There are aspects of Rosler’s position that are extremely perceptive and provide a level of understanding that manages address the hole that documentary photography often falls down. The misuse of of Power raises much thought in terms of poverty and class which highlights the overarching issue for concerned photography. By presenting power as a means to portray the powerless, Rosler manages to encapsulate the dichotomy that has proved a grand hurdle for documentary photography since the days of Riis and Hine.
The links to photography’s part in maintaining social order offers a relatively concrete view and generalizes over the misuse of power to achieve a political aim. I find the view highly plausible, but not necessarily the manner in which it is used to define all reformist photography.
There are many examples of Lewis Hine’s photographic documents that are presented without any allegiance to an authoritive class. The ethical lapses and voyeuristic tendencies were never intended to be used as justification for the maintenance of social order in all cases, and it is this that Rosler does not make clear. The structures of power that were required to be greased or utilized, enabled all the mechanisms of an institutionalized society to be tied into the more unsavory side of a philanthropic agenda. I concur with Rosler’s overall position on the element of power within documentary photography, such as the ‘them not us’ dynamic, the audience differential and the voyeuristic tendencies. The understanding regarding the damage that can be projected is highly perceptive when linked to a political agenda, I would however feel more comfortable if the reformists were criticized for their opportunism and careerism and misuse of power, rather than an intentional allegiance to power.
Martha Rosler manages to challenge previous documentary photography by aligning the visual imagery to liberal sensibility which forces reform by tapping into the social conscience. Much of the work of previous artists is challenged and attributed to visually documenting social imbalance by observing the effects of damaged lives, without attempting to address the social acceptance of a system that governs the very fallout being photographed.
Rosler views on the maintenance of social order are similar to the views held by Allan Sekula and John Tagg who see an overriding economic structure being fed by false meaning and institutionalized political dogma. What generated my interest in Rosler’s essay is the criticism that representations of poverty conjures up information about a group of powerless people, to a different group of powerful people. The implication from this, is that poverty stricken subjects have little or no autonomy in their lives and are heavily reliant on others (media, charity, photographers) to speak for them.
Much consideration has taken place in contemporary photography to dilute the power imbalance, and this is an encouraging angle to follow. However, Rosler is specific about describing the audience, and warns against the dangers of coercing empathy for social reform.
There is significant food for thought which like Sontag’s ‘On Photography’, provides much caution Martha Rosler does however provide a collective of work to support her critical thoughts and makes clear the importance of knowing life rather than observing and reforming life.
The salient points that resonated the most appear within Rosler’s take on reform. The need to not enter another’s world with an aim to not attempt to disrupt or change, but to look for the wider causes and explore areas around social responsibility for the economic imbalance. The consideration for asking, whether or not I am adding to the problem will form part of my conscious
Gerard Hilderly Level 3 OCA 