Jessica Stanton

In the beginning of this paper, it is discussed how ever since photography was established it has been constantly developing. The ways in which photographs are disseminated and viewed is more technology reliant than ever before as “the screen is now the norm for viewing photographs.” The author goes on to talk about this definition of ‘Post Photography’ and if what we are still creating today can still be defined as Photography. One aspect which features a lot in this chapter is the idea of manipulation within the frame, which as Martha Rosler states “is integral to photography”. I agree with this to a certain extent as, as a photographer there will always be decisions to be made about the image in question such as “framing, lenses, lighting, printing and presentation” says De Oliveira. However to what extent can an image still be a truthful representation of a scene if all types of manipulation are seen as good? My question is when is a certain amount of manipulation too much manipulation and does this change depending on what the subject in question is. “Furthermore, the question is not indifferent to genre: concerns about manipulation “center on political, ethical, judicial, and other legal issues . . . as well as the broader ideological ramifications of how a culture deploys ‘evidence’ it has invested with the ability to bear (‘objective’) witness”

I found this text particularly interesting as it covers controversial topics which have been at the forefront of lectures recently. These discussion bring up the topics of ethics within photography and how our own moral compasses help us achieve truthful yet effective images.

As the name of the paper suggests, this chapter explores how photography can be used for the better of today and how we can use the medium to inform and educate the viewer. This genre of photography was soon labelled documentary photography, a genre which ‘although fact based, succeeds best when it informs both the intellect and the emotions.’ Michelle Bogre, the author goes on to dicuss two of the main practitioners involved in establishing documentary as a genre of photography in the early to mid-1900s, John Grierson and Edward Steichen. There is a debate within this chapter as to whether documentary photographer can explicitly tell just the truth and how by the way the message is delivered through an image depends on the photographer and their ability to record an event as objectively as possible.

Bogre further talks about not just photographers solo but activists, and how, as a group they are able to be ‘more empathetic’ and ‘more often moved by what they see.’  As this is because they are more involved with the cause and know a lot more about it whether as someone like a photographer or journalist perhaps isn’t in the situation to help straight away but document primarily. Journalist Kristen Ashburn talks in this chapter about how as a reporter the main rule in her job is “you don’t get involved. You are there to cover a story.”  However, by covering a story as truthfully and as well as possible, this can be a way to help, as in order to an activist to become an activist they need to be educated on a problem first.  Bogre makes a point of how documentary photography is as close to the truth as we can get. However with many different photographers capturing different elements of our world today, how do we, as viewers know that each image is as close to the truth as possible.

Over the past 10 years the ability to take photos of oneself has become increasingly easier due to the invention of the smartphone and tablet and the rise of social media platforms such as Snapchat and Instagram.  From taking a picture of yourself at a social or sports event and positing it instantly for the world to see or using this medium to promote political activism the selfie has become a cultural phenomenon.  This paper by D.C. Murray, an American theorist largely explores the latter, and includes thoughts, opinions and theories as to whether the selfie is a depiction of female narcissism or a platform for empowerment.

Murray does this by focusing on one particular demographic, young women in their teenage years and mid-20s. The article begins with a very readable introduction of how the selfie has come about and become part of everyday life. Then the article starts to consider feminism and the connotations the movement has towards the selfie.  Understandably referencing the styles of various female photographers, Murray shows how in an age of digital image taking the likes of Nan Goldin and the late Francesca Woodman are the ‘heroes’ of young selfie taking women.

Although perhaps comprehensive I found the whole article raised so many points that it was easy to lose track of where it was going.  The paper is focused on the selfie as a political tool and at some points doesn’t necessarily give a balanced view showing how the medium can in fact just be used in leisure. The last paragraph although it holds a powerful meaning closes the essay with the idea that the selfie is a tool for women to use to get their voices heard in a society where for a long time women have been the lesser gender.

This paper focuses on the idea known as #girlgaze which allows female photographers to get recognition they may not get due to their gender, and gender stereotypes surrounding jobs within the media.  The project not only empowers women as practitioners but also allows those in different ethnic backgrounds to come to the forefront to enable them to have equal opportunities in ‘an industry that has traditionally favoured men’.  Further into the text we learn about what Girl Gaze is and the four waves of feminism are explained. The first wave is said to have lasted between 1840 and 1920 in which slavery was abolished and where the suffragettes had a significant impact allowing women to gain the right to vote. The second wave came from 1960 to 1988 which helped develop the suffragettes work and the fight for equal rights in the workplace, in education and in the 60s reproductive rights were introduced.

The third wave, starting immediately after lasted until 2010 and was an era of girl power, introduced by figures such as the Spice Girls, one of the first major girl bands. This wave started to challenge the ideals and reinvigorate mainstream feminism which has had a major impact on today. The Spice Girls helped pave the way for more feminists artists to come through and not just that but female artist who openly identify as feminists. The fourth wave heavily involves social media which allows messages to be spread to populations across the globe.

Movements made on social media are quickly recognised with # allowing campaigns to be seen more and more. This is an element which Girl Gaze relies on however, although encouraging females to become photographers through social media, there will always be people who state their own political view on it. Amanda De Cadenet is helping a new wave of feminism through Girl Gaze and through not backing down when she has been treated unequally, much like the suffragettes and other pioneers mentioned in the previous waves, she is helping us move towards a much fairer society.

Although the title of this chapter focuses on the controversy surrounding the retouching of women within publications, the premise of the text is the media and examples of when the media’s role as an outlet has been doubted.  The book, Pandora’s box, is aptly named and relates to this chapter as Pandora’s box was a myth, which, when opened would reveal the truths which always had two sides to them, similar to the double standards and hypocrisy within the media shown in the examples throughout the text.

On page 138 Fontcuberta recalls the 2006 incident where photographer Adnan Hajj documented the Lebanon War and uses it as an example where the medias purpose has been criticised. Prior to the event it was revealed that Hajj had “’cloned’ patches of the smoke and added them to the landscape.” This reinforces the title of the chapter and how the media have a responsibility to report on issues objectively however in this example that has not been shown.

This problem can also be seen further into the chapter on page 141 in which a British and a Spanish newspaper have been juxtaposed due to the way they have both published the story of the 2004 Madrid bomb attack. When looking closely at this image it can be seen that on the left side of the image printed in the Spanish newspaper, there is an object in the foreground to the left of the train tracks. When comparing this to the British newspaper the object is not seen and has been photoshopped out. Fontcuberta mentions in the text this was in fact a limb presumably from a civilian affected in the attack. In this instance, the politics and morals of the newspaper play a big role in what is shown in the publication and what is altered and so also is a factor on deciding who is to blame for controversy such as manipulating and retouching photos which are shown to tell the truth. This raises to the argument of are the media there to inform of persuade.