The project subjects ranged from desertification in China to TB to child marriage and the work spanned the globe. All of the photographers were incredibly talented and inspirational.
My favourite artist was Richard Mosse. He presented a striking series of photographs on the conflict in the Congo called Infra. He used Kodak's (now discontinued) Aerochrome infrared film which was originally intended for "various aerial photographic applications, such as vegetation and forestry surveys, hydrology, and earth resources monitoring. The unique thing about this film is that it made plants look bubble gum pink! In Mosse's words:
"Kodak Aerochrome was developed during the Cold War in conjunction with the US military. Flying at altitude with a nosemounted aerial camera, this film was able to cut through the ultraviolet haze, reading the infrared light spectrum bounced off the earth below. Chlorophyll in the landscape’s foliage reflects infrared light, which is invisible to the human eye. Meanwhile, the earth and other contours absorb it. The green camouflage netting above hidden enemy sites absorbs infrared light while the surrounding vegetation bounces it directly back into the sky. In this way, the film technology was used to reveal an enemy’s location. By reading the landscape’s heat, the military had a way to perceive its hidden enemy."
Mosse decided to use this film to represent and capture abstract phenomena that are impossible to see, like the intangibility of the Congo's conflict. Rebel fighters in the Eastern Congo who emerge from the jungle to loot and slaughter and disappear back into the foliage just as quickly. The word infra means below and to really capture and illustrate the conflict in the Congo, one must look 'beneath' the surface. Again, in Mosse's own words:
"Where fighting has occurred, it’s trace can be difficult to perceive. Instead of bricks and mortar, Eastern Congo has provisional shacks and a rapacious vegetation that swallows history. Instead of hellfire missiles and military barracks, there are “white” weapons, machetes that kill silently, and rebel militias concealed not by concrete and camouflage, but by the jungle itself.
The decision to use colour infrared film forms a dialogue with these specifics. The poetic associations carried by the pink and red palette are a by-product of this conceptual framework, but a very fertile one. It’s an allegorical landscape - La Vie En Rose - steeped in a kind of magical realism."
What I love is that he uses a very beautiful and unique aesthetic to portray this current event, this crisis, this human suffering and says it is just as valid as the grainy black and white film we often label as "objective" photojournalism. Anyone who says his project/research/reporting lacks authenticity or is not representative is wrong in my opinion. His work is visceral, personal. I will remember his photos and the subject he covered--perhaps moreso than I will the myriad photos of death and destruction I am inundated with every day of the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan. Not that those don't make an impression. They just... kind of melt into one another after a while and become indistinguishable; conflicts become indistinguishable. Does anyone know what I am talking about or has anyone felt this before as well? It should be noted I try my est to stay informed about all of the conflicts and current events going on right now (no small feat). I say this to give context that it is not due to a lack of knowledge that I find for myself photos of different conflicts sometimes blending together.
I would love to hear your thoughts on Mosse's work and if you think there is a place for his work beyond the art realm and in the journalism realm. If you saw these photos in the NYT, would you feel like they were as legitimate as a digital photo taken today?
On a different note, do you find Mosse's approach to portray this horrific and tragic conflict in such a 'magic realism' way offensive?
To read the full interview from which I pulled many of his quotes, go here.
Caroline
