OCA preloader logo
Poverty Chic - The Open College of the Arts

To find out more details about the transfer to The Open University see A New Chapter for OCA.

Poverty Chic thumb

Poverty Chic

Around Christmas thoughts often turn to those less fortunate than ourselves.  I had just returned from wrapping hampers for women who have suffered domestic abuse at a local refuge to receive an email with news of a book launch.  In the quietness of spending the afternoon wrapping donated children’s presents I had been thinking about these women’s situations; many of them living in secret locations for their own safety and not even able to pick their own Christmas gifts for their kids.  My mind was in a very different space from photography so the email seemed insensitive – how could I go to a gallery for wine and nibbles when people’s safety was being compromised on my very doorstep?
The book itself was not about domestic violence but housing estates in the UK in the 70’s and 80’s and I felt like instead of it being a compassionate and serving project the success of the work evolved from using the subjects’ dingy living conditions as aesthetic fodder for an exotic feast on otherness.  It was meant for a different audience than the one it had come from but of course garish colours, scrapes and dirt translate well onto highly saturated transparencies, aesthetically speaking.  My intention is not to accuse this particular photographer of exploitation, as that has been done to death and no-one really knows anyone else’s intentions, but it did make me question again the ethics of turning squalor into a visual delight through photography for the consumption of the privileged.
It’s been discussed many times about many types of photographic work; tourist travel pictures of ‘country folk’, reducing them to ‘beautifully muted tones’ or ‘complimentary colours’, or that picture of a disaster that looks particularly beautiful, then of course there is the Salgado debate, Boris Mikhailov and so on and so on.
Is there a fine line between poverty chic and genuine concern?  When does something become exploitation and when is it compassionately driven?  Can we tell from the work itself or is it demonstrated through the photographer’s personality, their marketing strategy or political motivations?  Often the argument is taken that if the photographer has come from that demographic then it’s OK – like Nan Goldin or Andres Serrano (who used his Catholic upbringing for his defence of Piss Christ).
Tom Hunter is a photographer of the people.  In my opinion he is a great example of someone championing the causes of others for others.  He once saved some council housing which was about to be demolished by photographing each resident of the flats and putting the life-sized portraits in the rooms as the officials were coming round.  He might have made a bit of money and a decent reputation for himself throughout his career but his compassion and thoughtfulness for me underline his altruism.  I also think you can tell in the pictures.
women-reading-possession-order-1997-tom-hunterWoman Reading a Possession Order by Tom Hunter
Is there someone you consider is doing a good job of genuinely helping people through their work and not simply making their name from beautifying someone else’s misfortune?
What is a good deed anyway and if I was going to photograph the women I spoke about how would I go about it?
Here is an interesting take on portraits of homeless people.


Posted by author: Sharon

14 thoughts on “Poverty Chic

  • The question who ‘is doing a good job of genuinely helping people through their [photography] is a very good question. It addresses directly the issue of the balance of interests that exists between photographer and subject and specifically what is in it for the subject. Most times I think the answer of a photojournalist or social documentary photography would be framed in general rather than specific terms. In other words they would claim to be drawing attention to a general problem such as starvation and so on, rather than specifically helping the subject depicted. In the case of Tom Hunter his work did specifically help those pictured in his portraits. What I think is also relevant is that Hunter is an insider, he lives alongside the people shown in his images and experiences (or has experienced) the day to day challenges they face.
    A possible example of someone who did a good job of genuinely helping is Eugene Smith, when he documented the circumstances of the people in the Japanese fishing village of Minamata who were being poisoned by toxic industrial waste. Unlike many photojournalists who pay fleeting visits to sites of tragedies Smith and his wife lived in Minamata for several years documenting what was goning on. Smith in effect became an insider so much so that in one of the confrontations between protesters and company employees he was attacked and had to be hospitalised.
    Perhaps to genuinely help people one has to get very close to them to become an insider of sorts.

    • Thanks Keith, Eugene Smith is probably a good example. I’m sure many photojournalists have good intentions even if they are mixed – as Don McCullin admits to in the documentary. Aren’t well all.
      Being an insider helps I think but I also see the value of being a distanced observer at times – I don’t think it necessarily equates to exploitation. No-one is fully objective as we all know but no-one is entirely subjective either and it’s good to have both approaches in circulation I think.

  • Responses—all off in different tangents!
    There is such a fine dividing line between exploitation and true compassion as you say; and it’s one of the reasons that in my own [very limited] practice, I steer clear of documentary.—I just don’t know whether my photography would help.
    Tom Hunter—one of the reasons I am drawn to his work is that he highlights issues without necessarily photographing the ‘actual’ subject. This allows us to respond in a different, more abstract way than pitying the ‘other’–if that makes sense.
    You mention the beauty of Burtynsky’s work—some of Daniel Beltra’s “Spill” project also springs to mind. Work of this kind raises the issue of beauty within work—there’s an interesting chat going on in the OCA Flickr forum http://www.flickr.com/groups/ocarts/discuss/72157639232528436/ on documentary photography which raises similar issues.
    A project which appealed to me because it seemed different—in that it was providing a means to hopefully effect an awareness or change is Mark Neville’s “Deeds not Words” which I saw at The Photographers’ Gallery recently: http://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/mark-neville-deeds-not-words-3. It was the production of the book that was sent to councils in the hope of raising awareness that [for me] took the work to a different level.

    • I have read the article on the work of Mark Neville and the Teachers’ notes & suggested discussion topics. They are very thought-provoking and a carbon copy of the events leading to the making of the film Erin Brockovich. That film clearly dramatized the issue and put it out for public rather than limited consumption. Could this film have spurred Neville to produce the book? Should he too be making a film of it to raise awareness of these issues on our doorstep? Thanks for raising awareness of this work, Vicki.

    • Yes, Spill was also on my mind.
      Thanks for these pertinent links – I love the thought that the books were being sent to councils in an effort to actually make a difference. I imagine most would send the majority of their ‘free books’ to galleries etc. Challenging.

  • There is very little beauty in Jim Mortram’s ‘Small Town Inertia’ http://smalltowninertia.co.uk/ but it is an exemplar in my view; an ‘Insider’ like Keith suggests, but having earned a whole lot less than TH, though having spoken to Tom Hunter a few times now I wouldn’t doubt his conviction. But what happens to their subjects when they appear on a gallery wall?
    As for photographing the women? As if you need me, or anyone, to suggest ;). I don’t subscribe to the detachment of ‘get in quick, get deep and get out’. Research, try to understand, comprehend: don’t judge, record, look up and not down and listen to your conscience. I’ve been working (with a camera) with dementia patients for about a year and it took some months to start to build trust which I know could be demolished in a moment of insensitivity or greed.

    • Thanks John- there is something in that picture of the sausage and brown sauce sandwich that seemed quite beautiful to me 🙂 So human yet at the same time transcendent. Anyway – thanks for this I’ll be spending more time looking at this work.
      Would you mind clarifying what you mean by ‘what happens to the subjects when they appear on the gallery wall?’

  • As has been said, I think it’s difficult if not impossible to be certain of others’ motives – I much prefer to make judgement on the work. What really struck me about this post is that I was reading it assuming you were building up to a critique of Tom Hunter’s work and find instead the opposite, which in itself illustrates some of the difficulties of making judgements on such matters!. I can see some of the qualities that people admire in Hunter’s work but find his portrayals of women problematic, as in the example here of the pretty madonna archetype.
    I admire Jim Mortram’s work, not least because his people have names and get to tell their own stories sometimes. Tim Hetherington’s exploration of war and its effect on people are also worth considering as an approach to this subject, I think.

    • Thanks Eileen, Funny how it could be taken either way and shows how much depends on how the work is received by the individual and also shows that we can’t get it 100% right 100% of the time. I suppose it’s the trajectory that counts.
      I am a big fan of Tim Heatherington’s work, I heard him talk once and he came across as a very compassionate person.

  • Yes, Spill was also on my mind.
    Thanks for these pertinent links – I love the thought that the books were being sent to councils in an effort to actually make a difference. I imagine most would send the majority of their ‘free books’ to galleries etc. Challenging.

  • I share John’s views on “get in quick, get deep and get out” – to me that’s manipulative, taking advantage of vulnerability. I think John’s recent work, mentioned above, is an exemplar for engaging with those who are vulnerable, respecting them as people and getting alongside them. Here is just one example http://umneydoc.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/memories-session-two/
    In terms of using ‘beautification’ to help people in need, I always think of the 1960 TV series “Cathy Come Home”written by Jeremy Sandford and directed by Ken Loach. It highlighted the plight of homeless people, contributed to large support for the Charity ‘Shelter” and was influential in the formation of the Charity “Crisis”. I remembered watching it at the time and being so moved by the realisation that homelessness can happen to just about anyone given particular circumstances. Yes it portrayed attractive young people, but it gave a strong message.

  • One of the first things that struck me about Hunter’s work was how he replaced some of the icons of ‘Art’ with ordinary people – democratised, for want of another terminology. But, as Jason Evans suggests, “‘Art’ is increasingly made by the few for the few”, and so putting these subjects onto gallery walls changes their status, reifies them to some extent? Something happens to a print when it is hung on a gallery wall.
    By the way I do find beauty in Mortram’s work, not the same though as Holtom’s Avadon’ish translations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

> Next Post Fancy A Weekend in Leeds?

< Previous Post Balancing new and old

Back to blog listings