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
This has been one of the most interesting exchanges on Burn.
“often it what not is said tells us the most”
Cheers
ian
Maybe the “emerging photographer” moniker should be removed. It seems the blog has strayed away (or maybe beyond) that concept.
Well that’s just silly and appears as junkyard contrarianism for the sake of it. But I do agree things do stray, though not due to the editors’ choices, imo. I enjoyed this as a stretch and challenge to my own perceptions, and am left with questions to ponder, as it should be. And even if I were not, if I neither understood nor appreciated, I respect the freedom of expression enough not to lift my leg on it. What was it that Chris Johns just wrote about the rising din of shrill voices … ? :)) Good words, and yeah, I still get that magazine too.
Jim once again you refuse to come to terms with your own personal exploitation of the public via the daily rag you work for.
OOPs that came out wrong (struggling to type with a sleeping three year old on my lap)
should read “often it is what is not said, that tells us the most”
Cheers
ian
Best of luck to all of you folks. This is just not a place I want to be anymore.
And Harvey, good luck with this thing. And you know I mean it.
ahh jim.. that’s a shame..
although we all infuriate each other there is no need for rigidity.. hang around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_shit
Perhaps someone who has a highly developed artistic phsyche and is able to discern aesthetic meaning could help us out here.
Jim your self eviction is timely and it will give you that chance to put your own photographic values in place instead of preaching. I for one will not miss your lack of presence
jesus Jim, thats meant to be rogers line. Read the script :)
I always hope there is room for everyone here. I know DAH’s door — physical and virtual — is open to all points of view, ways of being in the world, inner and outer realities. So Jim and Imants see photography through different lenses. Good! And there are certainly times that each of us regulars gets our fur rubbed the wrong way. Whenever that happens to me I just take time out and either don’t read or don’t post comments for awhile. But I always come back. Why? Because this is where I belong, among you wonderfully unique folks. I have yet to find another community that shares my passion for all things photographic. Besides I care about each of you. When Davin was mugged and robbed, it was like this had happened to a friend. And it had, because, like it or not, we have a shared history and that counts for a lot in these days of instant everthing.
So Jim, take time out if that’s what you need. But please come back. You’ll always have a place at the table.
Patricia
Best of luck to all of you folks. This is just not a place I want to be anymore. -Jim Powers
Jim is that a promise?
Jim:
your first two posts were gun-shot attacks over the bow accusing Roger of being exploitive (that is, as i tried to write, both an eggregious error and a quite arrogant and foul one considering that you kno nothing at all about either his relationship with the people and animals nor his private intentions) based solely on the “áppearance” of the photographs you have seen. Ok, so let me give you an example: you go to a play of Samuel Beckett’s Ënd Game”, the performers are 2 homeless people and a stray, the play is performed, and a photographer, for example, photographs this and is this exploitive? The problem is that instead of respectfully asking a question, you basically said “roger ballen, you are an exploiter and your work is garbage.”….without any knowledge, on your part, of his oevre, his prior work, his life story, nor his relationship with the people he photographs. Moreover, why can we not (as i’ve tried to write for a long time now) as photographers see work not only as social documentary, or as journalism…might not aesthetic work áppear’as documentary, may not documentary work deal with conceptual and aesthetic questions, may not aesthetic photography house itself in a language and form of documentary as a tending ground…Christopher Marker’s film ‘Sans Solei’…is this essay, fiction, documentary, examination, poem…or all of the above??….isn’t roger’s work the same?….when, for example, the great painter Leon Golub paints pictures of torture and suffering, we don’t accuse him of exploiting the people from whom he models his imagery on?….i think the biggest problem with photography, often, is that many just cannot get beyond it’s slippery surface, it’s appearance to the ‘real’to the ‘document’…ballen’s work has as much to do with questions about painting as it does documentary photography and no one cries foul when the issue comes up with painters or sculptors…..the biggest problem, i feel, is not the questioning of the work, or the confusion of the work, but by the decision you seem to have made, a priori, that it was both crap and exploitive….that is both unfortunate and unsound….as photographers, no as people, we need to be wider thinking and more generous in our inspection and in our introspection….
i will be saddened to see you leave (though i think we have been fighting with each other from day 1) because discussion involves argument/collision….but, i shall not miss your willingness to so quickly castigate….not like, no problem….call someone an exploiter, that’s a different can a worms….
ALL:
just a brief line, as im running on deadline….about the use of Burn with iconic photographers: i personally think it IS GREAT. What more would a photographer wish for that to have their work beside others work, beside coupled with older and younger photographers. I love having unknown/young photographers here, emerging photographers and i love having established/challenging photographers…Nachtwey/Bollen couldnt be more different and both of the work is critical to the life and thinking of photography/photographers….I think the balance of having all these photographers and again, that David/Anton have democratized this is what to me, as a photographer who has published here and elsewhere, feel elated….often here, i’ve felt odd-man out, as i love conceptual stuff/aeshetic photography, but what makes a magazine successful is not whether people dig everything but that it showcases what is the possibility and the strength and the elasticity and ingenuinty of this medium that defines many of our lives and stories….i hope and trust we do not loose sight of that
Bob,
I think, “Jim has left the building” it might be too late to get him back, but somehow I have a feeling he will sit back viewing and scoffing.
Anyway, is Ballen through his work seeking to evoke the reactions he has seen here? If so he has been successfull. There is no doubt his work is controversial and will cause reaction and response, I am sure he has seen it all before.
Ian
“I would suggest that my photographs be viewed in the same way that one might look at a painting. In other words, the aesthetic issues should be noted rather than trying to figure out what my relationship is with the people”
Roger
Paintings and photographs operate on completly different planes. A photograph is not just an lazy way to attatch an image to a piece of paper.
The most magic and elemenetal aspect of a photograph is that it has an immediate connection, in a physical way, to an actual reality. The surface of the image must be dealt with and ultimately will affect how we view any deeper layers or meanings it contains. To suggest we ignore the fact that these are real people in such a bizarre setting is ridiculous to the extreme.
This has got to be one of the best dialogues I’ve seen on Burn.
The question of exploitation is interesting. Everyone who is familiar with Roger’s work knows the type of subjects he is drawn to, and the criticism he drew when palateland was first shown.
I do think it’s a testament to his work that people have such a strong reaction. Why is it that a photographer can take a photo of a mentally ill patient in a hospital and it can be seen as bringing awareness, but Roger is accused of exploitation because his artistic hand is more readily seen? Photography is always about a level of exploitation, but for me Roger’s work doesn’t seem to be menacing. Yes, he is making the viewer look at an extreme version of the way these people live, but we don’t see his subjects as drooling idiots ( or worse, poor beggars) i actually think that Roger allows his subjects a level of dignity- why should we assume that because they are squatters that they do not understand that they are playing a part in an important peice of art?
I asked Roger what he thought about people who will more happily view Palateland at a gallery than Boarding house. I think that people will eat up photos of anything as long as it looks like traditional documentary photography. Personally, I think Palateland raised a lot of ethical questions that the boarding house does not. By staging the photos he is giving his subjects the right to decide how they want to be shown.
Hilarious answers. The “underdeveloped creative psyche” had me in stitches. Man, I actually liked Ballen’s work, but the elitist attitude really turns me off.
Yea to no one’s surprise I find Rogers take on the spiritualities of humansas theatre intruiging but I also enjoy
Taiwanese artist Chen Chieh-jen http://www.iniva.org/exhibitions_projects/2009/chen_chieh_jen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5wHMgTPF-s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s0-wbXC3pQ&feature=fvw
I just hope the snake in picture #25 wasnt poisonous….
JIM…ALL
the “emerging photographer” moniker will stay…..this magazine is FOR emerging photographers , but that does not mean every single essay is BY an emerging photographer…i have assumed that readers here enjoyed meeting an established photographer now and then and all of them have jumped in and answered your questions…established photographers are published everywhere of course…point is, here on Burn they participate with you…Martin Parr, Bill Allard, James Nacthwey, Alessandra Sanguinetti, Rebecca Norris and Alex Webb, Steve McCurry, Bruce Gilden and several others have jumped in to talk to you…there will be more of course…i also want to bring in some editors and gallerists as well..each one requires some effort on my part to bring in…they are all very very busy people and normally do not sit down and take the time to jump into a photography blog…so far, all have described a positive experience here and i think most of you have appreciated in return…so, we will continue….
cheers, david
one thing i will NEVER understand is ANGER over one type of photographer/photography over another…since anger is totally internal it MUST come from some inferiority complex/jealousy issue….not liking is one thing…but ANGER?
“..Good mooooooorning Vietnam…!”
last day of shooting in the city of Mustaches today.
tomorrow night reuniting with my laptop…skype sensation tomorrow night..
if anyone available..hit me up…
DAVID [laughing] So I guess when big groups of photographers get together for their AGM’s there never any anger or argument over photography and photographers |:)) [hmmm?]
Hows Rio??
PEACE
john
Why do photographers get so Angry?
Panos. Because they have passion?
hmmm..that explains why zoriah is always calm..;)
JOHN GLADDY…
yes, of course you are right…smiling…HCB was “angry” with Martin Parr for example…i only said that “i” did not get it…never have, never will…and no matter how much i might disagree with you on certain issues regarding photographs or photographers or whatever, you are not someone with whom i could EVER be angry….
Rio is terrific..just my cup of tea so to speak…sexy and dangerous..nice combo huh?? if you decide to show up i have a sofa here for you too…come my friend..THAT would be fun fun…
PANOS..
yes, yes…you too…do not feel left out…but, you are off to Istanbul anyway ..right?? this is one place where both you and Gladdy here at the same time would not even cause a ripple…both of you are way way too too conservative for this town…
cheers, david
Panos, look what you could do with your venice beach story if you had celebrity status and the marketing and money of an agent behind you. Produce sanitized wallpaper.
http://stocklandmartelblog.com/2010/02/05/kwaku-alston-captures-venice-beachs-horizon-court/
Cheers
ian
Ian…
u hit the spot..
i need an agent…nowwwww!
but who would wanna represent me?
Roger Ballen wrote:
“T0 ALL:
The issue of exploitation in photography has been raging for well over a century. I find it quite irrelevant, boring and misguided. In my opinion, it is an evasive immature mechanism for evaluating images.
I would suggest that my photographs be viewed in the same way that one might look at a painting. In other words, the aesthetic issues should be noted rather than trying to figure out what my relationship is with the people. (There are far more animals in these images than people and nobody has attempted to comment on them and what they mean)
The problem that photography regularly faces is that there are very few individuals who are capable of discerning the differences between so called traditional photography and fine art photography. Most of the responses I have received today indicate a lack of awareness of the artistic process and an inability to discern aesthetic meaning. I would even take the liberty of stating that most of these comments reflect an underdeveloped aesthetic psyche.” ..end of quote…
my thought:
some of you have taken offense at this comment…but, i suggest taking a deep breath and really listening and reading carefully…sometimes the truth hurts….i often feel here on Burn that many commentators just do not have a fully developed sense of the history of photography nor a broad appreciation of aesthetics…this is just fine of course and one of the reasons we are here is as an educational tool…but if you are going to comment, then i think it wise to “have your ducks lined up”…..so, is Roger being elitist or just honest?? think about it…
cheers, david
DAVID. Thats a very tempting proposition my friend. Unfortunately I am stuck in the middle of a bill paying piece of work, and am buried in the getty video archives trying to source footage, draft scripts, and avoiding throttling art directors(barely)…etc etc. I do so need some sun at the moment though :)
Will be looking to take a break somewhere hot when this is done.
Anyway the espresso machine is calling :) sin cafe no hay manyana…as they say.
JOHN
David…
Anyone can create a picture that contains symbolism with elements of universal appeal—fear, abandonment, loss of innocence, etc… Even me:
http://www.tzalavras.com/Nicosia_htm/Nicosia_Large18.html
What I hoped to find in the work and words of someone like Roger was a deeper sense of understanding both of the issues he has decided to explore and (more importantly) of the process he has come up with in his attempt to present/communicate his thoughts and feelings *and* (even more importantly) a willingness to discuss/describe/share this process… I do not consider myself “fully developed” and to me Burn represents primarily an extension of your efforts to educate and help the next generation of photographers to become “fully developed”… now, to what extent do you consider the above quote you posted as helpful in providing tools for us to understand Rogers work and process/visual language? At best, it’s just a truthful comment about the stage of our development… he had the opportunity to educate us through his work and his presence here, but instead he chose to provide a critique about who he thinks we are…
Cheers, Thodoris
he had the opportunity to educate us through his work and his presence here,
——————————————————————————
well Thodoris , he actually did that , as you also wrote above..with his work..
what else could he do? that was his “job” and he did it well imho.
David,
it seems that Roger has taken a view that everyone knows about his work and knows what his methodolgy is and is well educated in the arts. This is not true. So therefore what he says is true, we are not all educated to be aesthitic critics. Many people do not know Roger’s work and at first glance it can be pretty shocking and seem exploitative (Jim was so shocked he had to abandon us to our squabbles). Is this the kind of reaction Roger is trying to generate? It seems to me he is. I can see there might be a reluctance to explain his work because as soon as you do most of the shock dissipates as you understand this is a performance/creation to encourage debate and is not an existing situation.
As mentioned earlier I was captivated by Roger’s plattelands work when I happened across it years ago in a public viewing gallery in a theatre, it through up so many questions of colonialism/interbreeding/isolated communities/evolotion/racism.
For me this has been one of the most interesting and insightful stories on burn, trying to get beneath the artists skin, as Ballen, I consider to be a true artist, the whole discussion goes way beyond just the camera and people skills needed but the whole artistic vision/process and will certainly encourage myself and maybe others to explore artistic treatments and usage for photography.
Happy days
ian
Roger,
Thanks for your honest responses to the questions
and challenging our perceptions.
DAH,
Thanks for shaking things up. This is what makes
BURN…
what i mean ,is that when for example i stare to a Picasso painting i dont really expect the artist to send me an email to explain to me the process of his thoughts..!! that is my “job” to do.. the artists job is his/her art..and that job is done… actually RB here (artist) sat down and “explained” to us as much as he could..That wasnt his job..but just because he is NOT an elitist he tried to answer as much questions he could…
…but instead he chose to provide a critique about who he thinks we are…
—————————————————————————
Thodoris as DAH said above:
“…some of you have taken offense at this comment…but, i suggest taking a deep breath and really listening and reading carefully…sometimes the truth hurts….i often feel here on Burn that many commentators just do not have a fully developed sense of the history of photography nor a broad appreciation of aesthetics…this is just fine of course and one of the reasons we are here is as an educational tool…but if you are going to comment, then i think it wise to “have your ducks lined up”…..so, is Roger being elitist or just honest?? think about it…”
cheers, david
(There are far more animals in these images than people and nobody has attempted to comment on them and what they mean)
Roger great stuff, it reminds me of my dog’s Boneyard a great place and important………..
Well Panos, if his “job” was done by showing us his pictures alone, then why were we invited to ask him questions in the first place?
T,;)
unless i missed something…when did he NOT answer?
maybe he didnt cover every single question but who does anyways…
i mean i still dont get where the exact problem is…should have answered more questions?
longer answers? what am i really missing here?
The other day I saw a documentation about the German artist Markus Lüpertz. I was amazed by his excentric way of expressing himself, and at the same time the honest way of seeing himself. The whole universe turns around him, from his point of view. Many people respond very angry about him.
However, I think that is what an artist should perceive his own work. If an artist is not convinced by himself, who else should?
Markus Lüpertz was nearly suffocating photography in the University in Düsseldorf, as for him, photography is not art. Looking at Roger’s and other people’s pictures I have to say, my opinion is different.
I guess the way the audience responds to art, or pictures is always a reflection of their own. Angryness from this point of view is just a very strong reflection of their own views and how they stand.
Showing Beauty, the “reality” or exploitation – whenever the pictures are good, one can feel a story behind a picture … and to transport this is the real art.
For me, as emerging photographer it is very enlighting to see the work and the views of photographers “who made it”, and I am always curious to see the different aspects photography can be .. succesful.
Thanks, Roger, DAH and Lassal for making it happen in this instance.
I mean T,
how would u “explain” your photo with “door” above?
what could write in this blog as an inspiration/explanation of your photo
with the danger of sounding pompous ?
without the danger….
And so there no misunderstanding… I do not have any issue with “this type” of photography being shown here or the fact that he’s not an emerging photographer… on the contrary, I do view each such appearance of an established practitioner as a masterclass lecture and I’m very appreciative to you David for making it happen… it must surely take lots of time and effort to put these things together for us and I do appreciate that my (and others’) reaction to Roger’s words could potentially act as a detergent (is this the right word?) for future guests of Roger’s caliber… this isn’t/wasn’t my intention at all… but I still perceive Roger’s comment not as helpful but as spiteful… to me, he’s the one who retreated to his high castle and demoted the dialogue to what it has now become… if, over the years and by asked one too many times the same stupid questions by underdeveloped people such as myself, he has developed an intolerance for a specific type of questions regarding his work/process/ethics then he should have declined participation in an open mic situation…
TT,
I think word you are looking for might be deterrent rather than detergent.
Cheers
ian
if, over the years and by asked one too many times the same stupid questions by underdeveloped people such as myself,
—————————————
Thodoris, i get your self sarcasm.. but RB was not refering to u…why did u take it so personally?
his statement was absolutely valid (why spiteful?),
and not just because later DAH validate it and agreed but thats how things are…
(and i gladly include myself in that “underdeveloped” ocean btw).
but still i dont take it personally..its just the truth imo
validated it…
Ian .. sorry for the language abuse ..
:)))
big hug
he’s the one who retreated to his high castle and demoted the dialogue to what it has now become…
———————————————————-
c’mon brother…!! now we crossing lines..
this is what we always love doing here: “scare the sh** out of people”
laughing
i think some are imagining ballen reclining in a smoking jacket with a smug grin and eyes looking down his nose, whereas he might just be leaning forward with a warm smile, a glint in his eye and palms facing upward…
Ian… thanks
Panos…
by posting that link, I was making that exact point… I cannot explain/express that picture… I only know that when I entered that room I knew I had to capture that picture… by the way it’s an actual place and not an imagined one, and therefore I did not put any thought into placing particular elements in the space/frame in order to express or indicate/refer-to particular issues… while Roger’s pictures are (if I understand this correctly) comments about deep personal and social issues expressed in a visual language, pushing the boundaries of our medium… if so, what is so strange in my premise that his work could (and if I may push it a bit further here: should) be explainable…