The Ethics of Aesthetics
© Alejandro Chaskielberg
The worst drought in the Horn of Africa in 60 years continues to show no signs of abating. Over the last few months several bodies of photographic work focusing on the humanitarian emergency in the region have appeared in national and international media. One such body of work is a portfolio of images taken by Alejandro Chaskielberg for Oxfam.
I first saw Chaskielberg’s work at the 2010 Brighton Biennial, where he exhibited a portfolio of photographs about the Parana river in South America. The photographs had been taken at night, which gave them a distinctive visual appeal. His latest work for Oxfam in the Horn of Africa shares the same aesthetic quality: they were all taken in the moonlight with added artificial lighting. As a result of combining flash and moonlight, Chaskielberg’s photographs have an almost tactile, three-dimensional quality. The colours are intense and the scenes and people depicted have a mysterious aura to them. Moonlight photography has become Chaskielberg’s trademark visual style. The photographer acknowledges that he likes exploring the boundaries between reality and fiction, which is evident in his images. In Chaskielberg’s photographs people look as if they were characters in their own dreams of sustainable livelihoods, dignity, and survival. Is it not at night-time that we dream anyway?
© Rankin 2011
Alejandro Chaskielberg’s USP (unique selling point) is unquestionably effective. He has found a very personal, almost inimitable visual approach. And that achievement should not be underestimated. But I look at Chaskielberg’s moonlit images and I sense a tension between what the images show and what they are meant to tell. I detect a conflict between the images as visual products and their communication potential. In other words, I fail to connect what I see in the photographs with the plea of the people in them. Interestingly, I see that connection immediately when I look at Rankin’s images taken in the same region, on the same topic, also for Oxfam. Rankin’s photograph of a Turkana woman holding a day’s worth of food is beautiful and at the same time brutally honest. We get the message and the dignity of the person photographed remains intact. In fact, if anything, the dignity of the person in the image is enhanced.
Comparing Rankin’s and Chaskielberg’s images reminded me of an insightful article written by John Mraz on Sebastiao Salgado. Mraz eloquently explains how a documentary photograph should strive to achieve a balance between expression and information. I believe that these two qualities are not mutually exclusive. However, if that balance is upset then the effectiveness of a photograph as a visually compelling mechanism for sharing information is severely affected.
© Tom Stoddard 2004
One image that made an impact on me, and that manages to strike that difficult balance pointed out by John Mraz is Tom Stoddard’s photograph of an emaciated woman in Ajiep, Sudan. This photograph is both a document and a symbol, as Mraz would put it. It is both specific to the events it refers to and universal.
The ethics and the aesthetics of the image are intimately connected. They can work synergically as they do in Rankin’s or Stoddard’s photographs, or, in the case of Chaskielberg’s, create a tension that prompts us to ask questions about approach and intention.
These issues may seem rather metaphysical but as photographers we need to be able to deal with them. It’s part of what we know as a healthy reflexive practice, which doesn’t have anything to do with ‘reflexes’ but with the ability to understand how the photographer’s cultural background, beliefs, intentions and preconceptions affect the outcome of their work.
We have become so used to seeing pictures of this kind of suffering. Their accumulation made more extreme because they do stick in the mind. It becomes so very difficult to get anyone to really look at such images afresh, with a sense of urgency. Any fresh approach, including Chaskielberg’s, should be looked at with an open mind.
Unfortunately all truly arresting images have a side-effect of making many other honest photographs seem dowdy and somehow historic rather than urgent.
But thank you for a thoughtful and thought-provoking piece.
The photos for Oxfam do have the effect of making the subjects look like displays in an old-fashioned museum. Their lives are lived out under a blazing sun. The overall effect of the technique suggests to me that the poor — the tribal, subsistence agriculture poor — are always with us.
I’m trying to keep an open mind, while I think about this body of work, but the initial response is one of unease. I certainly do not believe that issue centred photography has to be straight deadpan photography, but the Chaskielberg approach is unsettling – it almost feels like fashion photography and prompts the question ‘why?’
I certainly feel unease looking at these photographs.
Wonderfully constructed and portrayed, they are not images we are being allowed to enjoy because of their message … poor people are starving, money is required.
My unease seems to be a conflict between the beauty and the harsh realities of existence.
These images raise questions that are impossible to answer.
I can’t look at the first image without wondering if it is intended to be seen as ironic. Obviously it isn’t …. but still I look at it and feel as though it is. Its the disjunction between what the image is saying and the text that does it. It makes me feel quite confused about the intention of the photographer. I just looked up post-irony, wondering if I’d imagined the word, found I hadn’t – maybe its an example of that?
I’m not sure how I feel about it – its possible that a photograph that gives one an unsettled feeling, where you don’t quite know how to react to it – could that have a potential to effect you more than an image that conforms to a pre-existing template of something you might expect?
This isn’t the first time I’ve found certain photography to have the appearance of irony when it doesn’t seem to be intended to be ironic, I’ve an uncomfortable feeling it could be something to do with me as much as the photography!
What is the real issue here?!
In the mid-1980’s, Live Aid raised millions for the starving of Ethiopia, a major country of The Horn of Africa; 25 years later, the population of Ethiopia has doubled and there are still too many people starving.
The photographs of Chaskielberg and others like Stoddard and Rankin are remarkable but are there not other things of relevance that they might be photographing?
Well maybe Amano. I think I would contest the idea that there is only one ‘real issue’ but that aside, one of the positive things I would say about Chaskielberg’s series of images is that there is quite an emphasis on the role of women and particularly mothers. My understanding is that Oxfam works on a model that says population growth tends to be excessive when women have few rights over their fertility and that a key development priority for them is raising the status of women.
So for me Chaskielberg has selected some interesting and important subject matter, but the creative treatment is unsettling.
Hi Gareth
I like Chaskielberg’s images because they give a sense of dignity to the people being portrayed; this is achieved by both what is included in the image and the way the subjects appear. A definite progression from previous images that merely portray starving people.
The photographer however is working to a brief – pictures of the impoverished to get sympathy and hence money from the richer nations.
People in these countries often feel compromised by this approach; Ethiopia is we understand virtually a dustbowl full of starvation and there is little understanding of the fact that it has one of the richest bird populations in the world (about 850) and there are luscious landscapes.
As a human being, I can not help but question the role of Oxfam. What are they doing to really relieve suffering? Might they not be perpetuating it? To question this is probably beyond the brief of the photographer.
Some of the captions to the photos are quite interesting. A farmer laughs at being given new cattle because apparently, the gift is not going to go far when there is not enough to sustain cattle for very long. Might not photos alone provide such insights?
What about photos of Oxfam? People who work for it etc Turn the eye inwards for a change and show us how our money gets to where it is going.
Just want to look at the situation a little differently because there seems to be something missing and repetitive in the way we look at the “Third World” (where I happen to be at present!). There is a sense that much aid is about promoting our western-democratic way of life above that of others. Is it really that much better?
The problem is not so much whether the work of international development charities is successful or not. The problem is that our understanding of success and failure here in Western societies doesn’t correspond with theirs – in the host country. For example, I recently saw a report by a Canadian international development charity which deemed that their well-building programme had been a failure because a very high percentage of well and pumps went our of order within months of being built.
That’s a Western view of success and failure. That sort of non-success doesn’t go down well with donors!
Now think about a particular village whose Canadian-built pump is still working properly. For people in that village, for the woman whose job is to bring 25 or 40 litres of clean water a day to her family compound, for someone called Aguira Zague perhaps (a real person btw) the programme has been a total success.
Success in developing countries, in my experience, always manifests itself at a very small, often individual scale. So small that here in the West, with our characteristic, culturally-induced myopia, we just very often don’t see it.
I saw one of the photos in a magazine at the weekend and was immediately drawn to explore it, and then read the accompanying text. I see many photos of “deserving causes”, and in several newspapers a double advert makes the point that we skip quickly past those that are familiar and uncomfortable (“did you see John?”).
The Chaskielberg photos demand attention because of their surprise (per Barthes) and are much more attractive (in both senses) than Rankin’s honest photos. If we consider the creative treatment of the photos in isolation then of course there is something disturbing. However I assume the purpose is to draw attention to their plight by more subtle means, and that aim is achieved.
Concerning “other things of relevance” I wouldn’t know where to start because there are so many, but the fact is that these people still need help despite Bob Geldoff’s best efforts, and Oxfam should be congratulated for accepting such an original approach.
A fascinating post. Thank you Jose.
Some thoughts and questions and writing off the cuff so hope they’re worthwhile.
I find Tom Stoddard’s image haunting and penetrating, for several reasons. As a message I wonder how different it might it be if the person were not fragmented? On the other hand the lower half of a walking body IS a symbol – and perhaps more symbolic for being asexual – at first glance we might see a human being before realizing the human being is a woman.
I think Rankin’s photograph is stunningly beautiful, dignified and empowering – I am almost at a loss to find words to describe it.
I think Anned raises an interesting point – the tension created by Chaskielberg unusual lighting could perhaps raise questions effectively.
An important point for me is that I find the extreme contrast of Rankin’s photograph with Stoddard’s powerful. And I think that this sort of juxtaposition could be a powerful way of creating a lasting memory/communication.
One last thought:
If, as Jose says, “the photographer’s cultural background, beliefs, intentions and preconceptions affect the outcome of their work”, might not a carefully edited juxtaposition of photographers’ visions have an impact for a commission given by an organistion such as Oxfam? If the message is more important than the artist then this must be considered.
From a purely journalistic perspective, their ‘beautifulness’ does seem to be in conflict with the reality of their predicament, and appears to do them a disservice. The photographer has used his technical abilities to manipulate and even exploit them to render this aesthetic, even if the exploitation is ultimately for their benefit. But the very fact Oxfam has commissioned Chaskielberg would suggest that new tactics are indeed necessary to ‘cajole’ us in to action. Which then turns the questions back at us… are we desensitised to the images we see or have we just stopped looking?
For Oxfam I imagine it will come down to pure maths. Advertising space is exorbitant….if a certain image performs better in terms of donations made, they will respond to this. There is no doubt that these images will ’stand-out’ on a page but whether such images make us delve in to our pockets more than those of Rankin or Stoddard or others I guess remains to be seen…
Thanks Jose, certainly interesting.
‘…are we desensitised to the images we see or have we just stopped looking?’ Critically important questions I think and ones which are investigated in Susie Linfield’s The Cruel Radience which was one of our books of the year in 2010.
Anyone interested in this discussion would be certain to get a lot out of the Zarina Bhimji study visit on 11 February – her work has been described as ‘post-documentary’. The visit is well subscribed but there are still four places left.
Thanks for the book reference, I will take a look. I’m intrigued by the term ‘post documentary’.
I’m sorry not to be able to make this study visit, I’m sure it’ll be an interesting day. There is an article that has just been posted about Zarina Bhimji here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/jan/25/zarina-bhimji-best-shot-photography
My sympathies lie with the children in this area, they are the real victims of all sorts of problems that have occurred naturally and man-made.
I have had problems with understanding why this problem continues when the UN and great western nations have pledged so much and delivered so little and the relief agencies struggle to cope.
What has this to do with the photography we’ve been drawn to by Jose? Well the images show that the Ethiopians suffer from a problem endemic to a lot of nations in Africa, polygamy and enlarged families. Whilst the images are good at presenting the message of poverty and hunger for Oxfam, they also show to someone who’s travelled the area of Sahara and sub-Sahara that the problem cannot be solved by aid alone and cultural change needs to be introduced as sympathetically as possible before any sustained good will ensue.
I’m not being politically correct perhaps, but I believe I am being a realist.
What I’d like to see is the follow-on images from the gardening project when the self-supporting citizens not only look happier, but are more likely to be so too.
Large family units are a characteristic of many sub-Saharan countries, certainly the ones I’ve been to, and these photographs show it. If we put that in its cultural and socio-economic context then we will realise that having many children is, for many families, the only way to ensure that there is enough manual labour to support the family subsistence economy and bring an income – if any of the children migrates to a town and is lucky enough to get a job.
Positive and sustainable change is rarely introduced by trying to change cultural perspectives; it’s a futile exercise – they are very much hard-wired, over there as much as they are over here. However, empowering locals to maximise their economic output and self-sufficiency with initiatives such as micro-credits, small-scale enterprises, village co-operatives, etc… is likely to have more of a positive impact.
Having said that I would also like to see follow-on images showing hope and sustainability. I agree.
Hi Amano,
My name is Jo. I work for Oxfam and I went out to east Africa over summer as a media officer for the famine response.
Media work plays a huge part in not only telling stories of the people who are effected by the drought, but also in terms of fundraising. Our advertising value equivalent in July alone for east Africa coverage was over £13million. And the money raised from the appeal has raised a record breaking amount, helping the lives of over 3 million people in the HORN region
We decided to work with Alejandro towards the end of last year. A majority of coverage of the crisis came in July when parts of Somalia were declared famine zones. This is where 4 out of every 10,000 people are dying each day.
The public respond when a crisis is in the news but unfortunately the stories, as they always do in emergency situations, drop off the news agenda. Alejandro’s work for us, depicted a new and very relevant way to tell the story of the people in the HORN and a starting point for discussing the future.
I would agree with some of the points raised that we as a society have become desensitised to images. You may be interested to know that Oxfam runs a strict photographic policy where our images must depict hope, dignity and a realisation that change can happen. We are not about flies in the eyes of small children. I am glad that you noticed a sense of dignity within these images. These are remarkably resilient people.
Getting people out of poverty in a dignified and self-fulfilling way is at the heart of Oxfam’s work. For example, wherever possible we do not give out food donations- except in extreme circumstances where food is not available. Instead, we give temporary cash grants. This prevents the local economy from collapse, gives people freedom of choice and in some cases promotes enterprise. In another example, in Senegal, we operate a clothing enterprise. Clothes that are deemed unsuitable for Oxfam shops in the UK (usually light summerware and bras) are sold to Senegalese market traders at a reasonable rate. This provides jobs to the local community and generates further income for projects in West Africa.
It may also be worth noting that these images are not the end or indeed the beginning of the story. There are a number of images by other photographers shedding light on the emergency operation at work. As with all narratives sometimes you have to set the scene as well as show the potential ending (the solutions)
I hope that Alejandros pictures have shed light on the difficulty of the situation that the people in Turkana face, but I also hope along with that, that their reliance will also inspire and promote discussion on how poverty can be overcome. It is of course, a huge debate, and one that Oxfam is working on tirelessly.
Thanks for your response Jo.
You write … “We decided to work with Alejandro towards the end of last year.”
Could you enlarge upon that? It would be interesting to know a little more of what this working relationship was perhaps still is.
Regards
Amano
It is not happening often that I can relate to a photograph about poverty or famine in Africa.
What did I see here. A family, that had put on their best cloths, because a photographer was coming. They want to present themselves as best as they can. They straighten their backs and put a smile on their face. These are proud people. But are they all that different from us? What would I do under these circumstances? Or you? If someone asks you how you feel, what will your answer be. Nine times out of ten, you’ll answer: Fine! You straighten your back, just as these people did, and put a smile on your face.That is how you want to present yourself to someone else. Not showing your misery. This family is just as my family. They are different in their skin color, the country they live in. Apart from that, they are just as human as I am, or you. These are not helpless people, but they need help at this moment.
That is the reason I am more inclined to donate to Oxfam by looking at these pictures, just because they show humanity and emotion.
‘These are not helpless people, but they need help at this moment.’
Beautifully put Edith
A little more food for thought …
http://firstperson.oxfamamerica.org/index.php/2012/01/26/alejandro-chaskielbergs-moonlight-photos-too-beautiful/
Thanks for this link ….
Thanks for this interesting post and thread of comments. I wrote similarly about Alejandro’s images on my blog a couple of weeks ago. I think I was worried that they are a bit ‘too beautiful’ (a phrase that Oxfam’s Anna Kramer uses to put the finger on it perfectly). But I congratulate and admire Oxfam for being willing to experiment with photography to tell development stories – even if that means taking a risk sometimes. Keep up the good work!
http://developingpictures.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/in-pictures-combating-drought-in-the-horn-of-africa/#comment-121 -
Hi Russell, I couldn’t agree more. I also think that telling stories that matter is what Oxfam do with their photography. I also encourage them to keep taking risks and trying innovative ways to share a sense of common humanity.
Russell writes of these images …
“they run the risk of becoming the story themselves, of obscuring the story that Oxfam presumably wants to us to hear and agree with (about the fantastic work that they’re doing in Turkana to alleviate the impact of the current drought and mitigate the risks of future ones).”
It is good that Oxfam are supporting photography in such an encouraging way but it comes at a price; the photographer is expected to conform to a brief that relates not just to subject matter but also to particular ethics.
Would a Buddhist photographer who might not share a Christian outlook be able to accomplish this?
Jo from Oxfam writes …
“I would agree with some of the points raised that we as a society have become desensitised to images.”
The idea that we have become desensitised to images of starvation etc has become common parlance yet it is one that Susan Sontag challenges in her book, “Regarding the pain of others”…
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Regarding-Pain-Others-Susan-Sontag/dp/0141012374/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328272186&sr=1-1
What she appears to be saying is that we have not become desensitised by such imagery rather we have become inured to it. The Live Aid concert in the mid-1980’s raised millions for the starving Ethiopians since when the population of that country has doubled and the problem continues.
We are still sensitive to the issues but we experience a sense of hopelessness which Oxfam encourage us to overcome with its’ message of hope. The fact is the same problems continue and that exasperates rather than desensitises us.
Of course, this is taken from my reading of Sontag and I feel the need to read her work again to clarify my understanding.
Try the Linfield book (link above) Amano, it is worth it.
Thanks Gareth, Once I have covered the OCA recommended books I shall.
Sontag’s book though is short and to the point … in some ways a better book I think than her “On Photography”