Dinka Man Covered in Ash © Carol Beckwith and Angela Fisher
A few days ago I was sent this link to photos by Carol Beckwith and Angela Fisher by Freda a fellow blogger here. She was lost for words and wondered what I made of the photos. My first thoughts were, surely this isn’t art and whilst some of the photos are lovely, would Beckwith and Angela get away with photographing nude westerners and posting their photos online.
My objection to the Beckwith and Fisher project is primarily, whether they inform their subjects that the work will be published and how. But I am also concerned that the “subjects” the Dinka tribe in this instance do not share in the financial benefits. Would the Dinka give their permission if they knew what would become of their photos?
And then there is the issue of Othering!
By now it occured to me that I could possibly be making mountain out of a molehill so I decided to solicit the views of the team here and this is the conversation that ensued
Freda
I have spent the past 2 weeks trying to draft something about these photos but could not come up with the words. I guess I have spent time in research on child pornography laws and trying to educate myself on what can ethically be done in the name of Art and pop culture.
For instance take Rihanna’s recent parade in the emperor’s new dress that got censored the world over. I have discovered in the past couple of weeks that we draw the line between art and pornography in how the subject interacts with the camera. If there is eye contact with nudity, it is pornography. If there is no eye contact, it is art. But back to Rihanna in a dress so sheer she was literally butt naked that even Instagram, Facebook and Google have removed all traces of it. If that is so, how is it acceptable that this site, in the name of the “artistic photography of tribal people” is flashing these images across the Internet, including images of naked children.
If I went to a “natural habitat” of Londoners at play in the Princess Diana memorial fountains in Hyde Park, where naked toddlers play freely, frolicking in the water, I can guarantee you that if I took out my camera to flash images of those naked white kids (we are usually the only blacks there), regardless of what my intentions were, I could stand being convicted subject to whether a jury deemed the images pornographic or not.
They were beautiful images to start with but I was not pleased at all as I kept scrolling down that page. My only conclusion is that “tribal people” are still a little less human than others.
Mark Mwangi
I am not sure how this qualifies as pornography unless the subjects were not aware that their images would be displayed on such a medium. This is how they live and I do not see how portraying it as it is is pornographic or inappropriate. In my opinion nudity is pornographic based on the context. A woman breastfeeding a child is in no way pornographic and this is the same or similar context.
Chris
Without understanding the text and context of the article, these really look like a beautiful piece art works. From all indications, it wasn’t the work of accidental passer-by who decided to take pictures. The participants seemed to have been prepared and posed before the camera. There are societies in Africa where nudity is the norm and not really frowned upon. It’s not for lack of clothes. There are many villages in Nigeria where this is common. There are many people in the west that would like to go naked if the law permitted it. Instead they form nudist club. Getting naked can be liberating! There are famous African festivals where all the locals go naked. I have been longing to get myself to one of those.
I am a bit concerned though regarding using children for this purpose. It doesn’t look ethical. I think it is more to do with if there are any local laws in African countries protecting children from such. I doubt very much. In this case, a local adult must have consented. It is the same with other child protection issues like child labour, child marriage, denial of basic education, child smacking, children being accused of being witches and being slapped by pastors, not to mention child molestation, rape and enslavement.
I do agree that even in the absence of local protection laws, western journalists should take own home ethics into consideration. I feel uncomfortable with “poverty pornography” images in news reports with fly infested children with protruded stomachs or hunger stricken women with dangling lifeless breast. I always wonder what anyone wants to achieve by that. It is no art and those people in the images are not in a position to give any consent and obviously have no idea of what will happen with the images.
I think that even if someone decides to strip naked, you need the person’s permission to take pictures and to do anything with those pictures. The rules for taking pictures have to be clarified by someone some day. Two years ago, I was arrested in Lagos, Nigeria for taking pictures of buildings and roads. For the building, they accused me of spying and trying to copy the design of the building. For the road, I was accused of trying to disgrace the country online as the road had potholes.
Freda
Interesting. Nudity is common on the beaches of the French Riviera but I doubt anyone would give consent if asked. Would you share this on Facebook?
Chris
As I said it is all about whether consent had been granted. Unless it is a public display where everyone is welcome. This article in question seems to be acting for art. If a group of nudists decided to have a public parade naked in central London, I am sure there would be no offence in taking their pictures and posting on Facebook. That’s the publicity they were looking for. Beaches, swimming pools, saunas are not considered public places for snapping anyone.
Freda
But are these people looking for publicity? Nudists in a public parade have a clear agenda.
Doreen
This in my opinion is a rather complex situation and I say this because I feel that we must be careful not to conflate contexts i.e. Western context and Southern context. I do not view these images as pornographic (most of them anyway).
I am more inclined to feel that they eroticise and dehumanise the Dinka in the context of them being objects as opposed to subjects in this narrative as well as the fact that it is other people who stand to gain from the commodification and profiteering of their lives and identity but not necessarily in a sexual context. That for me is the greater concern, not whether or not they are clothed or naked as I feel it is irrelevant because what is for sale here is not necessarily or exclusively their naked bodies but their entire being and way of life which is reduced to otherness.
To view their “nudity” as pornographic in this specific context is in my opinion a little reductionist. It would be to partake in their sexualisation in my opinion as well as to undermine their way of life and their engagement with each other and the human body as a whole.
Also, the issue around permission I feel is not as simple as a yay or nay but we should also look at whether or not the Dinka fully understand what they might be giving consent to (and the implications thereof) and more importantly, whether or not they care.
If the fact that they wind up on art blogs and websites to be consumed in some way or other is fine with them then so be it in my opinion but I agree that they MUST give that consent themselves and they must be made aware of the various vulnerabilities the images are then subject to once they’re released into the public domain and the irreversibility thereof.
As for the children, I agree that the images of the children should not have been published at all because although South Sudan is one of the few countries on the continent that has not signed and ratified the Afrikan Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC) or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) which both condemn the commercial sexual exploitation of children (this includes child porn), the photographers come from a country that has signed and ratified the latter and therefore should abide by the laws therein. It is both illegal and unethical to use naked images of minors.
They are profiting from these images and the fact remains they can’t really control how people are going to engage with these images and therefore they are open to sexually gratuitous use by sex offenders in the world.
Mary
What was the motive and purpose of these pictures? Some have been photoshopped. Was there informed consent and understanding of how they are going to be used.Don’t let us even go the route of money.The young girl by the fire’s portrait,I am sure will fetch a fair bit because she is a true and natural model? Was she made aware of her potentials? Have they seen these pictures? Many unanswered questions that made it seem unfair and unclear the more one digs. Ethically and morally unjust,unless there is clarity.
So there you have it, we would like to hear your views on this matter, do join the conversation by leaving your comments below