The outrageous arrogance of these comments are only exceeded by their lack of self-awareness.(posted 8710 days ago)Apparently the only appropriate way to shoot members of other cultures or subcultures (whether in the third world, in the projects, or in suburbia) is either in stark black-and-white (so that we can see how oppressed and miserable they "really" are) or in equally stark yet saturated color (so that we can see how childlike and innocent they really are). All I see in those kinds of pictures is a condescending neo-colonialism masquerading as concern. (The "white-man's burden" renewed.)
Borges takes serious, artistic portraits of individuals, using some of the best techniques of his (our) culture. (He, in fact, calls them portraits and doesn't try to pass them off as ethnography.) When Lauren Greenfield is mentioned, everyone is thrilled that she managed to penetrate "deepest, darkest" California for her book Fast Forward and amazed at how she was accepted by the indigenous peoples there - but Borges is treated like he's taking snapshots of cigar-store Indians. (Does anyone ever read the text accompanying his shots?)
However, the real problem is the "art" versus "artifice" opposition. Heaven forbid you should bring a flash with you to a foreign land - much less manipulate your print after the fact (dodging, burning, and sepia toning of course excepted). Let's only have pictures that mask the photographer's involvement (and bias) through the use of techniques which are (unfortunately) almost transparent to our jaded eyes.