Photography Is Open To All Just as It Belongs to Everyone

As a sort of rejoinder to the mini-imbroglio over the all-male "Nikon 32," I've been featuring a few female photographers this past week. And not just Nikon shooters.

It's not affirmative action; I've always included women. Many years ago I wrote the following paragraph in a long essay called "The Photographers Menagerie":

The list of the most remembered photographers is also an honor roll. It is a list that is refreshingly non-sexist, non-ageist, and certainly not limited to the rich or the famous. From the very earliest times—not among the small handful of the inventors themselves, but beginning directly thereafter, from the pioneers to the present day—there have been women among the most important photographers of every era, from Mrs. Cameron in Victorian England, to Dorothea Lange in the era of the FSA and Margaret Bourke-White in the heyday of commercial photojournalism, to Fay Godwin and Joyce Tenneson and Mary Ellen Mark today. The list would include the very young and the very old, ranging perhaps from the prodigy Jacques-Henri Lartigue, who took his first photograph when he was seven and his best ones by the time he was twelve, to Imogen Cunningham, who took her last ones well into her nineties. It includes the great and the near-great, the ordinary, millionaires and paupers, photographers as famous as Ansel Adams or Richard Avedon as well as those who labored in near-total obscurity like old Atget, including even unknowns whose work has so far actually been lost or forgotten, or who remain unappreciated or undiscovered.

Note that of the photographers I used as contemporary examples back in 1998, two are gone now—Fay Godwin died in 2005 and Mary Ellen Mark in 2015. Joyce Tenneson is still going strong at 72.

And note that the last part of the last sentence in the quoted paragraph could have been about another now-famous woman photographer, Vivian Maier.

Joyce Tenneson's A Life in Photography 1968–2008

I suppose this might be Pollyanna-ish (or Pangloss-y*), but it's always been my belief that although camera hobbyists and gear and tech geeks (and TOP readers) mostly skew male—and there's nothing wrong with that—photography itself is open to almost anyone, at least in "first-world" countries: male and female, rich and poor, old and young, and people of any color or ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. It's one of the reasons I like photography. (In high school, I had friends from different cliques.) Any way you want to slice and dice humanity into piles and labels—not just by demographics, but also qualities and properties like dedicated or casual, primitive or sophisticated, seasoned or green, ambitious or humble, supported or isolated, persistent or dilettantish—photography is at least potentially open to all. Just as it belongs to everyone.

Pretty much.

What Nikon did doesn't actually bug me. It's sort of a shrug and a so what. But then, it's not for me to judge—I'm not part of the group that might have been affected by the insult**. At the same time, I wouldn't excuse what Nikon did, either. Photography is not, has never been, and never should be a club of any particular sort of folk. Implications that it might be or should be deserve whatever opprobrium they attract.

Mike

*Merriam-Webster defines a "Pollyanna" as "a person characterized by irrepressible optimism and a tendency to find good in everything," after the main character of the 1913 novel of the same name by Eleanor Porter. "Pangloss" has the same sort of etymology but is much older—it means "a person who is optimistic regardless of the circumstances" and comes from the character Professor Pangloss in Voltaire's satirical 1759 novella Candide. Pangloss, Voltaire's jab at the philosophical optimism of the great German mathematician Leibniz, is beset by disasters and catastrophes yet continues to idiotically insist that "all's for the best in this best of all possible worlds!" (In the novella he gets hanged by the Portuguese Inquisition.) The name means, essentially, "all talk" or perhaps "glib about everything."

**The Nikon thing became a thing not because representative groups have to reflect demographics...that way lies madness, as Franz pointed out in his comment to our post. Steve Caddy (in the comment directly below Franz's) hit on the real reason: "...Representation in ambassadorship isn't important because it reflects the market as-it-stands, but because it's important that young women photographers see a path for themselves." That's right.

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Open book
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Stan B.: "Being more inclusive is often summarily dismissed as including those who are less qualified simply to adhere to some vague fairness doctrine. Being more inclusive is about making the actual effort to find those who are, in fact, qualified but are under-served and without voice. The mere effort, and actual inclusion, has been repeatedly shown to increase not only the size of a participatory audience, but its quality and originality through the freer exchange of ideas, influence and innovation."

David Dyer-Bennet: "The thought that this could, even possibly, be the best of all possible worlds is the most depressing philosophical concept I have ever seen put forward!"

Arg: "Nikon USA's ambassadorial team comprises 17 males and seven females, which is the highest female representation among the main brands, by quite a margin. IMO that is a mitigating consideration. They made a bad mistake, but maybe it was stupidity, and not ingrained."

William Scheider: "Last fall term, I had 14 women and only two men in my beginning photo class. This year's ratio is about the same for students entering our photojournalism and commercial photography majors. We should all get used to an increasing female presence in the pro photography fields."

brad: "I think this might be a problem with Nikon Inc. Japan, it doesn't apply, as per my experience, with Nikon USA. Of the two local past NPS reps, one was a woman.

"As for women in the photo biz, and my client base...more than half of my assistants have been women. One is a highly successful food photographer today. They weren't picked by gender, but by previous experience and on the recommendation of other photographers. More than half of my clients are women. These are graphic designers, art directors and businesspeople—institutional PR or communications directors. This has been the case in my world since the '80s. My first big client was a female graphic design / communications director for a large West coast engineering firm.

"So, while this may be a problem for the Nikon people in Japan, I don't see the 'all male' thing in my photo world."

Comments

[Richard Hargrove]

"This is the best of all possible worlds!"

Finally, a statement both the optimists and the pessimists can agree on.

richard
--

[Tim Bradshaw]

Thank you for writing this: it's important, especially in the context of the last few years.

I recently read an interview with a musician (I wish I could remember who) who said something very insightful when asked if he (it was a he, I know that much) had any intention of retiring: he said that musicians are not athletes, and they can happily carry on into old age. Photographers are not athletes either, and this means that not only can they carry on into old age (this is good news at the age of 54), but also they don't rely on any special physical qualities: male photographers don't get to be better than female ones because they are stronger or taller, and still less do white photographers get to be better than black ones. It's the images you find or make that matter, not some accident of your genetic history.

And thank you for your 'it's not for me to judge' comment: this is something I, as a white, male, british, well-off person have to remember: I don't know, and can't really know what it's like to be female or black or poor, and I should have the decency to trust the reports of those who are: it's not for me to judge.

[Phil Aynsley]

And not to forget... Lee Miller!

[Bil Bresler]

Two words. Eva Rubinstein.

[Andrew Molitor]

Well done, Mike! This is precisely the subtle thing that needs to happen more. Not a "THIS WEEK WE FEATURE WOMEN" but simply doing it, with no fuss. It's perfectly normal. I had not even noticed the pattern, it simply was there in the weave and weft of your work.

I have recently become overwhelmed at the insanely unwelcoming atmosphere offered to female photographers, and took some small steps myself (letters to vendors who advertise on web sites haboring misogynist users/atmospheres and so on).

More than simply being represented, there has hardly been a year of the last 150 in which there isn't a strong female candidate for "best photographer working in such and such a year", and I point to the recent winners of the Luminous Endowment grants over at the late Michael Reichmann's enterprise -- 8 of 10 winners were female, and to my eye, justly so.

Full disclosure, I have written a piece on this exact subject for LuLa, currently queued for publication

And yet we see at the "bottom levels", those places a newcomer might go for a little help with her new camera, atmosphere's running the full gamut from "mildly toxic" to "viciously poisonous" toward women. It's quite disheartening.

[Frank]

It can't be much fun to carry so much guilt for being a white American male... having to qualify and explain every choice without lapsing into mansplaining.

[Guilt? I have no guilt about this. --Mike]

[William]

I have failed to feign my surprised face upon learning Nikon eschewed selecting a single excellent female photographer for their marketing campaign.

The non-technical areas of Nikon's business have failed miserably in a variety of ways. This particular display of incompetence is just another example of a Nikon's underperforming, non-technical business groups.

At the same time excluding Ashton Kutcher from the list shows Nikon's marketing efforts are slowly headed in the right direction

[Herman]

It may be that the majority of photographers are men, but women are certainly in the majority of people being photographed.

[Warren Jones]

Odd how some people look at such things. I guess we all have our perceptions. At 53 I have worked in typically male occupations. Combat engineer, welder, mechanic and machinists. All of which have woman participants and have for many years now. But I have always thought of them as a mans job because that was what they were in my formative years.

However Photography was never in my mind delineated by sex, Since those early Instamatic images from one of grand moms hand me down Kodak's back in circa 1972 to the present day I have never given a conscious thought until this article about this subject. everyone took pictures...everyone.
Woman and men were always photographers of equal standing in my mind.

Are Nikons actions disturbing to me?... no

Are they out of place to an American in today's all inclusive environment...Absolutely

It does strike me as odd and perhaps even not well thought out. However given that I know nothing about the said test market, perhaps it is normal. A subject for others with more knowledge to judge.

[Ken Tanaka]

Photography is indeed accessible to everyone today! And it's practiced by virtually everyone today. Furthermore it's a "gateway" activity. Taking casual pictures can actually draw you deeper into your subjects or into the art and craft of taking pictures.

The Nikon dust-up is relevant only to Nikon's p.r. group and to professional outragists. It was stupid but who cares? Photography today dwarfs Nikon and every other camera brand.

[Abraham Latchin]

First post here after a few years reading!
I thought I would chime in on a simple point: The vast majority of people wouldn't have even noticed the photographers were all men. There is a simple issue with counting how many men were displayed in the pictures, it demands equality of outcome, not opportunity.

If Nikon reached out to 15 men,and 15 women, stating this was a first come first serve opportunity and all the men reply first... should they bend their rules? Should they leave 15 spots open for women and keep contacting photographers to fill a quota?

Once we start pointing out sex, race etc. We force others to notice, to count, to take issue. For years we have been asking people to ignore the sex, race or disability... Now we want people to notice, and even worse, to act on those superficial qualities.

It wont end well, in fact the divisiveness and sensitivity around these subjects is steadily creeping up in an age where there is more equality of opportunity than ever. Doesn't seem right.

[Ben Rosengart]

@Abraham: How do you know that "the vast majority of people wouldn't have even noticed the photographers were all men"?

Also, please consider the possibility that in the past, the people harmed by such imbalances had little public voice, and what appears to you as "sensitivity ... creeping up" is simply that you can hear them now.

[s.wolters]

Years ago I worked for some big world wide operating corporations. To emphasize the international character we always showed a mixture of races and gender. But we always had to show a majority of men and white skin. And mind you, never a woman standing next to a sitting male person! I even remember a case where we hired a woman photographer for the job. No problem. Except for the picture of the board of directors we were asked to come up with a male one.

[Steve Caddy]

Once we start pointing out sex, race etc. We force others to notice, to count, to take issue. For years we have been asking people to ignore the sex, race or disability... Now we want people to notice, and even worse, to act on those superficial qualities.

This is an excellent point, but one I would make in reverse. For years we have been asking people to ignore their differences and have seen only halting progress in terms of equality.

If we assume that gender (or racial) skews are due only to the forces of meritocracy at work then, given the size of the population, it is logical to assume that men (particularly white men) are blessed with the genes of good ability. Yet we know that's not true.

Once we start pointing out sex, race etc, we force others to notice — not just who is included, but who isn't in the room. We notice whose voices are missing from the conversation. What makes someone turn away from this art or fail to pursue their first flicker of interest in it? What happens when someone who struggles to find a voice, validation, mentor or role model is invisible? When selection panels choose (as we are all biased to do) work that resonates with their own experiences and values, bias is perpetuated and we are all poorer for it.

If we believe, as we do, that ability is not influenced by sex or race (et cetera) then the issue of representation for its own sake goes away: the talent is there, but remains undiscovered. Why? Because we must work harder to uncover it, encourage it and develop it.

Our standards should be as high as ever (higher even!). Lowering the standard of admissible work isn't inclusion, it's laziness in overcoming the cultural, social, structural and institutional biases that keep inequity entrenched.

Hand ups, not hand outs as they say.