Exercise - Imaging Famine

IMAGING FAMINE 

http://www.oca-student.com/sites/default/files/ImagingFamine.pdf


In September 2005 the exhibition  Imaging Famine was held at the newsroom of Guardian and Observer archive and visitor centre, it posed poignant questions of ethical documentary practice.

The G8 summit at Gleneagles in 2005 debated global poverty and disasters.  It came two decades after the Ethiopian famine - time is ripe for reconsideration of the power and purpose of disaster pictures.

We saw many pictures of the Ethiopian disaster with Live Aid.

1984, Mohamed Amin and Michael Buerk drew the worlds attention to Ethiopia with a report, which was said to have been as if each clip was an award winning still photo. 425 TV stations around the world, showed the report, reaching millions.

These images were a watershed for how aid agencies thought about disaster images.  Out of this came
new codes of practice.

The live Aid legacy has been to equate famine with africa - 57 countries, 900 million people and numerous cultures = a single impoverished place !

The aim of the exhibition was to draw the public attention to issues that should animate debate among the producers and consumers of disaster imagery and to encourage further reflection by all concerned.

Oxfam has change its use of images, now trying to represent people with respect and dignity.

Charity appeals are often organised around stereotypical images of victims and raise millions of pounds.
So this demonstrates the power of pictures. But these are short term benefits. These pictures still give cultural / racial stereotypes.

Is it possible for the media to present positive images of people in need? and are negative images necessary for fundraising, or do they breed despair and the feeling nothing can be done.
An alternative method would be to focus on the positive - showing how the funds had helped the people.

Is an image negative if it makes people donate and therefore have a positive outcome ?

I personally have donated on both occasions, when there has been a disaster I have made a donation for an image that saddens me.  Also I have been effected by when seeing women in Africa who have used there money, one was with a bee hive and she progressed and sold honey and got more hives .. etc and I was really touched by this ... and I think I would give more money for positive reasons.

A well chosen picture has an immediate effect but can also be greatly changed by adding captions and text.  But what exactly is the purpose ?
It conveys a message, advertises good work and raise funds, also rouse emotion.  Who is writing the text?

The photographer is the witness so should write the text,  but that isn't always the case once the picture has been passed to the papers.  They may have their own text that could completely conflicting to what the photographer had wanted his message could have been totally different.
Text can also be effected by whether or not its a quiet news day or not !

We may be suffering from 'compassion fatigue'  ( 5 dead english bobbies v 500 africans ) .. the suggestion here is the audiences care most about those with whom they identify. What are the basis of identification.  How can other areas command public attention.  Stories are only newsworthy if they involve death and disaster on a massive scale.

Famine images focus on women and children, children in particular raise strong feelings as they are vulnerable and weak, and stimulate charity giving.
With live aid it was said that people gave because they were angry and outraged, but maybe that was just Bob Geldof.  Maybe some pictures were powerful enough to make change.

Over the years has any of the public controversy changed the governments agenda ? Political issues remain unresolved.
It questions what images would be required to effectively stimulate structural change.

British peoples perceptions of African countries remains dominated by negative stereotypes of famine seeing it as an impoverished place.  On a positive side we see Africa as our long term responsibility.
The discussion goes on about what type of images we need to continue this aid.  Would it be better to have a indigenous photographer to get another type of picture, close to all around him maybe getting a more accurate but maybe more distressing image.

Moving images now dominate but does this mean the still image has lost its importance.  The truth is, in the case that we remember events in terms of a single image as opposed to a video.

New technologies have bought new opportunities - images are now transmitted digitally and immediacy is the key - is the photographers eye being replaced for the need of impact and speed. Tight competition means tight budgets.  So photographers are not sent somewhere for months on end to get a stack of photographs to choose from, but can you get the same effect if a project is rush and items unexplored due to pressures and lack of time.

This again would make sense to have an indigenous image maker, but would they be allowed their own voice? or would we still put a northern perspective to it. It would be nice to have both to see the contrast. That would be interesting.
The change in our lifestyles, serious photo essays are often compressed into one image, leaving space for celebrity features.  Can you tell the whole story with one picture, will this be the future of photography.

Are photographers just image makers or do they have more responsibility ?  for example if they see a child in danger or difficulty, should they take the photo or help the distressed child.. my feeling is that if you are there as a professional then you should concentrate on the image taking, but speaking as a mother I would probably find that impossible.  You are trying to help long term with taking the picture back home and raising awareness but that wont help that child at that moment.  But even if you did help the child that would only be so short term it would have less effect than taking the photo.

If you don't have the images then you don't have the proof of what is happening, so nothing will be done.