Through the lens of black women photographers

"Stop using the words black and white. You're going to stop calling me a black man. And I'm going to stop calling you a white man"

its little wonder he keeps being cast as god.

meanwhile, on this matter I agree with him.

You can't see any parallel between confining black history to one month and confining black people to one drinking fountain?

No, recognising race and gender and ranking artistic merit on that basis is what's known as "racism" and "sexism".

I judge a photograph by the photograph.

Tom Holly - who's thinking about "ranking artistic merit" on the basis of gender or race? (Answer - no one, and certainly not the OP here). You're misinterpreting peoples' comments to forward your own rather worrying agenda, and I just wanted you to know that it's a transparent tactic.

GaryJP - I'd suggest that you try not to "judge" photographs, but just see them as work that might or might not have something to say to you. This tendency to make snap value judgements about art only serves to limit our enjoyment - we need to be more open-minded imho.

Quetrich, the article is ascribing value to the fact that the photographers are black women.

No, it's a collection of photographs by black women. You are placing the value or lack thereof.

Its assigning value to them as black women in the same way that a book on street photography assigns value to them because they are street photographers.

+lsmft

Darngoodesign,

If they "just happened" to be black women why make it the headline?

No Hinder, that's male human nature. So 50% of the population. Exactly the point, which you've illustrated perfectly - thanks.

Assuming it is prejudice in 2017 is not substantiated. Is it prejudice that blacks who make up less than 15% of Americans (men & women) dominate pro basketball, track and field, and football in excess of their percentile or is it just where interests and abilities exist? Historically women wanted home and family not the life of a single minded, drugged out, carousing painter. I rarely see a black surfer- yet there is no one to discriminate. Its a big ocean. Everyone, ever race and every culture , does not place emphasis on the same abilities, activities and life choices. To even suggest that a gallery owner will not represent a money making artist who happens to have breasts- or is black or both, is absurd. If anything they will jump at the chance to offer diversity in a legitimate talent. Now if we are talking tokenism for a contrived feel good moment that is something else- which I do not support at all.

Historically, women were RAISED to only want a family because they wouldn’t be able to do anything else. Historically, women were not allowed to work or vote. And when they were allowed, they could not even open a bank account without the consent of her father or husband.

You are right about the cultural differences, and about the “money making” aspect, unfortunately. Yes, galleries have to cater to their client, which is predominantly a rich white male. But in any case, and precisely because of that, striving for a change and raising awareness is a good thing.

Is there a law that women should pose for nudes or what or men shouldn't?
Me, male, would pose if you're willing to pay for it.

"I didn't even look at them."

Good for you.

What a scoop. Stop the presses!!!

No, it’s not, it is perfectly a valid comparison. Just like other exhibitions like “Artworks of the Renaissance”, or “Impressionist Masters” , it is just a theme, just like a specific era or genre.

Race and nationality are similar categories, so it's a very valid comparison.

Because nobody gives the podium to the Italian masters for the mere reason that they «need a voice» or are statistically underrepresented.

Many exhibitions in museums are done to give more exposure to a particular strain of art which the curator thinks has been underrepresented so far.

You're really grasping at straws here, dude.

"Could we just please stop calling photography black and white?"

Who is "we"? I for sure didn't.

Your first sentence is particularly ironic considering your second sentence.

A lot of what black artists do revolves around being black, the struggle of blacks, black politics and so on. Don't believe me? Take a look: https://www.biography.com/people/groups/black-artists

There are even some black women photographers mentioned there.

Yes, artists are colored by their cultural and social experiences.

"Yes, artists are colored by their cultural and social experiences."

It's always about color with you social justice warriors. Even when it isn't.

Humans are complex beings, who universally love, hate, have children, die, get sick, fight wars, sacrifice on behalf of others, form friendships, make mistakes, learn from them or don't learn from them. They can lead happy lives or tragic lives or lives somewhere in between. They are sometimes guilty and some times innocent and oftentimes both.

So yes, there is more to life and the human experience than struggle against racist oppression.

Why not consider the "human experience" when you make art instead of trying to always force feed the "struggle against racism" to white people whose ancestors died in a civil war to free their black brothers and sisters from slavery?

I expected more comments to begin with "I'm not racist but...". LOL

Curious Scott....are you angry, hurt, or just offended? My vote goes to offended as that seems to be the current popular hobby.

What is popular now is to call anything to do with race, racist. It's a combination of ignorance and a thin skin.

"Relax snowflake. The NY Times did the article, DPR is just linking to it."

Yeah, let us relax boys. As long as the racism is directed towards white males it's all right. In fact it's not even racism. We are just snowflakes with a thin skin!

If you are applying the term racism to this book then you are ignorant...and have a thin skin. Judging from the tone of your other responses, I'm guessing you are a Men's Rights' Activist as well.

Well, calling me snowflake seems pretty damn racist to me. I'm offended that you would call me snowflake, just as you would be offended if I used a racial slur when referring to you. As far as being think skinned, I don't know. Maybe so. What difference does it make?

The fact that the NY Times wrote the article means nothing. It's posted here as an article with the title, "Through the lens of black women photographers" is it not? Just try to imagine the outrage if an article here was posted like that with the name, "Through the lens of white women photographers." Would the fact that it has women in the name make it less racist? No. Now imagine if an article named, "Through the lens of white male photographers" were to be posted here. Do you really think people wouldn't think that is a racist title and article?

Snowflake is not a racial slur...again you are just ignorant of what racism means. Instead of being interested in the different cultural perspectives black women bring to photography you are whining about your me too issues. Delicate little snowflake.

"I'm guessing you are a Men's Rights' Activist."

I am the big bad wolf. :-) ( I am a strong and independent wolf who doesn't need no activism on his behalf.)

Boy, you sure do sound like a strong, independent wolf...what with your being upset that black women got coverage. Big bad wolves always worry that they can't have the same treatment as others. LOL

Daddy, I am not upset. And this article is not about coverage for black female photographers:

"The exclusion of diverse perspectives deprives us of valuable insight. In an attempt to address this exclusion and the associated under-representation of black women photographers, Laylah Amatullah Barrayn and her colleagues have self-published [blah, blah, blah]"

It's about creating tension and accusing others (white people?) of "excluding", "deprivating" and "under-representing" a certain minority.

So do Scott or justanumber have any comments on the photography....or are they just here to shout from the rooftops at how offended they are?

You just keep sounding more and more strong and independent. Judging by these comments the only people that book is causing tension with are the delticate triggered little snowflakes. Regardless, I raise a glass to you the big bad wolf.

"or are they just here to shout from the rooftops at how offended they are?"

I am not offended. I am just pointing out that this article is not about photography but to create racial tension. The words are there for everyone to read.

Also, I am not a snowflake because I neither do think that I am special nor do I have any sense of entitlement.

I am one of many. Exchangeble and expendable. Even my name implies that I am "Just A Number".

Perhaps change it to "Just A Snowflake". :-D

Snowflake doesn't mean entitled, which is why people say 'entitled snowflake', it means melting easily. In this case you are melting over three women self-publishing a book which doesn't affect you at all. If DPR didn't link to the article you would have no idea the thing even exists.

A self-described strong independent, big bad wolf wouldn't care if some artists thinks black women are under-represented in photography; that wolf would just continuing to live his life like the alpha-male he is. But you aren't acting like a wolf, you are acting like a snowflake.

Wow...to actually think that this isnt about photography at all, and only about race. The level of ignorance here is astounding. This article and video, about photography, shows how different races, cultures, backgrounds, can change perspective in photographic work. Instead of understanding such a basic tenant, ignorant blowhards post to try to be divisive.

"A self-described strong independent, big bad wolf wouldn't care if some artists thinks black women are under-represented in photography; that wolf would just continuing to live his life like the alpha-male he is."

A big bad wolf protects his own. It seems to me that white-guilting and white-shaming is no longer working. This whole article is just another poor try out of many but guys like me are there to call it out for what it is.

"Wow...to actually think that this isnt about photography at all, and only about race."

This whole site was all about photography until someone and his ardent sycophants brought the invented struggle of black women photographers into this to try to shame and induce white guilt into a big part of it's audience.

And do you really think that calling me "snowflake" or "ignorant blowhard" will trigger me? Lol...

I've read your posts but still see nothing about their artistic statement which is white-shaming or white-guilting. Since you see the insult, the burden of proof is on you to show how black women are equally represented in photography.

I called you a snowflake after you were triggered by an imagined insult and then melted like a snowflake. You're just looking for things to be outraged by. Which is ironic considering you would accuse SJWs of that.

If you are not interested in learning about a new perspective, then I recommend just skipping this article. You don't have to read it or buy the book. Lucky for you, you can assume that most of the images you will see in daily life will come from the same perspective you have so you won't have to try too hard to find something that is more comfortable for you.

This site is about photography, yet you haven't discussed any of the photos.

You also need to learn about computer history because while Babbage invented the physical computer, Lovelace invented its "OS" and modern programming. So you can thank a woman for your ability to complain on DPR about being an oppressed male.

"So you can thank a woman for your ability to complain on DPR about being an oppressed male."

Wrong on two counts. Lovelace didn't invent it's OS but just wrote a "program" for it. There was no OS as it was a mechanical device.

And I also specifically stated somewhere else in a direct reply to you that I don't feel oppressed in the least. Quite the contrary.

It seems that you are quite dishonest.

A mechanical device requires operating instructions and she developed those which is as close to an OS as that device can have. She is the mother of modern programming, without her, Hopper, and Goldberg to name a few, you wouldn't be posting online how men did everything.

You might not think you feel oppressed, but that's not how your posts come across.

" I can't imagine you'd ever dream of doing an article based on white women photographers, would you?"

They have, for decades. Just they titled the article "Women Photographers". It was the same thing though.

Trying to pin racism on a race is kind of racist you know. Not being racist is not addressing people as if they are defined by the colour of their skin. Racism is categorisation on non-essential features that do not define who a person is. A special form of discrimination. Look at people with your heart, not with your head an race will melt away. It doesn't mean it does not exist, it means it is not very significant. The real problem is cultural, not colour. The dominant culture vs smaller subcultures that do not want to mix. The distance between African culture and European is big and will not meld together easily. Part of it is in our genes, because our genome reflects the environment in which it was formed. Certain personality traits are more dominant in different races and this transpires into culture. Genome does not change quickly. We have to be emphatic of those differences but that can only happen when we accept each other for who we are. This is a two way street.

"White names" . . . How racist is THAT?!?

Yes
White names.

Now you folk know how it feels to be singled out.

Just once.

The article states: "The exclusion of diverse perspectives deprives us of valuable insight. In an attempt to address this exclusion and the associated under-representation of black women photographers"

It's a hit piece on specifically white men in my opinion. Or who else could she possibly mean? Who does all this "excluding", "depriving" and "under-representing" of black women?

Pray tell @Wenmei, who does all of this horrible stuff in your opinion?

"Prejudice doesn't have to be stated, just evident."

Of course it has to be stated. It gets evident either by word or by action and not just because little snowflake wills it into existence.

Prejudice is normal, natural and healthy and even animals behave prejudiced. Try for once not being prejudiced when you meet a tiger in the jungle. At least then we would be spared silly statements like these.

@Just A Number, just because something makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it is politicized. Art often makes people uncomfortable. It can't force you to learn something you don't want to know though.

P.S. Your statement of prejudice was in using the word "feminist" as if it's an insult.

Tom -

does it really?

If you were never told who took the photos, would you know that black women took them?

I reckon you'd fail the pepsi challenge

Of course I wouldn't know how the photographer looks.
However my point is that your culture and environment will have an influence on your visual storytelling.

you are contradicting yourself...can't you see that?

"your background and environment will influence the kind of art you make"

but not enough for you to discern what that background and environment was...righto..

its irrelevant then.

Eric - also re-below - I am not sure about that - or maybe this has been one of the factors to foster insecurity, anxiety and all kinds of negative feelings ever since (in our less than ideal world the mind and how it reacts to wording is not that simple I am afraid - just take the simple text-book examples - what do you think, most if not all people will have flashing up in their mind first, when I tell them that my office is not a mess - a mess or my office being neat and tidy? Good things are often veiled by suboptimal communication, potentially leading to suboptimal perception by those who do not investigate further, potentially leading to fixed views over time thanks to repetition of similar message patterns, potentially leading to issues that were meant to be avoided in the first place).

Eric - maybe the point I was trying to make did not come accross as planned; the thing I was talking about was (artificially) creating even more issues and differences with careless wording.

I go to camera used sales about once per quarter. They attract at least 1000 buyers each time. The number of black photogs I see there amounts to the number I can count on my fingers. Same goes for women. I don't think my perception of percentages is that bad. If it isn't, then segregation is alive and well in the photography realm.

That says a lot about: where you live and who likes to go to used camera swapmeets. I bet most of the guys you saw are older than 60 as well.

And you don't find it odd you're using a divisive term ("people of color") meant to distinguish all other races from 'white' people? It is a term to solidify non-whites against whites.... it is a term of 'us' vs 'them' because the only skin tones excluded from that term are European / "White."
If we are going to have meaningful discussions on the issue of race, then we need to stop seeing whites solely as the aggressors and non-whites solely as the victims. It's polarizing.

Yet more so we also need to stop continually picking at wounds that are 100s of years old and re-incriminating people today for crimes committed centuries ago by people they never knew.

All of these issues (and more) cause contention that is never reconciled, because reconciliation cannot occur when one party is continually vilified and the other only the victim. It isn't a one way 'discussion' if we are really going to have a discussion. The fact that you suggest disabling the comments section confirms.

Interestingly, whites have become the enemy (or maybe always were in some way or another), while racism by everyone else seems to be ignored, even though it seems to be just as bad or worse. I've seen how Hispanic men can be as racist toward blacks as any white men I've ever known. I have heard racist comments by just about every race, but that racism, as long as it's delivered by people who are not white, seems to get a pass. It's pathetic, but I guess when whites are the majority in a country, that's how things go. Racism is all over the World, and it might always be with us . . . until humanity mixes to a point that racism becomes almost meaningless . . . but then it will be like the religious racism, where some Catholics and Protestants hate each other and some Sunnis and Shiites hate each other.

"I'm guessing you'd like to see articles about photographs taken by white women too, right?"

I would. Why don't you go ahead and write one?

Sameness=Atrophy=Extinction

Vive la différence !

We're not going to come together. We're going to continue to have racism in American society. In fact, I guess it's going to get worse. That's what seems to be happening.