Comments for The Institute for Photographic Empowerment

Comment on Ian Rowe: Participant vs. Professional Photography by tiffanylee

tiffanylee — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:25:20 +0000

Being a devil’s advocate to your discussion, you said that participatory photographers don’t have a professional bias in their photos. This is true, however, without a specific goal/ social issue/ agenda/ mission in mind when taking their photos, I’ve noticed that participatory photographers often unconsciously shoot positive images of their environment (because I feel people naturally like to shed their lives in a positive light), as opposed to photos that will reveal suffering, hardship and sadness– emotions that are often most useful in prompting action or a response from its audience. Would you not say then that participatory photographers also have their own biases, and that sometimes this may cause their photographs to be less effective in contributing to a social cause?

Comment on Jane Pang: Participant vs. Professional Photography by adunbar

adunbar — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 21:22:14 +0000

Participant photography definitely allows for photographs and viewpoints that professional photographers may not be able to capture. This is due to the fact that professional photographers are seen as outsiders to the communities they are photographing. Participant photographers are able to use their “insider” status in communities to capture situations through a camera lens that others might not be able to capture. Participant photographers are able to depict a reality that professional photographers can not. However, while participant photography is able to depict realities professional photography can not, there is still a need for professional photography. Professional photography is used in journalism, advertising, and news and provides knowledge about situation to audiences. Both participant and professional photography are useful in today’s society.

Comment on Jocelyn Wong: Participant vs. Professional Photography by adunbar

adunbar — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 21:15:42 +0000

As this paper stated, professional photographers do face a lot of outside pressure. Their photographs are not censured, but, in a sense, they can be limited. Participant photography allows for individuals within a community to use photographs to show the social issues or situations taking place within their communities. Participant photography allows for the possibility for education without external pressures from companies, clients, advertisers, etc. Both forms of photography (participant and professional) allow for individuals to illustrate social problems, and as stated, it is often hard to tell the difference between professional and participant photographs.

Comment on Blair K. Strong: Participant vs. Professional Photography by alexsteadman

alexsteadman — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:49:07 +0000

Ms. Strong makes a valid and truthful point. Whether or not intentions of participant photography programs are pure, whether or not the execution of such programs is flawless, the fact still remains that their existence sheds much needed light on pressing (yet often overlooked) social issues. In drawing attention to participant photography projects, Ballerini is serving as free ad space—popularizing the programs she whishes to stifle. In this way, participant photography and Ballerini’s critique both serve as classic examples of “no press is bad press.” That said, I am inclined to agree with Ms. Strong’s holding that, although the need for professional photography is undeniable, the most holistic way for social problems to be showcased is from the inside out, not from the outsider looking in.

Comment on Ming Yan Lam: Participant vs. Professional Photography by bkstrong

bkstrong — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:47:27 +0000

I agree with your identification of varying motives behind social change photography. Professional photographers certainly have a different goal from citizen photographers. I would argue that sometimes professional photographers do have a similar goal to citizen journalists, but yes, that their perspective provides different results. I really like your idea of collaboration between professional and citizen photographers. Jim Hubbard’s project is a perfect example of how powerful that sort of partnership can be when it is organized and relevant. That would be so great if all photojournalism was based on that sort of collaboration!

Comment on Lionel Batoba: Participant vs. Professional Photography by irowe

irowe — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:23:06 +0000

An interesting point made here is the issue of authenticity. Coming from a DJ background I have encountered this issue a lot in that songs being played may not be created by the DJ and it is very difficult for audiences to tell how much manipulation is done live. The fear is that DJs pre plan an entire set and have no authenticity in their performance. I feel that this point can also be applied to photography and professional photographers. Those who do not live in the environment in which they live do not have the same authenticity to depict that environment than those who actually live there and are directly effected by that environment. Regardless, authenticity is an issue that is very prevalent in art and social culture. It is worth further analyzing what contributes to authenticity, various types of authenticity, who is more authentic, and what people may do to appear to be more authentic than they actually are. Participatory may also suffer from lack of authenticity as all photographers do, but can at least say that they lived in the environment they are photographing.

Ian

Comment on Blair K. Strong: Participant vs. Professional Photography by irowe

irowe — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:15:06 +0000

I agree with Blair in that though these projects may not make a political difference directly it does bring attention to the issue. I would like to go further and say that it also provides a community, knowledge, and sense of purpose to the kids that participated. Though a social change may not directly occur from these projects, at least the ones who have participated were taught to think about their environment and given a sense of empowerment in the further betterment in their community and beyond. Furthermore, I couldn’t’ agree more that the risk is far greater that professionals may misrepresent a given situation or only depict a limited understanding of it. This is contrasted with the images given to us by those who actually live in the community depicted.

Ian

Comment on Alesa Dunbar: Participant vs. Professional Photography by janepang

janepang — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 20:19:34 +0000

I completely agree with Alesa’s point that both participatory and professional photography have their own value. In my view, it is impossible to judge which field is better because both participatory and professional photography significantly offer the audience to view reality from different angles and perspectives. They are equally important as the audience could see both sides of a story. In most cases, professional photographers would always have their audience in mind, and generate high quality photos with their professional skills to cater their target audience. In contract, participatory photographers lack professional photography knowledge and skills, however, they offer an authentic reality to the public of their living situations. Therefore, I totally agree with Alesa’s viewpoint and believe that we should not value any type of photography than the other, because each type of photography helps serving different purpose. Also, the different approaches that are used by professional and participatory photography importantly present us with different insights and help widening our perceptive.

Comment on Jocelyn Wong: Participant vs. Professional Photography by janepang

janepang — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 20:18:42 +0000

I agree with Jocelyn that professional photographers are influential and important, as they are cable in generating high quality photos with their professional skills and knowledge. However, she also pointed out that it is also important not to neglect the fact that in some cases, professional photographers have limited freedom due to external pressures, such as government influence, and the profit-driven market, which may lead to certain biases. Therefore, participatory photography has acted as a vital platform to assist the underprivileged for voicing out their personal story, and uncover local views on numerous social problems. By having the underprivileged to take part in charity photography projects, the public could gain first hand insights of their living situations that even professional photographers may not be able to offer the public. This is because participants have no limited freedom in expressing themselves when taking photos of their own life. Therefore I agree with Jocelyn’s viewpoint. The existence of both participatory and professional photography is vital in a society as they could be used for different purposes and fits different specific needs.

Comment on Tiffany Lee: Participant vs. Professional Photography by bkstrong

bkstrong — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 20:15:10 +0000

I completely agree that the viewer determines photographic meaning. I hadn’t considered that the professional photographer’s image is always captured with the viewer or market in mind. You’re so right; when a professional is shooting, he or she is looking through the lens with a very distinct goal to capture something provocative or marketable. Citizen photographers are definitely creating images with a different goal. I agree with your idea that their intent is less biased in that they are shooting their lives.There is something about citizen photography that feels more honest. I suppose it’s most important that we recognize that juxtaposition you identified as we study images.