The disaster wrought by Hurricane Katrina is quickly approaching its two year anniversary. In the two years since, the world has seen thousands of hours of news footage and viewed innumerable still photographs depicting the devastation of both the landscape, and the livelihoods of the people affected. In a media-saturated world, the bombardment of imagery can have both a positive and negative influence on how we view the world. In one respect, media has allowed information and imagery to be widely accessible to millions of people who might not otherwise be able to obtain it. On the other hand, the over-saturation of this imagery can act as a numbing agent to people's sensitivity to important world events. I have noticed this occurrence with my own reaction to significant global issues.
Throughout the past year, dozens, if not hundreds of photography projects have emerged portraying the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina. Photographers ranging from Robert Polidori, Chris Jordan, Larry Towell and Katherine Wolkoff, just to name a few, have taken on the immense task of depicting the most destructive natural disaster the United States has ever seen. The vast majority of this work shows a ravaged, people-less landscape strewn with fragments of peoples lives. Uprooted telephone poles, overturned cars, collapsed roofs and water stained mattresses populate the imagery of this destruction. As potent as these images can be, their impact is often lessened by the frequency and manor in which we view them. Seeing the byproduct of thousands of ruined lives laid before you in such magnitude, has the power to desensitize one from the true weight of what they're seeing.
Catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina certainly need to be documented, in order to bring awareness and understanding to issues that require resolution. However, when this documentation becomes too abundant it can act counterproductively. The real questions that need to be asked are, is there a point of saturation where this imagery become ineffective? And to what extent is this work created at the emotional expense of those truly impacted?
From Top to Bottom:
Chris Jordan, Mattresses from an apartment building, New Orleans East
Robert Polidori, 5000 Cartier Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 2005
Katherine Wolkoff, NEW ORLEANS (18), 2005-06
All Images Copyright the Artists
9 comments:
I can say something about your first question. Germans who are now in, say, their mid-30s or younger have been through a comprehensive treatment in school, year after year, about Nazism, the Holocaust, and German guilt in the twelve years of Nazi hegemony. If you talk to them, many will tell you that they are tired of hearing about it. They are jaded. *But* if you ask them for their values, or their attitudes, or what they have learned, then they have taken the point completely, and are solid behind democracy and an antifascist program. So it may be that saturation, or supersaturation, dulls the sensitivity, perhaps a plain case of habituation and nothing remarkable. But that doesn't mean that all the representations and information about Katrina have been wasted. Just the opposite may be true.
This is a provocative post - so provoacative that I've written a reply of sorts over at my own blog:
http://politicstheoryphotography.
blogspot.com/2007/07/
viewing-katrina-disaster-fatigue.html
Thanks!
This is indeed a provocative post as it touches on a topic that is near and dear to my own heart. My name is Margaret Saizan and I am the publisher of Beyond Katrina: The Voice of Hurricane & Disaster Recovery. While the focus of the publication has been to document the reality of the storm - i.e there are many photographs there depicting Katrina's devastation - Louisiana landscape photographer Matthew White has contributed photographs that are not focused on incongruity, for some of the reasons outlined here at this post. (and for some additional reasons that are not covered here.)
Inasmuch as those of us who contribute to the publication have also been impacted by Katrina personally, to say that we were not thrilled with Robert Polidori's depiction of the destruction In New Orleans is an understatement. In fact, White penned a rather bold and provocative response himself in reference to Polidori's New Orleans project. ...you can check that out here
Matthew White writes one very convincing argument- particularly if Mr. Polidori made no effort whatsoever to compensate any of the victims.
Bravo, Mr. White! I'm so happy to see people talking about this--I posted my own rant on my blog, http://elysium-photographs.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html, in early June. I first visited New Orleans in September of 2006, a full year after the storm. I was utterly unprepared for what I saw. As a photographer, I had no intention of making any photographs while there for all of the reasons listed here. I was compelled by an article about urban canopy loss to come back, camera in hand. Photography can, and should be, a means of advocacy in the capture of disaster. The pervasiveness of "those pictures" that everyone in my field has made does have a numbing effect. It is why I never intended to photograph there in the first place. I too, was made sick of Katrina by the multitudes of imagery. One might argue (might), that Polidori was there as a journalist for the New Yorker. Reportage. And his document is thorough. But I cannot fathom where the heck people get off entering private property to make art for their own gain. Hey Robert, how are those prints selling in New York? It bothers me to have to set up my tripod on someone's abandoned driveway to make a picture. This month's Harper's features an artist who photographed the ruined wet photographs from people's family albums. I don't know where to even begin to dissect the ethics of this one.
I am truly thrilled that so many people have joined in this debate. It is an extremley important one, one that brings up an endless amount of moral and ethical quandaries. I want to thank everyone for sending links to related posts and expanding the dicussion about the reality of the Katrina disaster.
I couldn't agree more that Robert Polidori's practices documenting New Orleans (whether on assignment or not) were morally questionable at best. On the other hand, in an interview with Joerg Colberg for his blog Conscientious, Chris Jordan stated "...One thing I realized early on was that making money from my Katrina project was fundamentally problematic. I am trying to live my life consistently with my beliefs these days, even if that means I don’t make as much money." All the proceeds from the sale of his book and the Katrina prints have been donated to charity efforts to rebuild New Orleans. He avoided total exploitation the situation by providing monetary support. Something our own government has had trouble doing.
for anyone who hasn't read the interview with Chris Jordan, you can find it at www.jmcolberg.com/weblog under "conversations" on the side bar.
Keep the forum alive!
-Ben Alper
The Exposure Project
I just want to let you all know that this post inspired me to write a piece on the subject over at Hurricane Katrina: The Voice of Hurricane & Disaster Recovery. You can catch that post here.
I too am thrilled that people have joined in this discussion. The issues inherent to photographing disasters have not been very talked about in context of Katrina recovery. I do hope we can keep the conversation going. It's a good one!
Margaret Saizan
Hi,
Nice blog.
My name is Nick. I'm a photojournalism student in China. I recently came back to my city in northeast China after covering the earthquake in Sichuan. I will be returning to Sichuan to do a follow up on one town. I am doing some researching, trying to find similar projects done in the past. Have you come accross some sets of photographs of disaster stricken areas but showing the life there months or years later?
John Stanmeyer is a guy who covered the Tsunami in Indonesia and then returned a year later.
Thanks,
Nick
Post a Comment