"There is Nothing Worse Than a Brilliant Image of a Fuzzy Concept"

Response #2

There is currently a large controversy going on about a man by the name of Shelby Lee Adams, and his 30 year quest to photograph the Appalachian people. As we all know, people of the Appalachian region typically have the stereotype of being lazy, uneducated, and inbred.. Basically summed up into one simple word: “hillbilly.” Seeing as all of Adams’ images seem to only depict sorrow, poverty and misfortune, critics claim that he is only furthering the stereotype of these people, by belittling them in his images. Adams grew up in this region though, he loves and accepts these Appalachian families just as they do him. So is his intrigue by these people innocent, as well as his photographs? Or perhaps he really is  harming them by capturing their lives in an image, as myself and many critics would agree.
When I originally read this article, I thought that there was no need for controversy. He is just doing a photographers job right? Telling a story through an image, depicting a life or situation within a single frame by using a subject in motion. After reading one particular sentence though, my opinion quickly changed. Mario Mattei writes that “Adams uses a view camera on a tripod. Therefore all his shots are staged.” This changed my views for one simple reason; Adams isn’t capturing these people in motion.. The frowns in his images aren’t because Appalachian people walk around in misery all day, it’s because he asked them to appear anguished instead.
It would be different if he went down to the “holler” and captured people doing what they do in their everyday lives, such as another photographer would do, say, in a poverty stricken village in Africa. No, instead he asks a girl to stand against a broken screen door, with ripped clothing and a hopeless look on her face. He asks a woman to stand in her home, angled just right so that you can see how small it is, with a baby on her hip and concerned expression.
As Mattei states, “It is obvious that Adams, in his heart, loves and respects his subjects,”  and I really do agree with that. Mattei also points out  that perhaps Adams has gotten so close to his subjects, that he doesn’t exactly see what his images are doing to them, or their reputation as a whole. Adams himself claims his vision as “being drawn to hardship and pain.” Perhaps he his selfishly, and maybe even unknowingly, portraying his friends  in a negative light by toying with his own fascination of hardship at their expense.
I believe that the controversy would change considerably if Adams took a different approach to his photographs. Hardship and despair are considerably negative words, yet it doesn’t always doesn’t have to be depicted that way, as Adams so well does. Rather than capturing a little girl leaning against a broken screen door, with just a hopeless look on her face, he could instead photograph her leaning against the same broken door, reading a ratty book or even a Bible. This still shows poverty and hardship, yet is also shows determination and hope, something Adams lacks within his photographs.

Works Cited

Mattei, Mario. "The True Meaning of Pictures | Blog | International Guild Of Visual Peacemakers." Welcome | International Guild Of Visual Peacemakers. International Guide of Visual PeaceMakers, 15 Apr. 2011. Web. 13 Sept. 2011. <http://visualpeacemakers.org/index.php?/blog/entry/the_true_meaning_of_pictures/>.