Are Photographs Political?
If images themselves are thematically benign, image making is at its base always political. Communicating an idea carries with it an implicit assumption of a systematic statement. I cannot say I value something without believing a widespread shared value (even if i disagree with it). But in the modern sense of politics being structural AND intentional, we could argue that it is when images are created at the behest of a sponsor or an entity that an image becomes Capital P “Political” e.g. the Catholic Church commissioning works of biblical interpretations politicizes what we believe classic renaissance art is meant to look like. In that sense while a photograph as an object has no opinion or value, as soon as it is commissioned, contextualized, or shared, it becomes propaganda. What about benign images like the one above? Can they be contextualized? Does the writer or the reader hold power over meaning? If I took this image in 2018 (during an oil price crash when Calgary started an economic downturn), 2020 (during COVID), or after this US election in 2024 (Trump won?) - this image can read in different ways. Does my intent as the photographer matter anymore?
Historically, humans are always questioning the nature of truth, freedom, reality itself. The photograph has become an incredible powerful and unreliable tool, a weapon in some cases, both blunt and sharp depending on its use with the power to cut through language and foster emotion. As we are a sum of a strange dichotomy between logic and faith, a medium that blurs that distinction is an inherently dangerous tool. Is the image above a fire set intentionally to make a statement? Was the image altered to emphasize some accompanying text? Was it generated by AI? What was once the realm of stuffy academic philosophers now becomes the job of individual people to filter stimuli for truth. Who has the time for that? Is it any wonder we are becoming shallower and more easily swayed by flashes and sensationalism? I don’t have time to read the blurb. I go with my “gut”. And if I like what I see, I don’t want anyone to tell me I’m wrong.
And what of the photographer, the seemingly innocent and naive practitioner? Those of us that believe we participate in simply mechanical operations, personal aesthetic critique, and topical and non invasive sharing of ideas and work? What about the photojournalist like Gordon Parks whose work was editorialized to move in line with assumptions of black youth in post WWII Harlem. Or this essay from Al Jazeera that asks for accountability in journalistic photography - they’re conclusion is that the media must regulate itself because the viewer cannot. We don’t live in a time of heightened sensitivity and intellectual independence. We are already worn down to be passive.
If politics is understood as any systematic enforcement of morality or legality than we can skirt this answer with our innocence. But the moment an image of ours is recontextualized or interpreted by an opposing faction - it is a politicized object, whether we intended it or not.
such is the power of public discourse.