James Nachtwey’s new photo project; innovation or gimmick?
Last weekend, the work of Time Magazine documentary photographer James Nachtwey was released. Projected onto buildings in cities across the globe, and released online, his aim is to raise consciousness of an under-reported health issue.
To get his message out, Nachtwey said he wanted to employ “innovative and exciting ways to use news photography in a digital era.”
His big plan was, no pun intended, to start a viral campaign through the internet, and so reach audiences traditional media miss. The images are arresting and, well, aesthetically strong seems perhaps a better term than beautiful. But is it all a gimmick?
The issue he reported was that of extensively drug resistant tuberculosis – or XDR-TB for short. The World Health Organisation first put out a press release on XDR-TB in 2006. It was largely ignored. Worldwide, TB kills more people than malaria and XDR-TB particularly serious as it is resistant to current TB treatments. XDR-TB has emerged in the developing world because of insufficient treatment of normal TB strains, often due to poverty.
Symbolic perhaps of our abject selfishness, westerners apparently now suffer from Compassion Fatigue. We’re so used to the sight of suffering in far off places, we ignore such images in the same way we ignore adverts. Is Nachtwey’s campaign a response to this, an impassioned attempt to make us sit up and look at our world?
Okay, so it got the US presidential contenders talking. But is it just another piece of development pornography – stunning pictures not out of place on a fashion shoot, with human misery being the edge that sells? Think of United Colors of Benetton’s brushes with controversy for example.
Further, Nachtwey’s campaign is riddled with irony. He uses the internet to spread the word because it is a democratised and accessible space. But relies on his position as a famous name to do so – how many other documentary photographers are there out there with equally important messages, struggling to be heard?
It’s a tough one – opinions please.
Comments (6)
Please note: Your comment may be held in moderation for approval by an administrator to prevent spamming. This usually doesn't take long, please be patient.
Strange how our governments can find billions of dollars to prop up banks and financial institutions whose greed has been pretty much let run riot, but we can't seem to bring ourselves to help the most needy in the world.
We've all seen these shocking images in a million different ways before. Projecting them onto buildings is going to change the world about as much as us all texting 'Make Poverty History' to Bob Geldof and Bono did.
As a wise man (Jarvis) said... "C**ts are still running the world'...
I have to say I've heard this argument in variaions so many times that I fear so many share this idea it's almost hopeless to answer. So many places on the web.. but I'll try:
Yes, James Nachtwey is a famous name, for good reasons He has photographed conflict, disease, and urgent matters with a powerful voice throughout years and in my opinion has proved his willingness and courage in presenting urgent stories in a powerful way; I also, like himself, believe that this has the power to change things, by appealing to the hearts and minds of citizens and decisionmakers.
The comment about how many other documentary photographers out there are struggling to be heard does not make any kind of argument. Why on Earth should the fact that Nachtwey is famous in any way stand in the way of getting the message out? Surely every man and woman should do the best they can.
Nachtwey had a goal, to present "a vital story that needs to be told," and wished for "TED to help (him) gain access to it and then help me come up with innovative and exciting ways to use news photography in the digital era. "
Whether the campaign of projecting them onto walls and spreading the video online through viral marketing was innovative or not, is irrelevant; the question is whether it is powerful, whether it reaches people's conscience. For me it certainly has - and the fact that both US presidential candidates, for instance, have made statements on how to deal with the matter (although McCain didn't really say anything substantial, just rhetoric) is not a small step. I've spent the most of my day fioguring out how to put the video on my own blog and spread the word (the video has been removed from Youtube due to a music rights issue. So sad.) and it's certainly had me thinking for days since I learned of it.
Lisa:
"We’ve all seen these shocking images in a million different ways before."
I think this is somewhat of an overstatement. It's true that we've been numbed by a flow of pictures for years. David Levi-Strauss has written interestingly about this. That's why we must continue to find new ways of representing them. And also to make them as powerful as we can. They are a tool - one of many - in the fight against injustice, and an antidote.
Dismissing these pictures as ones we've seen a million times before, I believe, is also a choice. From my education in aesthetics (an art school) I'm used to this kind of theorizing, but I wish we could put it away and just look at each picture. let them speak to us.
Obviously they made a big impression on me, for one.
The discussion whether it is a 'gimmick' (for fame? emotional porn? what do you mean?) on behalf of other 'struggling photojournalists' (as if Nachtwey is not struggling and putting his fucking life at risk?) is sad and cynical.
Bono, Bob Geldorf, Peter Gabriel and other celebrity patrons and promoters of human rights etc. may not be doing their job BETTER than the thousands of passionate and hardworking social workers and activists of the world, but they do make their voices be heard. I believe this will be heard, already has. Whether it will make any difference depends on how we choose to act on it.
I know my reply was the longest so far, but I hope for less discussion, more action. Look again. Spread the word.
Of course, Nachtwey is an excellent photographer – he is famous for a reason – and it’d be foolish to hold his skill, and indeed bravery, in getting these images against him. He’s a global name because his work’s amazing. Without excellent documentary photographers like him, much of the west would be wholly insulated from the state of the world around us, a state indeed that we’ve been central in creating and then propagating.
I think his campaign is fascinating, if not in its execution then definitely in it’s ideas. Though (and I don’t intend this to be a back out clause to anything I’ve written before) there is a bit of devil’s advocate in the initial posting. This compassion fatigue thing really does worry me. Consciousness raising is really important, but its material effects are often minimal.
Is awareness enough? Like you say, “whether it will make any difference depends on how we choose to act on it.” Of course, presidential candidates commenting on issues is important, but politicians say a lot of things which don’t necessarily translate into actions. Lisa’s point, above, is a simple one but important nevertheless. The UK government, who can’t afford anything from better public transit, school dinners for kids, or renewable energy investment, has just scraped together £400bn to prop up the banking sector and so big business.
And as individuals, many don’t act because it seems so hopeless. (For example, how many Oxfam flyers have fallen from magazines straight into bins in the last month I wonder? I know I’m responsible for a few). Treating XDR-TB assists victims of that disease, but there’s always another load of crises looming around the corner. Crises which are, I believe, a result of that big business. The problem, then, is that we (westerners) know, at least broadly, about the world’s injustices, but confine ourselves to responding, occasionally, to mass awareness campaigns over single issues. Perhaps our problem is, even with credit crunching all over the place, we do too well out of the global systems that screw over the rest of the world to have any impetus to do anything about it?
There’s also something really galling about our (westerners, again) privilege to be able to consume such images in a way that’s broadly posed as art.
So no, I don’t think Nachtwey’s work was a waste of time. A gimmick maybe, but not a waste of time. Old debates are reignited because what he’s done is so new. And though the debates can be uncomfortable, I think they’re necessary. Global revolution with HUCK as its media partner perhaps!!
I haven't seen any stats on how much money this campaign has raised, but I'd be willing to bet that it is FAR FAR less than one million dollars. It would seem that the type of change these photographs beg would be a few billion.
People don't donate anymore. Whether it is a DVD or a bracelet, people want a physical exchange.
It is obvious that an enormous amount of orchestration went into this project. It was featured on Youtube, Ted, Time, the side of buildings...it was nearly ubiquitous, and the long tale will ripple for months maybe years.
In my opinion, not folding a desirable non-profit product into the execution of this campaign was a very large mistake.
where patients take the pictures and tell their stories.
The concern of TB patient activists with this project is that the images alone, focussing as they do on misery and suffering, are presented with no stories or opinions from the patients. The patients appear somewhat dehumanised and victimised as a result. Although the provocative and disturbing aspects may indeed be necessary to overcome 'compassion fatigue we should not lose sight of the need to engage patients and communities in addition to international agencies and governments.
Anything that increases the impact of XDRTB on the public consciousness and encourages involvement is a postiive step.But in order for the momentum to be sustained we must make sure people understand how XDRTB is a porblem for everyone, not just the people suffering in the pictures.