Photograph sent by Ram Rahman:

You gotta love this. If you are brown, in or around London, don't carry a rucksack/backpack or wear a large coat. And definitely don't run with any of the aforementioned items in hand onto a bus or attempt to get onto a train. You are asking to be harassed.

I am apalled by this. The thing that gets me the most is about “looking a bit foreign.” Hello! London is quite likely the most cosmopolitan city in the world [thanks to their colonial past, but that's another post]. Are they going to stop just everyone who isn't WHITE and interrogate them? I called this a long time ago when this whole Iraq mess was brewing; the civil liberties of brown and non-white people was going to take a major hit. And it's happening. Slowly but surely our travel will be restricted, our intentions questioned and lives rebuked.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh on the way into work [gotta know what the neo-conservative muckymucks are talking about right?] and Roger Hedgecock who is sitting in for ol' Rush took a phone call from some butthead in Orange County who has worked up some sort of legislation to make profiling of “Puerto Ricans and Blacks” legal! Amazingly, Mr. Hedgecock let the guy ramble on and on and then agreed with him in the end. The parochial nature of these nationally syndicated talk-shows really worries me.

Anyone else feel marginalized?

I received a note from Mahesh Bhat, a photojournalist based in Bangalore and a well-wisher of Tiffinbox. If you remember, Mahesh went out to Perpignan last year. Nevermind that I turned green with envy for him being there in the midst of such great photojournalism, but the man happened to strike up many great conversations with some incredible photographers.

Find below one email exchange Mahesh had with Pakistani photojournalist Asim Rafiqui:

Mahesh Bhat:
There are a couple of things about photographers that bother me, I thought I should share with you. You know magazines routinely publish lists of most influential people from different walks of life, lists of people whose work and ideas inspire us. They feature politicians, academics, actors, film makers, musicians, business people, activists, writers … but never photographers. Why is that; is it because our work does not influence anyone? Or is it because the media is such that photography is always seen as mere illustration? Or is photography something that is meant to be glanced rather than remembered and mulled over? Can photography books never attain the status of fiction say? What do you think Asim?

Another thing is that why we photographers are always contacted at the last moment? (even for features) Most of the time we get very little time to work on stories. I wonder if they rush their writers as well?

Asim Rafiqui:
The question you ask about the influence of photographers of current society and culture is a good one. Today when lists of the ‘most influential' are produced, they are no more than celebrity lists. And photographers are usually never celebrities. Richard Avedon perhaps, Herb Ritts, and a few other celebrity photographers sometimes do make it to the list, but in general we are not seen as influencers of culture. And there is something to that. Susan Sontag had some poignant points in her recent book ‘Witnessing The Pain Of Others,' made a point that photography is unable to set a moral compulsion without an appropriate political or cultural context already present. It can help create one, but it cannot in and of itself, be the impulse for one. I will not elaborate on her arguments, but only point out that she too realized that photography reflects but rarely ever defines a society.

I remember [John] Berger talking about how the most famous photographs and the greatest photographers often evoke memory through their images i.e. their pictures remind us of something in the past, or capture our ideas of the past that we now wish to preserve. [André] Kertesz, [Henri] Cartier-Bresson were brilliant in picturing the cliches of Paris in the 1920 and 1930 and even today the best known photographers capture best what we believe the reality to be and that we can see confirmed in their images. So even Berger seems to think that photography is about memory, and not about creating the future.

In fact, it is a common fact that most people cannot relate to photographs that get their timing wrong e.g. photojournalistic pieces of no catastrophes that have as yet not been declared as such by editors and politicians. Sudan and [Olivier] Jobard's work comes to mind – he went out too early and no one would publish the work.

So I think that photographers are not influencers of the future, but documenters of the past or of the current. The other problem is that photography, like journalism, has no intellectual tradition. So unlike painting, literature and so on it lacks the history and depth that is often associated with valued pursuits.

I don't think it is the media; after all there are many photographers working outside of media. Dayanita singh who is doing more and more outside magazines and so on comes to mind.

That being said, i think that some photographers who cross over to art more explicitly can be considered as major influences. I am thinking about Alfredo Jaar who has had a major influence and I think is absolutely brilliant. He is a photographer who is more now an artist and has publications and exhibtions that are massively attended. I would say that he is in fact recognized as a major influence in modern art circles.

So that was not an answer, but just comments.

As for editors – well, magazines use photography as illustrations. Editors are not photographers. They do not understand photography. They have no interest in it and they cannot do it. And besides, editors fight for control and any chance they can get to marginalize someone else they will take it. This is an old batter – read Eugene Smith arguing with his Life editors and you can see that this goes back to the early days of photojournalism. We will not change this regardless so there is no point in waiting :)

Mahesh Bhat:
Thank you so much for writing such a detailed reply! I really appreciate it. I agree with you completely that photography has no intellectual tradition. Perhaps that is the main reason why photography is seen as an art that does not define a society. Perhaps we photographers are really to blame. But I do believe that there has been a lot of thought provoking photography has been done by many photographers that has the intellectual rigour of say great prose. Salgado and Robert Frank are on the top of my list. Raghubir Singh and Raghu Rai have influenced many… I love your work “Trapped in someone else's dream.” I feel that it's very sensitive and profound. What would have been the reception by editors and critics if someone had written a book on the same subject or a feature film on that theme? I am sure that you would have been a celebrity by now!!

But photography is always been seen as a tool to illustrate – always a means to an end. I guess we photographers are to blame for it. We have always remained in the periphery and never really in the main stream of the art or literary world.

I'll comment on this lively exchange in a day or so, but I feel compelled to [tinge of irony ain't it] publish this, yes, intellectual exchange that both Mahesh and Asim feel doesn't exist in photography circles.

Would love to hear from you all about what you think. You know where to leave your comments.

Some of you know of an ugly email exchange I have had with Mr. Binoo K. John. I now wonder why I even bothered taking the time to respond to his uninformed assertions about photography, his presentation skills and his approach to the photography business.

Mr. John in his most recent emails threatens me by saying that I will “face the consequences” if I don't remove the post that called him on his deficiencies.

He initially initiated contact to have his site linked. As it is only natural to check the site one is about to link to, I reviewed the site and explained to him why I didn't think his site was such a great fit on my site. He should have left it at that. When I declined his request, Mr. John's vitriolic emails calling me names spurred me on to retort back with what I really thought of his site, his photography and his business ideas [yes, in public because he urged me to have his views published]. I used his own images to show that he lacked the knowledge to present his work in an aesthetic manner and felt as a seasoned photographer that his images were far from professional. While that is largely relative, there are still some standards that I adhere by; one being the images you present, whether they are high or low resolution images shouldn't be so impossible to view because their quality, well, sucks. I also found issue with the way he was hawking his images; devaluing the art and practice of photography and giving the profession of photojournalism a black eye.

Mr. John emailed back to say that he has high resolution images that are crisp, clean, color corrected and content-driven. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he has these at the ready to sell to us NRI's [non resident indians, who don't know what that means] for a $1 a piece. Why he doesn't publish low-resolution images on his site that are also crisp, clean, color correcte, content-driven and easily viewable is really beyond me. As Aditya commented, I ought to perhaps just let Mr. John do his thing and people will figure it out for themselves.

My commentary was a review of his site and his skills as a photographer. I haven't read his books but by reviews of them on the at least the Outlook magazine site they look like they were panned rather than ‘critically acclaimed.' So, I am not so sure why Mr. John keeps writing to me to say that I have “libeled him” and “put hurdles in the way of my carrying out my independent profession and caused damage to my reputation as a writer and photographer.” If he found my words critical of his skills as a photographer, he ought to take Outlook magazine to court as well for not being so thrilled about his books. He goes on to say that my intentions were malicious. Far from it. I had hoped our private conversations were taken as constructive and instructive. Obviously my sincere intentions backfired on me.

I believe in learning and teaching. However, if you approach me with the attitude that I should do you a favor and accept whatever you pile on me, I am going to take you task. If your approach is about fostering a collective learning experience, as my new friend Tahir Amin has done, then we can work on an equal footing. The exchange of true knowledge begins with humility not egoism.

In any event, being open to criticism is absolutely key. I do not for a nanosecond believe this site or even my own photography is at a level where it should be. There is always more to be learned and my work can always be improved. But at least I recognize those facts. I have received numerous emails telling me how to improve this site and I have taken them all to heart; acting on the advice when time permits and socking away ideas for a day when I can devote time to make those improvements. And to be fair, I have shown my work to many a newspaper editor and had my portfolio shot down for content, vision, quality and presentation! One simply cannot take things personally in this business. Not everyone is going to be happy or thrilled with what you have produced. At some level, your art is your own. But if you are going to share it and then ultimately market it, your work better be at a level that is nothing short of exemplary. And you have to be open to have your work commented on and critiqued (and critcized) if you want to stay in this business. To use a cliché, Mr. John, if you can't handle the fire, get out of the kitchen.

When I saw his poor presentation and lackluster images, Mr. John's audacious claims that he is a professional photographer riled my sensibilities and I do admit that I became defensive. Far too many people are able to now at the click of a button claim that they are professional photographers. I am all for citizen journalism but it needs to be recognized as such. I have seen photo bloggers who don't call themselves professional photographers with better, more interesting, portfolios. But let me really stop here. This is hardly an attack on Mr. John “the person.” I do not know him personally. Nor do I wish to. It's a critical assessment of him as a purported professional photographer and review of his publicly accessible work. And given that his site is in the public domain, it's open as much to constructive criticism as it is to praise.

Mr. John's beef with me is that I called him on his inconsistencies in private, then published my thoughts publicly on this blog (again because he clearly challenged me to do so). Now he wants me to take it all down. I am afraid I cannot in good conscience do so as it cuts down my ability to express my thoughts (in essence censoring myself).

This is a blog – a weblog – where personal ruminations, including sharing opinions, are expected and accepted. Mr. John, if you don't like what you see here, feel free to visit another website or shut your machine down for the day. Here is one “demented NRI” saying – we'll all be the better for it.

Technorati Tags: ethics, India, journalism, photography

Adithya Sambamurthy says:

I was a college senior when I first saw the book Divided Soul, by Magnum's David Alan Harvey, who gave a presentation on his work at thePoynter Institute in St. Petersburg. Back then the images were incredible, but I must confess I wasn't quite sure I understood it. I didn't know why the book was put together the way it was. The instant recognition of the theme was not there to me in the images. So it was a treat to have the opportunity to hear the author come and speak- and show some amazing images. Harvey considers himself a hybrid between the realms of photojournalism and fine art photography, and a number of his images have appeared on the pages of National Geographic as well as on the walls of Fine Art museums.

Harvey explained how he is able to ‘sell' his images to editors, by researching his subjects thoroughly and giving images, which on the surface seem very graphic, the context they need for the story through well written captions.

“Know more about the subject than everyone else in the room,” he said. In researching his book, Divided Soul, Harvey said he was as influenced as much by the fiction coming from Spain and the Americas as he was by newspaper articles. He attributes what he referred to as the lyrical quality of his images to this influence by fiction.

President George W. Bush gives new meaning to the expression – speaking out of both sides of your mouth:

“This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous,” Bush said during a news conference Tuesday evening. “And having said that, all options are on the table.”

Are we going to bring American-style democracy to Iran too? As I drove to work the other day, I listened to Rush Limbaugh “report” from Afghanistan. Beyond the usual fluff in the conservative talk-show host's monologue, he said something quite interesting. All that mattered, he said, was that people in Afghanistan were set free [from the Taliban]. While I applaud the removal of the Taliban, I have to wonder, though, if the Americans set a country free (isn't there a tinge of condescension building here already?) would the Americans really accept a militant Islamic state to take its place, assuming of course that people were free to choose a militant Islamic form of government?

I think the American agenda in that region of the world is much too complex and Mr. Limbaugh is as usual much to simplistic in his world view. But back to W; the ambiguity in his statements are not likely to assuage Iranian fears and like any country that has been battling the US overtly and covertly over the last 50 years, it will seek to defend itself. All we need to do now is to crib notes from Saddam Hussein on that front. History, teaches nothing.