Last week we watched documentaries on photographers: Annie Leibowitz and James Natchwey.  Both are known as masters in their prospective fields; Annie shoots celebrities, models, and other portraits and James captures the devastation and horrors of war and poverty.  While neither of the two are anthropologists by trade, we can learn a lot from both of them about the methods and ethics of capturing and reproducing images of people.

At the most basic level, visual anthropology is intrinsically connected with the image, what is seen by and of cultures, the visual depiction and understanding of peoples.  However, as we have seen through other short videos this week, not all photography and video is visual anthropology.  The act of recording someone’s image is an act of power, which can easily be exploited.  We have discussed hidden cameras, unauthorized distribution, and manipulation as examples of this representational violence.  Photography can also simply be artistic, or for personal or sentimental value.        

That being said, neither of the photographers I will discuss make a living as visual anthropologists.

Then what is it that makes these two relevant to our subject?

Both Annie and James represent people through photography. 



Accurate?  What kind of representation?
http://www.fanpop.com/spots/annie-leibovitz/images/1518850/title/pocahontas-photo



Annie does not always represent directly, she sometimes bends realities and depicts with metaphors.  Her subjects are often meticulously posed, using props and surreal effects.  However, Annie claims that she uses these methods to get the heart of her subjects. She says, “In a portrait, you have room to have a point of view.  The image may not be literally what's going on, but it's representative (Leibowitz, 2008)” While Annie has room to take great liberties with ‘exact representation’, this makes us aware that even in visual anthropology, you can never recreate reality.  At best, you have a visual representation.





http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

James’s representation takes a more subjective approach.  He claims that his work “gives them (the subjects of his work) a voice in the outside world that they otherwise wouldn’t have.”  In a way, he believes that through his photographs, people are “making their own appeal to the outside world.”  Similarly, as anthropologists, we hope that our work will not just be our representation of others, but include peoples conceptions of themselves.  By shooting a photo and selecting and image, we are immediately imprinting our own desires- selections of space and time, lighting and angle.  However, James suggests that through his work, what those image conveys to the world can very much be the subject’s representation. 

Both photographers engage in participant observation of sorts.



http://hayleyprairieview.blogspot.com/



Leibowitz spent months touring with the Rolling Stones intending to capture authentic moments.  By engaging deeply in their lives, including drug use, her participant observation even raised a common anthropological question of ‘going native’~ when have you crossed the line between participation and observation?

http://rsemel.wordpress.com/

Natchwey introduces another angle of participant observation; an extended dedication to one subject.  He spent months with a single family who was living between the train tracks in Indonesia.

Ultimately, while I believe that much of these photographers’ works can be likened to anthropology; I still don’t feel comfortable labeling these photographers ‘visual anthropologists’.  The two take photos that they hope can independently evoke emotions and convey largely interpretational messages.  James Natchwey has some of themost moving and powerful photography I have ever seen.  However, I still don’t believe that snapshots are enough to accomplish what life histories and extended ethnographies convey.  I am more familiar with visual anthropology as the accompaniment of both images and words.  As a comparison, take a look at Righteous Dopefiends, an ethnography that uses images to reinforce a textual narrative.  Which do you find more effective?   

I guess this leaves the open question; is it possible to do visual anthropology entirely without words?  Can images standing alone achieve the same thing as text?