. Now go

home, and eat your porridge.

 

Fortunately for the rest of us, Sebastiao Salgado and other great artists do not create

their art for the benefit of deconstructionists. Rather their art is intended for those

who are more willing to accept things at face value, to allow themselves to be affected

by these things at an emotional level. How telling that the two Salgado photographs

which you have chosen to dissect are two of the most amazing and powerful images

ever put on film. Most viewers cannot help but stare at them in drop-jawed wonder.

Are these images iconic? Perhaps, but that is a direct function of their inherent

greatness. Their impact is deep and lasting; for some, it will last forever. Has

Salgado manipulated us into having such an emotional response? Of course, but

what great artist does not try to manipulate his/her audience?

 

No one would deny that Salgado has an agenda, least of all Salgado himself. He is

certainly not the first, nor will he be the last artist to have an agenda, be it political,

religious, social or personal. But this is what he has chosen to do with his life. That

he has been able to open so many eyes that have been closed to the suffering that

exists in the world is a great achievement. His images of human beings struggling to

survive under the most difficult of circumstances are not stereotypical and

depersonalizing, as you suggest. Rather, they are inspiring to those viewers who can

identify with those struggling human beings through the medium of the image. This

is Salgado's intended response. It is sad that you do not seem to feel it.

[douglas k.]

"That he has been able to open so many eyes that have been closed to the suffering that exists in the world is a great achievement. His images of human beings struggling to survive under the most difficult of circumstances are not stereotypical and depersonalizing, as you suggest. Rather, they are inspiring to those viewers who can identify with those struggling human beings through the medium of the image."

 

This statement indicates that you reject Appleby's thesis, but you've not refuted it (i.e., explained why his thesis is worth rejecting). It'd be interesting to know why you reject the argument (i.e., to read your refutation).

[zlatko]

Well, I find much to disagree with here. Your essay starts off with a critique of a caption in an Italian magazine. It's not clear that Salgado was responsible for the caption. So I question your conclusion about the photo being pressed into service or that supports a definitive ideology. If that is what happened, it may be the caption-writer's work, not the photographer's. The photo is magnificent, caption or no caption. What definite ideology does the photo (not the caption) support? None. All photos are subject to manipulation by caption writers.

 

About the image of the miner and the policeman -- Yes, the subjects seem frozen in time. That's because it is a still photograph. All still photographs freeze their subjects in time. The miner and the policeman are individuals, despite what you say. The photo is not purely spectacular; it shows a real moment between two real individuals. The photo doesn't *deprive* them of anything. It reveals a moment, which may be part of a condition and a process. Like almost any photo, it is subject to interpretation and can represent many things. But as a still photograph, it simply can't depict their past and their future, and it's unfair to criticize it for not doing so. Also, would it make such a difference if you knew their names? Would you go and follow up to see how things worked out? Think about demanding that the photographer get people's names at a scene of conflict; how would that affect the scene itself and his ability to do this work?

 

Your sweeping conclusions in the last two paragraphs lack support. To say that these photos promote views of the Third World that reinforce its otherness, naturalness and lack of political significance is quite bizarre. If you interpret them as such, that is your choice. But I don't see that as inherent in the photos or in the photographer's decisions. Sure, the photographs don't themselves question the order of the world that produces refugees, etc. But that is the nature of photography. They may well lead (some) viewers to question, but they don't themselves question. It seems to me you are criticizing photography for not doing something that it can't do.

 

As for the work being humourless, some artists and some artworks are simply that way, while others are quite the opposite. There is tragedy and there is comedy, and it's unusual for an artist to be good at both. To say that a tragedy lacked humor, or that a comedy lacked sorrow is not valid criticism. Where is the humor in famine, for example? It seems that you're criticizing Salgado for not being a funnier photographer. I really don't see any merit to this argument.

[nesrani]

Thank you to everyone who responded. I found your comments very thought provoking and entertaining � and who could ask for more than that?

 

I think I should just explain that this short essay was intended to be a provocation. Culture is a sort of extended conversation � sometimes an argument! - and I wasn�t looking for agreement. Its subject was Salgado as a cultural phenomenon, the mechanisms underlying his promotion in the global image market, and the use his work is put to. In particular, how the �society of the spectacle� selects and integrates apparently antagonist views, and what qualifies a body of work for selection. Salgado as a person, and his personal view of his work were not in question. I could just as easily have chosen Nachtwey (perhaps more fruitfully), except I�m a documentarist rather than a war photographer, so Salgado lies closer to my own interests.

[zapata_espinoza]

Preston, you might want to read this: http://photography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0023/woodward.php

[tao]

Dear Robert,<br>

<p>First of all let me say I enjoyed reading your essay a lot. It conveys very strong ideas, it is very well written and articulated. However I wanted to comment on a couple of shortcomings or shortcuts you take.<br><p>

o Was it really necessary to personalize your text on Salgado ? It apears, to my own astonishment, that Salgado's work is controversial, so may be your essay's title made more people read it. Which I think was unecessary because of its intrinsic qualities.<br><p>

o I quickly browsed through two books from Salgado published by Editions La Martiniere ("Exodes", "la main de l'Homme"), none of the photographs were captioned. I believe the caption from the Bombay picture you mention is not the original caption, if any.<br><p>

o May be it would have been worth writing about the "distance" between the photographer and his subjects. In the 70's John Szarkowski wrote about photographs being either Windows or Mirrors. As for me I think Salgado's work could mostly be considered as a window on the world. May be the "unusual" distance he takes made you react... Also I would add that your text is a good counter-example to your statement about Salgado's work inducing passivity.<br><p>

May be this is the beauty of his work : windows being viewed as mirrors..<br>

<p>LL<br>

<br>PS1: I apology for my English (not my mother tongue).<br>

PS2: I would like to read other texts from you. Please keep me updated.

[tao]

You mentionned work from sean penn - is this photography or speech ? is it available on the net ?

thanx

[jackflesher]

To Robert Goldsitein, I say "well said!"

 

Rob, your post reminds me of the following story about a couple arguing in front of a painting on display in a museum. The painting depicted three naked, black men, two with black penises and one in the middle with a pink penis. The viewers were arguing over the meaning being anything from the oppression of the black male by his white male counterparts, to the inherent loss of the black man's sexuality now that he was forced to become a part of the white man's world. This arguing continued for over an hour until the artist interrupted them and asked if he could answer any questions. They both said they would like to know the meaning of the painting. The artist replied, "Well, it's pretty simple... those are three Scottish coal miners, and the one in the middle went home for lunch!" :)

 

Cheers,

[andrew_lee2]

Great essay and subsequent thread...thought-provoking reading. Thanks everyone.

[cd thacker]

I waited until I had some time to devote to the essay before commenting. Just now I followed the link to print it out . . . and it was gone. Can someone (Rob?) email me a copy? Cheers.