Sontag & Azoulay

This weeks read was fantastic, it gave some insight on a few issues I have been thinking about for a while. I have often thought about how an image works when a photographer is showing an issue, something outside of themselves that is affecting the subject negatively. How can putting photographs on a wall physically do something? I suppose on a surface level it could be used as a means to raise money. This could be helpful. But what about when the photographer is "raising awareness". It appears that these types of exhibitions are more so the photographer "raising awareness" about themselves and not the issue they attempted to photograph. I can remember two consecutive exhibitions at Roosevelt's Universities Gage Gallery:




A Procession of Them: The Plight of the Mentally Disabled
Photographs by Eugene Richards



The first of the two exhibitions was a group show. Photographs of sobbing family members after loosing a loved one because of violence and even a man lying face down in a pool of blood with a gaping bullet hole in the back of his head. Extremely moving photographs yet nothing to do with them. I understand that awareness of violence is important but how does showing these horrific images at a place like Roosevelt in down town Chicago influence the people doing the killing in Guatemala?

The second exhibition was photographs by Eugene Richards of facilities that are used to keep people with mental disabilities. Terrible living quarters and young people who seem to barely be fed let alone given access to any sort of treatment. Nothing within the exhibition noted that any sort of foundation or movement was connected with Eugene's efforts of making these images to help make the situation better for the people photographed.

I believe that these are examples some where in between Sontag and Azoulay. Perhaps a little closer to Sontag. The images allow for the viewer to stop, look, and then exit the gallery. Perhaps a fleeting moment transpired where the viewer feels for the people involved but then we are obligated to exit the gallery and go on about our day. I believe Azoulay is looking for a way to re-establish the role of the viewer by drawing attention to the relationship between photographer, the photographed, and the spectator. This is an attempt to re-sensitize the viewer, educate them, in a way that the relationship of the photograph to the real world is connected. As wonderful as Azuolay's thesis is, I still feel that the general public is much less interested in doing things as they are being entertained by them. That is to say what Azoulay calls the wealthy viewers of the world.