A disaster. A lone child. Barefoot. In a barren landscape. The apparent absence of social structures.
Caption: Bududa, Eastern Uganda. A boy walks over the churned mud after heavy rains caused landslides on Mount Elgon on Tuesday. Three villages were engulfed, at least 80 people were killed and around 250 are missing. The Guardian, 6 March 2010, p. 23. Credit: James Akena/Reuter
James Akena’s photograph of a young victim from the mudslides in Uganda recycles all the main elements in the dominant representation of ‘Africa’. As James Ferguson writes in his important book Global Shadows, “for all that has changed, ‘Africa’ continues to be described through a series of lacks and absences, failings and problems, plagues and catastrophes.’
The Bududa mudslides that Akena’s photo for Reuters symbolises are certainly worthy of reporting. The question is: regardless of the intentions of the individual photographer – a Ugandan who is an accomplished stringer – why did he choose this particular composition? And, equally important, given that he will have taken a number of images on site, how did this particular photo come to be selected by The Guardian to represent the story?
The choices that Akena made in taking the photograph, and The Guardian made in making it the largest picture in its ‘Eyewitnessed’ double page spread for the first week in March, are evident when compared to other pictures from the same event. On The New York Times Lens blog Stephen Wandera’s photograph (see slide 2) for AP shows a large crowd at the scene searching for survivors, while a Ugandan TV report also shows the community at large. These demonstrate that the photograph of the lone boy is a specific choice with particular effects that tap into a long history of visual representation.
It is time for the photographic visualization of ‘Africa’ to offer something different. In this context, it is worth noting that only two days prior to the publication of the Bududa photograph, The Guardian ran a story in its business section headlined “Africa begins to make poverty history.” It opened with claim that:
For decades, it has been seen as the world’s lost continent. Now, a new study says that the view of Africa as a basket case is wrong.
As the continent prepares to welcome thousands of international football fans for the World Cup in June, it seems the image of an economically vibrant region the hosts are keen to project is closer to the truth than tired stereotypes suggest.
It’s an important — though contested — account of recent economic trends that should give pause to those who simply recycle the old stereotypes, and some photographers are producing different perspectives that challenge those stereotypes.
One significant project doing this is Joan Bardeletti’s “Middle Classes in Africa,” a twenty-month project in six countries documenting the rise of this group and their potential role in the development of the continent. Three of the stories – from Mozambique, Kenya and the Ivory Coast – are on-line now. One of the pictures from the Mozambique story won a World Press Photo award this year for the “Daily Life/singles” category.
Caption: Un dimanche après midi en famille sur la plage près de Maputo. Joan Bardeletti/Picturetank
Bardeletti’s photographs show people, places, institutions and cultural events that are modern, well-resourced and more than a little familiar to the European eye. They reveal a complexity to ‘African’ life that belies the stereotypes. However, we have to refrain from seeing Akena’s photograph as ‘negative/wrong/false’ while Bardeletti’s are ‘positive/right/true’. These are tired forms of critique that overlook the fact that all photographers make aesthetic choices in the construction of imagery. In terms of what ‘we’ outside of ‘Africa’ see, the overriding concern needs to be less the presence of particular pictures than the absence of all the alternative possibilities.
It will be interesting to see how many media outlets use Bardeletti’s photographs and stories once the project is completed in the summer of this year. Of course, there are many economic challenges still facing the continent – such as the the “land grab” of agricultural resources revealed recently by John Vidal – but a more comprehensive visual account of ‘Africa’ must include photographs like Joan Bardeletti’s.
(As well as being an accomplished multimedia producer, David Campbell is Professor of Cultural and Political Geography at Durham University, U.K)
related posts
This is a great post. Thanks David.
I think you make a really important point about needing to go beyond looking at photos as either negative or positive. The response when you critque photographers of offering an unbalanced vision of Africa is that you are somehow asking them only to photograph ‘positive’ images. Not true. I think many people living in Africa don’t want another set of unbalanced images as an antidote to what is already out there. That would just be mirroring the problem but form the opposite end. What they do want and what you seem to be arguing for here is a more balanced visual representation of the world they inhabit. How we get there is another question all together.
Thanks very much for this, David. I’ll be sending a link to my students.
“…how did this particular photo come to be selected by The Guardian to represent the story?”
For me, this is the most interesting question: Why do we in the west seem to want to see Africa, as you say, only “through a series of lacks and absences, failings and problems, plagues and catastrophes?” Even when we, like the Guardian, know better?
Thanks to Benjamin and John for the comments.
Moving beyond the tired critical framing of negative/positive is one of the most important things we need to do. Guy Tillam, the South African photographer, in an excellent interview last July on Daniel Cuthbert’s Verbal Hmmm blog (the link is not working today for that blog), South African photographer Guy Tillim said:
“The thing is, there are serious problems in Africa which did require our attention. One has to be careful with the positive/negative thing. Just because one takes images of dance halls in Lagos, and people being happy, it might end up being as much as a cliché as the suffering image.
Positives images are one that are self-aware or are interesting, penetrating and original no matter what they look at. Negatives images are ones that perpetuate the issue.”
That rethinking of what positive means — “interesting, penetrating and original” — is very important.
Why does a paper, sensitive to the issues of representing Africa, run with the lone child image? A hard question to answer, though in fairness to The Guardian, Akena’s photo was also featured in The New York Times Lens blog. I think that indicates the power of a stereotype to attract the picture editor’s attention regardless of the effects of such imagery.
To underscore that point, this morning’s Guardian has as its double page Eyewitness spread a desolate landscape scene from salt mining in Senegal (by Finbar O’Reilly for Reuters; see http://www.guardian.co.uk/inpictures). I don’t know why it was chosen, but my guess is that its aesthetics – the colour and form – were probably the main criteria. Whatever the reason, it doesn’t alter the political effect – another image of lack and absences in ‘Africa’.
Yes. Spot on. Which makes me think we need to have an event with picture editors … maybe something at Polis, or Amnesty, a debate or a trial?
The image of Africa on trial? If we got the right people it might actually shift the way some of these pictures editors think. It seems we always hear from photographers, this could be an interesting step.
[...] [This is a revised version of my 14 March 2010 post for A Developing Story] [...]
I learned a lot from this post. Thank you. I have a point to add: Hans Rosling has some great talks on TED.com where he discourages people from thinking of Africa monolithically. His statistics show huge variation between and within countries. I think an accurate portrayal of the continent can only begin once we start comparing its constituent parts. I get a bit irritating when people talk about “Africa” as if it were one country.
Great point Trent. Very true. I guess that’s why David put Africa in quotation marks.
The new url for the interview is http://verbal.co.za/2009/07/guy-tillim/
This comparison has no ground. The photos by Wandera/Akena and Bardeletti are trying to accomplish entirely different things – the first are news photos of recent events, the second is a long term documentary project that encompasses many countries.
This line in particular bothers me:
“However, we have to refrain from seeing Akena’s photograph as ‘negative/wrong/false’ while Bardeletti’s are ‘positive/right/true’.”
In my mind, this falls in the “close your eyes and don’t imagine a rainbow” category – the kind that makes you imagine a rainbow. This post does exactly what it claims not to do.
I should also add that I know both Wandera and Akena from my time in Uganda. I worked alongside Wandera at the Daily Monitor as an intern, and when I started stringing for AP, I often worked alongside Akena. He taught me more than most classes in j-school.
Akena is not a “poor” African. His life looks more like what Bardeletti photographs than what he photographs. While quoting Ferguson might give this post some cred’, I sense some “oh look the African photographers have also internalized our stereotypes!” pandering that would make a Franz Fanon quote more appropriate.
I admire outlets and individuals who seek to promote understanding of Africa as a non-monolithic entity, but in singling out this image of a lone boy, this post doesn’t allow for the complexity of a place where both realities do in fact exist.
Dear Glenna
You seem to have missed the main theme of the post or I have failed to make it clear enough for you. Let me try and rectify that.
As I noted in my reply to James here, much of my work is about how ‘Africa’ is visualized through photography, and I am most interested in the effect of pictures on the audience outside of ‘Africa’. Therefore, rather then the intentions of any individual, my primary interest was the effect of how The Guardian used James’s photo (without context) in a week where they also ran a story challenging the idea of the continent as a “basket case”. I then wanted to contrast that to other visual possibilities, such as Joan Bardeletti’s project (or those covered recently in a complementary post by Asim Rafiqui at http://bit.ly/c5dr3f).
The post was not an exercise in art criticism – it was about the political effect of image choices beyond the control of the photographer, an effect that produces the visual landscape those at a distance consume. Of course I understand the difference between news photos and documentary projects, but for a general audience outside of ‘Africa’ consuming images through the media those categories are not all that meaningful. They either see some things or they don’t, and I am concerned with how they come to see the ‘negative’ much more than the ‘positive’.
However, I am also concerned with the limits of criticism that juxtapose negative with positive. I am therefore a bit mystified why you take such exception to the point I made that “we have to refrain from seeing Akena’s photograph as ‘negative/wrong/false’ while Bardeletti’s are ‘positive/right/true’.” Given that you rightly want to defend James as a good photographer (something I never doubted) I thought you would agree with the point that we should NOT criticise his photograph as simply negative etc.
What I am trying to convey with that point seems to me very similar to your final point – show complexity with its multiple realities. I believe its limiting and in the end unproductive to criticise imagery for being ‘negative’ as though one should banish one set of pictures and simply provide the happy, smiley,’positive’ alternative. We need a more complex understanding of those terms, along the lines suggested by Guy Tillim (see my earlier comment above, or the revised version of my post, with Tillim’s quote incorporated, at my site – http://is.gd/aJAGv)
Finally, as I said in the post, in terms of what ‘we’ outside of ‘Africa’ see, the overriding concern needs to be less the presence of particular pictures than the absence of all the alternative possibilities. It is the absence of alternatives alongside the reporting of the continent’s problems that produces the debilitating effect that James Ferguson so eloquently identified.
best wishes
David
I learn of the mudslide and rushed to Bududa district and climbed the slippery hills and skidded down the valley to witness the tragedy amids continuous down pour. I read with a lot of regret to ignorance of bloggers who just chooses to negatively critique ‘the lonely child’ pix. Am one of African photogs who wants to portray our continent positively but without shying from the truth. I never filed body parts that littered the mudslide scene, decomposing bodies, etc. Did you know that that lonely boy is walking on pile of mud covering families and his play mates some 5-20 meters bellow!!!!!!
It’s right pics choice any one who knows what a disaster picture reportage should be handled.
Cheers.
Dear James,
Thanks for replying. In my work on how ‘Africa’ is visualized through photography I am most interested in the effect of certain pictures on the audience outside of ‘Africa’. As I tried to make clear in the post, the effect of pictures is very different from the intentions of photographers. Indeed, in most cases (and I think the use of your image is one such case) a photographer lose control of images and they come to circulate in ways that can do the opposite of what the photographer might wish.
In The Guardian your picture did not illustrate a story about the mudslide. It appeared in a double-page spread of the week’s image (as the largest one), and in an on-line gallery. For the readers of the paper that week, this meant the single image of ‘Africa’ published by the paper was of a lone child, with a short caption, and no other context. This was despite the fact (as the post detailed) the business pages carried a report about relative economic growth in Africa.
I wanted to be careful in the post and say that of course events like the mudslide should be reported. As you say, it is important to be truthful. But that is not what newspaper in the UK did. They simply carried the picture (at least in the print version) without the story. Therefore, the information you provide about the ground over which the boy was walking is absolutely shocking. But no reader in the UK would have or could have known that. That failure is not your fault. But it illustrates how the image of ‘Africa’ we get is often one dimensional, lacking in context, and fails to convey the complexity of particular events.
You could help our knowledge of this event and the general portrayal of ‘Africa’ with some more information too. It would be interesting to know how many photos you took in Bududa, how many you filed for Reuters, and how many (and which ones) they distributed. That would help us understood what choices the UK papers had.
My interest in these stories is how, out of all the possible ways in which an event can be pictured, we, outside of ‘Africa’, end up with a familiar image. As I have tried to stress, that reduction in the available pictorial options is not your fault because as an individual photographer beyond your control. If you cared to respond again with that background we could learn some more about this particular event and how it came to appear to us in the UK.
best wishes
David Campbell
Hi David,
Western media is absolutely bias on photo reportage regarding Africa issues unfortunately! Copy this link and past in a browser for better insight http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news;_ylt=A0WTTkpHkqdL6UkBNRvRtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBlM21mM3ZrBHNlYwNwYWdpbmF0aW9u?ei=UTF-8&p=james+akena&c=images&xargs=0&pstart=1&b=11&fr=yfp-t-701&xargs=0&pstart=1&c=images&b=1
You will notice this is a photo story id did and Reuters carried a text story as well if you could check this link http://www.reuters.com/search?blob=bududa. Therefore ladies and gentlemen its time you turn your barrels at news and photo editors. I do not understand why they denied the wider audience rights accurate informative news. Last year when I visited Rwanda one of fastest growing economy in Africa continent with very low corruption rate, one of the best health care systems, BBC focus on Africa magazine ran a lead story to coincide with genocide anniversary I was horrified with a single image they used. The magazine decided to blow across two pages a picture of rusty machetes, iron bars, clubs, hoes etc, this was the weapon of genocide……..therefore in short, this makes me conclude that this is how the west want to Africa to be. When a picture wins award with numerous organizations, if the photograph was taken in Africa, there is 200 percent that it’s an image of disaster: pot belly child, death, hunger, etc……..how comes none you has come up with a strong positions on this unfair portrayal and gains in the names of awards? This is the very reason why I have never surrendered my images for a competition! Am really sadden, when foreign photogs only flock the continent to cover when disaster struck and and they quickly vanishes once its all over. My opinion still remains the same that we cant shy from truth but we should be able to tell the aftermath events as well. I tried so many times to apply for documentary assignments to bring a new role on reporting on issues to do with crises and after crises in eastern Africa and DRC but I don’t get the opportunity as my colleagues from the western world who knows how to write better proposals alway wins. Well one day things may be different hopefully.
James Akena
Hi James,
I really hope that you get a chance to share your experiences. Feel free to contact me and send pictures to benjamin@duckrabbit.info
James,
thanks for this. I’m sure David will appreciate your comments. No-one wishes to demean the importance of your work as a photographer or underestimate just how tough it can be to operate in such circumstances.
That aside I think its important to debate these issues. What David is pointing at is that in the Guardian there was an absence of illustration of a community response. That would not have been true for example of the Aberfan incident in UK when a school in Wales was buried beneath a slag heap.
It would be great to show some more of your work on the site, if you were interested in contributing.
All the best
Benjamin
I want to chime in again here – I don’t think that showing a lone child in this situation takes away any context. It is instead a representation of how one boy experienced a tragedy. This post starts from the premise that showing that is somehow a stereotype and the equivalent deleting context, something with which I disagree, and then goes on to compare this image to a documentary project. Apples and oranges.
David and Benjamin, I’d also like to see more of your thoughts on what I posted – I still believe that this is a false continuum and how you set up this post really does create a positive/negative divide – perhaps as unintentionally divisive as the Guardian’s editorial choices.
I have responded to your original comments above; my comment got held for moderation so has gone up after this additional comment, but without a chance for me to add additional points. I’ll wait for any further comment you have before responding to the points you raise here.
Also, FYI, this is the first result that comes up when you google “James Akena” — his website where you can in fact see much more of his excellent work.
http://jamesakena.com/
@David –
(this is in reply to your first reply to me – seems there are some comment moderation delays)
I neither missed the theme nor was it unclear to me. I simply disagree and think that your overall rhetoric has a very different effect than the one line in which you claim to not be creating a positive/negative dichotomy.
One thing that I do think the post fails to do, regardless of intentions, is to clarify or even give a nod to the difference in purpose and execution of the two primary photographs it compares. The post does mentions news photography and explains that B’s project is documentary, but for me, when comparing the two we’re talking apples and oranges and I think it’s a major rhetorical failure to set up a continuum between these two types of images without being more explicit about their differences.
I’d also like to add that I would feel this way whether or not I knew the photographer in question. While I understand what this post aims to do, I think that it falls into the very trap it claims to avoid and blames the photographer and does create a positive negative/ dichotomy. It also, in isolating one image by one stringer, removes as much context from the practice of news wire photography as you claim is removed from the photo of the lone boy.
I agree with many of your ideas about the way Africa is portrayed, but, I don’t think that this post effectively discusses them nor does it manage to communicate what’s at stake. The comparison is random and unwarranted and gives no reader – of this blog nor a general consumer of media who doesn’t know much about Africa – more footing into the issue.
I’d love to see you post comparing different kinds of news photography and different types of documentary photography and perhaps even discuss how the two genres create different ideas about Africa and how this continent is visualized.
G
I don’t want to be in a position where we just talk past one another. So instead of trying to defend the nuances of the argument – especially the need to move beyond negative vs positive as the limits of criticism – I will conclude for the moment by repeating my position on one of the important things about which we clearly disagree.
You have made a number of references to ‘apples versus oranges’ and the alleged illegitimacy of citing news and documentary photography in the same argument.
In contrast, because I engage in analyses of the political effect of image choices that are largely beyond the control of the photographer, I will continue to defend the claim that these two forms should be considered as part of the same whole.
I understand the difference between news photos and documentary projects, and of course I understand the varying intentions behind each from the image producer’s point of view. But for a general audience outside of ‘Africa’ consuming images through the media those categories and their respective intentions do not determine how pictures are received or understood. The general audience either gets to see some pictures or they don’t, and I am concerned with how they come to see them in the limited terms of ‘negative’ much more than the equally problematic ‘positive’ – often because of the way media channels have stripped the context from photographs regardless of whether they are ‘news’, ‘documentary’ or any other formal category. Studying the function and effects of photographs is different to studying the intentions behind their production where genre might be more important.
James thank you for your post. Its important that more people in the industry hear your thoughts, that’s the only way that change will come. God knows we need it.
THANKS
Benjamin
[...] et pourtant l’Afrique a un autre visage aue l’on ne nous raconte pas assez…: lire l’article de David Campbell [...]
[...] Visualizing ‘Africa’: from the lone child to the middle classes | A Developing Story. [...]
Dear James
Thanks for the further reply (March 22, 2010 at 5:28 pm – see above), with which I am in strong agreement. Over the years I have written a number of studies that try and explore the problem of the dominant photographic portrayal of ‘Africa’ (which I always put in quotes to signify how the complexities of the continent are overlooked by most pictorial coverage). The example you give from Rwanda is a good illustration of that concern. I think perhaps your most important point is that it is the news/photo editors who should be studied for their role in perpetuating the problems of representation, and we must think how best to do that.