Ouedraogo’s ‘The Hell of Copper’ (L’Enfer du Cuivre) depicts the Aglobloshie Dump in Accra, Ghana. “From dawn to dusk, dozens of young Ghanians, from 10 to 25 years of age, exhaust themselves […] seven days a week. Their mission is to disassemble the old computers and burn certain plastic or rubber components to cull the precious copper, which will then be resold. Everything is done by hand or with iron bars, makeshift tools found among the refuse. They have neither masks nor gloves. There are not even any functioning toilets,” says Ouedraogo.
Ouedraogo quotes a 2008 Greenpeace report on toxic substances at the site:
– lead: in cathode tubes and monitors, harms the nervous, reproductive, and circulatory systems.
– mercury: in flat screens, harms the nervous system and the brain, especially in young children.
– cadmium: in computer batteries, dangerous for the kidneys and the bones.
– PVC: this plastic used to insulate electrical wires, when burned, gives off carcinogenic chemical substances that can cause respiratory, cardiovascular and dermatological problems.
Ouedraogo’s pictures are good, but I don’t think they are good enough. The story is vital but the images don’t live up to its importance (presuming the 10 images edit for the Prix Pictet are his best works.)
In truth, I don’t want to criticise the work of a photographer from Burkina Faso. When was the last time a photographer from Western, Eastern or Central Africa was shortlisted for a major photography prize? We should be celebrating the recognition. But Ouedraogo shouldn’t win; the project is not polished enough.
For the record, I don’t think big-guns like Taryn Simon or Ed Burtynsky should win either: they don’t need the exposure and their work is familiar, a bit dated and easy to digest.
INTRODUCING PIETER HUGO
Hugo was very quick at turning his images round. They were distributed within months of his 2010 visit to Aglobloshie. Yet, it was Ouedraogo who went to the toxic site first; in 2008, a full two years before Hugo set up his camera.
Hugo has been the centre of debates on race and representation before, so it is with even more reluctance I draw the comparison to Ouedraogo. Hugo’s portfolio contains dozens of images and so it can boast a wider view of the poisoned micro-environment. This works in Hugo’s favour.
Both photographers emphasise the prevalence of child labour, the presence of grazing livestock and the use of found tools and noxious open fires to extract copper from the scraps. If you look at the statements by Ouedraogo and Hugo they contain virtually the same info.
Again, it is the story that is of primary importance, here.
The ultimate question then, is which portfolio is best likely to capture the attention and imagination of viewers enough for them to shift their worldview of politics, consumption and globally connected “growth”? (“Growth” is the theme of the Prix Pictet this year.)
Hugo’s work sells in galleries and it made for those gallery sales. It’s also a bleak look at the conspicuous consumerism. Ouedraogo’s work is uses photojournalist angles, some portraits and shots of the expanses of computer carcasses. Ouedraogo’s work is less cohesive. And for some reason I want to say it peels away.
I’m not really convinced by either, but I’d still err reluctantly to the foggy Hugo square.
The one thing Hugo’s work lacks is the sentiment (and hope?) of the picture below, with which Ouedraogo closes his portfolio.
The other eleven finalists for the Prix Pictet are Christian Als (Denmark); Edward Burtynsky (Canada); Stéphane Couturier (France); Mitch Epstein (US); Chris Jordan (US); Yeondoo Jung (Korea); Vera Lutter (Germany); Taryn Simon (US); Thomas Struth (Germany); Guy Tillim (South Africa); Michael Wolf (Germany). Biographies here.