Salgado

Salgado says, "My hope is that, as individuals, as groups, as societies, we can pause and reflect on the human condition at the turn of the millennium. In its rawest form, individualism remains a prescription for catastrophe. We have to create a new regimen of coexistence.”

His photographs honor and expose the most isolated, the most neglected and the dispossessed that blanket our world. Is it wrong to photograph the suffering in such a beautiful and aesthetically pleasing way? Definitely not.

Although the technical and fundamental components of the images he creates may be incredibly well executed and beautiful (in terms of composition, light, dept of field, etc), his subject matter cetinaly is not which is what is so ironic about his work. He is portraying such inequality and suffering in such an admirable way.

While it might be necessary to consider Salgado’s motive and what is trying to accomplish with these photographs, when I personally look at these pictures I don’t really care. Maybe he has an agenda and maybe he is trying to mislead his viewers but what he photographs is in large part, a reality that would not be explored if it were not for photojournalists like him.

I wonder if we begin to be so critical of such photographers and accuse them of being exploitative and not doing anything to actually alleviate the situation, would photojournalism still exist? I think it is important and crucial for people to act and do their part but even just photographing these events plays a significant part. Perhaps it is these photographs that inspire other people to act and combat the situation.



This discussion reminds me of a very distinct photograph (which I believe Meg showed us in the beginning of the semester but I’ve also discussed in a course while abroad); the one where a baby is about to be preyed upon by a nearby vulture- not sure who the photographer is. The class I first saw this photograph was a course about the media and so we were discussing the role of photojournalism. Should the photographer put down his camera to go rescue the baby? Or is it more important to document this harsh, and ugly reality? What’s more important and whose right is it to make the decision of what constitutes the photojournalists’ role? It’s an interesting question,that in my opinion, has no right or wrong answer….