This SlideShowPro photo gallery requires the Flash Player plugin and a web browser with JavaScript enabled.
Hover over the image for navigation and full screen controls
Roger Ballen
Boarding House
“It is difficult to explain this place except that I think it exists in some way or another in most people’s mind.” –Roger Ballen
These photographs are like images from a waking dream: compelling and thought-provoking, with layers of rich details, flashes of dark humor, and an altered sense of place. Blurring the boundaries between documentary photography and art, my work is both a social statement and a complex psychological study.
BOARDING HOUSE is a space of transient residence, of comings and goings, of people sheltered in a place they are using for their immediate survival. Basic and fundamental, the structure is furnished with objects necessary for an elementary existence, decorated with evocative drawings, and littered throughout with animals. Remnants function there as physical symbols of events that have occurred in the space; broken pieces of a functional reality exist as the leftovers of scenarios that have been played out there. The altered sense of place of this temporary abode creates a sense of alienation, which acts as a jumping off point for the imagination to run wild.
Bio
Roger Ballen was born in New York in 1950. Since 1982 he has been living and taking photographs in South Africa.
His work is represented in many museums including Maison Européenne de la Photographie in Paris and the Museum of Modern Art in New York.
Ballen’s work has been recently exhibited in numerous museums in Europe and the United States.
Related links
Editor’s note:
Comments are open on this essay… If you have any questions, feel free to ask Roger, he will be jumping in on the comments soon…It is with great pleasure that I present Roger Ballen on Burn…
… david alan harvey
I have never understood the pervasive and entrenched idea that photography is a moral act; and I understand even less the notion that, if it is a moral act, then giving money to the subject of a photo somehow squares the ethical balance sheet.
Poor people — squatters, beggars, drifters, drug users — are fully capable of making their own decisions about whether to be photographed or to tell a photographer to get lost. The fact that they are poor makes them no less accountable for their actions, and a photographer is in no more or less a position to “take advantage of them” simply because he has a camera around his neck.
Is a photographer’s ethical burden greater if he shoots with a Rolleiflex than with an iPhone? Do you owe someone more money the more pixels you capture (and therefore the more soul you steal)? So it’s okay to photograph homeless people if you are journalist but not if you are an artist? Does Sebastiao Salgado owe millions of dollars to the thousands of migrants he photographed, and is he an artist or journalist?
It would be great if photography could be decoupled from sanctimony. Photography is a human activity like any other. It can be harmful, helpful, or neutral — or everything at once, just like driving a car. But the moral equation of photography and the endless handwringing about it (Jim’s favorite activity) are circular and shallow arguments.
If you believe your photography is moral act, requiring you to adhere to certain codes that make you feel more comfortable, more power to you. But not everyone shares your belief.
Erica, Preston… I’ll get back to you tomorrow… for the time being, please keep in mind that these are just my thoughts—just like you have yours… and since this is a more general discussion and not specific to the essay in this thread (and since Roger doesn’t seem to be coming back to participate) we could move it to “face” maybe… just a suggestion…
‘night from Cyprus…
Thodoris, on the contrary, this discussion is a direct result of Roger’s piece. What a gift Roger and DAH have given us: Challenging visual ethics, sensibilities and “moral high-ground” is why BURN is such a rich dialog of intersecting opinions. We have been give the freedom to work this out in the shadow of Boarding House. Why waste it?
Fortunately we will not form a consensus on Roger’s work, but some may find an adjusted point of view that broadens their understanding… of whatever. 252 comments + 1.
Imants, sorry again, I really don’t want to get into a pissing match with you, but what you actually wrote is ” doubt if you are sorry it seems that you wrote sorry and then continued to denigrate Roger’s character and his work. Pretty sad state of affairs as David states”
I merely wanted to point out that I certainly am not denegrating his work. I find it amazing and compelling. If you bother to read my posts, you will also see that I dis-agree with those who feel he is exploitive.
I’m also sorry that you feel I denigrate and now, assasinate, his character. That Roger has a, healthy, ego, is evident from his artists’ statement, and he himself revealed his character in his last post. His dismissal of everyone who had commented as having an aesthetic psyche inferior to his was offensive, un-believably rude, and presumtuous. I normally try to be pretty polite and respectful but I was absolutely taken aback by his statement and feel that it invited a strong response. Good grief, (to quote Jim) what the hell kind of reaction would you expect from such a pompous, elitist statment?
Character and one’s work go hand in hand, they are not separate entities. Roger had been hung, dried and quartered in regards to his character and work, plus the so called exploitation pretty early on in the responses. Don’t blame him for not bothering to come back now it is is over inflated ego as far as you are concerned aling with comments such as this about him by you “expect from such a pompous, elitist statment?”
Gordon, have you considered that he could be right? If yes, where’s the problem? We all can go from inferior to less inferior, equal, even superior, if we are able, open and willing to learn.
Preston, thank you, you’ve put in words what I was thinking but not able to write (second paragraph).
GORDON…
overall i think the discussion has been good…and you certainly have articulated your points well albeit i have not always agreed with your conclusions…but that is no matter…i have said dozens of times i do not see disagreeing as anything other than potentially good discussion…..i think perhaps i was referring to a very few and no point in naming names…in any case, you are a valued contributor…period…thanks
i would say that i have never met an artist of any kind with any kind of reputation or who had made a “mark” who did not have a healthy ego…frankly, i think Roger was just being straightforward and honest, rather than beating around the bush…i am sorry you took offense with Roger’s words, but you probably would not like meeting most artists or hearing their real opinions and whom you probably respect by just knowing their work…i would bet on it
just remember Frank Sinatra’s famous line… “i only owe my audience the songs”
Hi David
Good to hear your always wise and thoughtful words.
Yes, I have met a number of famous and many not so famous artists over the years. Some of them, while they produced amazing stuff, were pompous buffoons. Others were warm and generous in spite of their status and talents.
I have also spend a lot of time in the company of musicians. Chris Norman for example, considered one of the most gifted flute players in the world, manages to have a healthy ego, and yet is always inclusive, patient, and treats all players as equals. Occasionallly, you do run into an accomplished player who is aloof and obnoxious, but not often.
Be careful down there
Eva
There is no such thing as a superior or inferior aesthetic psyche. Your psyche is your psyche. It’s not a contest.
To be sure, as we are exposed to a wider variety of work, and ideas, (like here on burn) we may gain a new ability to appreciate things we might have missed before. That doesn’t invalidate your previous perceptions, or the perceptions of others with less experienced eyes. Powerful work is accessable to all, and can be appreciated on many levels.
Look, listen, and learn Eva, but don’t let anyone tell you what to think, or how to react when you view their work.
Cheers
Disclaimer:
Please keep in mind, that I do not claim to be an authority or the voice of god here… these are my current views, and they might fit with your own philosophy or not… I see debating as the best way to evaluate my own thoughts… it can either lead to the strengthening of my resolve, or show me the need to reevaluate my views…
Ok… first of all, there are more than a couple of different issues that are intertwined in our discussion—e.g. people as our subject matter in general, down-and-out people as our subject matter specifically, collaboration in the making of our work, etc…
Erica, Preston…
Since your points of view are somewhat similar, I’ll try to answer to both of you at once—so that I don’t repeat myself… hope you don’t mind…
Acquiring someone’s permission to take their picture (either with a simple nod, verbally, or by giving them a release to sign) does not constitute collaboration. Collaboration means that they participate actively in the creative process. For example, when two writers collaborate on a text, they share credit… being a source, and being a collaborator to a writer/journalist are two different things.
http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=collaboration
It has mainly to do with the photographer’s motivations and intentions for choosing the “poor, squatters, beggars, drifters, drug users” as his/her subject in the first place… if it was some sort of voyeurism or if it was the idea that this could be a fast track for they careers to fame—and possibly money—then it’s by default exploitation. If they were driven by some sort of idealism—to bring attention to a social issue, to bring our dark side into the light, to show to all those suits in their AC offices what the real world out there looks like, etc, etc, etc…—then it’s only logic that they would want to share any gain
As for photojournalists, most of the serious ones whose work is focused on the subjects we are discussing are almost always working in conjunction with local and/or international organizations that strive to make real and measurable difference… so, they can easily claim (and they rightly do so) that their work brings attention and helps the public to better understand the issues, *and* helps the organizations that can-do-something about these issues to raise considerable funds.
As for the “so it’s okay to photograph homeless people if you are journalist but not if you are an artist?” bit, I never said or implied such a notion. If anything, I said was pretty much the opposite… that an artist who chooses to focus his/her work on (as per your example) the homeless should be held on the same level of accountability as is a journalist.
I don’t know about Salgado, so I’ll use an example that I know of…
I used to think of… McCurry and National Geographic made a small fortune out of his “Afghan Girl” picture… now, they might not have shared that money with her directly, but they did set up in 2002 the Afghan Girls Fund (Afghan Children’s Fun since 2008) which according to their site has raised more than a million up to now…
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/donate/afghan-childrens-fund.html
And, photography *is* a moral act… especially when the subject matter is the grim side of humanity… when someone starts making money out of someone else’s misery, then if he/she has any moral values whatsoever *has* to share part of the gain with those poor, miserable, ” squatters, beggars, drifters, drug users”…
Ok… that’s 585 words… took me more than 3 hours… enjoy…
thodoris..
i guess in the end it comes down to trust on the part of the viewer – that the ¨whoever¨ is doing the ¨right-on¨ by the ¨infront of the camera¨..
it is certainly not black n white..
Gordon, look, to me to admit I’m inferior (to some, to others not maybe) when it comes to the aesthetical psyche, or in any other matter where I know I’m on an inferior level of education, is absolutely no problem. I don’t take it as a personal offense, I ponder it, and then I might agree.. or not. I don’t FEEL inferior because of that, I might have my strenghts or knowledge in another place.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with how I view work, in this case Ballen’s. My judgement (if any) or understanding isn’t based of what he thinks I am or not, but on what *I* think (about the work and about myself).
Thodoris, my problem, if I can call it so, is about your distinction of “normal” vs. “down-and-out people”. By making a distinction you put them, in my eyes, on an inferior, or at least on a differnt level. Respect, for whoever is in front of our lenses, no matter who s/he is, is key. IMO.
Thanks, Thodoris. I understand your points, but there is no financial incentive to photographing poor people — the poor are ignored, overlooked, and despised except when it’s photo contest time. The money is in photographing rich people — corporate tycoons, celebrities, politicians, the elite of all stripes.
It’s nice that McCurry and NatGeo found Sharbat Gula twenty years later, but she refused their largesse, preferring privacy. When McCurry took the picture, I’m sure he didn’t think he was exploiting anyone, and he had no idea that the image would become iconic. And he if hadn’t been shooting for NatGeo, if he had been on assignment for a small newspaper, the image would not have had the currency it did.
So what responsibility does the photographer have to the subject after he has snapped the picture? Again, it’s nice that the Afghan girl became a phenomenon. But what if the picture had appeared in NatGeo and someone had hunted her down and killed her?
It’s hard to argue that photography is a moral act if it simply a financial transaction — paying your subjects because you have been paid. What if you don’t get paid? What if your check bounces?
When people make the moral argument about a particular photographer or levy charges of exploitation, what they are often expressing is a discomfort with the apparent relationship between the photographer and his subjects. Roger Ballen’s photos might make some people uneasy, thinking them in poor taste or impolite. But the photos don’t change, and the act of taking them remains the same, even if the photographer contributes money to a related charity. Some photographers make a big show of their charitable efforts — Salgado comes to mind. Other photographers shoot with a sense of sympathy and connection — DAH comes to mind. Viewers respond to the photographer’s relationship with his material. If Salgado never gave a dime to charity, would he be an exploiter? What he if were a lousy photographer, shooting the same people, and he his images were never published and he never got paid? We he be an exploiter (or a failed exploiter)?
It’s easy, in my view, to poke holes in the morality-money argument. The real question is the photographer’s relation with the material. Sometimes that relationship makes people feel gratified (James Nachtwey is a candidate for sainthood) or uneasy (Ballen’s art project with the homeless is exploitation). But the relationship is what it is. Some photographers are intentionally clear about it; others are intentionally vague. Others enjoy the discomfort of their viewers.
Thodoris.
The act of taking a picture is NOT a moral act, it is a mechanical action. The moral position,and lets get this straight- ALL MORAL POSITIONS ARE RELATIVE, is related much more to the ‘learned’ relative values of the viewer. Their position, makes a positive or negative judgement on the pictures position, and by inference, that of the photographer. This is a classic ‘I am right so you must be wrong’ mistake.
But….the picture itself holds no such position, ‘it is not a pipe’ you might say.
Eva…
If from all the posts I’ve made the past few days what you got is that I think the “down-and-out” (a term I introduced as a shortcut for the “disenfranchised, impoverished families, fugitives and witch doctors”) as inferior human beings, then I don’t think there is anything I could say to change your mind.
John…
I disagree with you on this one… in your argument you take out of the equation the factor “photographer” and you deal with a photograph that exists on its own right… the motivations and the intentions of the photographer and the way he will approach his subject (frame, point of focus, etc…) are what introduces the moral factor in my argument… the viewer and his perception of the finished photograph is whole other discussion… respectfully…
John…
I forgot to say… I do agree though that “ALL MORAL POSITIONS ARE RELATIVE”…
Have to go for now… cheers.
Thodoris, from the posts you’ve written I get the feeling that you think people should be threathed differently, based on what they are, which category they belong to (brrrr).. by doing that, saying that one category opposed to another should get paid, to me, you decide for them, putting them on a level of inferiority, as I think that everyone should decide for oneself, no matter if rich or poor, tall or short.. or whatever.. :)
Preston,
Thank goodness I know how you arrived at your well presented
point of view. That liberal-arts education has served you
well. If my child comes off of the mountain with as much
common sense, I will not worry about my retirement.
Please keep the ball in play. This is a very valuable
dialog. My best to the Fam.
GORDON…
yes, of course…that is my experience as well…still, we must always separate the work from the personality…no matter which way it goes….
PRESTON…
good points all…
All..
this is good dialogue…i wish i could add more,but at this very moment i am preparing to photograph the elite of Rio…i am uncomfortable doing this…moral issues? no, simply physical comfort issues…those around me now are telling me i clean up well and look good in my tuxedo…wish i felt as good as i supposedly look…
i try very hard in my work not to exploit individuals of any class or economic position…while i will be paid for the work i do tonight, i like to think of it as part of an exploration of this particular culture…having value in the long run…how i see people tonight in an elegant ballroom will be the same way i see people tomorrow in the less advantaged neighborhoods…since i tend to see the dignity of human nature most of the time, that is how i tend to photograph…even when i know that i could perhaps twist things a bit for a certain kind of image, it is just not in my personality to do it…so, i am stuck with who i am….
ok, gotta go…
cheers, david
Some photographers don’t even bother to see people as people they are just objects or symbols and aee merely props to other concerns or issues. Advertisers are no different with stock images ie a red head, green shirt, yellow pants, purple shoes,not smiling are the requirements of the image.
The argument goes to paying for objects, photographing trademarked signs etc
David
Yes, good diologue, I have learned something about myself here, and yes, I agree we must separate the work from the personality. I actually love Rogers’ work, and I’m grateful to him for sparking this discussion. I hope if he is still with us, that he is able to gain some insight from it too. I have a feeling that despite my too sensitive response, we would likely enjoy a beer and a chat together.
GORDON…
indeed…
When i first saw Roger Ballen’s work, a long time ago, in South Africa, i was shocked! i thought that RB had used his “position” with large companies to gain access to his subjects.
i guess i reacted like the other critics of the time..Everybody hear thought RB hated “those” people! Shades of Shelby Lee Adams.
Roger your work is simply great. Now that i live far away from my birthplace, with new thoughts and feelings, much different experiences, i truly appreciate your work. In someways it is ugly to the point of reversing white to black.It’s all a matter of exposure.The nightmarish dream concept is how i now see Africa and that particular milieu. The way you doggedly went on, adding to your score. Thank you for showing your art.