Initial Research

I decided that my initial idea was to interview a homeless person and find out a very detailed version of their whole life then ask them what made them happy throughout each of the main events that the person describes, I would ask them what made them happy all the way up to what makes them happy now then re-create the things the person has said through a series of images which I would then put together to form a sequence video. The video would be a subtle reminder to people that they should appreciate what they have and not take anything for granted and also that no matter how little we have we will always have something that makes us happy.

After I expressed my idea to my tutor and my peers I was given some names of practitioners that they thought might help me when pursuing my idea.

The first thing I was told to look at was the Inside/Out debate by Abigail Solomon-Godeau. My tutor suggested I look at this because I said I wanted to get inside the situation of being homeless by sitting with the homeless person and asking about their life in detail and even though for a short while I'd be sat onthe cold floor and listening to the homeless persons's story, I still wouldn't be 'inside' their way of life. This module is to portray a point of view and to do so on a deeper level, being 'inside' someone else's life would portray a point of view very different to my own.

________________________________________________________________

Chapter 6: Abigail Solomon-Godeau’s “Inside/Out”

Abigail Solomon-Godeau’s “Inside/Out” begins by going back to the discussion of Susan Sontag’s “On Photography”. Solomon-Godeau re-evaluates Sontag’s argument but brings up the bigger issue of photographers being inside or outside a situation. Sontag’s idea of photography is that it objectifies people (the subjects) and the use of the camera removes any social or moral boundaries. Because of this, photographers look onto and “visit” a situation but never interfere which makes them “supertourists” and consequently prevents viewers of the photographs from empathizing with the subjects. Sontag felt this was indicative of Diane Arbus’ work where there is a greater distance between the viewer and the subject because she is outside the situations she is shooting. Solomon-Godeau categorizes that photographers are either inside or outside the situation. She asks if this means that being inside is good and being outside is bad, though inside seems to represent truth while outside represents objectivity, both of which may be desired under certain circumstances. If Arbus is considered outside photography, Nan Goblin was considered an inside photographer because of the way her work created a more intimate relationship between the viewer and subject as a result of her own relationship with the subjects.

Since photographing a homeless person or asking them about their business may seem controversial in the way that it may seem like I would be 'using' that person to get what I want, it poses the question do we really care about our subjects or do we just want them to give us what we want?...A nice picture. I as a photographer genuinely believe that I do care about others, especially when photographing them or getting into their world. When asking the homeless person if I can sit with them for a while as they tell me their life story I will have offered to purchase some food in return, I wouldn't just expect the homeless person to give me what I want and get nothing out of it themselves, however I will not bribe.

I came across an article online of the response of two photographers after reading Susan Sontag's 'On Photography' which discusses whether or not it's right to photograph someone 'in need' or 'less well off than you' considering that you're only want from the shoot would be to have the photos at the end of it rather than help that person at all. The text below is a small part of the full article I picked out the bits that I thought fit with what I'm trying to express. The full article is on here: http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/sontag-photography-two-views

__________________________________________________________

"Essentially the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own."
— Susan Sontag

Christian Molidor:

Reviewing Susan Sontag's book is analogous to printing in the darkroom. The forming image is sharp, trenchant - a good picture; but it isn't exactly the photo you had in your head.

Photography's inferior but inexorable version of reality is the bases of On Photography. Sontag discusses in the six essays not only the philosophical question of how reality may be perceived and knowledge gained, but she also reviews photography in its context: as a tool, an industry, an activity that "imposes a way of seeing" and therefore, actually alters reality. Sontag sees that photography, leveling everything, also beautifies. Let the subject be what it will - pollution, death, war … photography will tend to make it look aesthetically pleasing.

Having take hundreds of photographs in Southeast Asia, crying with camera on the evils of hunger and poverty, I agree. My photographs of India, for example, and the intense suffering I witnessed, are some of the most lovely I have. Colorful saris and strong, handsome faces do not bear the truth of the pain I tried to record. But perhaps those faces told another reality … one I was not wise enough to see.

To take a photograph, Sontag writes, "is to appropriate the thing photographed." This concept of getting-in-order-to-use-up is important in understanding photography's function. The appropriation, the stealing without touching, the having a semblance of knowledge, she likens to perversion. The author claims everything is camera grist and in the end, no matter what the photographer may want, everything becomes equal in value so long as it makes an interesting picture. Our learned and inherited preference for "images" over "real things" is a danger; but no less a danger than believing what we see without reason.

Sontag insists photography is an aggressive act which makes reality atomic, manageable, denies interconnectedness and continuity, and confers on each moment the character of a mystery. Alienating us from direct experience, the photo provides a more intense second-hand experience, an illusion of knowledge. Essentially disjunct, mute, the photo cannot tell the truth that comes only from words and narration.

________________________________________________________________

With in mind that I might be taking photos of a subject which doesn't shout out 'beautiful' yet I'll be trying to make my images 'beautiful', I thought I should look at some of the work by Sebastiao Salgado. Salgado is a photojournalist and social documentary photography from Brazil. He takes photos of things that aren't pretty yet creates beautiful looking images out of them. He captures something bad but makes it look beautiful.

My choice of subject matter may not be 'beautiful' and 'look nice as a photo', but it will tell the story that I want it to tell.