Photography is storytelling, and the photographer's perspective can be an important part of the story. 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 "Mfon: Women Photographers of the African Diaspora".
Read about the first issue of their planned series publication at the New York Times LENS blog or watch their video above to learn more.
Some of these comments remind me of when someone tweets "Why do we have a Black History Month? Why don't we get to have a White History Month?"
The answer, of course, is obvious to everyone else, but since it isn't obvious to the clueless tweeter, it's spelled out for them in 200 replies from people saying "Because every month IS ALREADY White History Month!!!"
Same principle applies here.
I see no problem with this article, and I would find it as interesting as an article on cowboy photographers or Eskimo photographers. Heck, I'd like to see an article on actual Cuban photographers, as a counterpoint to the trendy thing today where so many Americans etc. want to go to Cuba and photograph how it is before all the American etc. visitors ruin all the original charm :)
Interesting to note that the origin of that quote was Morgan Freeman. The larger context of his quote was something like:
"We don't need Black History Month. Is there a White History Month? How can my history be relegated to only a month? What about you? (addressing the Jewish interviewer) Should there be a Jewish History Month? If it's going to be about addressing race, we need to stop talking about it. 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."
Confining is your word. When people learn things in February, do they forget them in March? When people learn to value things in February, do they not value them the next month?
The Pantone image was an interesting dialogue about skin colour...that others for the most part don't tell a story without additional context...they didn't standalone for me. I don't think that the photographers are black women is sufficient context for the dialogue...however additional images in a series and more back story about the specific photographer, her history and the story she is trying to tell might tie it back to being black and a women enough to carry...assume...hope it is in the book...however the number of photographers they are "showcasing" it seems not really possible.
The amount of comments complaining that this article got posted is appalling. Photography is self expression of showing the world as you see it. People from different backgrounds and cultures will have a different perspective and it is worthwhile to see and read about it. It is very relevant in the realm of photography.
Not recognizing a photographers gender or heritage is ignorance.
Be careful my friend, I think everyone cares that a human being made great photos that we enjoy seeing (im sure everyone loves the content). If making a fuss over specific demographic of photographer because of their demographic and just not presenting their awesome work because they made awesome work is so important, then lo and behold we still live in a race obsessed society. Pointing out the difference furthers the problem rather than helps it. Just publish the work, get it publicised for being good work then all of a sudde you have awesome minority and diverse photographers being recognised for making cool work, not recognising their work because they are different and then the photos are great too.
What is the priority? Do you want to hold up a photocopied book of finger painting pictures of poop because black women made it? Lets focus on good work done by talented people. Talent does not see colour.
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.
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.
Thank you for sharing with us these photographers and their photos. I would encourage more such articles about storytelling, and the art of photography.
Well, a collection of photographs taken by black women can only be taken by black women. To me it isn't saying that only black women can take photos like that; just that this particular collection happens to be taken by black women. Similarly, a collection of art from Tsarist Russia will not feature modern American artists. Or landscape photos will generally not feature macros of clocks.
"Data gathered from the Met's public collections in 1989 showed that women artists had produced less than 5% of the works in the Modern Art Department, while 85% of the nudes were female." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_Girls
Anyone interested in the predisposition of the art establishment towards white male artists, would do well to research the Guerrilla Girls, who have worked since 1985 to encourage galleries and museums to address these prejudices.
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.
At its core, art is supposed to provoke reactions and discussion. Regardless of what you think of the various comments posted, these women certainly have done that.
Thanks for posting this link. Interesting read, and good reportage style photographs. It is always refreshing to read about other photographers point of view.
It's an old practice in art curatorship to gather together works of art made by artists with a similar background. E.g. "Paintings by XVIth Century Italian Masters". Or "Photographs by Black Women". Somehow, some people are OK with the first but howl with outrage at the second. One wonders, why?
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.
Could we just please stop calling photography black and white? That's asking for trouble right from the start. And colour photography? Oh please, lets not go there!
I love my gear. Gear is so apolitical.
I think we could probably safely assume that, effectively, all photographers are men and all are white, anyway. There – problem solved.
But to be frank it would be far better if people stopped taking photographs. There are too many nasty things out there that remind us that there is more to this hobby than equipment and ratios of thirds.
However, I did think that the idea, expressed in this thread, of labelling books and exhibitions as being by and about white men is a good one:
'White man shoots his own foot'. Great title for a book, don't you think?
btw. Is there some way I can take photographs that are only white? Just a thought.
"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?
It's telling how most of the comments have nothing to do with the actual photogaphs. Sad from an audience of photographers.
I thought most of them were excellent, as you would expect from a best of the best book, but ones which stood out were the deployment, reading the quram, mother and child portrait, spun gold, Highness project, and Superfly.
Mickey and Fatima were beautifully shot portraits.
I agree. Seems there are a lot of racist biggots, hypersensitive easily offended, people with huge chips on their shoulders, and trolls here as opposed to people with a love of photography. The commentsmhere as well as in the Wet Plate Collodion article are truly sad.
There are some on the NY times blog. They're pretty good and worth a look. There's one with different skin coloured people in front of their pantone colours that I looked at for a while.
I think it's shameful that you've chosen to do an article based on race. It seems so racist to me. I can't imagine you'd ever dream of doing an article based on white women photographers, would you?
"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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
Let me boil it down. You have to agree with the presentation of this article. If you don't you are white and racist and there is NOTHING you can do about that.
Wow, big wake up call to see so many 'white names' posting racist remarks. anytime a non-white peaceful group likes to represent their heritage, religion, culture, colour, it's always white folk (not the open-minded ones- like dp review staff) who throw their arms up in disgust. What people don't see, is that it is this very same racial tensions that have caused groups like these to shine. Photography and all the arts is ALWAYS about culture, colour, heritage, religion, beliefs, food, sports, space, imagination, interpretation...otherwise it would not be art!!!! It would be just a plain WHITE canvas.
"Wow, big wake up call to see so many 'white names' posting racist remarks."
'white names'... I can't even. :-) This is some nice racism right here in front of everyone. But I suppose it's ok as long as it is directed towards white people?
Considering that a lot of white people are named after biblical characters exactly like black, brown and yellow christians this comment is plain dumb.
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 like Michael Jackson, Michael Johnson, Carl Lewis and Colin Powell who formed the famous white pop group the Beatles?
Don't you see the problem with generalisation?
The justification of racism against white people because there are racist white people is still racism. If you want racism to end don't be racist yourself. Racism can only be fought at a personal level by treating people as people and not as their ethnicity. Not by feeding the fire of ignorance and discontent between races from which racism arises. When someone goes low then you must go high. Only the light can chase away darkness.
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.
"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."
So you think that feminists are wild beasts lurking in the jungle, who want to eat you? You should see a therapist.
Prejudice, in and of itself, is nether good nor bad; it's just something that exists. How you let prejudice manifest in your life can be good or bad. But you know he didn't say feminists are wild beasts in the jungle.
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.
LOL. The only problem I have with he title is that it is a bit ambiguous. Are the photographers black women or are the photographs of female photographers who are black?
Badscience, it is not a contradiction, the fact that I don't know the photographer's etnicity, and my statement that art wiml be influenced by one's culture and environment will not be mutually contradictory. Someone further down gave a beautiul example, if you are a black guy who are regularly stopped by police, then for sure that will influence your art.
When I look at photos I don't see race . White, black , mixed race, rich , poor I just see the image . Sometimes I wonder about the story behind the photo and how the image was created . So fed up of stuff like this . We are all equal and we may have more or less than others we may have great lives or bad ones . We all have vision and and expression and love what we do . That to me is what photography is about . What I would like to see is someone given a chance to shine someone who loves photography but doesn't have the same chances in life as others what ever colour there skin is .
There are millions of photographers who go unrecognized and unrepresented no matter what color they are. Do we have to post our race when entering a challenge now? Looking at photos, never once in my life have I ever thought about the color or gender of the photographer.
I’m a person of colour, sort of yellowy-reddish, depending on how much I’m outdoors when the sun shines; blue eyes, dark hair. Grew up on a council estate in the UK, but am an academic too. I use my cameras to depict landscapes, and to examine the environment. Why? Because of who I am, and where I came from. My photography is very different from that of: • The black person who is continually stopped on the street by the police • The Muslim woman who doesn’t accept the arranged marriage • The Jewish kid who is ashamed of his Payot • The rich hobbyist who really wants to explore architecture
Mfon – all power to their elbow I say. Put in in your favourites, because diversity is the basis of culture. And thanks DPR for posting this, very good job. (But why is it in the 'other news'? Post it big and bold because it's important).
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 firmly believe that photography as a pictorial form of art should be valued without taking into account the race/gender of the photographer and his/her political/religious/ethnic/cultural background. Nonetheless, it is a very practical and efffective as a tool for people with a political agenda and has been used as such for decades. This is no exception.
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.
Exactly. I wonder what people would say if someone comes with a "white photographers" showcase. A photographer is a photographer regardless of skin tone.
It's great that women of color photographers are finally getting some much needed attention.
The next step is to expand diversity to include the creative perspectives of black LGBTQ and gender-fluid community, since each would enrich our understanding of diverse photography experience.
In fact, the whole "black" identity needs to be differentiated between the various income brackets since artistic interpretation from economic based realities will differ profoundly. Do you really expect an inner city gang-banger will produce the same photographs as , say, Jaden Smith? Surely not!
And what about the mixed race individuals? A person of mixed Aftican-American and white ancestry will have a different cultural perspective than someone with mixed black and asian/Native People/Eskimo/Latino/Pacific Islander/albino heritage.
While this is a good first step, DPReview needs to further improve its sensitivity training and avoid exclusion of diverse photographers in our society!
So what you're proposing is that every day there is another article about the photography of a different ethnic/religious/sexual group? I mean at least one per day, right? That makes sense to me. They can turn this photography gear site into a rainbow of photography! Will the rich, white male photographers be categorized now? How about the poor white male photographers? How bout the country bumpkin white female photographers? Can we see photos from lesbian white female photographers who grew up in seaside towns? How about photos shot by gay Eurasian men who became women through sex change operations after moving from Asia to San Francisco? I can make a list of all the different possible varieties . . . maybe. (I'm sure it's going to be a looooong list.)
I'd bet all or most of the folk here that have a problem with this feature are white and male. I'm always amazed that white people think they understand race and what it means to be a person of color.
I hope dpreview knows that this is an appropriate story to feature and I hope they do more of it even if you have to turn off comments or something. As a person of color, I can tell you features like this are important and more of it is needed even if the heote folk around here don't get it.
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.
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.
I visited your website, watched this promo video and liked the idea. However, on your website one could barely find one or two images showing your work. If you could showcase at least twenty beautiful images, it can attract many more people to join in and support your cause. Good luck girls !! Keep up the good work.
It would be nice if that were true. Unfortunately, there are many groups of photographers who are unlikely to have their photographic perspectives included -- take a look at any conference speaker lineup, list of brand ambassadors, or photography publication to see evidence of this. Luckily there is enough room for everyone, and hopefully we are moving toward photographers being recognized for their talents rather than for their access. Until then, people like the founders of "Mfon" are working to give more access to more voices.
Yet it *is* true... But some, who are fighting for equality, are going about achieving equality in counter-productive ways. I think the issue is more a case of viewing people through 'Black' or 'White' labels actually is segregation.. "the action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things or being set apart."
A lot of the issues, though, are not racial they are cultural. And unless cultures are segregated, they won't last as a culture. One cannot take the eggs out of a cake.. once they're combined into the batter, they're lost as a sole entity.
While these projects are well meaning, it is an odd and ironic situation of asking for more racial/sexual equality yet segregating people based on race/sex to promote them.
How are we going to come together in sameness if we keep focusing on the differences?
I think that until everyone's voices are fairly represented, it is appropriate and necessary to call special attention to those voices that have been left out. An earlier commenter said they don't know of many black photographers, and I think that's a revealing statement. It's true for me too. It's not that there aren't any black photographers; they just aren't given the same visibility. Most publications are de facto "through the lens of white photographers" and will continue to be so unless they actively make an effort to expand their perspectives.
Doesn't really matter what drives the differences, only thing that matters is how incompatible the differences make people and if it makes sense to attempt to get either side to accept the other to the detriment of their own lifestyles. "The tyranny of the majority" today is more like the "tyranny of the minority assisted by elements in the majority." No one inhibits anyone from legally taking pictures, we are all (in the West, anyway) more or less free to shoot at will. But if I don't like say, "street photography" don't try to force me to like it. The ironic thing is that they've been trying to get more women (black or white) into photography (or any hobby, for that matter) for over 80 years. It hasn't worked much. Like all hobbies, photography is dominated by men. Good luck to them though.
If you consider image publishers to be obligated to be promoters of a social agenda. Publications are aware of what sells. Which is why you have pictures of hot women on the covers of magazines dealing with techy-gadgets. Men buy gadgets and they like looking at good-looking women. That is economic and social reality. But if people want to publish images taken of an African diaspora, they will probably either have to do it though (as they are) the grant system, or be so good they are fit for publications like National Geographic.
Only in a zero sum world would one person's interests threaten or take away from another's. Luckily photography is an art and a form of expression, and as such, the more "parts" the greater the "whole". No particular social agenda need be pushed in order to welcome more ideas and perspectives, and thankfully photography is used for much more than selling.
It's not the interests, it's what is done to promote them. Philanthropy, no problem. Grants, generally fine. The state using tax-payer money to promote things most people have zero interest in? That's a question. Especially if you are using photography not for art, but mostly for social activism, though I don't see that in this example. Sometimes it's best just to wait. Most great artists only achieve that label after they are dead. Didn't really matter their colour.
Until everyone's voices are fairly represented based on what.. Race? We're still stuck back at square one in promoting difference.
Yet, when I look at someone's photos, I never think "I wonder if they are black, white, asian, male, female etc" -- I simply weigh the image based on the quality of the image. Race, Sex, Gender, etc don't matter when I'm looking at a photograph.. and it shouldn't matter. Yet in situations such as the article above, you're telling me it DOES matter.
Anyone is free to post their photos or ideas online, yet if one really wants to hear someone or something they'll seek to listen. I'm not sure attempting to 'force feed' social views through any means including photography (aka 'expand their perspectives') is going to net the same desired effect. Especially when these views are based off of showing differences.
We have too much polarization as is. These kind of projects aren't helping that issue by further drawing out differences that shouldn't matter.
I think it can be difficult to understand what is missing if your own perspective has always been considered part of the norm. I do agree that we have way too much polarization as it is, but polarization can come from force feeding a single perspective as much as it comes from welcoming a diversity of perspectives.
And work like this is not forcing anyone to appreciate a new viewpoint; it's simply offering that perspective to the people who are already experiencing it. It doesn't devalue other work by offering more variety.
But if we are to have racial equality, we cant promote special merit, difference, or perspective based on race. That is a key aspect to Dr. King's methodology to race relations. He wasn't asking to be seen as special or different, but as the same to the rest of society. His view was society needs to be colorblind, and I would agree. He wasn't touting any kind of unique racial qualities, but that there was only the human race. And that brought about the need for each of us to treat one another with the same level of respect and value.
The photo article above is like a lot of those in the modern social/progressive movement that try to bridge the gap on our differences... by promoting differences.
It is saying, Yes there are differences based on race and these racial differences make me valulable. This how we stay in constant argument and division, by focusing on the petty differences instead of directing our attention on the more important likenesses we have.
In order to penetrate a discipline at the top levels, you need to have enough people interested enough in it and participating to produce some truly outstanding talent from the general pool. You can't compete against 1000 people all with drive and ideas if your group only consists of 10, not easily anyway. Law of averages.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. So far, it's a fun camera to shoot with – if a bit over the top.
The Canon EOS R is the first full frame mirrorless camera to use the new RF mount. We're well underway putting it through our range of standard tests – take a look at how it compares to the competition and our thoughts on using it so far.
The GFX 50R is a 50MP rangefinder-style mirrorless camera. It borrows heavily from the existing 50S model but in a smaller body and at a lower price. How does it differ?
When the Fujifilm X-T2 arrived, it was more than just a modest upgrade to the already impressive X-T1. While the new X-T3 hasn't changed the overall design of the camera, this model is way more than a minor refresh: it's a major leap forwards.
The instant camera market is heating up, and with four formats and 15+ cameras to choose from, we felt it was high time to examine them all and pick our favorite.
Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at seven current models and chosen our favorites.
What's the best camera for a parent? The best cameras for shooting kids and family must have fast autofocus, good low-light image quality and great video. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for parents, and recommended the best.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.
After shaking up the Lightroom ecosystem with Lightroom CC last year, Adobe has released version 2.0 of the cloud-centric photo organizer and editor. We look at new features like People View, how far Lightroom CC has come in its first year, and where Lightroom is headed.
The weather and has most definitely taken a turn toward fall here, and our shooting opportunities have followed suit. We brought the Canon RF 35mm F1.8 along to a harvest festival of sorts and a few of our usual haunts.
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf has signed House Bill 1346 into effect, which imposes a fine upwards of $300 to drone operators who invade the privacy or harm the physical wellbeing of citizens.
Sigma is a company in flux, but CEO Kazuto Yamaki is undaunted by the upcoming prospect of developing lenses for eight lens mounts. The challenge will be keeping the company's identity along the way.
If you've been meaning to convert all of your old photos, video, and audio to digital formats, but simply lack the time or willpower to get through it all, a new service from Kodak will help you get the job done.
Almost all new cameras include impressive video features, but for the best results you'll often need an off-camera recorder. Chris and Jordan take a look at the brand new Ninja V from Atomos, and explain why it might just be one of the most useful tools you can add to your camera.
Sick of using your plain ol' keyboard to edit your photos in Lightroom and Photoshop? TourBox is hoping to expedite your post-production workflow using a clever combination of dials, buttons, and knobs.
We sat down with the Google Pixel camera team to learn about key new camera features on the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL, and an explanation of the sophisticated software advancements that power them.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. So far, it's a fun camera to shoot with – if a bit over the top.
The FAA has issued a warning to drone pilots in anticipation of disaster response following Hurricane Michael, noting that fines for interfering with emergency operations can exceed $20,000.
At a time when manufacturers are adding triple and even quad-cameras to their flagship smartphones, Google is sticking with one main camera. But given the sophistication of the company's computational efforts, we think it's the right approach for now.
The Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL offer a second front-facing camera and a host of improved computational features such as digital zoom based on super-resolution capture, better depth mapping and a fill-light effect for low light portraits.
The Panasonic LX100 II offers a higher-resolution sensor over its predecessor, but it's the addition of a touchscreen that makes the Mark II so gosh-darn enjoyable to shoot with. We've got some fresh samples from Panasonic's new premium compact camera.
Sony has announced a new "Alpha Female" program, a creator-in-residence opportunity that will award six-month grants to five female filmmakers and photographers.
Comments