inside/outside

i am this morning having my coffee in London....just trying to figure out the weather patterns....i have seen three different "seasons" in just the last three hours...from warm sunshine to cold windy black skies and everything in between...i mean, what kind of job could being a UK "weather forecaster" possibly be??

however, this post is not to be about changing weather patterns, but about changing cultures, although i am really starting to think that weather and culture are totally interconnected...would Charles Dickens have written about the same stories  had he lived in Tahiti??  but, i digress...

my ancestors came from these British Isles....clamored onto small ships and ended up in the Americas looking for freedom and a new life...i cannot trace my family back to anyplace specific in the U.K., but my name is no surprise to anyone here...."Harvey" fits right in....belongs....

yet, i have never done any photography whatsoever in the land of my heritage...nor, have i even been to Ireland or Scotland where my bloodline also extends...there are a whole bunch of family names connected to me from both places....but so far, i have just not felt "the pull"....i just have not been compelled...

a few weeks ago, one of the comments from a reader here suggested that photographing a culture other than your own just could not be as well done as by someone who was actually a "part" of that culture..."inside"...one of them....the comment even went on the say that perhaps as photographers we did not even have the "right" to be so bold as to even attempt "identification" with a culture other than our "own"...

of course, even the word "culture" means basically three things or a mixture of the three...nationality, race, religion...so, in my case  as an American, where in the world would i begin my "identification" ?? the cliché  "melting pot" concept is , in fact, clear reality....and is becoming more of a reality in most countries of the world....

i am very interested in your comments regarding any of us to have the "right" to photograph "outside" of our own "territories"....sure we have the freedom to do so, curiosity drives us,  but can we really "see" through someone else's eyes?  or , does it even make any difference at all??

for my work, i have photographed both "outside" and "inside" by own "culture"...probably , well surely, leaning towards the "outside"  .... what about you?  do you find yourself leaning in one way or the other?

if you do go "out", what gives  you the sense that you can portray another nationality, race, or religion in any meaningful way, or even have the intellectual  "right" to do so???

Comments

[Sean Gallagher]

Dear David,

The mixture of weather in London echoes the mixture in cultures that reside in the UK. More than anywhere (except for maybe New York) there is no one identifying 'culture' in London. So, when I am there and I photograph, I am not only photographing 'my' culture, the one in which I was brought up, but I am also photographing the culture of many many other groups of people who have brought their own cultures to the UK to enrich our original one. So, I find it quite difficult to answer this question in the context of London, England, the UK....'my' culture. Is it all 'my' culture? Or is 'my' culture only the small village where I grew up for most of my childhood in the English countryside?

I truly believe we have to discard the psychological and physical 'boundaries' that such things as geography and religion create. They are already too readily used as divisive powers in our world. If a Chinese photographer for example, wants to go to Britain to try and understand British life more, then I shall embrace him/her and I hope the same is true as I try to work in China. I do not pretend that I will ever be accepted as Chinese, or I will look at an issue the same way as a Chinese photographer, but I hope I can be welcomed as someone who is trying to understand the culture and people more from my point of view.

We can only be true in our purpose of photographing as a way to understanding the cultures and people around us, helping others to look at our photos to try to understand one-another better.

Best,
Sean

[carlos filipe]

another great discussion…
we and they, self and other, emic and etic, insiders and outsiders… or “what we talk about when we talk about culture”.
i think this could be helpful… (links below)

The concept of culture: Deeper than you think, (notes and comments on Kluckhohn and Middleton articles) by Bruce Owen, Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State University, in Introduction to Cultural Anthropology: Class 3, at
http://bruceowen.com/introcultural/203-07f-03-ConceptOfCultureAndCultureShock.pdf

“Finally, most cultural anthropologists agree that the goal of anthropological research must be the acquisition of both emic and etic knowledge. Emic knowledge is essential for an intuitive and empathic understanding of a culture, and it is essential for conducting effective ethnographic fieldwork. Furthermore, emic knowledge is often a valuable source of inspiration for etic hypotheses. Etic knowledge, on the other hand, is essential for cross-cultural comparison, the sine qua non of ethnology, because such comparison necessarily demands standard units and categories.“, by James Lett, Adjunct Professor of Anthropology at Florida Atlantic University, in Emic/Etic Distinctions, full article at http://faculty.ircc.edu/faculty/jlett/Article%20on%20Emics%20and%20Etics.htm

um forte abraço para todos,
Carlos Filipe

PS. replace anthropologists by photographers…

[david alan harvey]

SEAN....

well, i have certainly lived my whole "photographic life" believing just as you wrote...but, there are other points of view on this and i hope we hear them....

CARLOS FILIPE...

i do not have the time to read this article right now...rushing airport...but, i will later tonight...sounds interesting for sure...

ALL...

here i have started a discussion, but cannot participate in it until tomorrow...flying back to New York tonight...that's ok, i should have quite a few opinions to read by the time i get "home"...

keep things rolling!!!

cheers, david

[Joni Karanka]

Hope you had fun in London! I was there last week and managed to a) apply for Finnish citizenship, b) meet a lot of people, c) get banned of pubs. Lovely place. On the topic, I've been shooting in the UK for a few years now, I think I'm fairly in the places I shoot and although I might not understand them with the eyes of a local, I see quite many common points. I find it more interesting that once I've been here for a few years I see going back to Spain or Finland with renewed interest. Some things about daily life pop out by the reason of them being more unique than what I thought when I lived on that soil. It's like the stuff I see in Cardiff that's very unique about it, although much of it extrapolates to similar sized cities in the UK. Not sure if I try to make any point at all, apart of the fact that moving around is necessary for having standards to which compare and see the exceptional in the obvious. (Any more mongrels to speak up?)

[richo]

David,

I am from Eastern Europe, living now nine years in Western Europe. Cultural and historical differences in last more than fifty years were huge.

I find out that more people from different cultures I know more I can understand their differences and commonalities. That makes it for me possible to understand even my own culture and people far better.

Because I do not know and never will fully understand details to the depth I wish of to me, foreign culture, I can not declare I can represent it with my images perfectly.

What I can, on other hand, is to better express my own culture and being able to do it in way people from different cultures and live experience can understand what I like to say.

--
richard vanek

[Sean Gallagher]

Me too David :) Just my two cents, or should that be two pennies?...Safe travels!

Best
Sean

[Jason Hobbs]

hi david,

how are you? good i hope.

well as an anthropologist i find this very interesting indeed. it's one of the long running issues within anthropology and is totally relevant to photography too.

anthropologically speaking we would be dealing mostly with cultural relativism. the ethnographers, those anthropologist who go and live within another culture for a long period, often many years need to employ a framework to that culture in order to understand what is going on. one of these was cultural relativism. this was originally developed by franz boas in america and sought to introduce a more holistic approach to a cultures unique features and the need to penetrate the inner logic and inner reality of a culture in order to truly understand that culture. often this lead to anthropologist becoming advocates for the cultures they lived with; this was especially the case when placed i historical context: a time period when indigenous people were seen as being primitive savages etc.

however, there are drawbacks with cultural relativism. it tends to lead to its practitioners viewing the cultures they study is closed systems that somehow exists in a unchanged state throughout time. this is a widely rejected as it is impossible for any culture to exist without some contact with the "outside" world. in this sense no form of universal human understanding could ever be reached. for an example of how cultures do mix just think of how language develops: english has words which were introduced by the french, the word castle is an example which was introduced after the norman conquest; english currency the pound and the measure of weight comes from a roman measurement the libra pondo, which was later corrupted in the germanic to punda and then to pound.

it also has its ethical issues, since when taken to its logical extreme it is impossible for t here to be any ethical/moral judgement to be involved. if a society has developed separately from all others and is so totally unique then it is totally impossible for an outside to understand that societies moral framework. there is also the thorny issue of whether anybody studying another culture can do so without consciously or unconsciously including moral judgement.

ultimately what it failed to see is that all cultures are living breathing entities and that there development takes place often as a result of outside influence. there is a constant interaction, confrontation where cultural systems rub off on each other.

all of this is absolutely relevant to photography. ultimately i don't think that any photographer can "live the story" to the extent that they really see it from the eyes of the people that are being photographed. what we share is the commonality of being human; there is something beyond the obvious cultural differences here. this allows the photographer to have a moment or two of shared feeling with the subject. but then at some point the photograph goes home; back to there life that he/she leads. a life which is probably a world away from the the life of their subjects.

ethically speaking: i think this must come down to the individual. look at philip jones griffiths' vietnam inc. here is a welsh man taking a very clear moral judgement on the actions of the usa's government and armed forces as they fight a war in vietnam, a country whose people, by his own account PJG felt a great affinity with, even though they were vastly different from the culture that he grew up in. but then perhaps it took an "outsider" to see it? if we do not say that we have the right to photograph and therefore portray cultures other than our own then the wrongs that that some hope to hope right must be left to happen without comment. those who hope to show how similar we are beneath the obvious veneer must stop.
what a dull and ugly world that would be.

anyway, i think i've said quite enough for now. david will you be around london for the next few days? i'm around if you'd like to meet for lunch or something. i'll email you my number.

thanks

jason.

[Jorge Prat]

David:

My tought is, if you feel emotionally linked or involved with a diferent culture than yours, you can really succede documenting that culture in a deep way. I think it´s all about getting to know and feel, mixed with your own feelings and reflections about that culture or country. I'm thinking right now on your work when you documented my country (Chile) back in the 80'. You reflected very well what I would call a dark decade(no democracy, restrictions to freedom, and so on) here. But as I remember you once said that you were passing trough some personal changes or dilemas back there, and I think that this special mood really helped inproving your work during your assingment in Chile.
I maybe wrong but the emotional attitude toward a culture/country, with some research is far more important than belonging or not to it.

regards
Jorge

[Sam Harris]

Hi David, Hi all,

London... place of my birth and upbringing, the place that helped shape me and the place I was always running away from, the cold & grey, the dampness... always falling in love with other cultures, India... California... Brazil...

Visiting new cultures, for me, is always enthralling. At first I feel like I experience everything as hyper real, so fresh, the sounds, the smells, the light, everything is exciting. Maybe i'm too much a romantic but I love to travel.

OUTSIDERS:
Often 'outsiders' see things that 'insiders' don't see anymore, or have a biased opinions towards. So in their naivety there is arguably a clarity. An 'outsider' can have an interesting 'take' on a culture that's foreign.

I suppose what counts is how that 'take' is presented.

Something that comes to mind, as London has been mentioned
is the work of an Indian artist Bhajju Shyam. He is from a the Gong tribe in central India and somehow he found himself being flown to London to paint a mural for an Islington restaurant. He'd hardly travelled outside his rural Indian village before this trip and to him everything in London was extremly surreal. He made a series of paintings, a travelogue of his impressions. This work found it's way to an Indian Publishing house and was published as the book "The London Jungle Book" it's a great little book, very amusing, quite fascinating to see how London life looks to a total outsider.

This work could only have been done by an 'outsider'.

On the other hand sometimes working as an outsider can become sensitive. I mentioned in a previous post my own experience a few years ago on an assignment to photograph endangered Amazonian tribes. I felt very uncomfortable being there, I felt
confused an emotional. Being in contact with these tribes facing extinction because of outsiders and their greed, I wasn't so sure that my being there was a good or helpful thing, however noble my intentions were.

INSIDERS:
Sometimes being an Insider is essential and valid too.

Take Nan Goldin as an example. She photographed her 'world' her personal life, the highs and the lows. This type of work is only possible because it's so personal, she's a total insider and her work is engaging because of it's intimacy and it's grit.

I guess it's a lot to do with trust and gaining it.
But also you need to be there, to be 'present' a lot of the time. As an insider you can read situations in a way an outsider couldn't.

Although i'm not altogether sure about that, if your a real sharp outsider maybe you can read situations and places just as well???

David, I think somehow you are both, or you can float between both? Are you an outsider thats just very good at becoming an insider quickly? quick enough to still see with an outsiders perspective and quick enough to gain an insiders trust?

cheers
Sam

[Michael Loyd Young]

I don't consider one easier than the other, or an advantage. I tend to learn a great deal from what ever the subject is, even my own culture. If its not my own culture it places me outside the box looking in, It allows me to give the subject a different prespective.

[Alex Hofmann]

David,

could one not also argue just the other way around? That an outsider often may have a better overview? Much like you don't always appreciate the beauty of something that is always around you -- Parisians tend to look at the Eiffel tower differently, just because they see it often and thus it is nothing special for them.

You will say, of course, that if you are documenting Parisian culture, then this neglect of certain aspects of the French capital is one thing that defines it. But isn't this contrast, the different perception of such aspects what makes an outsider "understand" the local/regional/national culture in the first place?

It certainly helps me. Whenever I travel to places I have never been before, I tend to let curiosity be my guide. Go to the Eiffel tower; no French there; go to the little cafés next to the Trocadero; still hardly a French soul to be found; where are they?; go to the riverbank of the Seine, late afternoon, a bit away from the tourist spots; there you find them parcour, capoeira, break dance, chilling. By starting from the top I have enough time to reset my brain and loose my preoccupations and prejudices.

In my own (German) culture I would always be much much more preoccupied and prejudiced (assuming that I am not photographing something that is eminently "near" to me). I would argue that it is hard work to loose such sentiments just as it is hard work to learn about and understand a "new" culture. Curiosity, however, helps a lot in trying to get "into it".

I would argue that an outsider can, naturally, never identify with a culture other than his own. He may, however, even be able to find certain aspects, that an insider might not even be aware of. And by starting "from scratch" he might experience certain aspects much more intensely than an insider would. There will, just as naturally, always be certain (intimate) aspects of life that an outsider will never "get".

But is this not always the case, to a certain extent even with our friends/relatives/next door neighbours? Our (very) own "culture" is what defines our core -- and thus influences even our *approach* to understanding "outside" values, beliefs, ethics, etc.

Isn't therefore an open mind, a willingness to let go of his own preoccupations and prejudices, and a curiosity to understand (in the deepest sense of the word) much more important than whether or not you are an insider or an outsider? In providing these fundamental preconditions it is also, in my opinion, that we gain the intellectual right to (photographically) approaching other cultures.

Regards,
Alex.

[erica mcdonald]

I find the most compelling images to be the ones that spring from the photographer's empathy and supplant the divide, cultural or other...and remove the sense of other as much as is possible. For me, the photographers who are able to concentrate on subjects who are considered to be the other, and then offer the viewer the understanding of the existing oneness are the masters of this magic. I was just reading somewhere, here? about how 3 people are involved in an image of another: the subject, the photographer and the viewer, and the force that comes is from a sense of connection between all three.

Can you really 'see' through another's eyes, especially with a camera in front of your own? Seems to be a Herculean effort, but perhaps one of the more beautiful reasons for persisting with image making. Back for a second to the discussion of visually loaded subjects, I suppose I see 'culture' as another layer in that onion, one that can be used to make a provocative photo, but an external trapping/bonus just the same.

Interestingly, those images that capitalize on the sense of other, a la Parr, where the mere strangeness of being supersedes the strangeness of the cultural unknown, pack a lot of power as well.

[Robert McCurley]

What gives us the itellectual right is "perspective". When I make photographs and share them with you, you see what I saw...and if I'm really good...sometimes you feel what I felt.

Photographs, reagardless of who takes them, can help us see/feel what it is like to be someone/somewhere else...another race...another religion...another nationality. BUT far more effectively when the photographer immerses themself in the activities of the culture.

I take much better photographs when I get involved... a participant instead of an observer.

I think you should add food, sports, music and weather to your list of culture identification. Why? Because I think culture is more appropriately defined by what the people are passionate about...the things and activities they center their lives around. It could be race, religion, nationality...but it's also deeper than that. I add weather to the list because it really seems to affect people's moods and outlook on life.

If I as the photographer am not passionate about (or at least get involved enough to try and understand why people are passionate about) the same things and activities, I probably will not be able to document the culture as effectively as someone who shares like passions.

I can give you my "take" on it, my "perspective"...but I'm afraid that my photographs may go lacking something.

To be perfectly fair though, my "outsider's perspective" may occasionally be equally as interesting photographically.

[chris bickford]

"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time"

I think there is much merit to both exploring outside your neighborhood and exploring within it. Early anthropology was certainly ethnocentric and imperialistic, but in the process of seeking to understand the logic and meaning of others' worlds, people like Turner, Meade, Geertz, etc, made astounding revelations about the relativity of the human experience. And with that new understanding, the field has turned a new eye on the Western experience, and seen it with a fresh perspective; we are now able to see ourselves from the point of view of the other, with a more critical understanding of the ephemeral nature of things that we once took for granted as plain truth.

In terms of photography, traveling and exploration gives you fresh eyes. A friend of mine in Venice told me recently that he enjoyed seeing his city through my eyes and even envied that I could notice things that were under his nose every day. Most people, when they are caught up in their lives, tend to filter out the kinds of small occurrences and details that a vigilant photographer looks for. When you are traveling, especially as a photographer, you are an open vessel, and those sorts of things are much more apparent to you. You may not have the complex understanding of events around you that an insider might have, but you have a much more visceral reaction to them, and that can translate strongly in photographs, so that a photograph that you took because of a gut feeling might have even deeper meaning and significance to one who knows the situation fully.

Coming home, if you can manage to keep that "eyes wide open" attitude, you can then look on your world with fresh eyes, and maybe see things that you might not have noticed before. Last week I was walking home from the neighborhood bar, something I rarely do because I'm not usually a big drinker, and I noticed three or four houses on my own street that I'd never noticed before.

As far as cultural sensitivity is conscerned, I ironically feel a lot more cultural sensitivity at home than I do when traveling. To me, the commercial fishermen in my area, or the denizens of the rural farm communities inland, are as foreign to me as the French masqueradors I photographed in Venice this winter. If we were all confined to photographing what or who we truly know, most of us would have a portfolio full of friends and family--maybe business associates-- and little else.

[pierre yves racine]

Hi !

I wouldn't say there is, on the one hand, the outsider and, on the other, the insider.

Being insider / outsider depends on so many things, apart from nationality, religion, etc.

Take Sam's example of Nan Goldin. She's often thought of as THE photographer from within. And to a certain extent she is, since she took pictures of her friends. When compared to the work of most photojournalist, it seems intimate and close. But she was photographing people (often couples), and therefore she must have had some kind of distance.

I mean that, even if you take pictures of your own family, there are moments when you are not "in it", you feel like a stranger.

On the other hand, you can be on the other side of the planet and connect with the place !!

It depends on so many things : nationality, religion, but also your age, the experience you have with people, your mood, etc. etc.

So here again, relativism...

Now, how much more difficult is it to take pictures of people "like you". If you push this idea a bit further, you end up photographing yourself, and that's it...

Which is why I think we have the right to look at other cultures. It all depends on how you do it, and for which purposes.

Is it for exotism ? (cf bill burke's "I want to take picture") Is it out of curiosity ?

I think this is what really matters, and what will help us knowing which pictures to take, and which pictures not to take.

Also, concerning the idea of only photographing people like you, I think it comes from the idea that the more you're invloved in a siuation, the better you know it, and the better your analysis of it...

This is wrong !

In France in the 1980's, there was a debate when death penalty was abolished. Robert Badinter, a french lawyer, said that the more invloved you were in a criminal affair, the less entitled you were to have an opinion about death penalty.
It was rather shocking to say that, but he simply wanted to say that people were too affected to judge...

I think this can be true with photography : you may have a clearer vision when you're a stranger...

[pierre yves racine]

... but being a stranger does not necessarily mean being a foreigner. It may depend more on the state of mind, mood, etc....

[Herve]

I suppose that if what you see is what you get, you can always blame the outsider for not seeing everything or even this or that, but if "what is essential is invisible to the eyes", that famous St Exupery quote so many photographers make their own, then everything opens up to "what you see", not "what you should see" (this, you can do by looking, but looking ain't photography). Heyhey, here's my "what" again...

and BTW, if being an outsider prevents from getting the inside, would that prevent the insider to stay an outsider? I remember saying that last this subject came. In many ways, the photographer is the ultimate outsider in any culture, his/her very own. That very snap of a second you see and click is an outsider's act.Yet photography is the craft of looking in, never out. What does this tell us on the relevance of being from and being out?

Not the only one, but Martin Parr has to be the consumate exponent of being an outsider in one's own culture, BTW (on top of an outsider in many others. no one would think he gets one better than the other). And afford us an inside view you couldn't get inside out!

Wow, strong coffee this morning! ;-)

[Suryo Wibowo]

If I go out and start photographing other cultures (in my experience, other ethnic inside my country), I would be stranger for the first time, and still I won't be a local, although I would start feeling like local... Even if so, the pictures would be also, not all but some, filled with "the fog of stereotype", according Bill Kovach's words about the truth in news.

I quite agree with Bill Kovach about the stereotype inside our minds. And I think that would also be happened to other photographers. Nachtwey's works about the poverty maybe filled with the stereotype that people working in the dumpsite of Jakarta should be poor. In fact, alot of them, has motorcycles, cell phones, mp3 player, etc. And those things could mean luxury for Nachtwey's subject, and maybe they feels that they were rich. Also the subject "poverty", how can someone describe/define poverty? Does it mean "having less than what we have"? or "living in circumstances, which are not as good as my own"?

But of course, not everyone can tell things through photographs, that's why the world need photographers, don't it?

Based on my own opinion, I started also thinking about photographing my own bloodline...I'm still in my own research phase... There is so much to find and maybe so deep to dig. And maybe, I have my own stereotype of people in my cultures...

Of course, a "stranger" who photographs another culture/group which is not his own offers a new standpoint, perspective, which locals would not have, or would not realize because the thing is "too common" for their eyes and minds.

The earth is round like a ball (almost), like my old teacher used to say... and we can see it from any perspective... but as long as we are on this earth, even if we see from different positions, we would face a small part of it.

But I think, we all have the rights to see things, places, cultures through our own perspectives. Just don't try to find the truth by yourself, and just let our works be the additional thinking to all of us to see clearly. Say it for locals or "strangers".

critics and opinions welcome.
regards
suryo wibowo

[Damon Coulter]

Hello Mr Harvey and welcome to my country, except you have left already, so I hope you had a good trip. Here’s the thing about being inside-outside that struck me with your question. I have just returned to the UK after 6 years in Japan and feel like an outsider in my own country now.

It took a while to get used Japan, and I’m not sure if anyone really ever gets that deep into Japan but as I walk around my home town these days I am feeling a little intimidated at the differences I find. I’m a little culture shocked to be honest. Not only the weather changes rapidly it seems; things here seem more brutish and greyer than when I left; even as a million day-glow yellow jackets and signs have sprung up everywhere.

The reflective yellow, I’m sure wasn’t so ubiquitous before and was my first photo when I got back. But in reality perhaps nothing else is actually any different, I am just seeing it anew. I think my hometown was always brutish and grey which is why I left it in the first place. I think we need to stand a little outside of the culture or country we photograph (even our own) to see what is interesting there because to be too deep is to lose sight of the things that would be of interest to those we want to look at and buy our photos. My home town has many stories of deprivation and hope and ugliness and beauty but we have to empathize and endeavour to be accepted by the culture and people around us, as Erica said, for it to show us its best, most worthy images. I was not part of Japan but grew a deeper love of the place after a while and it accepted my voyeurism, which was intimate of course, but also gave me the right amount of distance for clear thought. I need to keep in mind what this is for when I shoot. I cannot be part of it all too much. My doubts about my ability to do anything here is more than that the place is newly unfamiliar, indeed that is its most attractive part, no it is that I cannot yet find the power to care about it enough to do the stories it deserves, maybe because I know it too well.

I like to learn about something new all the time; to be invited into, even a small way, the lives of unfamiliar people. That invitation is hard earned and gives us the moral right if you ask me. I loved your smile post for making contacts for good photos but true access, I am learning, is much more than a smile; it is a contract where the photographer accepts that he must take only what the subject is prepared to give. I am sure I will find something here to shoot because I am looking, hard. Problem is that the experiences to be had, even those that I know nothing directly about, have always been part of my landscape and still feel depressingly familiar. I know you will tell me to look harder I am, the many years abroad have given me the requisite distance to be able to do that and I really want to find stories and can certainly empathize in my current state. Plus the language, for the most part, is easier. But if I had lived here all my life it would have been harder I think to justify my interest in those around me to those around me.
Many Thanks and a safe trip home.
Damon

[Martin Brink]

DAVID..

Hard question, but I don't believe it matters that much. If you're a good photographer I think you'can do good both outside and inside your own culture. I actually think that an "outsider" might to a better job because it will be easier for them to see what's unique about that culture. The problem is that westeners usually shoot their own countries, but wouldn't it be cool if some bush people or eskamoes came to NYC and did some street shooting?

Cheers

[Martin Brink]

Also, I'm very impressed by Martin Parr and Lars Tunbjörk that are able to shoot their own culture and timeline in such an amazing way. Really seeing from an "outsiders" perspective. Photographers like those two are very very valuable allthough they might not get the most credit today..

[Aga Luczakowska]

David, when i started to read your post i had a lot of fun because i have Master of Science in Geography and my Thesis Title was "Climate Change in Great Britain"... no kidding! :-)

Regarding to second part of your post... I was taking photographs both "outside" of my country, religion and culture and "inside"... i like both kinds of photography. Sometimes i think it's more interesting to shoot about other culture but than i always realize i have knowladge about my culture bigger than about islam (which i started to photograph) for example and it's easier to comunicate with people in your own language... but from the other hand i see those things with different perspective, abroad everythink is new for me... also sometimes people are more open for somebody from abroad...
hmm.. I can not decide what i preffer and what i like more...
everytime i came back from abroad i realize that it's so easy to shoot in Poland, i can call everywhere, i can talk with everybody... and it's a lot! I don't need anybody to take me to some places, to translate...
there are advantages and disadvantages of both kinds of photography...

[Marcin Luczkowski]

"....sure we have the freedom to do so, curiosity drives us, but can we really "see" through someone else's eyes? or , does it even make any difference at all??"

I like when people go through life with ideas in their mind... because our world is deprived of any ideas... ideas exist and arise only in human's minds

is there somewhere in space any rules that people or photographer have to or must do?

why we should or have to see anything by through someone else's eyes?

why we should find any truth?

why we should be the part of something to taking pictures... to show ours pictures people who never will see and never will understood truth about our subject as we are?

if I’m going to shooting drug addicted community... I have to "take a shot" or addicted myself? is that only way to show how miserable they life is?

or maybe I have to kill someone to take a pictures on war?

or maybe I should pee on tree when I want shoot dogs?

or maybe people who looking at my dog pictures should pee on tree?

indeed... when I will find supreme truth about my subject, when I captured this deep wisdom about outside culture i should show my pictures.... but who will understand my devotion?
people will see just exotic pictures...

indeed... everyone will see something different...

indeed... this post is about how close we should get to say that our pictures showing truth about some cultures...

short story….

One time some BBC television from US. came to Poland… they have seen many pictures of farmer who plow soil with horse and wood plough (pictures from end of 80’), so they figures out that this will be great story… poverty in polish countryside… so they came to Poland drive to countryside and then see four big brand new air-conditioned Lamborghini tractors and a few race horses….
So they fly away with nothing story….
This is truth story…

So… if I know where should I go to shoot some farmers (this few) who plow soil with horses and wood ploughs then I will show truth about my cultures? My country? My countryside? About me?
Or maybe should I shoot this Lamborghini tractors only and forgot about poverty in polish countryside? About people who living with 200$ per month in pocket?
Where is my true cultures? My true country?

But… if I will be very talented photographer I will go to morocco and I will met people who showing me they true life, I will have some great time great fun… they will feel natural with me they will show me how their world looks like… and then I will come back to Poland and I will work hard to show how my life looks like the same way… drug addicted… farmers…. Nurses… bakers… I have the same knowledge about them like about Muslim people… we only talking in the same language…

I was working with transsexual persons and they are more strange to me than Muslim and the same closed like all Arab’s world are.
But… so what?

So who is inside and who outside… and for who?

Peace

Ps. For me all other people are outside… only I am myself inside…
So my dear strangers…

[Herve]

Maybe at this point, it is not too much of a pun to difference between "typing" and "impressing". For all the great, telling, pictures a photographer can take, it may be more the writer/novelist's dilemma to give sense and understanding to a place, and then, yes, he/she probably needs to be inside, foreigner or local.

So in typing/writing, there is definitely a concrete task at work regarding accuracy of judgement, whereas impressing light on a sensor, the quirkiness, the elusiveness of the media gives you a much wider berth to impress things, feelings, "reality" on others (but also yourself, as you may "get" the place/moment not as you shoot, but after, seeing your images).

Photography needs not be accurate to be true.

[Sidney Atkins]

David and All

This topic and this thread have certainly brought out some fine thoughts and writing from a large number of contributors! Very impressive... the blog just keeps getting better. Much of what I could say would echo other posters, and I'm still working under a heavy deadline so I will keep it RELATIVELY short, even though I'd love to wax loquaciously on this topic. First, special mention to thoughtful comments by Jason Hobbs, Sam Harris, Alex Hofmann, Chris Bickford, Damon Coulter, and Suryo Wibowo in particular... but I don't mean to slight anyone else by any means. And Aga, it is a great pleasure to me that you are once again an active contributor to this discussion!

Just a couple of thoughts: this business about crossing cultural lines and coming up with images of value and insight... Strikes me that it is probably easier to do this with photography than almost any other form of expression and communication. Think about if you posed this same set of questions and problems to painters, novelists, poets, musicians, dancers, even filmmakers... I think it would be far harder to cross 'cultural boundaries' in those media and still come up with something that both 'insiders' and 'outsiders' would recognize as valuable. Don't have time to go into lots of examples, but I'm sure many of you can fill in the blanks!

The other thought I don't have time to develop now but which I think is highly relevant is this:
'Culture' is so nebulous an idea... and maybe it has to be. The so-called boundaries of cultures are largely illusions- the more you try to define them, the more they evaporate into mosaics and melanges of complexity and variation. The fact is most of us live in a number of 'cultures' simultaneously or at least serially. There are the cultures defined by bloodlines, language, religion, food, marriage customs, music and dance, traditional livelihoods... and I think that's the general notion of 'culture' being largely discussed here... but increasingly what we see in the world are cultures defined rather less by those things and more by economic level, education, consumerism, mobility, and generational differences. And something that is interesting to me is that photography and filmmaking, and to some extent popular music, have played crucial roles in creating this new, more cosmopolitan, less limited by linguistic or ethnic boundaries, type of culture. The young, educated, urban elites of the world's major metropolises have developed a culture that translates from London to New York to Buenos Aires to Capetown to Mumbai to Bangkok to Seoul to Tokyo... yes, there are local differences and flavors (and different local climates too!) but these people have more in common with each other, on different continents, than they do with uneducated country farmers living only 60 miles away in their own country. And more in common with each other than with their own grandparents. Photography in its many manifestations... from photojournalism to food and fashion, photo ID's, advertising, and yes pornography (face it, it's a major industry)... has broken down the previous cultural barriers, especially the linguistic ones, with a universal visual language. Yes, there are local dialects of that visual language which are different, and some people are far more articulate and deeply grounded in using and reading that visual language than others... but photography and pop music come as close to being universal languages as anything we have developed so far.

I'm hoping many of you will pick up on this idea and run with it as a possible counterpoint to the ideas already expressed. Needless to say I will rejoin the discussion when I can!

Cheers!

Sidney

[Preston]

I think the questions of one's "right" to photograph another culture and the matter of being an insider or an outsider are firmly Western elite concerns. "We" have the choice and the resources to decide whether or not we want to photograph in a Brazilian favela or Parisian banlieue or among a different community in our own home towns. (Yes, it's expensive to do so, but we all have the luxury of taking pictures instead of breaking stones.)

This is more a question of class than culture. Photographing the middle-class of a different culture doesn't usually provoke such concerns. It's only when we photograph the poor (which is also a different culture) that we worry about whether or not it's okay to do so. The power differential is obvious to us, and we worry about it.

So when we (and I surely include myself here) photograph among the world's poor, because we find their culture interesting, aren't we really just satisfying our own curiosity? Even if we have noble, altruistic intentions, the image is still as much about the photographer as it is about the subject.

I don't really think these are moral questions or ones having to do with rights. I photograph almost exclusively in cultures other than my own and don't pretend that the work is anything more than my own personal perspective. Photography is wholly subjective.

What would be really interesting would be to see photography from the bottom up instead of the top down. Instead of photographers in New York getting a big grant to do a project, say, on the slums of Asia, why not give that money to a young photographer from an Asian slum to photograph in New York? And give the shooter access to all the things that tend to get shot around here, like Fashion Week, charity galas, fundraisers for the Metropolitan Museum, the Tribeca Film Festival. Would we worry about this person's "right" to take these pictures?

I've seen all the slum pictures I care to see. I admire many of them and have a shot a few myself. But seeing New York through a truly different set of eyes -- now that would be cool.

[Davin Ellicson]

While an 'insider' may be able to do a better job than an 'outsider' in some cases, 'insiders' can become blinded to what actually is unique in their own culture. I think you really have to be passionate about your subject matter to make great photographs. Hence the reason I am writing this on my Mac from a hotel room at 12.30 AM in Iasi, Romania, 20 km from the Moldovan border! I simply am not passionate about the US or its culture. I am drawn to the East and therefore I think I have a right to do what makes me happy. Whether or not I accurately portray the place is another story, but everything is subjective! I feel I have a right to photograph in places that enliven me, that 'start me up' as oppose to deaden me (US mass consumer culture + Bush).

[Damon Coulter]

Well put Sidney. That's very true and also what really interested me in Tokyo where there is massive cultural ghettoisation of fashions and hobbies to various towns and districts of the city.
Class and wealth have always been like that everywhere and that was part of what my own example in the UK was about. My hometown is poor, and so am I at this moment, yet I have a camera and a perceived tourist ethic which instantly puts me outside of my own culture.
The people are like me demographically but are not like me too. In Japan it was easier to get closer because of my race, in the UK trying to get close seems uncomfortable for the subject almost as if any interest is a form of judgement on the way thay have chosen to live. Now as a ersatz foreigner I feel I could probably get closer. Nick Danziger in "Britain- a journey to the edge" said something similar about his American-like accent being an advantage more than a disadvantage. I don't know I haven't put it to the test yet.
Damon

[mike lillie]

I feel as though I can photograph another culture far better than I can my own. I personally am more aware of how different and unique other cultures are when I am in them, opposed to when I am in my own.

[Sidney Atkins]

Preston,

Yes, Indeed!

sidney

[pierre yves racine]

Hervé wrote :

"That very snap of a second you see and click is an outsider's act."

In a way, this is true and I perfectly see what you mean, Hervé.

But don't you think that you can sometimes be "in it" while you photograph ?

The 1st time I realized this was at a d'Agata exhibition at the Galerie Vu in Paris. There was a picture where you could clearly see that he was actually "making it" while taking the picture.

So I think that I would agree with your quote from a conventional standpoint ie the photographer sees something, so he moves a few steps backwards (physically or "intellectually") and takes a picture.

But sometimes you're more of an actor than a photographer.

BTW I realize that I have moved on something slighlty different from what David originally asked : the question of being a witness and/or an actor while taking a picture. A question which has always fascinated me.

While writing this, Szarkowski's Mirrors and Windows also comes to mind :

Surely we can photograph ourselves (our inside) while photographing others (the outside)...

pY.

[TLP]

Hey David... can't agree more about London weather... last week when i arrived the sun was shining and was pretty hot. The day after when I woke up, ready to spend all the day out (with Laura and Susanne) to shoot the protest was snowing like crazy!
About your question... I think that of course we have the right to investigate about others cultures... when we choose to do it is, i guess, cause we are interested, curious, we want to learn...
Sometimes we can really identify and see trough the eyes of those people, sometimes not... is just "karma". But of course remaining an "outsiders" is not always bad... is different... if we can become part of oures subjects it will come out a personal work if we remain "foreigners" it will come out something more objective, less emotional, but probably more documentary. Give a bigggggggg kiss to Laura, have a nice trip back and thank you soooooooooooooo mutch again 4 the hepl!
Albertina

[Albertina]

Don't know why TLP came out... I am having such a bad computer period... I even fegured out that the software I was using to resize pictures in batch changed the colors :-/

[Patricia Lay-Dorsey]

Because of my training/life experience, I find myself considering your question through two lenses, that of social worker and that of a photographer.

As a social worker I was trained to stand apart, to examine what I was hearing from a client within the context of what I knew of their lives. The more I knew, the better I could understand what they were saying. And the better I understood, the more effectively I could hold up a mirror so they could see themselves and their life circumstances in a more objective way. It was my place to remain an outsider, albeit a caring outsider, but not someone intimately involved in their life. The ultimate intention was to make yourself dispensable so that, as soon as possible, these people could get on with their lives without your help. The ethics of being an outsider, that's what I tried to cultivate.

I bring much the same consciousness to my work as a photographer. Even when the subjects might be friends or even myself, I see my responsibility as one who stands apart, one who sees through the clear eyes of an outsider. Yes, I like to develop a feeling of comfort with my subject--I am a "people person," after all--but I can't be in their pocket. There is no light or perspective there. And, as with social work, the better I understand them (or myself), the more effectively I can show their essence to those who see my photographs. Again I am a mirror reflecting who they are and the lives they lead, in this case not back to them but to the world at large. As an ethical outsider I am required to make that reflection as accurate and respectful as I can.

So, to answer your question--an excellent one, in my opinion--I do not see being an outsider as a deterrent to photographing a people or culture that is not my own, not as long as I bring clear-sighted respect to the process.

[Mike]

Well, insular cultures sometimes make the best subjects because their internal workings are so seldom seen. The "right" to do something is completely arbitrary...I may say "No, it is not possible for an outsider to 'get the drift' of my culture as he or she is an outsider." You may say, "As a detached (or attached) observer I am able to objectively document without prejudice or preconceived notions." I think as long as the subject is treated with respect, you have the right and ability to shoot whatever culture you like, whether it is your "own" or someone else's culture, and you may even have the ability to do it as well or better than someone from that culture. I don't think people "of" a certain culture are necessarily the most objective story-tellers. It's too easy for them to be distracted by their own romantic notions of "their people." *gag*

[Bj A. Patino]

hi david. unlike jason, i'm not an anthropologist. but my wife is and i suppose she'd have something to say about your question. but she's busy with her university classes so you're left with me and my very unscientific take on the matter ;-) anyway, i think there is something to being a member of a particular culture. i mean whether you like it or not you will grow up with an innate knowledge of that culture. there's nothing you can do about it, you'll have that knowledge embodied from day one. so in that sense your view of your own culture will be more intimate than a visitor's perspective. but i'd also like to propose that a visitor could attain a similar intimacy given the proper openness, receptivity, and sensitivity. the flipside of that can also be valid: someone native to a culture could be so dense as to not fully grasp the meanings found in his own culture. for example, a filipino who grew up in the upper stratum of philippine society will likely be "americanized" and his photographic eye will probably have a western tint. i'm not proposing any theory here, lest the social scientists (my wife included) start thrashing me ;-)

bj

[Michael Kircher]

Hi David.

I'm a humanist at heart. I don't think this "race" or this culture has a right to this or a right to that, nor do I think that this other "race" or culture has no right to this or to that...we are of the human race. We are virtually identical genetically. We have different traditions, different mores, yes...but we cry, laugh, love, and unfortunately hate the same.

We do art. We do politics. Have sex. We communicate. We perform great good and indescribable harm.

I don't believe we need to see through others eyes. We see through our own quite well enough. We interpret. We convey. Sometimes well, sometimes not so well. But it is what we do. And should do. Should do more! It is what makes us human.

On a lighter note... to DAVID, PANOS, TOM HYDE et al...

Thanks so very much for your thoughts, ideas, insights, encouragement, and helpful hints regarding my time in the City of Light. Will be putting together about twenty photos for your perusal soon! No clear cut story...just tried to make some interesting images. With your help, (very generous help!)I hope I succeeded.

Be back in a couple days!

Peace,
-M

[Velibor Bozovic]

I'll start with a quote. Diane Arbus apparently said: ‘ The farther afield you go, the more you are going home... as if the gods put us down with a certain arbitrary glee in the wrong place and what we seek is who we had really ought to be.’
Those of us that lived long spells in far away places from where we were born, outside quickly becomes inside and inside becomes outside. Older I get everything and everywhere becomes a big outside. Reading the posts above, it disturbs me how many times the words culture ("outside culture", wtf is that?), religion, race and nationality come up...

[bobblack]

and who is ever not an outsider
for once we were not and then we became,
now we are now and then we will not;
twinned:
the back and forth,
always, the long sought hum, the same.

the far afield, the home unboned,
our endless unmeasured measuring songline to each, always, our roam.....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73821181@N00/2415358274/

off line for some time.....wearied of words, but still humming....

[Panos Skoulidas]

DAVID SAID:

"...for my work, i have photographed both "outside" and "inside" by own "culture"...probably , well surely, leaning towards the "outside" .... what about you? do you find yourself leaning in one way or the other?..."

I SEE GUILT , in your words David...
I see frustration and determination...

I FEEL JUST LIKE YOU DO....
"America has not been photographed or "honored" photographically yet... to that "level" that really really deserves..."

I think that David is ready for the "ODYSSEY"...
We need to photograph,
we need to record
we need to do the "ULTIMATE ROADTRIP" AROUND AMERICA...

when i think of America ( my own home , now )...
I think of Ansel Adams.. enough of that bullshit...

Someone has to do this, David...
and it seems that you ARE THE CHOSEN ONE...

I wanna get involved ... and drive ... SOBER...

... time to honor the "INSIDE CULTURE"... (Veba, i know you hate the word culture ( i agree ) - sorry...)...

MICHAEL K...
WELCOME HOME... i cant wait to see your photos...
but , of course , i will wait...

[Panos Skoulidas]

"...for example, a filipino who grew up in the upper stratum of philippine society will likely be "americanized" and his photographic eye will probably have a western tint...
"Posted by: Bj A. Patino | April 14, 2008 at 09:18 PM

thank you BJ... great examples..,.

PEOPLE... , I'M AFRAID , THAT THIS WORLD,
IS NOT LACKING GREAT PHOTOGRAPHERS...
IT'S LACKING "PHOTOGRAPHERS THAT HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY"

... for example, here in our forum...
I'm so intrigued, i can't wait to see AGA'S Islam... project...
I do not want AGA... to "sit on a fence",...
trying to be "fair", honest, "neutral"... and all that...
I want to see "position", "take place"...like Jimmy Nachtwey...
or PHILIP BLENKISOP... PASSION... (PAOLO P. kinda passion)

Ultimately,
i might have to disagree with BJ, regarding that "western tint"..
I would call it... "safe nonsense tint"

peace

[Eric Espinosa]

DAVID,

When we go "outside" our own culture, should we even try to see through somone else's eye or should we rather provide our own vision... ultimately our vision is always somewhat subjective and only provides a personal point of view on a topic, a culture, it is OUR view of the world, rather than "THE" truth....this is why it is interesting to see how various photographers would actually cover a "similar" topic.... David Alan Harvey covering Thailand or whatever other culture would likely be very different vs James Nachtwey covering the same culture... Neither one of you would probably portray the THAI culture in its entirety...you would likley each decide to provide a meaningful interpretation of what inpires you, catches your eyes, happens to be consistent with the message or vision you want to put forward....It would be the DAH view of the world, smell of the place as opposed to THE way the place is...I do not know if I am making any sense here but this is what I would be looking for anyway....I love Divided Sould because it is your view of the Spanish world....your truth rather than THE truth....

Cheers,

ERIC

PS: on an unrelated topic...I was just reading last week-end recent book from Annie Griffiths Belt that you did mention recently (A camera, two kids and a camel). Not my favourite pictures but it was interesting to see her work and read her about her life as a photographer, traveling the world with husband and kids, certainly going outside her own culture as she went into Jordan, Middle East etc...In the early pages of her book she says "although I was the first women at National Geographic to take my kids on most assignments, I did have role models...Some of the guys had been quietly bringing their families for years, Dave Harvey told me that he'd packed a kid or two along wheneveer possible. He often mentioned how crucial those trips were in bonding with his sons Brian and Erin..." Real inspiration that you, Annie were able to do this... Who will be coming for the ride on your next journey? Will this be again a family bonding experience or is the lone ranger going to cross the US alone (assuming DAH can ever be alone for more than a day without bumping into a friend...) Keep us posted on the plans.... Eric

[Panos Skoulidas]

... "our" David for example...

He "started" with a family.... he succeeded, ... raised the family...
worked for NATGEO...

family responsibilities, successfully over...

He, then "throws" himself in "deeper- lighter -higher -lower ", waters...
"Sensuality, dance, love, is more now involved in his photos....
think of "hip- hop".... HIS book, his passion...

I THINK WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE BEST OF DAH YET,...

I THINK HE JUST STARTED...
PEOPLE GET READY.....

[Eric Espinosa]

Panos, I think you are right here!!!!
Eric

[Panos Skoulidas]

ERIC... sorry for interrupting... but,
NEVER ATTEMPT TO USE "ANYONE ELSE'S EYES"...

and ALSO there is TRUTH....
not just MY or YOURS or DAH's TRUTH....
but there is TRUTH....

( otherwise we wouldn't even communicate or talk right now...)

p.s: some ( many ) people CONFUSE this with GOD... that's a joke...
p.s.2: there is no such word as "GOD" in my vocabulary...
peace

[Panos Skoulidas]

Bob, i'm tired missing your fucking awesome, fearless comments..
but i also know that... YOU HAVE TO BE FULL, BEFORE YOU START SHARING, GIVING, POURING....
I love you Bob,
YOU ARE THE MAN AND THE WRITER...
( I'm a lier and a thief... I steal other people's comments... i twist them, i make a lemonade, i make a song... all of my life Bob, i consider my self as a musician... all my comments are songs already.. music that i started writing since i was 15 years old...
until.. i found jesus... kiddin' SCRATCH THAT...!!!! UNTIL I "discovered" photography... MAGNUM photography.... no TIMES magazine photography....)

so Bob.... we need you....
I also thought i was a comedian , until i "met" ARTIE Lang...
this blog doesn't need comedians or musicians...
it needs photographers and writers like YOU...!!!!!

[Panos Skoulidas]

awesome , also, the "two KOREAN girls"... or whatever the title was...
nice photos.... BOBB STYLE...
Now i "see" what was i missing all that time...
peace

[Panos Skoulidas]

PATRICIA,
I think delivers the "perfect answer"...
Loved your work Patricia Lay Dorsey...

"...So, to answer your question--an excellent one, in my opinion--I do not see being an outsider as a deterrent to photographing a people or culture that is not my own, not as long as I bring clear-sighted respect to the process.

Posted by: Patricia Lay-Dorsey | April 14, 2008 at 06:59 PM..."
peace
panos

ps: I loved your post... please stop by , more often...!

[Matt]

This is a subject that has long been on my mind: outside versus inside view, cultural relativism, rights and responsibilities. Here's my thoughts:

It's impossible for an inside view to be complete, for the same reason that a doctor can't self diagnose. People have blind spots because of their history, fears, etc. Someone from outside a culture, outside a situation, can come in with fresh eyes and see it more clearly than someone with a history. People with that talent (photographers) are responsible for, among other things, showing things from this outside perspective.

I've always thought cultural relativism (relativism in general actually, but that's another topic) was wholly bunk because cultures can be dysfunctional, agents of violence even, and the people most likely to see it are those from the outside. Culture is open and evolving all the time, and it's our responsibility as people to facilitate the exchange of ideas between cultures. To show the good and the bad. Wait, isn't that what we do?

That said, I do think there is something important about knowing the people you photograph. Looking at the streets can give a feel for a place, but you don't really know it until someone has asked you over for dinner, offered you a bed, etc. It's the difference between being knowledgeable and not knowing what's going on. That's my opinion, though, and I know there are some photographers who are successful making pictures without knowing a single thing about their subjects.

I could ramble a while longer, but I think that's enough.

[Sheila Zhao]

Hi David,

I'm a Chinese American freelance photographer currently based in Beijing, China. I've been reading your blog for quite a while now, but never made a comment. However, I would like to share my thoughts on the topic you have raised today.

As a photographer who have worked both "inside" and "outside" my own culture, I believe above all, whether one photographs inside or outside one's culture, he/ she must be compassionate and sensitive towards their subjects. This, unfortunately, is particularly hard when a photographer is working on a project in a foreign land, with foreign cultures.

I feel that many times, the problem with photographers shooting foreign cultures is that all too often, they fall into photographing cliches out of their subjects. This is mostly due to a lack of research and a lack of a holistic understanding of the culture he/ she is working in. At the end of the day, it is easier to photograph what one wants to see out of their subjects, as oppose to what they really are or what they represent.

The classic example of this is of foreign photographers working in China. Many times, while foreign photographers can produce stronger pictures than their local counterparts, their projects lacks a more in depth understanding that local photographers capture. This, unfortunately, creates a situation where finding projects where both pictures and its messages strong a relative rarity. Of course, this generalization is not applicable to all works from foreign photographers, nor am I exempt from this predicament.

However, is it impossible to produce quality bodies of work when working in a foreign land or with foreign cultures? Of course not. I believe that with enough time, compassion, and research, photographers can produce enlightening bodies of work. At the end of the day, it comes down to whether or not a photographer is willing put in the effort, do the homework, and invest the time. Hi David,

I'm a Chinese American freelance photographer currently based in Beijing, China. I've been reading your blog for quite a while now, but never made a comment. However, I would like to share my thoughts on the topic you have raised today.

As a photographer who have worked both "inside" and "outside" my own culture, I believe above all, whether one photographs inside or outside one's culture, he/ she must be compassionate and sensitive towards their subjects. This, unfortunately, is particularly hard when a photographer is working on a project in a foreign land, with foreign cultures.

I feel that many times, the problem with photographers shooting foreign cultures is that all too often, they fall into photographing cliches out of their subjects. This is mostly due to a lack of research and a lack of a holistic understanding of the culture he/ she is working in. At the end of the day, it is easier to photograph what one wants to see out of their subjects, as oppose to what they really are or what they represent.

The classic example of this is of foreign photographers working in China. Many times, while foreign photographers can produce stronger pictures than their local counterparts, their projects lacks a more in depth understanding that local photographers capture. This, unfortunately, creates a situation where finding projects where both pictures and its messages strong a relative rarity. Of course, this generalization is not applicable to all works from foreign photographers, nor am I exempt from this predicament.

However, is it impossible to produce quality bodies of work when working in a foreign land or with foreign cultures? Of course not. I believe that with enough time, compassion, and research, photographers can produce enlightening bodies of work. At the end of the day, it comes down to whether or not a photographer is willing put in the effort, do the homework, and invest the time.

Thanks.

Sheila