Heather Lee: Participant vs. Professional Photography

In “Photography as a Charitable Weapon: Poor Kids and Self-Representation”, Julia Ballerini explores the dangers of individual volunteerism in poor, rural communities. She is concerned the message given by this type of work leads to exhibitionism of the “other” and she fears it will “reinforce the status quo rather than question it” (169). From this she branches off into the advantages and downfalls of different types of participant photography.

Having worked as both a participant and professional photographer, I believe the main difference lies in the intentions of the photographer. Although both types of photography ultimately share the same goal – to convey a message or story through imagery – they differ in terms of the point of view of observer and subjects.

For the most part, professional photographers are on a mission to “get” something from the subject, whether it is a story, sneak peak, controversial photo…etc. The professional photography always has an agenda or objective backed with rules and guidelines of how to construct, frame, edit their photos. There is room for artistic creativity, but it is very limited as long as they fall under the regulations of journalistic integrity. Their cameras function as weapons when they are outsiders looking to reveal or exploit their subjects. Under the name of journalism, this is generally acceptable, but still invasive in many respects. Bellerani warns of the risk of “force-feeding dominant aesthetics to those perceived as having no legitimate culture of their own” (179). However, there are benefits to professional photography that triumph over participant photography. Without it, we would not have the knowledge of the many people, places, events, and cultures around the world. Most participant photographers do not have comparable photographic expertise and would never be able to cover the amount and the quality of photographs we have today.

The main goal of participatory photographers is to share something about themselves and their culture. They are able to do this authentically because they have a different form of access – an emic, insider’s perspective. Participatory photography is also fundamentally different from professional photography in that it is more subjective and left open to interpretation. There are not as many rigid rules and guidelines of photo techniques and thus, gives the photographer more artistic freedom to capture true emotions, relationships and stories. Ballerini explains, “Only self-reflexive documentary, ‘giving the camera’ to those represented, evades authoritarian distortion” (175). However, she also highlights the potential consequences of displaying participatory photographs and objects like ethnographic artifacts. “Such a model of display has a long history of demarcating a group of people as ‘other.’ It implies a remoteness of time and place, as well as the superiority of those who study the culture that is so labeled and exhibited” (173).

There are both advantages and disadvantages of participant and professional photography, and it is ultimately up to the observer what type of access and message they want to portray to viewers.