A Black woman comedian and artist named Chescaleigh made a hilarious video (based on her close friend who is a White woman) called Sh*t White Girls Say To Black Girls. With over 5 million views and counting, this viral video accounts some of the awkward conversations on race that occur specifically between women (not men) of these two races. What makes it funny is the humorous delivery, facial expressions and tone used by the talented Chescaleigh. However, unlike many of the other "Sh*t ______ Says" videos and blogs out there (many people are making them now) this one seemed to cause the most uproar and attention. Unfortunately, it isn't only because many people had a good laugh at the truthfulness of the video. Again, this is a Black woman voicing concerns of Black women. (Oh d...d...dear, how can she be an authority on her own life! Nuts!) Apparently, Black women having voices for ourselves and using them is still deemed socially problematic to some people. We're supposed to sit back and allow others to be our mouthpieces while other people have free reign to share their own experiences and views via art or conversation?
As I alluded to in the first paragraph, any time I discuss (positive or negative) experiences of Black women (abstractly/conceptually or personally) via Twitter, many people run, literally run into my mentions trying to silence me. I discuss issues and share experiences with other artists, students and intellectuals/free-thinkers via Twitter. I...can't help if this angers other people (who I don't know and weren't even talking to, including photographers) who would prefer I only tweet cat photos...or worse, demand that I pretend that the sheer act of being a photographer automatically erases my experiences as a Black woman or the camera alone should make me "ignore" them. (I put "ignore" in quotes since so so many people suggest that minorities "ignore" negative experiences instead of those engaging in the negative behavior creating these experiences alter their behavior. We see this same silencing point of view within women's issues--i.e. when women are taught "don't get raped" versus men being taught "do not rape/rape is a crime." It's the evolution of victim blaming while assailants are excused or worse, place on pedestals.) So...because I'm a photographer, I automatically will have the same life and experiences as White male photographers who statistically make up the largest demographic of photographers (and often are the only ones considered "thought/industry" leaders in photography)? Really? And, anything that I mention that deviates from this fabricated cloud of superficial positivity (not genuine happiness) that some photographers are literally fighting to maintain should immediately be silenced? I mean...we can't have people thinking photographers are human or anything like that. Worse, we have to pretend that photographers don't experience (or cause) bias, bigotry, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, oppression, depression, anxiety or racism--yet for example, we praise photojournalism that conveys these very same things? What kind of elaborate superficiality is modern photography built on? I want to know so I can promptly kick it down and C-4 it if I have to.
It disgusts me that in art (something that is supposed to be expressive and free) there are so many people who want...no...no...need me to suppress who I am, my views and my experiences so they can feel "comfortable." Or worse, they only want to hear such views about me from anyone but me.
I tweeted the following tweets yesterday in regards to some of the people who seem desperate to silence me and the general silencing and superficiality that plagues modern photography.
"Not a single thing I tweet, how I tweet or even when or with whom I tweet will change b/c of random photogs afraid of convos w/substance."
"Some photogs will talk your head off about being a good person b/c they shoot homeless shelters. I say let's discuss WHY they are homeless."
"Some photogs think they're progressive b/c they shot an interracial wedding. I say let's discuss WHY even 2012 couple will face struggle."
"Some photogs will think getting a Pulitzer for photographing yet another broken Black body = success. I say let's discuss those Black ppl."
"Some photogs will discuss cop harassment of photogs as injustice. I say let's discuss minorities facing that injustice without a camera."
Most of the people I've photographed can relate to the same kind of things I chat with other people on Twitter about. Some photographers aren't ready for this. The self-serving shallow method of blazing through social media and only bragging about number of shoots, fame of the clients booked and gear purchased works for some people. But...those people should stay out of my Twitter mentions. We all use the same gear but we all aren't the same photographers...apparently. And in this case, I don't mean the difference is demographic. It appears the difference is substance vs. sheen, message vs. method, quality vs. quantity and vision vs. vanity.
I am not interested in "unity" or a "photography community" that only exists if I deny who I am, have to silence my voice, and only worship others who "look the part" of someone who should be allowed to speak. Honestly, such a "community" sounds more like corporate America...you know that which most artists think they are escaping? Funny how similar they are.
And, for the most part I've dodged such a "community." I don't follow photographers (or other silencing people) like this. I don't use online photography forums. I don't have a Facebook profile so I am not in nor lead photography groups anymore. There's only a handful (less than 100) photographers I chat with (and that number is low considering in the world of social media, tweeting like 1000 different people in a month isn't that far-fetched.) As I observed this "community," I realized my time is better served connecting with people based on who we are (souls, not just bodies), not what we do. I realized that sharing images is only part of how I want to use my online space. (In fact, I changed my Twitter page name to "Trudy" from "Tru Shots Photo" to further indicate I'm tweeting as a whole human being, not a business/brand etc.) There's so much to discuss and learn about people themselves...which of course in turn affects my photography. I want to have those conversations. And sometimes, my own experiences will be the topic. I won't be silenced. Too many Black women (i.e. Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Fannie Lou Hamer, Shirley Chisholm and so so many more) fought and died for me to have this power to share my voice so freely. I wouldn't dare disrespect their graves by allowing the "superficiality police" the "racism/sexism or any 'ism' is over so shut up police" the "if it's not about gear it's irrelevant police" or the "only 'industry leaders' who fit the demographic that we imagine them to be should speak police" to ever silence me.
Silence itself is a gift (I do love times/places that are physically quiet) but only when it's a choice.
People use both art and conversation to try to control (as well as slander, manipulate, shame) and silence me and other Black women. To me, art is something that's supposed to be expressive, communicative, informative, and transformational. So is meaningful conversation. I use art and conversation to express, learn and evolve. Not through forced silence but through open truthful expression I evolve.
"Still I rise..." - Maya Angelou
(I am fortunate that thankfully there are some photographers (and others) who are not like this. We all speak to each other and about issues freely. And they are diverse in race, culture, gender, sexual orientation and more. However, again, this still needed to be addressed. *Also, I am not going to address the "popularity" or fans/Stans of Perry or Stockett, I think scholars such as Melissa Harris-Perry did a better job of that...and well...and I agree with her.)
Related Blog Posts: A Very Different Photograph Critique, "Why Are You Tweeting That?", What Nobel Prize Winning Author Toni Morrison Reminded Me About Photography
7 Comments:
Thanks for writing this. Other than perhaps Glen Friedman and a few (mostly silent) others the world of photography has been painfully passive on allowing superficial practices to dominate. It's unfortunate as the only way to really over come such problems is to educate and not feed into it, not just in photography but as a member of society in general.
Thank you so much for the response. It always interests me to know that other photographers truly see what's occurring as well. I appreciate you taking the time to read it--i know the post was long. ;)
Trudy,
I enjoyed your article and continue to follow your blog on Google. Keep shooting, thinking and speaking about the things that are important to you and things others should find both informative and enlightening.
Scott
Thanks for the feedback Scott. :)
I'm really, really starting to wonder about the concept of "community" and how genuine it can be (without an immediate and severe outside threat) or how lofty a purpose it can serve in the long run. It seems to be limited by the weaknesses of its most shallow member across time. Not to throw the baby out with the bath water, but reading this, I see the same issues that pop up in every other community I've been involved in and I just...wonder.
That was a great point regarding teaching men not to rape vs. teaching women to be careful. I brought this up a little while ago with a male authority figure (responsible for guiding boys), and he effectively ignored the concept, trying to morph my very direct objections about a joke he had made into my personal offense.
I believe that all of it amounts to people in general not wanting to take real, costly responsibility for anything around them.
Thank-you Trudy.
I am increasingly alienated by a photographic tradition that claims to represent the world 'as it really is', but in fact only shows things 'as they really look like'. If anything, photography has by-and-large depleted our understanding of the world. Mostly because photographic 'tradition' is led by people from the ruling class, ethnicity and eduction - and they would rather mask over poverty and inequality, or else make it beautiful.
The more informed and conscientious we are, the more we can try to claim back photography... and hopefully demonstrate how it can change things, change people's minds, and make the world better.
Megan...your comment is brilliant. Thank you for sharing. For the most part, there is no real threat to people who base a community on a specific profession unless the profession itself is near extinction. Photography is not. I do think some people try to pretend it is, to thus create the "need" for this communinty. So I think there is genuine validity to the first part of your comment. It is unfortunate that such a community mimics corporate America or any other society that creates hierarchy on various demographics and social classes, not even on ability or experience (not that the latter hierarchy would work either). Thanks so much for reading and sharing.
Josh...I don't think that photography has depleted our understading of the world. I do think that some photographers seek to do that both on purpose and by haphazzard circumstance. However, I don't think their message of superficiality erases messages of substance that other photographers create. If anything, they are alienating other photographers who will still continue to photograph and write the truth. Like any other art form, there will be opposing forces. But the opposition itself doesn't dilute what is true...it just means that what is true has to work harder to exist. That though... is unfortunate. Don't let photographers themselves alienate you from the craft of photography itself or what power it can have.
I do see validity in your view though...it reminds me of something Susan Sontag wrote in her book On Photography...I shared it on this blog too. Go back a few posts and you'll see it.
Post a Comment
Comments/constructive criticism appreciated: