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.
Have you seen the images? How are they exploitative? See above? Can’t even see a face. Impossible to recognise this person even if you knew her. The photograph is good taste too. Showing the environment, the loneliness. They’re touching.
I didn’t suggest the subject images were exploitative; only that some people do take exploitative images. My comments were about treating people, in general, as objects rather than human beings. Please don’t read your own impressions into my words.
As for the subject images, the moment the photographer makes money from them, directly or indirectly, they have exploited the people in them. These people are inevitably powerless in their own lives and using that fact to empower yourself is exploiting their situation for personal gain. Otherwise why take the picture?
That’s a circular argument. The role of a journalist is to cover what is happening. Mostly issues that are negative one form or another. By your standard, you wouldn’t be able to report on anything or even take a photograph of anyone or any property or even of nature.
Don’t confuse work with exploitation.
Also who says the ladies don’t get anything out of it in the long run. Informing the public could help reduce stigma, improve working conditions.
Are you that naive or just deliberately obtuse? Either way I’ll waste no more time trying to educate you.
PS Spain gets world news from AP, which is struggling, and the Murdoch owned newswire has been launched to take over its market. Try another hobby horse because your “freedom of the press” one is broken. 🤦🏻♂️
It’s funny when people with no clue try to “educate” professionals. I quote: ”I’ll waste no time trying to educate you”. Cute.
Murdoch has nothing to do with compromising freedom of the press. He is a private citizen who makes use of the right. You may not like what his channels report, neither do I, but they exist because of freedom of press. Not the other way around. If he eliminated freedom of press he could end up being closed down. If you want to know what a society without freedom of press looks like, go to China. Or better still: North Korea. Try getting Murdoch Press in Pyongyang. Good luck!
In the meantime go home and read a book. Or better still go back to bed.
Haha “no clue”? Hello Pot! 😂 Try to think a little outside the box that sits on those shoulders for a bit! A truly “free” press owes allegiance to nothing but the facts. Not even your so-called “free press” can claim that. The closest I’ve found these days is The Guardian, but that too needs a readership to survive. The CCP Chinese and North Korea have a propaganda machine, not a press agency, but if you think that doesn’t apply in the West you’re delusional. Advertising dollars dictate what is printed on the front page vs. page 56, if at all. Do you seriously think the Washington Post is still a “free press”? Ask Bauer Media whether they care about truth in journalism. Go back to you Chai Latte and stop pretending you’re some kind of freedom fighter! 🤦🏻♂️
What the hell are you talking about. If anything you are complaining about quality of Media organisations. Quality isn’t about freedoms. Truth isn’t about freedom either! Whether they are truthful or not is their Choice based on their freedom.
And frankly it has nothing to do with this particular project, where the author of the project enjoys protection due to press freedom. And is being published no doubt in magazines and via exhibitions.
What the hell does this have to do with Murdoch’s empire or the truthfulness of their reporting???
Maybe focus on improving your photography and go see a psychologist.
... and the answer is BOTH naive and deliberately obtuse! To quote someone you might understand (Bugs Bunny), “What a maroon!”
When the response is just an insult ...
Again, Murdoch has nothing to do with freedom of the press nor with this project.
Every freelance journalist or artist or whatever can exercise their right to photograph any public event.
That’s not naïve - that’s just the law and ethics. Which is what this article is about: « an ethical way to photograph prostitutes »
If you want to read up about the do’s and don’t of photojournalism there’s plenty of literature out there.
Read it or go back to bed.
If a tree falls in the forest ... and if a “journalist” records an event and no-one publishes the record, does it even exist? You are so wrapped up in your journalistic freedom to do whatever the hell you want that you fail to see what’s right in front of your supercilious nose. It’s not all about YOU numb nuts! Keep telling yourself that your voyeurism is in the “public interest” and you can join the ranks of the paparazzi, if you’re not there already! 🤦🏻♂️
But he got published! And he is successful with the project.
Go back to bed Warren! You are obviously angry and disappointed about something. Talk about it to Mama or Daddy. Leave me out of your anger management problems
By what measure do you assess “success”? Being “published” is hardly success, just consider any author submitting Letters to the Editor. 🤷🏼♂️
Yes, I am both angry and disappointed that there is a complete dearth of integrity among those we rely on for honest communication. And, for the record, both of my parents have long since passed away, so thank you for that admonition.
If you still think there is such a thing as “journalistic freedom” perhaps you should read this article written by a journalist whose head isn’t buried as deeply in the quicksand as yours. If you can give up your mumma’s tit long enough that is.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/12/there-will-be-no-r...
You seem to talk a lot about that island in the pacific, the ex penal colony called Australia. It’s both irrelevant and Murdoch is a different subject.
What you are talking about are Monopolies and the need for Antitrust.
Nothing to do with Freedom of Press. A related subject only in thus far as Murdoch has a media empire.
It literally has nothing to do with the ethical rights of this photographer to capture prostitution and tell that story.
Go back to bed Warren
Still got your head buried ... maybe it’s in a warm dark place somewhere behind your front. This independent article points out the fractures in your reasoning about journalistic freedom. Read, mark and inwardly digest.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2020/nov/07/when-donal...
You are obviously confused Warren.
This article has nothing to do with the rights the photographer has to photograph prostitutes, nor with ethical questions on whether he should have taken these photos the way he did.
His project has nothing to do with fake news or the era of post truth, nor did he cover anything political, nor has he been taken photographs in the US, nor has he been hindered to be published, nor did he have anything to do with Murdoch press, nor does any of your articles have anything to do with the question this fstopper post is asking - which basically is: has this photographer been disrespecting the subject. To which the answer is no.
Go see a psychologist.
to be clear: there is no work implied in 'sex workers' - it is PROSTITUTION. a prostitute in plain english is a whore - puta in spanish.
if they like to be shot or not: just standing on the road/badlands/streets makes them a 100times more vulnerable than any photo taken from afar.
if women are shamed by their 'profession', first at all they should not do it (don't be stupid to believe that any of them did not know what would be her 'work':)), second, they should wear masks (in corona times obligatory, btw.)
just to add it: contrary to what the article maintains about salvans' project: the prostitutes are NOT identifiable, neither the places where they 'work' - it's anonymous badlands in the outskirts of spanish cities - the deserts and anonymous hinterlands interchangeable between barcelona and malaga :) not even a road sign or village name...
It's easier to shame the author for being too righteous than to face the fact that if you photograph others you are not the only one who's opinion counts. You can disagree and have other opinions than your subject but the fact you are free to spend money on the needed photo gear and to go out and take pictures of whatever you like puts you in a position of advantage over your subject. You are in a position of power. The power to decide who becomes part of your work and in what way. It's privilege, and even if best intentions are - in your opinion - at heart you still have to respect the power inbalance that is inherent to the situation. It hurts me to see that a lot of photographers still believe they create the images instead of realising the depicted is at least 50% of your 'team'.The fact that something is in a public space, also legally, doesn't give a right to take it for your own to do with as you like. Especially if we are talking people not objects. The difference with sex workers in a public space, to for example a tourist on vacation on a beach, is they are, to a great degree of probability not in that public space out of free will in one way or another. If you cannot respect those boundaries you at least have to own up to the fact you are there solely for yourself to take not for any other reason. It's a difficult subject because I do believe the world needs to see the injustice in our society but denying those who are vulnerable a voice is treating them exactly what you went out to fight. You become part of the problem by doing so. Because they are, conveniently, not in a position to oppose you. You bought a camera, the power to dominate others will is not part of the deal. That wrong is all you.
I think these photos are great. As mentioned, they may not be particularly honourable because of the sneaky manner in which they were taken. However, kudos to the photographer for being able to think so laterally that he came up with the scheme to pose as a surveyor - brilliant. At least he has been able to get these photos out to the world to show the plight of these poor ladies. They must be terribly exploited and vulnerable and I can't even imagine how horrible it must be for them working under those conditions. Without people like this photographer, we may never know about things like this!
Photograph them while they're working.
Yeah....I believe that's the best way.
I was hassled on the street by cops in Barcelona in 2019 because I'd photographed a teenager with my iPod Touch. They asked to see my camera, looked and only saw typical touristy photos of the city. The cops came back seven minutes later and said I had been seen taking the picture with a mobile, so I showed them my Nokia telephone and they obviously found nothing and left me alone.
I posted the photo of the teenager that night on Instagram with all the appropriate hashtags about the place, nature of the event, etc, and got no reaction from anyone who was there.
I sympathize a tiny bit with with Spanish legislation about photographing people outside without their permission though I think it's a lost cause, as evidenced by my experience in Barcelona.
Anyways, as for photographing sex workers, here are some pictures I took in 2000 in Amsterdam:
https://www.davidphenry.com/amsterdam/index.htm
I have one or two dozen more from those days that I haven't tarted up and prepared to put on my web site…
I agree... It would be hard to tell who these individuals even on your relative close up shots. Make up etc. If I saw anyone, even at a job interview, of the people you photographed tomorrow, I would have no idea I saw them before! At most, if I even remembered the details of the faces, I would think: looks familiar. Maybe! Not even sure Anyone would be able.
For sure the individuals may think so, and they may be embarrassed - but if you were to do a lineup of the prostitutes photographed and asked people to identify like in a court / police setting... I bet they would select the wrong person. Remember: in a court setting they seect people who could have been close by to the crime - so there will be clear differences in how the suspects typically. Here if you were to identify which « blonde » it was between a bunch of other « blondes »... impossible.
This sort of confirmation bias needs to stop in evaluating whether or not someone may be recognised.
I've read many comments here, even made one myself. Sorry if it seemed insensitive. That was not intended. There's a lot to be said about this subject. Everyone speaking about ethics, morals, judgements. And who are we, any of us, to judge? There are many reasons why someone would choose to live this life-style. If it's forced upon them, then they are victims. Then there are those who choose to do it because they enjoy it. In any case, how are we supposed to look at it? As society dictates it? As a book "describes" it? I am not their judge or creator. Let that judgement lie with he whom it is right to do so.
As for the way they were photographed and that they can't be "identified", is THAT the point? They ARE identifiable. They themselves know who they are. When we look and read articles like this and a woman in this work is nearby, they identify themselves with it. Whether we know it or not. Yes, they are identifiable. He didn't photograph the air. But what is the purpose of this article? What are you trying to say or do? Maybe we should ask the author so we may know better how to respond. In my experience though, such articles are written to evoke many different types of responses.
We all have an opportunity to do similar articles. Then ask yourself, for what purpose am I doing it?
This is not what I would call “identifiable” and asking the subject if they can identify themselves is the quasi definition of a confirmation bias. You’d have to ask people that know them fleetingly to be able to tell.
But even beyond that: shot at a distance, with the space being the dominant subject, from the back, hair in the face...
That’s not exactly what a journalist would classify as “identifiable” at all.
The point is that for this to be identifiable they would have to be so clearly in the frame that they couldn’t possibly get another job in their lives. Think Afghan Girl with green eyes on the other extreme.
Hardly identifiable at all.
If this was the new measure of identifiable then journalism would be at risk. Think about it!
Ah...so you don't think thst the ladies in this article can recognize that it is them? Dead wrong! I would go so far as to say that anyone who know these ladies well, ie., family members, good friends, etc, would recognize them. Again, dead wrong. I know this for a fact first hand. These women KNOW it is them. And anyone close to them will know. Therefor they are identifiable. But I will give you this, if they are being photographed with only their feet showing or something like that, yes it might be unrecognizable. Unless someone can really recognize their feet. I know that has happened before. But as for the photo you showed ans similar ones, someone who knows the lady well would know. I have identified my girlfriend from a distance like before. There are certain characteristics which give it away.
PS. That photo in Vietnam....i was there. I know the entire story of it and even the pilot who dropped the napalm. I was a POW and nearly put on a spit after being tortured. Dont need ANYONE telling me anything about photo journalism. Period.
You unwittingly confirmed my point of confirmation bias.
In journalism whether the person can recognise themselves isn’t relevant in determining whether they are recognisable by society.
I can recognise myself on a picture within a picture that is 100 feet away.
People can be involved in all sorts of shady activities, they cannot ask for permission. Also these photos arguably help in elevating the issue of prostitution. Some stock photos of feets in shoes (by potentially a model or irrelevant person) don’t.
I just love it when amateurs think they are pros and comment on issues they have no ability to understand. By these standards it would be impossible to even photograph a news event, because that person on the picture may not « want » to be seen doing what he or she is doing.
To be clear that photographer would arguably have the right to photograph people up close. He didn’t. He respectfully kept a distance, so far away that should someone meet this person for the first time or even remotely know this person it would be impossible for that person to say « hey, you’re that prostitute that was photographed lately » ... it would never pass a real life test. I doubt even family members would be able and certainly not without prior knowledge /warning or some other hint of which the photographer has no control over.
I can see that you are trying to irritate me, little boy. You don't know me from Adam, so I will just your attempt just slide. If you had any idea of what my experience is, well an "individual" like yourself wouldn't care anyway so there's no point to it. I am quite confident that there will be others who will definitely recognize some of these ladies, but you are adament in your angry position (for what purpose who knows). So you can rant, criticise and belittle all you want. It only defines your mental age and what problems exist in your life. I am too old to concern myself with little people like you who feel they are important or who want to be important. After being a POW in Vietnam, to me.....if it's not life-threatening, then it's not important. Therefor....you are not important.
I really should apologize to you. As it looks to you, i replied to your comment. I am sorry, but i really didn't. I went on top to the comment section to write. Just in general. Not in response to anyone. But i did leave my computer for a moment to use the rest room. When i came back i just started writing. I had no idea how it wound up being a reply to you, but i can assure you it was not. Hell....i didn't even read your comment until after i read your reply to me. So please understand that whatever happened, i had no idea how it came to be a reply to you.
All good thanks for clarifying
Sorry i responded so abruptly. I should read and understood what was going on first. BTW...that photo...I said I knew the Cpt. who dropped the napalm. It was actually Agent Orange that hit those children by another pilot. I worked on weapons including napalm and taught Special Forces, but I never worked with that deadly Agent Orange. They did store it on our base though. After the mission, we spoke to the Cpt and told him what happened to those children. After he saw the photo....he resigned his commission.