Am I Still a "Black Photographer?"

So far as I know, there is no "Black Photographers Annual" planned for 2009. If you can find the 1973 version, however, you'll find the work of masters such as Roy deCarava and Anthony Barboza--both of whom defy easy categorization.

As demonstrated by the above "Black Photographers Annual" from 1973, there once such a thing as a "black photographer." Not only that, the term was in common use, at least among the other black photographers I hung out with.

As I understood it at the time, this descriptor meant not only that we were of African-American descent, but that there was an identifiable black consciousness in the way we expressed ourselves through photography. If you were to look at the photographs in "The Black Photographers Annual" you couldn't help but draw the conclusion that the primary requirement was to take empathetic black and white photographs of black people and their environs.

The problem with labels like these, as any good Zen student would tell you, is that it's easy to confuse the label with the thing itself; or rather, to believe that the label describes reality. This fiction starts to fall apart when you start asking questions such as:

1. Suppose a European, Asian, or Latin American photographer took exactly the same types of photographs. Would that make them a "black photographer?"
2. Suppose an African-American photographed nothing but naked white women. Would he no longer qualify as a "black photographer?"
3. What does any racial, ethnic, national or gender adjective in front of the word photographer really tell you about their work? "Wedding photographer" is a useful category. "Female photographer" is not.

No self-respecting black photographer should be without a portfolio full of images like this one.

Just to be clear, I take considerable pride in my African-American heritage. I also most definitely consider myself a photographer. So if someone calls me a black photographer I wouldn't be insulted, nor would I take issue with it. All I'm saying is that I'm glad that American society has progressed to the point that most people care more about the work than the race of the person who produces it. And what better proof of that than the current president of the United States?

Of course, this is just a minority perspective. What do you white photographers have to say about all of this?

Comments

[Lesley]

Great post! As a result of the questions you've asked I've found myself thinking about the implications of, and thinking behind, labelling of groups of people--both by others and by oneself. I agree with David that I would not be interested in being included in a book of "white" photographers, (or in one of "female" photographers). But change that to "Canadian" or "British Columbian", and I would be proud. Is that because I am aware that growing up and living where I do has had an impact on how I see the world around me? But certainly growing up female has also had an enormous impact. Perhaps, for a book that focused on an aspect of life that was definitively female, it might be meaningful.
The whole question of labels is a difficult one. Certainly they can be useful, but they can also be condescending and destructive. Thanks for posing the questions!

[Robert]

Labels are useless in most cases. To me, a label tells more about your audience than you. If I hang out with gothic white kids in the suburbs, shooting only me and my buddies, I'm just a photographer. Were I to suddenly drape them in Chanel coats and publish in Vogue I would be that Gothic Kid Fashion Photographer. If I published in a journal about social sciences, I would be documentary photographer. Labels are transient things and tell us only about the context but not of the subject or object.

But don't condemn labels. They have their uses!

[Michael Ward]

Probably more so than any of the arts photography is something of a leveler. I don't believe it is possible with any degree of accuracy to look at any collection of photographs and say that the maker is of any particular race, gender or religion. Long may it be so...

[Tim McDevitt]

Proof of the pudding: look at a series of photographs and see whether you can identify the race, sex, nationality, age or any other defining characteristic of the photographer.

I don't think so.

[wc]

Gordon,
Do you actually have a copy of this Annual? I'd be interested to see what it contained; maybe even obtain a copy for collection.

Valid points you've made in separating a label from intent. You can't tell from my photographs that I'm Chinese, but maybe I'm White, or Middle Eastern. See? it doesn't matter.

But it is simply interesting to note that in 1973 such a label was required to distinguish either the photographers, the support network, or simply the material/subject matter itself.

Do you think it would be more apt to describe something as 'Blackness Photography,' instead of Black Photography? I'm just throwing out thoughts here btw, no offense intended. I still use 'Black' as a reference term in a serious way, such as 'Black music' referring to original Soul, Afrobeat, Jazz.

Found you from TOP. Glad to bookmark you.

cheers.