Kaitlyn Bavuso Response to Documentary vs. Studio photography

The similarities between studio and documentary photography is the intentional message that the photographer is relaying to audience. The Europeans had made African and African American’s perceived in a negative way, especially with their photographs used on postcards. The only way to break away from their stereotypes, was to use photography. “The camera was the central instrument by which blacks could disprove representations of us created by white folks" (Willis 38). The two types use to their advantage the idea of beauty, but in different ways. For instance, in Keita’s photography, he had very well thought out poses, clothes, and facial expressions. It gave off the impression that African and African American can have an equal opportunity to obtain wealth and status. It was the type of photography that broke the stereotype and gave the definition of the “New Negro”.

        Similarly in documentary photography, it was still trying to the get point across that African and African Americans are equal, but in a more political or social way. For instance, Gordon Park’s photography allowed him to capture everyday photographs of low low-income areas of Chicago. He used them as way to demonstrate racial and economic obstacles their community faced. The beauty in these types of photographs is that something so natural and simple, could create such controversy and such impact to the audience.

        To control one’s image means to have every detail carefully planned out. What’s at stake for the photographer is how the audience is going to perceive their photographs. As for the African and African American community, just from understanding Keita and Gordon Park’s perspective on their community allows for a more positive and expressive change. As for myself, both studio and documentary photography demonstrated slowly but surely a more positive approach for the African and African American as they retaliated against European stereotypes.