DRIK Web Site
Naeem Mohaiemen
Mariam Ispahani
Hello - Since 1992, I have been hanging the DRIK calendar in my home
every year, because I think their black and white photography is
wonderful! This year, however, the 1997 calendar is disappointing :-(
because the pictures are colored and don't look as professional. I read
that they were taken by children and I think the idea is great, but not
for a calendar that has a good reputation as DRIK's does. My friends
share my view and I hope they raise their standard by 1998 :-)
regards,
Mariam
--
http://www.skypoint.com/~mariam
Naeem Mohaiemen
Mariam Ispahani wrote:
> Naeem Mohaiemen wrote:
http://www.drik.org
> Hello - Since 1992, I have been hanging the DRIK calendar in my home
> every year, because I think their black and white photography is
> wonderful! This year, however, the 1997 calendar is disappointing :-(
> because the pictures are colored and don't look as professional. I read
> that they were taken by children and I think the idea is great, but not
> for a calendar that has a good reputation as DRIK's does. My friends
> share my view and I hope they raise their standard by 1998 :-)
Mariam, I disagree with you on this. While the 1997 photos may not be
as "professional" as previous years, they servbe a powerful function--
putting media-power in the hands of the traditionally ignored group--
working class Bangladeshis.
If you look through the DRIK web site, you will see the project
rationale.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rahnuma Ahmed's explanation of the rationale for the calendar-->
http://www.drik.org/97calendar.html
In its seven years of existence much of the work that Drik has done has
gone beyond the kind generally
associated with a picture library. Drik's commitments are grounded in
third world realities. Central to these
realities are western, male and middle class ways of seeing, and working
within and outside Bangladesh has
made Drik conscious of the need to create spaces from which such
established photographic practices may be
contested. The result of one such ongoing effort is this year's calendar
- its pictures were taken by nine young
girls and boys of Dhaka city working class background. The initial idea
had been to give them six weeks
training in photography. This neat plan was overrun later at the
children's insistence that the relationship
should continue. Its continuance has remade the relationship: the
children's seriousness and commitment
has taught Drik to be a support and service centre for these young
photographers. The last two years have
been painfully significant for these children as most of them have been
forced to leave school and to begin
wage-earning work - as garment factory workers, as welding apprentices,
as garage assistants. Making time
for photography in seven day weeks with daily work routines of twelve to
fourteen hours has been
extremely difficult, more so for the girls. It is the children's serious
determination and their belief in the
power of photography, a power which is the exclusive domain of those who
regulate and inform, which has
made them persist in taking pictures.
Stereotypical representations of urban poverty in Bangladesh multiply as
image after image gets produced
with `the' rickshaw driver, `the' woman breaking bricks, `the' garment
factory worker or `the' young
flower-seller as its subject. These visual representations are not
inseparable from the written and academic
ones which are embedded in conceptions of poverty as `absence' and
`scarcity,' and not as a relation of
exploitation. Poor people are represented as those who lack employment,
education, medical facilities,
water, sanitation. Implicit in much of these writings is another
absence. Poor and working class people, it is
felt, lack the right attitudes and the right family values: work ethics,
the will to learn, enduring
commitments. One of the essential truths which clearly emerges from the
photographs, the writings and the
lives of these young photographers is their direct, harsh and unmediated
relation to the urban economy,
very different to the lives of children belonging to the privileged
classes. The complexity of life and culture,
of family relationships, comes through in these writings, some of which
contest established values: a
deserted wife who resolves not to cry for a `mere' husband; Pintu's
observation, which is opposite to what
most middle class Dhaka city residents believe, that thuggery is bred by
affluence and not by poverty.
However, there are other writings which speak in dominant middle class
language of a `good family life,'
`happily married couples,' `dirt and filth in the slums,' and serve to
remind us of the role of educational
institutions and the media in transmitting dominant values. Whether the
focus of contestation - visual and
written - can be made to sharpen as these young photographers grow older
is a challenge for each one of
them separately, and for them collectively as members of Out of Focus.
It is, and should be, an enduring
challenge for Drik, and for others who are interested in larger
struggles for change.
-- Rahnuma Ahmed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is Shahidul Alam's description of OUT OF FOCUS, the children's
photo group:
http://www.drik.org/somuch.html
So much more to be done! -- Shahidul Alam
The school was
near the Kamlapur railway station. The children used to live
by the rail
lines, in huts made of bamboo, polythene, rags and cardboard. I
had promised
them cameras, and to teach them to take pictures. But by the
time I had
rustled up the cameras, the film, the money and eked out the
time I would
need, government bulldozers had razed the school to the
ground. I
traced them to a school in Mirpur. The teachers helped, and
selected five
girls and five boys they thought would do well.
3rd October 1994, International Children's Day. After
school Iqbal, Rabeya, Phalan, Peyara, Shephali,
Zakir, Pintu, Moli, Shopna, Dadon and I sat on the floor
on the verandah, looking at pictures and
discussing why they were important. Looking at a picture
of the garment kids who had died in the
fire at Mirpur No 10. Moli talked of how everyone knew the
owner had dumped the bodies in the
drain at night. "If I had a camera, I would take his
picture and put the guy in jail" she said angrily.
That was what got us going.
The teachers had allocated a corner of the verandah for
the darkroom. The kids had a better idea.
There was a housing for a tubewell round the back. They
managed to get the keys. As we cleared the
rubbish we found new born kittens who had to be found a
home. Then there were the holes in the
roof, walls and door to be fixed. But with a tubewell
there, at least we had water. We made a pin-hole
camera using a milk powder tin, and took pictures of
things around us. It was such a thrill to see the
images. The kids took the camera, and developer and fixer
home, and came back the next day with
images of their school, the garment factory and a banana
tree.
Initially we only had a few cameras and had to share. Who
would get which camera, who would sit
on the front seat, who was being good, were all things we
argued about. We sang and chatted and
asked a million questions as we worked. Looking at my
black and white pictures they initially wanted
to work in black and white too, but soon got bored and
went on to colour. Two years on, Rabeya and
Phalan have reverted to black and white. Dadon had
problems at home and had dropped out. So
many days later he has now picked up a camera again.
On our first outing, the kids wanted to bathe in the beach
in Cox's Bazaar (a day away), photograph
tigers in the Sunderbans (two days away), visit the local
museum, see the puja (Hindu prayers) and
photograph the flood affected people in Kamrangir char. We
didn't quite manage it all that day, but
every time we went out we would go somewhere different to
broaden our experience. The centre for
the rehabilitation of the paralysed, the Sonargaon hotel,
and the Sonargaon village, the Meghna
river, picnic spots, the zoo, exhibitions, the martyr's
memorial, the Kamlapur station, and so many
other places. I would eat at theirs, and they would
sometimes stay at ours. We would sing and chat
until the early hours.
I had allocated six weeks for the project, but they
weren't impressed by my schedule. There was so
much to be done! So we carried on. I was no longer able to
give time regularly, so they arranged for
one of them to visit the agency with all their film, look
at contact sheets, drop off the captions and
text and pick up film for them all. Whenever I could I
would go over and discuss the work.
In the beginning they took pictures just for the fun of
it. They would stare wide eyed at all they saw.
They took starry eyed pictures. Later they began to
question and probe. They changed in other ways
too. When I first saw them, they had wanted to be garment
workers. Rabeya had wanted to be a
doctor. Rabeya now wants to be a photojournalist, as do
many of the others.
There was a time when Shopna stopped coming. The kids
asked me to talk to her dad. He sold
vegetables in the market. When I met him, he explained
that his elder brother (a sort of father figure)
wanted Shopna to marry his son. Shopna's mother was not
keen on this, and together we talked to
Shopna's dad. I do not know if it was the talking that did
it, but Shopna was not married off. Instead
she now works fourteen hours a day in a garment factory!
There is so much more to be done!
I had promised the kids, we would have an exhibition. Once
when I had been away for a while. Many
chided them. They said I was conning them and was a cheat.
"We told them it wasn't true, but when
you still didn't come we cried and cried".
When Pintu's family were
evicted from their slum, the kids were present with
their cameras, but we
lost trace of Pintu. On the day of the exhibition, someone
said that he was in
Barisal (a distant town). He was well, and probably going to
school. Many came to the
exhibition. The kids brought their families and friends.
There was publicity.
They were in a kid's show on television. One of the kids in
the show asked them how
they had managed to get cameras. I was so ashamed.
They would never have
dared ask a middle class kid such a question. There was
still so much work to be
done!
Mariam Ispahani
Naeem Mohaiemen wrote: [my previous post zapped]
>
> Mariam, I disagree with you on this. While the 1997 photos may not be
> as "professional" as previous years, they servbe a powerful function--
> putting media-power in the hands of the traditionally ignored group--
> working class Bangladeshis.
>
> If you look through the DRIK web site, you will see the project
> rationale.
>
Naeem - I don't understand why this is being cross-posted when I replied
to SCB, but anyway... my problem is NOT with the children taking
photographs, NOR with the working class being introduced to the media
world... those are wonderful ideas! I have known Shahidul Alam for a
long time and I admire and support his work 200%. I just don't think
the photographs taken by the children should have been on the DRIK '97
calendar. I have visited DRIK and seen their photo exhibitions there
and elsewhere in Dhaka, and I think they should have promoted the
children' work through such exhibitions, but not on the calendar YET!!!
Mariam...(*_*)
--
http://www.skypoint.com/~mariam
Muhammad Chishty
I agree with you. I was in Dhaka last December and ended up not buying
the 1997 DRIK calender because of the poor quality of the images. Their
previous calenders with the black and white images were superb.
Naeem Mohaiemen
Mariam Ispahani wrote:
>
> Naeem Mohaiemen wrote: [my previous post zapped]
> >
> > Mariam, I disagree with you on this. While the 1997 photos may not be
> > as "professional" as previous years, they servbe a powerful function--
> > putting media-power in the hands of the traditionally ignored group--
> > working class Bangladeshis.
> >
> > If you look through the DRIK web site, you will see the project
> > rationale.
> >
> Naeem - I don't understand why this is being cross-posted when I replied
> to SCB
Because I was answering your question and also publicizing DRIK.
Two birds..
> my problem is NOT with the children taking
> photographs, NOR with the working class being introduced to the media
> world... those are wonderful ideas! I have known Shahidul Alam for a
> long time and I admire and support his work 200%. I just don't think
> the photographs taken by the children should have been on the DRIK '97
> calendar. I have visited DRIK and seen their photo exhibitions there
> and elsewhere in Dhaka, and I think they should have promoted the
> children' work through such exhibitions, but not on the calendar YET!!!
Not ready for prime-time?
Well, clearly the folks @ DRIK don't share your opinion.
Frankly, I'm 100% supportive of this idea-- warts and all. I'd rather
these kids get 100% exposure, even if some consumers in the West don't
consider the calendar "worthy" of hanging in their living rooms.
Also, the curder, more raw style of untrained young children taking
photographs is a welcome change from over-stylized, rarefied photography
that is more for Western audiences than us.
--
Naeem Mohaiemen
_____________________________________________________
Everyone's your friend in New York City
And everything looks beautiful when you're young and pretty
The streets are paved with diamond and there's just so much to see
-They Might Be Giants
______________________________________________________
Zeeshan Hasan
Muhammad Chishty wrote:
> I agree with you. I was in Dhaka last December and ended up not buying
> the 1997 DRIK calender because of the poor quality of the images.
Valid criticism. But I thought that the quotes
from the street kids/ photographers about their
images more than compensated.
farewell,
zeeshan
Naeem Mohaiemen
For more background on DRIK, go to:
http://www.drik.org
http://www.drik.org/outfocus.html
http://www.drik.org/97calendar.html
> Muhammad Chishty wrote:
> I was in Dhaka last December and ended up not buying
> the 1997 DRIK calender because of the poor quality of the images.
Here's how I see it:
1) DRIK was set up to fight the mis-representation of the Third World by
white, 1st world photographers
2) After 10 years, DRIK now comes to the realization that they are also
upper-middle class bengali MEN, photographing the poor of their own
country-- "Internal Orientalism", perhaps?
3) Trying to correct this, DRIK this year begins training slum kids in
photography
4) DRIK takes bold step of devoting their focal production-- 1997 ANNUAL
CALENDAR-- for showcasing the work done by these slum kids
5) Middle-class Bengalis living abroad, are dissatisfied with the
calendar, because they feel it is not "professional enough". The kids
should have "stayed limited to exhibition hall, but not the calendar".
6) Note: It is all right to give these kids a chance in exhibiton hall,
for we can stroll through, and go home happy that we have done our bit.
But when the kids' photo get on the calendar, they are "invading" our
homes. Then suddenly, they are not good enough.
Personally, I would rather give these slum kids MAXIMUM EXPOSURE, evne
at the risk of upsetting middle-class aesthetic values.
What do others think?
What do white, first world photographers think? Storm in a teacup? Or
legitimate issue?
--
Naeem Mohaiemen
HBO Interactive Media
Mike Porter
*** I'm a white middle class man and first of all I think, being only
a white middle class man and never having been much of any where
exotic except England, Spain, and Turkey, and Texas, which is sort of
like the third world, is:
Were these kids trained to take first class pictures or were they
turned loose after being instructed in camera operations. I went
through the same thing when I started in photography. I thought
operating a camera was photography. And it sort of is for me. But I
know people who create art or postcard quality pictures with the same
or better or lessor equipment, and the difference is that they were
trained or were good self trainers.
Saif Ahmed
Naeem Mohaiemen <naeem.m...@homebox.com> writes:
> 5) Middle-class Bengalis living abroad, are dissatisfied with the
> calendar, because they feel it is not "professional enough". The kids
> should have "stayed limited to exhibition hall, but not the calendar".
> 6) Note: It is all right to give these kids a chance in exhibiton hall,
> for we can stroll through, and go home happy that we have done our bit.
> But when the kids' photo get on the calendar, they are "invading" our
> homes. Then suddenly, they are not good enough.
> Personally, I would rather give these slum kids MAXIMUM EXPOSURE, evne
> at the risk of upsetting middle-class aesthetic values.
> What do others think?
> What do white, first world photographers think? Storm in a teacup? Or
> legitimate issue?
It all depends on what the purpose of the calender is. If it is to
highlight third world photographers than it has to meet the aesthetic
standards of the audience. If it doesn't it has failed whether or not
the photographs were taken by professionals or urchins.
If the purpose is to provide a medium for street urchins to exibit
their work without a specific audience, there is no need to appeal to
any aesthetic standard.
Since any artform is meaningless without an audience, you have to
consider who you're trying to appeal to. Anything to do with
'invasion' of homes is a creation of Naeems penchant for hyperbole.
Obviously the kids work has appealed to some people including
Naeem. No one is under any obligation to buy the calender if they
don't like the pictures, whatever they feel about Drik's cause.
Saif Ahmed
Gruhn
> Since any artform is meaningless without an audience
Do you count the artist as an audience or not?
Saif Ahmed
"Gruhn" <gr...@apricot.deletethis.com> writes:
>
> > Since any artform is meaningless without an audience
>
> Do you count the artist as an audience or not?
Absolutely. And if the artist is the only audience needed, than any
work, including my lovely sculpture which others call a newspaper pile
is a success.
Saif Ahmed
--
/o\
________________________________________________________________________\_/
/ \ |
\_/ Saifuddin Ahmed |
| | sah...@alphachannel.com |
| | sah...@occs.cs.oberlin.edu |
| |________________________________________________________________________/
\_/
Mariam Ispahani
Saif - First you said an artform is meaningless without an audience, and
then you implied the opposite. Which is it? I think art doesn't
require an audience, however, these DRIK pictures were taken for an
audience and I think they hit the wrong one in the wrong calendar! Of
course Naeem disagrees :-)
Mariam...(*_*)
--
Cyberspace Park: http://www.skypoint.com/~mariam
Ihtisham Kabir
While on this subject, check out a book called "Shooting
Back" which is a collection of photographs taken by homeless
kids in this country. It is a beautiful book. The editor
is Jim Hubbard.
The idea has been around since the 60s when photography
critics such as John Berger argued for a less photographer-centric
view of the world through photographs.
See also, "Another Way of Telling" By Berger and Jean Mohr.
While I cannot comment on the calendar because I have not
seen it, the idea deserves encouragement, IMO.
- I.
Naeem Mohaiemen
Mike Porter wrote:
>
> *** I'm a white middle class man and first of all I think, being only
> a white middle class man and never having been much of any where
> exotic except England, Spain, and Turkey, and Texas, which is sort of
> like the third world, is:
>
> Were these kids trained to take first class pictures or were they
> turned loose after being instructed in camera operations.
You might check the site to form your own opinion:
Look in the sections:
1997 CALENDAR
OUT OF FOCUS
Saif Ahmed
I didn't imply the opposite. I merely stated that if the artist
considers himself/herself as the only audience that s/he requires than
any artform is successful. If, however, the artist or the sponsor in
this case wants to appeal to a broader audience and that audience
doesn't like the work, then that artform has lost much of its value
unless it can find an alternative audience. In the case of this
calender DRIK obviously wants to get the highest number of people
buying the calender. Thus if it sells, great, the artists were
successful, if it doesn't, they weren't. Simple as that. My personal
opinions on the pictures are irrelevant, as are yours and
Naeems. What's relevant is the bottom line.