There's a very polarizing issue that's recently making waves in my country since like in almost everything, we are late to the party. This has been an ongoing debate as European fashion brands have been accused of cultural insensitivity and cultural appropriation.
The photo that launched a thousand ships, friendship break ups and heated twitter debates
Here you have a a series of photos from European fashion brands that, as you might have guessed it, drew flak from different corners of society
Here we have the rest of the shoot from the controversial set. If any of you are wondering, this is a prenuptial/pre-wedding shoot for a celebrity couple here in the Philippines. They are relatively famous, and has chosen to shoot in Ethiopia beacause they fell in love with the place in one of their travels.
Now down to the good bits. In the spirit of fairness, I've compiled reasonable amount of points from each side, the pro and the anti because how could it be "polarizing" if there aren't strong arguments on both sides right?
(Those who see nothing wrong in the photo are the points with numbers, while the responses of the opposition are in bold)
- It's art. Photography is an Art, it has long been accepted as such, vis a vis with painting. This is an exercise of the artist's freedom of expression, artistic freedom. Shutting that down is censorship, restrictive, and damaging to the creative process.
This is true, Photography is an art, but for the first time in our brief human history. Art is so accessible to the public on how to view, and create such pieces that it has become diluted in its application. Not that photography as a craft has degraded in such a way, but it has a broad array of uses, in commercial, fashion, photojournalism, selfies and profile pictures and while it is still art in every way, one cannot treat them all fairly. IF everyone could paint, you'd see more issues hounding painting as well. Now with regards to artistic freedom, there is no such thing as absolute freedom such as there is no absolute free speech, of which is another form of art. It has boundaries, and when we go beyond that, there's a certain risk involved that may have a positive or negative outcome, and in this case, it is in the negative, and one should not be surprised at the reception of such
- They had the people's consent. All those kids wanted to be in the shoot. In fact, it wasn't planned to have them there and was shooed away by their parents. The couple however, loving the country and the people, wanted to include them instead. The kids, the parents, the photographers all agreed to do the shoot, so what gives? No one was robbed of anything.
Consent was never an issue, it never is. Sometimes we even harm people with their consent but does that make it right? we harm people even when the effects of that harm aren't immediately evident. When we pay our modern slaves, the nannies and the house helpers below minimum wage, but they consented in working anyway, does that make it right? when we deny them of further studies and aspirations in life? Of course people would gladly be in a photo, for them it's as much as a rare thing as for you visiting there, but the consequences of such bears heavy not on them physically, or even financially, but lies down the road. Put a frog in boiling water and it will jump right out. Place it in lukewarm water and slowly bring it to a boil will kill it, for it will realize the harm too late.
- So what if they're blacks? So if it was a white kid, a Caucasian with blond hair would the photo be any less disturbing? If it is any less disturbing, then it is your prejudice that is in the way, and you are guilty of racism, because deep inside, you still think of them as inferior.
This isn't an issue about race, but it can be. It of course doesn't help that a history of slavery, and an impoverished demography help goes against this point. Seven of the 10 most unequal countries in the world are in Africa, most of them in southern Africa. 20% of the world's refugees are in Africa. Seventy five percent of the poorest countries are in Africa. 1 in 3 Africans are malnourished. 37% of the world population who do not have access to fresh water is in Africa. Fewer than 20% of African women are educated and more than a million children die each year due to Malaria alone. So if you ask me why people are enraged at people who are black(especially people who are from Africa) it's because white Caucasian children do not invoke as much emotions, as much harsh realities as a black African Kid would, and no, that is not discrimination
- Poverty? Just because they live in huts you think they're poor? They're fully clothed! Ethiopia is the fastest rising economy in Africa. They're not as impoverished as you might be led to believe or do you think all of Africa are poor?
Let us stop you right there before you embarrass yourself more http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/publication/ethiopia-poverty-assessment
5.They are private citizens, they should not be scrutinized for something that their own hard earned money provided for them. If they weren't celebrities, I don't think this would blow out of proportion than it did.
If they were private citizens they would still get bashed, with the technology we have now, photos can go from Antarctica to the Mohave desert in a flash, people can react just a faster. They were just placed in the unfortunate position of being the first ever from the Philippines to have done such a distasteful set. So what if it's their money? You can't criticize unless it's free? So you argue for artistic freedom but not freedom of speech? Plus with the weight placed on them as modern influences on many, it would be a grave sin to let this pass by as if it's alright
- They are actually promoting the culture of Ethiopia! The groom is wearing Ethiopian clothing, the kids and the place benefited from the exposure, with their reach and their fame, this is a win win situation for everybody involved.
With power comes great responsibility, and with that fame and reach, it may bring the wrong message across too. There are better (and more blatant) ways of showing your love for the Culture and having your subjects act as passive participants isn't one of them. Which is why it's hard to pull off a set which aims to promote a culture, versus promoting a certain agenda and in this case, since it's a prewedding shoot, the agenda really in play is the couple and the promotion of their wedding. Which really leaves little room for anything extra. Fashion brands in Europe failed at this, because you can never steer the people's attention to your agenda which is the intent of the shoot in the first place, and that is brand awareness first and foremost
These however are photos that are better at promoting culture, active participants all around
- No one died in the photo or were harmed. So what's the fuss all about? It's just a photo. People make an issue on just about everything
And people disregard almost anything unless it involves something physical. What is it with the physical that we are concerned so much? Advancement of studies over the years have proven that there are different kinds of harassment, that there are emotional and even mental sides to the equation. Photos like words are a very powerful form of communication. It can incite emotions, revolts and can help shape how we view the world both in the physical and metaphysical. If it became commonly accepted practice, that one day, it's okay to rob people of human decency, know that it can start from a photo, and people accepting it
- You guys have double standards, When a photojournalist, or conflict photographer stage shots to get that perfect scene, to take shots for the sake of art, to reap awards, no one bats an eye. Private citizens do it, everyone loses their minds.
A common fallacy in any argument. Using another issue to muddle the current. Just because we may haven't reacted to things we aren't aware about yet, know that other parts of the community have, There's a fairly amount of scandals with photographers staging their shots, and to award seekers but there has been no shortage of flak for them either. Then again, another wrong does not right a wrong
- Social Justice Warriors should stop being the mouthpiece of other people. You are not them, you do not speak for them or their happiness and welfare. You do not know what's best for them since you're not there.
If people stopped being mouthpieces for others, imagine if American white Caucasians did not speak up for the black slaves of the south? Imagine if they got stuck in identity politics, the American civil war may not have happened and Slavery may have been a practice then for a longer time. Just because you are of a different skin, culture or place, does not mean you cannot be a mouthpiece for basic human decency, a common right for everyone. Do I have to be a Jew to speak against Holocaust deniers? or be a woman to speak against workplace harassment?
- This is all taken out of context, the couple merely wanted to have fun and to share their joy and memories with the people there. People just put a whole lot of different interpretations and twist it to fuel their anger, their frustrations.
There are other ways to show that joy. A high fashioned shoot with a highly questionable theme, and intent isn't one of them. To give context, the couple went their a few years back, fell in love with the place and wanted it a part of their memory leading up to their wedding. Now nothing is wrong with that, but you have to distinguish the difference between loving a place, and loving its people and culture because those two aren't mutually exclusive, you can take photos with yourself in the Savannah with the monkeys, with the exotic landscape and you can see that they truly love the place, when you involve other people however, it becomes a whole different animal
- Have you done anything for the people there? charity? why are you so up and about the couple's ass when you yourself has done nothing for the people's welfare? only hollow words from keyboard social justice warriors will not change anything.
**A Fallacy and a weak argument. You do not have to be charitable or someone who has specifically invested effort, time and money to a certain group to speak for the group. It also doesn't make a wrong any more right. It only attacks the speaker, but not the argument. You understimate the power of words and ideas, they change nations, movements are formed from words, so are social constructs. **
- People are so thin skinned nowadays. Getting offended by the smallest of things. Triggered by the most mundane of subjects, making a fuss about everything. There are way worse issues to be offended about and those don't get as much attention as it should because we're so myopic.
**While true in some cases(or most) one must be careful to be fair handed and even keeled in judgement. For if we use that lens for too long, we end up being apathetic to issues that do matter. When we cringe upon seeing gruesome photos in war zones, and refuse to see more, we refuse because we want to protect ourselves from harm, from stress and from unnecessary noise that aren't affecting us personally. It's okay to be offended at things that are offending, just because it happens often doesn't mean it's a bad thing, one must have the wisdom to decipher if you're being offended just for the sake, or if you want to send a message across and help stem the tide of those who oppress the basic human decency and respect that each one should receive. **
**Try to imagine if people were told not to be offended at not having maternity leave, on endangered animals, global warming, on not having 13th month pay, on the rights of indigenous people around the world, on not having state sponsored or subsidy in healthcare and education. Much of the benefits we have now were born out of an offense. Would you rather not be offended to be cool just because you're a dissenting opinion on a seemingly sheep society? **
What do you guys think? Drop your opinions on the comment below! :) Play nice now.