Two recent photographic projects focusing on sex workers stand in stark contrast to one another. One exploits them as a commodity, the other seeks to give them a voice. Why does the art world seem to value one so much more than the other?
In 2014, Spanish photographer Txema Salvans published a book of photographs entitled The Waiting Game. Produced over the course of eight years, the book features a series of 5x4 photographs of sex workers standing on the side of Catalan roads, waiting for customers. As Salvans notes, the poses are deliberately non-sexual, and the large format combined with the wide-angle makes these landscape shots featuring an isolated body, rather than environmental portraits. “The pictures are also taken from far away because I do want to protect their privacy,” Salvans noted in an interview with Cultour Magazine. As a result, the project focuses on “the context of prostitution and not on women,” Salvans explained via email.
Despite this, many of the women portrayed are identifiable, and some of the locations can easily be found. In its study of landscapes, Salvans’ project is beautiful and compelling; in its treatment of vulnerable women, however, it is darkly exploitative.
'I Kind of Lied to the Women'
According to the Cultour Magazine interview, Salvans was first researching the sex workers as part of an assignment for the Spanish newspaper El Mundo. The sex workers asked not to be photographed, prompting Salvans to document them covertly by disguising himself as a road surveyor complete with a high visibility vest and an assistant holding a pole. “I never ask permission to take a photo,” he explains. “I kind of lied to the women then.” Salvans has never published any of these images to his Instagram.
The women portrayed are vulnerable. Most of those working on the sides of Spanish roads are trafficked from Eastern Europe, Africa, South America, and beyond by local mafia, often working against their will and frequently subject to violence and intimidation. Many hide their profession from family and loved ones. As Marisa Soleto, the president of the Fundacion Mujeres and a women’s rights activist observes, for many, “prostitution is not a job, it’s a submission of women into slavery.”
A Cunning Deception
When you consider that in Spain it’s illegal to photograph someone on the street without their permission if they are recognizable — regardless of what they are doing — this project seems fraught with problems. The women do not want to be photographed, and being identified may add to the risks that they encounter each day. How an artist can justify secretly photographing them against their will for artistic purposes is hard to reconcile. The camera turns their vulnerability into a commodity to be consumed from the comfort of art galleries and coffee tables.
Curator and Magnum photographer Martin Parr wrote the foreword to Salvans’ book, admiring the artist’s documentation of the interstitial landscapes that sit between the city and the sea that would otherwise remain unseen. “Prostitution does not welcome being photographed,” Parr writes, “and Salvans employed a cunning deception in order to get access to his models.”
The terminology that Parr uses is telling: he chooses the word “prostitutes” rather than the preferred term of “sex worker” and refers to them repeatedly as “models,” a term that implies consent. Models pose knowingly for a camera and do not risk being subjected to violence as a result. Sex workers who have asked not to be photographed and have then been covertly captured in large format make the word “model” grossly inappropriate.
The ethics of deceiving these vulnerable women — of taking advantage of their situation and tricking them into becoming part of an artistic endeavor to sell a coffee table book — is not questioned by Parr; instead, it is a “cunning deception” that forms part of a “developing trend” in photography that should be admired. “He could hardly believe this worked so well,” Parr gushes. The ego of the photographer as a hunter seeking trophies is central; ethical concerns for the subject do not even register.
When challenged, Parr explained via email that he now realizes that the use of the terms “prostitutes” was inappropriate, suggesting that the contemporary use of the term “sex worker” is reflective of a shift in “developments of social understanding.” When asked whether the project was ethical, exploitative, voyeuristic, and risked putting its subjects at risk, Parr chose instead to give me a general statement rather than respond directly to questions. “Throughout the history of photography,” Parr wrote. “Photographers have sought to take candid photographs and to make visible things that are often hidden from view. And throughout the history of photography, photographers have used different methods to achieve these aims. It is important that consent and vulnerability in various forms of photography are being fully and properly debated in the context of modern-day awareness. Parameters are changing all the time as fresh perspectives are taken on board which guides the evolution of the industry.”
Parr — who recently stood down from his position as director of a photography festival after having failed for more than six months to respond to accusations that he edited a racist photobook — is happy for there to be a debate, but he’s not willing to take part, nor will he acknowledge his position within it.
Silent on Ethics
Salvans was sightly more forthcoming when responding to a similar series of questions, arguing that his work, while protecting their identities, presents the sex workers as women rather than as prostitutes. For Salvans, the project focuses on prostitution and not on individuals. With one exception chosen specifically to show the contrast, Salvans claims that he “eliminated all the visual elements that reinforced the sexual character of the woman.” Salvans also discussed the challenge of not wanting to present a beautiful image, as it prevents viewers from empathizing with the subject of the photo. Notably, like Parr, Salvans did not respond to questions regarding the project’s ethics.
Salvans regards his collection of images as a “journalistic, anthropological document” and as a documentation of sex workers, it’s an honest record of a phenomenon that deserves greater public attention. However, given the ethical difficulties that it presents — particularly as it seeks to commodify the plight of these women rather than giving them any sense of agency — was there a better means of achieving this? Savlans’ project could have presented its subjects without deceiving and exploiting them.
The Answer: Collaborate
In July, artistic duo Henry/Bragg published photographs around the English city of Hull on billboards and bus shelters and through a silent, hand-held exhibition in the city center that protested against recent legislation in the city that had pushed sex workers to operate in more dangerous locations. The photographs — entitled "Absence of Evidence" — were produced in collaboration with a group of former sex workers (An Untold Story — Voices) and depict locations where the women awaited customers, several of which were also sites where sex workers experienced violence or were found murdered. The photographs are accompanied by brief captions that give insights into the dangers of such work. “She had two little boys,” one caption reads, “and it was on a boy’s birthday that she got found.”
Henry/Bragg developed this project over the course of a year, building relationships with the former sex workers and giving them cameras so that they could take photographs from their own viewpoint. As the artists explained to me, working on the streets is often not a choice and “can include coercion, drug addiction, trafficking, and extreme poverty. Their children and family may not know what they do.” Evidently, these women were in a very vulnerable position, even if they were no longer working. “We are fully aware that it can be a dangerous occupation,” Henry/Bragg explained, “and unintended exposure could place them in even more risk.”
Owning Their Past
As well as raising awareness, the photographs served a second purpose. Producing the imagery gave participants a level of detachment, Henry/Bragg explained. “This enabled them to talk about their experiences, helping them to own their past rather than letting it own them. Together, we used photography to try to get the message out there about the terrible levels of violence that have been experienced by street sex workers in Hull.” The images have also appeared elsewhere around the city and are now being publicly exhibited in London.
Rather than present sex workers as a marginalized and unfortunate “other” to be studied and sold as art, Henry/Bragg sought to give participants a means of dealing with their past while also raising public awareness and prompting further conversations about gender-based violence and the decriminalization of sex work.
Two Projects, Two Approaches
The two projects stand in stark contrast in the manner in which they treat sex workers. Salvans shows no empathy for his subjects, ignores their reluctance to be photographed, deceives them into becoming unwitting participants, and then dubs them, via Parr, as “models” and “prostitutes.” Furthermore, none of these women are in a position to challenge Salvans over the fact that these photographs break Spanish law. Any concern for their dignity or wellbeing is lost. The ends — a beautiful and unique set of trophy images — justify the means.
Henry/Bragg take their subjects and give them the power to tell their own stories, protecting their identities, and using the urban landscape as a means of engaging the public. Respect for the participants is present in every aspect of the project, outweighing the ego of the artists, and creating a body of work that achieves far more than a coffee table book.
Salvans’ project could have been different. He could, for example, have chosen to engage with the sex workers, tell their stories, and create a connection between the viewer and subject. Instead of portraying vulnerable people, he could have replaced the bodies of the sex workers with his own, replicating their poses and perhaps even the clothing. Salvans could have inserted himself into the landscape and told their story through his own physicality rather than putting that of the sex workers at risk, effectively calling attention to their circumstances through their absence rather than their presence.
Instead of a project driven by voyeurism and deception, it would be one of empathy and respect. This, surely, should be the “developing trend” that Parr admires, as opposed to a glorified mode of photojournalism that does little more than exploit and deceive its unwitting subjects.
If you want to learn more about working with models, we offer a full course on Swimwear photography with Joey Wright. Make sure to save 15% by using code "ARTICLE" at checkout. Save even more with the purchase of other tutorials in our store.
I’ll get me popcorn
The most interesting thing for me here, Andy, is I don't even think of you as a photographer anymore, you're the guy who writes about social issues.
I suppose other photograohers aren't your customers anyway.
Seriously, every time its some social issue, or something controversial, it's always Andy. And it's usually less about the photography, and more about rubbin' one out over the social justice of it all.
Someone always has to bring the homophobia.
sadly i guess this is tamer than the images in the magnum archive with exploited thai children by david allen harvey. perhaps this will allow the creep to become a magnum nominee. i'm sure he already has one (un)official vote to get in.
So exploiting people for street photography is ok unless they are a sex worker? That's the message I'm getting from Andys recent articles.
Plenty of others have raised concerns about the exploitation of other groups, such as the homeless, in street photography. I don't think anything in these articles said or implied that the exploitation of other groups was okay, it was just outside the scope of the series focus.
I have totally solved the problem.
I have never photographed a sex worker.
You haven't KNOWINGLY photographed a sex worker... They move among us... undetected.
I know. So thus I haven't had the opportunity to be jerk in a creepy way. maybe (hopefully not) in the usual way.
Hmm - isn't the word 'prostitute' more accurate than 'sex worker' in this instance? Another 'sex worker' might be a 'porn actor' for instance - and in that case photography would not be exploitive - but enabling. A multi-billion dollar business enabled by... photography.
Do you know what the difference between one and the other is here (given you've raised a comparison)?
One group has given consent to be photographed (for porn) and the other (the women in the images above) have NOT given consent.
Andy strikes again!
I am astounded that anyone can defend Salvan. And I feel the same way about those defenders tearing you down.
The point about this work is, it might be your sister or mother standing there waiting for a taxi, but some guy takes her picture without asking her, or her knowing its happened, puts it online, in a book and gallery wall with the label 'prostitute'.
So you're basically saying thats perfectly ok and you'd have no problem with that.
It's OK to sell your eyes, brain or pussy for money. It's your body after all. You free to use it as you please.
Except when you're not a prostitute and someone photographs you and calls you one.
The problem here is not the woman's behaviour, but the man's. Maybe you missed that?
You've really not thought this through have you. The level of ignorance you're displaying is really quite remarkable.
Maybe you should given that you *appear* to run a public-facing business that deals with people & photography yet you profess ignorance of some key aspects of (international) law that could potentially affect you. The issue at hand here is the ethics of image-making and the law pertaining to the outcome. You appear to have disregard for both, and I find that surprising.
The women in these photographs are people. Vulnerable people. Many will be where they are, doing what they do, against their will and as the result of coersion or deception - and much of the money they make goes to either a pimp or a trafficker. Women (and men) trafficked into Spain (or any other country) are then in the country against the laws of that country - illegally if you prefer that term.
If they go to the police to report their trafficking, they will only be allowed to stay in the country if they can prove that they were trafficked. Proving trafficking, especially for the victim, is nigh on impossible because the only evidence available to the victim is their own testimony which is generally considered insufficient. This means that their legal options for escaping their situation are extremely limited. Should they attempt to escape, they may also be killed by their pimp/trafficker if caught - and face the problems associated with being an undocumented migrant should their escape be successful. Should they later be found by the police, they would likely be deported. Should they be deported back to their home country, they may face reprisals from the trafficking ring that first took them away. Members of their family may also be affected should trafficked women either escape or be deported back to their countries of origin.
These people, and please remember they are people, have a lot to lose from being photographed. The photographer only sought to make his photographs and when not able to do so with permission, resorted to deception to accomplish his aim. These people also have rights. Spanish law says that their photograph should not be taken in this way. Unfortunately, due to their potentially vulnerable legal position, these people are not in a position to be able to challenge the photographer on this issue.
Thank you for addressing this important matter, Andy! I am surprised to read this kind of articles on a site where I otherwise only find cozy talk about photo gear, techniques and business, and I admire how you have grasped a mandate to confront influential people in the photo community with imortant questions. Keep going! This topic must not be silenced.
Thank you for writing this. It is all sad, mostly these women, beautiful and young, standing in the sun and dust of passing traffic in the hope of gaining few bucks to continue their miserable lives. I am deeply sadden. I don't care about this or that editor or photographer debating what's ethical and what's not. I can't understand why these young souls are being crushed on the roadside with government and society doing nothing to help them. We know that there are traffickers involved in crushing them, yet we sit and discuss their photographs!
So right! I deplore all governments that do so little to stop trafficking. What does it say about our society that we have to fear for the safety of these women if their identity is discovered? Worrying about the ethics of photography is marginally better than worrying if the women's footwear is comfortable and suitable for the rough country roads, but far worse than not worrying about some of the attitudes expressed by MEN here!!!!
Everyone knows what prostitute means. Sex worker has several meanings. Escorts, porn industry actors, gold diggers, drug addicts, sex addicts, and so on. Hi Andy, who is next?
So you are completely unconcerned what the law says? So can I assume you regularly break the law where you live/work when photographing?
Ironically, woke up thinking about the effect of human suffering on my photography and life. We must all live with our own personal successes and failures as human beings in dealing with one another.
I have been both of these men to a certain level in my approach to photographing human suffering, But I am a lousy human sinner, however, comfort is to be found in the knowledge that the critics are too.
Good article pity about the sad bastards that don’t get it.
We get it. It sucks. But I don't come to a photography site to get lectured about social issues. I come here to see stuff about photography.
This type of photography is a social issue therefore ripe for discussion.You don’t have to read it.
If you put work out, it can, and WILL be criticised, and the argument "YOU DONT HAVE TO READ IT" is as useful and valid as "WELL THE AUTHOR DIDNT HAVE TO WRITE IT"
Also, if you look into the author, Andy Day's body of work here on Fstoppers, there is boring trend of SJW social issues often masking behind a thin wall of "there was some photos taken BUT THE SOCIAL ISSUES"
Social issues are important and need documented. A discussion around ethics is important but if social issues is not your bag why bother.
I don’t think it’s that sinple, even if I dislike the deceptive methods.
If it is an argument about art I would get it. But some things are about journalism.
How would you treat, say, a war zone with dead people? Or if you were to uncover illegal activities such as children who are prostitutes? Would we be aware of the extend of the issues without the explicit pictures?
Do you not take the photo or do you make sure it isn’t sold as art?
You're right. But things have changed. Couple of decades ago, you could only see certain (iconic) photos in a book if you bought it. Or in the library or exposition. Now it remains online. Forever. And you lose control. You can't ignore that. It's a shame, but it's not going away.
You cannot ignore that there is press freedom. Democracy dies in darkness, not with a bang but with a whimper.
You are aware that the photographer Nick Ut pick up Phan Thi Kim Phúcand drove her to the hospital, and remained her friend. Telling the story is what journalism is about. Associated Press made money on the photograph.
Very good of Nick to do that. And?
Journalism is a business, photography is a business. Victimhood is one of the most sought after positions in the world today in order to gain political power. Children and women forced into slavery to become sex workers are victims, Not all prostitutes are victims. Not all homeless people are victims. A great deal of what is being labeled as exploitation are symbiotic relationships.
Okay, I still don’t understand how this is a contradiction to what I said. Unless you’re agreeing and just sharing...
The problem is in today's political environment, everyone must be treated as a victim that must be coddled, and people can replace truth with their own truth as they please. No longer are we allowed to judge people on the content of their character or the totality of their actions, but rather, on how they choose to define themselves. Which is a total cop out, disingenuous and manipulative. It might make for a good sounding story, but that's all it is, a story. And that's the thing about photography....that's the point of the phrase "a picture is worth a thousands words". Because we often see the unfiltered truth when it's unspoken, and we can interpret it any way we want as the viewer.
Someone can say they did this or that for X reason, but in the end, reasons often don't matter, all that matters is the resulting actions/behavior. If I say I robbed a bank because I was poor vs I needed drug money....does one or the other make me any less of a bank robber or criminal? Does it change the nature of what I did? No, not really.
But I bet you a photographer like this will never make a set about hard working men who destroyed their backs over 30 years working jobs to provide for their families. Because it's easier to portray women as victims, especially when it comes to vulnerable things like sexuality, and THAT'S where this SJW photographer is actually exploiting these women. And it's not just exploitative, it's an insult to others, because it by proxy tells everyone else that they can't possibly be victims compared to these people, or victims unless the photographer says they are.
Instead of saying "This is a picture of a prostitute", they're saying "This is a picture of a victim". And there's no difference, except in stated agenda. Then they use that stated agenda to infer that they themselves are a better photographer for it, while others are lessened for not being them. That's just another form of exploitation. The truth about high horses, is people often put themselves there by pushing others down as stepping stones.
You are mixing in your own politics in your convulsed answer. Confusing several concepts and being inconsistent.
While I agree there’s an overpolitisation of certain social justice issues, there are others do have a lot of merit.
But in essence this has nothing to do with any political orientation.
This is about press freedom. Without it Democracy dies.
Is there true freedom of the press these days? Do we have journalism, including photojournalism, or exploitation for profit? Think very, very carefully before answering. You might need to consider the power of the Murdoch media empire, for example. It doesn’t exist to buttress freedom - it exists to make money. Naivety and altruism are easily exploited in a capital driven economy.
The Murdoch media empire has nothing to do with the concept of freedom of the press. One is a freedom defined by the law, the other is a private society with a lot of power and it’s own objectives.
Also this is Spain. No Murdoch empire there. Not that it matters. A journalist has the right to report.
I don't know how I'm supposed to feel about Txema Salvans. Author makes some really good points. All I know is that I'm deeply moved by Salvan's work.
Absolutely stellar example of understanding, empathy and agency colliding to create a powerful and emotional project from Henry/Bragg. This is photography done right. 👏👏👏
Why does everyone have to be labeled as a victim of something? The truth is, most people are only a victim of themselves, and exactly where they want to be. Example: Sure everyone wants to be a millionaire, but if you aren't doing what it takes to get there, do you REALLY want to be a millionaire? There's two types of wants: The wants that we try for, and the wants that we wish to fall in our laps. We get where we are based on the effort and skill we put into getting there. What does this all mean? You shouldn't feel soo sorry just because someone seems less fortunate than you, because it often has very little to do with fortune, and more to do with personal behavior/responsibility.
While photography can be about giving people a voice, it doesn't have to be. And the reality is, whether you like it or not, a photograph of someone doing something, is them speaking with their actions. People will often try to explain away their actions, and all that does is muddle the unspoken truth, and the same applies to photography. If I take a picture of a guy robbing a bank, do I need to do it in a way that frames them as a loving father driven to this? Or did the person make bad choices in their lives that lead them to do something they never actually needed to do?
Photography isn't necessarily about telling the viewer how they should interpret the picture, but rather letting the viewer decide for themselves how they perceive it. Deliberately coloring how people should see it is the true form of deception. It's how you allow people to define themselves, despite how their actions really define them. It isn't always a good idea to let people define themselves, because often they will lie. People more often tell you the raw truth with their actions, rather than their words.
More often than not, prostitutes are the exploiters, not the other way around. They're selling their body for money, based on the quality, for what the market can bear. I bet you don't see porn stars making 6 figures as victims. Yet they're doing exactly the same thing, just in another form. Just because it artificially looks more glamorous, doesn't mean there's any true difference. Just because they make boatloads of money, doesn't make it any less so, just like just because street prostitutes might make less money doesn't make them a victim or more of a victim. Ask yourself, would they be less of a victim if every aspect was the same, but they were paid 10x more? If the answer is yes, then you didn't get the point.
From what I've seen, most prostitutes are simply drug addicts. Did the drug dealer victimize them by selling to them? Nope. There's a reason why you typically don't see drug addicts in better positions; because they're too busy being high to actually bust their butt like a normal person, and making bad choices in the process. Choices they didn't have to make. So they take the easy route. And while it might not seem like the easy route because of how rough it can be....it actually is for all intents and purposes. Just like many homeless people might sleep rough on the street, but for them it's easier than dealing with the hustle and bustle of normal life and maintaining it all.
And the price of prostitution is dictated by what the market can bear, and the market often isn't rich men, but just your average joe who works in a factory or in construction or something like that. Clearly they can only afford X amount. So the prostitute only makes X amount. An amount she's generally accepted. Heck, there was a video about a woman who was essentially pimping her own sister, and her sister did it willingly, and she was charging way too low. She'd drop her off at a house and get 10 buck to bang 3 random guys. She was still young and pretty enough to command at least multiples of that price, but she didn't. Why? Because she worked by volume, because she was a drug addict who wanted a quick fix. Was anyone being exploited there? Not really. Being stupid maybe, but being stupid yourself, doesn't by virtue mean you're being exploited.
I think in the end, it's really about taking self responsibility instead of merely looking for victim status. I think why people don't do that though, is because it's merely easier and more comforting to blame others for your choices; because it would be harder to live with ones self if they truly accepted their role/responsibility in their own demise. Sure, people can end up where they didn't intend, but common sense and warning signs were likely ignored along the way.
In closing.....no it's not wrong to display prostitutes labeled as prostitutes. It's up to the viewer to decide if they want to put themselves in the prostitutes shoes, or if they merely want to see how prostitutes live. The same applies for any other topic. I shouldn't need to color my photography with an agenda that pleases someone elses wishes.
I've photographed protesters I didn't agree with....but did I try to paint them negatively? Nope. I was neutral in my portrayal. They were photographed through the camera's lens, not my own. The same applies here, but in the opposite fashion. No one needs to tell an audience that pictures of an atrocity is an atrocity. Just like no one needs to tell an audience that pictures of a prostitute are actually pictures of a victim. People are smart enough to think for themselves. They don't need to be handheld to a conclusion. To do so, is exploitative in itself.
Ironically, Salvan has another project titled "The Waiting Game II" ...which mostly depicts men fishing. If he's trying to depict his subjects in the first "Waiting Game" as women (not objects), his title and subject matter for the second project do little to convince me.
Actually, you are distorting the facts here. The ladies in question cannot be identified. Shot at a distance, hair in the face, often from the back. How can you tell who this women is (attached)?
Locations? Well you probably can find them based on rumours. And?
Come back when you have a story.
Probably the best article I’ve read on here in a long time. People are just people, trying to make their way in life as best they can - even sex workers. Depersonalizing them, or worse exploiting their vulnerability, is extremely unethical if not criminal. There is no excuse for treating human beings as “things”, not even for “art”. 😡