I followed Jehad Nga‘s work before on Somali Pirates and US Marines. It is in consideration of those two inquiries, and of Nga’s similar depiction of Kenyan boxers, I wonder about Nga’s choice to use the same shaft-of-light-in-the-dark technique to photograph the Turkana people of Northern Kenya. WSJ Online didn’t mention Nga’s repetition of form.
Nga photographed Turkana while covering the drought in Northern Kenya for The New York Times.
Turkana at Bonni Benrubi Gallery is 10 chromogenic large scale color works, framed in black with no mat and mounted to Plexi. DLK Collection has just reviewed Nga’s exhibition at Bonni Benrubi:
(Source: http://dlkcollection.blogspot.com/2010/06/jehad-nga-turkana-benrubi.html)
If DLK had accounted for Nga’s earlier projects it may have retreated away from attributing Nga’s technique to echoes of colonial ethnographic photography.
The real problem with Nga’s photography is that it’s production is a performance in which he as the photographer is implicated. Nga’s work is art, there can be no doubt. Nga’s portraiture will always bestow dignity upon sitters, but never inherently any understanding of the sitter. He is a director of his world.
STALKING THE ENVIRONMENT
Nga speaks well about My Shadow, My Opponent – photographs of Kenyan boxers. I especially like Nga’s comparison between the boxers in Kibera, Nairobi and US marines in Iraq in how they behave the longer they exist as a group.
Nga also offers this, “what attracted me initially was less the story component of a boxing gym, more-so the environment.”
Nga tempts us in with silky colour-saturated and pitch black prints. We are then duty-bound to position ourselves politically or emotionally with the subject; this is a lose-lose strategy.
Instead, we should be using Nga’s work as a springboard of natural interest into the very specific problems pertaining to this region of the world. Is a gallery wall the best way to reach the largest possibly number of potential supporters? Personally, I don’t think so, but this is a problem of distribution not solely one for the artists.
I support DLK’s expression of unease but I must disagree that, “Nga’s pictures undeniably draw the viewer into the individual narrative of a specific person or family.” Really? I see a lot of similar looking photographs.
I don’t think the issue is that things “haven’t changed much”, it’s that photographers and consumers of media haven’t changed enough, and Nga has hardly changed at all.
– – – – –
The British Journal of Photography interviewed Jehad recently, and Tewfic El-Sawy has been following Nga’s career closely for years (which for me brings up another debate we should be having about photographers now developing under the gaze of the photography blogosphere … but for another time!)
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 12, 2010 at 8:43 am
Danielle
“The real problem with Nga’s photography is that it’s production is a performance in which he as the photographer is implicated. Nga’s work is art, there can be no doubt. Nga’s portraiture will always bestow dignity upon sitters, but never inherently any understanding of the sitter. He is a director of his world.”
Great post, but I’m not so sure I agree with this statement. Doesn’t all photography implicate the photographer? I would think most photographers develop certain techniques that makes one able to identify who created the work before they even see a cutline. But does that automatically prevent someone from having an inherent understanding the sitter being portrayed? And how would that prevent an understanding of the subject?
I went back and looked at Nga’s work with Somali pirates, US Marines and his work in Kenya. I actually think portraying his sitters the way that he does allows one to concentrate solely on the person, and makes it harder to make snap judgments based on the sitter’s surroundings. You have to get your visual cues and understanding based on the person and their clothes.
June 14, 2010 at 11:27 am
petebrook
Danielle. Good points. I am glad you picked out that quote of mine because having reread it I wasn’t clear. I am interested in the stories behind the images, the reason why the photographer paid attention in the first place – Nga after all is a photojournalist. But he is also an artist. So, depending on which set of criteria one wants to judge his work affects one’s evaluation. I love his art, but I am left with questions unanswered if I am looking for the story. Of course, it isn’t only the photographer’s responsibility to share and develop stories, so in some ways this is no criticism at all.
Another thought. Given the problems rife within photojournalism about power, control, depictions, motifs, “the Other”, it could be that adopting a very slow approach – and collaborating with subjects to create specialised portraiture – is the most appropriate way to work. Nga certainly avoids the pitfalls of cliched images of strife so common in our media. This position is counter to DLK’s feeling that Nga was prevailing the mystical tribes-person narrative. I can see both sides.
Do we want to see Nga produce more photography projects of this kind, or are we to demand something different, and if so just different for different sake?
August 7, 2011 at 1:02 am
Jehad Nga in Barrow, Alaska « Prison Photography
[…] said, “consumers of media haven’t changed enough, and Nga has hardly changed at all.” My criticism was that Nga had adopted the same chiaroscuro technique for the Northern Kenyan tribesmen as he had […]