Anyone can pick up a camera and learn how to shoot, regardless of sex or race. However, if you examine the top tiers of the genre, that basic tenet seems to be less assured. Why is photography seemingly dominated by white males?
The Facts
Both Canon and Nikon have ambassador programs, whose primary focus is representing the brand and furthering photography education. Part of educating is passive; that is, educating is not just the act of passing forth information. It's also a matter of representation — the role model. Like it or not, we learn, both on a conscious and subconscious level, partly through mimicry and a constant feedback loop of comparison. This is particularly important for younger people and children, who lack some of the finer nuances of critical thinking necessary to separate ability, character, identity, and biology. Adults aren't particularly proficient at that either.
Let's look at the actual discrepancy first. Canon's Explorers of Light contains 41 ambassadors:
- Men: 34 (83 percent)
- Women: 7 (17 percent)
- White: 38 (93 percent)
- Black: 0 (0 percent)
- Asian: 2 (5 percent)
- Hispanic: 1 (2 percent)
Nikon's program contains 24 ambassadors:
- Men: 17 (71 percent)
- Women: 7 (29 percent)
- White: 23 (96 percent)
- Black: 1 (4 percent)
- Asian: 0 (0 percent)
- Hispanic: 0 (0 percent)
On the other hand, let's look at the U.S. population:
- Men: 49 percent
- Women: 51 percent
- White: 64 percent
- Black: 13 percent
- Asian: 5 percent
- Hispanic: 16 percent
A quick comparison of the ambassador program numbers to the U.S. population makes it immediately clear that white males are disproportionately over-represented, while women and minorities are underrepresented.
First off, the photographers who are represented by Canon and Nikon are all highly skilled and creative people and deserve the accolades bestowed upon them. That said, why are so many of them white males? Is it a top-down or bottom-up issue? Why does it matter?
Photo by Chelsey Rogers
Why It Matters
You might make the argument that when we look at photos, we're not looking at the photographer. We don't see the sex or race of the person who created that photo. That's true, but if you give 100 chefs the keys to a grocery store and tell them to prepare any dish and 95 of those chefs are Italian, do you think you'll get more pasta dishes or Pot-au-feu?
Photography is an art, and just like any other art, its individual instances of expression are subject to the eye of the creator, who carries with them the collective sum of their cultural experiences, along with other things. For example, my musical compositions are clearly derivative of the Western classical tradition as opposed to Eastern, African, or other music. That's because I was raised in an environment and culture where that was the music I was predominantly exposed to. I am a product of that culture and I exhibit that in the music I produce.
And thus, when we represent photography mostly by white males, we get mostly white male photography. That's not to say that the individuals within that group are inherently flawed, but rather that by over-representing that group, its collective culture becomes over-represented in its artistic output, which in turn perpetuates the illusion of said culture's prominence, which in turn influences the next generation of creators. In turn, other cultures and collective experiences become othered, and the idea of photography itself, the very intrinsic idea of the act, becomes misrepresented via disproportionate representation of its constituents. In photography's specific case, this has very real consequences beyond the idea of the photograph, the photographer, and the act of photographing.
Indeed, I simply Googled, "photographer," and the first six image results were white males. But photography is, like any other art, not self-contained; it is produced (for the most part) for consumption by those beyond its own practitioners. And while the misguided image of the photographer as white male is problematic enough in itself, the effects are far more reaching and influential when we consider the vehicle of photography itself: the photograph.
When photographs disproportionately carry the collective consciousness and culture of a specific group, they in turn disproportionately bias their consumers toward that group's ideas on anything from sexuality to social habits. Culture feeds into art feeds into culture. Culture feeds into advertising feeds into culture. Culture feeds into journalism feeds into culture.
This not only affects the outflux of culture, but also the influx. How can a company reasonably market the (what should be self-evident) idea that photography is as much for women as it for men when men represent their brand over women by a ratio of five to one? There's a critical mass – a bifurcation at which the cycle becomes self-sustaining.
To that point, I recently posed a question in a similar vein in another article, and literally every comment was from a male, most of whom said there was no problem. While they're certainly entitled to their opinions, it's tough to take any denial of any problem's existence as gospel when it comes from the mouth of those who benefit from or are at the very least unaffected by the imbalance, particularly when the imbalance is so severe as to effectively silence the other voice in many circumstances — a mathematical overwhelming. And while I can't claim to have conducted my own rigorous statistical studies, I can say anecdotally that I know more women with a legitimate interest in photography than I do men.
Photo by Paige Rosemond
Top Down or Bottom Up
So now, the question becomes: is it an issue perpetuated by a top-down approach or bottom-up? That is, are those who are the "gatekeepers" responsible for perpetuating this representation of photography, the photographer, and the photograph via their choices of whom to put in those positions? Or is it that the subset of the population that has cameras and then proceeds to achieve an elite status through their work with them is somehow skewed? Certainly, minorities and women are not less creative than white males. Furthermore, while racial and gender income gaps are statistically well documented, capable photography gear is more attainable than ever. Simply put, I don't buy the bottom-up reasoning.
Rather, I think what we're seeing is a third mechanism: top-down by proxy. The lack of diversity in professional fields and representation in culture is well documented in the United States. Simply put, women and minorities are often not represented at a proportion equal to that of their proportion of the total population. For many, it is normalized, and because of that, they may operate with the sense that the skewed proportions are actually representative.
I'm treading dangerously close to claiming to know individual intentions of those who appoint the likes of camera ambassadors, which I obviously don't; so I'll take this chance to mention that this again harkens to the idea of the collective consciousness. And because of that collective consciousness, we experience a diffusion of responsibility, a sort of unconscious meta-bystander effect within the collective consciousness — social inertia, if you will.
Conclusion
A disproportionate representation of a group in an artistic realm results in a cultural deficit of expression, and when that art form often informs, shapes, and literally is popular culture and journalistic dissemination, that deficit in turn skews the culture itself and rewires the collective consciousness of its members. Skewed becomes normalized, and the art form becomes culturally insular, while that which it outputs becomes single-minded by inclusion and othering by exclusion.
Even if the art form itself experiences this phenomenon not as an internal event so much as the projection of a wider culture onto its existence, that does not prevent those who participate in it from working to correct disproportionate representation; indeed, if that art form can be insular in its cultural expression, surely it can be insular (with respect to the wider culture) in its rebuttal of said insularity.
It's easy clickbait like this that made me stop visiting Petapixel.
Is journalism overrun by paid politically correct jewish NWO agenda trolls?
It's interesting how the author wrote a very differentiated article that points to the simple and undisputable fact that white males are over-represented in photography, without damning that or shaming members of the group "white males" - yet he is faced with very undifferentiated, even aggressive comments.
Most of the people who comment aggressively and defensively probably didn't read past the headline and the first few sentences, otherwise they would have noticed that there is no reason for fighting. The article just points out the facts and asks for reasons, without criticizing any sub-group within the photography community.
As a European, it's often glaring how polarized the US society is ... it's either A or B, with nothing in between. And as soon as any topic regarding women or minorities is brought up, there are the people who immediately yell "social justice warrior". Why are you so afraid of talking about representation, equality and other things like that? No woman and no member of a minority will do you any harm. Not more than any white male, that is.
Can't we just all get along and dispute things calmly and friendly?
Regarding the topic, it's surely true that white males are overrepresented and that surely has an impact of the photographic output of the whole group of all photographers. It's ok to notice that and to keep it in mind. But I personally don't think that it is necessarily bad. As someone else said in a comment, women are overrepresented on PInterest, and that's ok too, so I don't see that it's bad that the photographic community is predominantly male.
If people are interested in a female approach, there's always great female photographers to follow. Elena Shumilova is a great example for having a unique female approach to photography.
And on a sidenote, I think the overrepresentation of males is at least partly a result of photography being a gimmicky hobby/profession. Men just wanna play around with some nice electronic toys.
Regarding the underrepresentation of minorities, I dont' really have an explanation other than that the sample size examined in the article is quite small. It might be unfit to draw any conclusions regarding the big mass of the average joe photographers.
Sure. That might be true if you ignore the racist, sexist click-bait headline.
P.S. it's still not true.
Racist and sexist? Do you own a dictionary? Or do you only copy and paste 4chan circle-jerk drivel?
Tell me, if the headline was "photography is overrun with black women", would it be racist and sexist then?
Be honest.
No, it wouldn't.
Now go ahead and tell me that I'm not actually being honest, because you clearly can't handle people with different opinions than you.
Mentioning race is not racist, mentioning gender is not sexist. Drawing attention to something doesn't mean you hate it or condemn it.
Why are you so angry? Who hurt you?
Great, so the next article on article on Fstoppers will about about something overrun with black women, and that'll be the headline, right?
"Why are you so angry? Who hurt you?"
Again with the oh so predictable SJW script. You guys are like the Borg.
Sure, if there is something photography related where that is true that can be written about well, then why not? Point me to something like that and I'll write about it.
It must be nice to live in a delusional bubble where you can just dismiss people you disagree with and slap silly, made up labels on them then go post memes online for your internet buddies so you can all pat each other on the back and talk about how clever you think you are.
I imagine the irony of you accusing multiple people of using "scripts" and calling people "the Borg", as you run around commenting on an article using the same ridiculous and meaningless words and phrases, is entirely lost on you. Which is too bad. But then again, narcissists are rarely accused of being self aware.
"But then again, narcissists are rarely accused of being self aware"
Why are you so angry? Who hurt you?
I'm not angry. My dad hurt me when he left when I was 14, but I've mostly dealt with that by now so I don't think it really plays too big of a role in my day to day life. I appreciate your concern.
Okay, I'd like you to do a piece on black photographers who's photography, sadly, just isn't good, using their victim privileged to avoid facing reality.
You can start you research here: https://fstoppers.com/originals/photography-overrun-white-males-160839?p...
Make sure you give it an incendiary title.
You'll have to explain to me how exactly asking if a mathematical proportion exists is incendiary.
Interesting that you chose to crop out the lines that came just after from your screenshot.
Wonder why you would have done that?
You chose a word with an obviously, and commonly, negative connotation. Whether deliberately or subconsciously, we can only speculate.
Because I trust you have the requisite intelligence not to need a usage example in addition to the definition? But ok, if you want to read that much nuance in my intentions, go ahead; I can't stop that.
About what I expected.
I think its important to note you are clearly only talking about the US. Photography worldwide is certainly not dictated by a few ambassadors for canon and nikon, and you certainly haven't done the research to possibly claim that small statistic represents all countries (you simply use the term "is photography overrun")
you could aim to be a little less click baity and deliberately controversial and be a bit more in depth. Someone else has mentioned the inaccuracy with your small pool of stats and how when you look on the grander scale the figures tell a very different story.
to play devils advocate too..im still not sure what the exact point of your article is. are you saying that there are cultures being misrepresented or simply not presented enough in photography? Are there not enough photographs of black culture compared to white? Do you think white people, or any people, cannot fully present images of a culture other than their own with the accuracy or quality that someone of that culture can? To me, it does seem like the typical discussion of, there are not enough people of x colour or x gender in this profession, so this should be fixed because I think we are all equal and all jobs should be represented by equal amounts of people that make up this population.
back to the global part...if you are going to talk about minorities...be clear about where. I am a white male, yes, shame, but I live in a country where I am the minority. minority isn't just ever other ethnicity other than white...its specific to your location.
something about this whole article is just frustrating...you didnt really say anything of real gravitas. There are a lot of long and overcomplicated words but essentially you looked at a tiny stat and generalized about the world of photography and how its perpetuated by white males and somehow misrepresenting photography.
"In turn, other cultures and collective experiences become othered, and the idea of photography itself, the very intrinsic idea of the act, becomes misrepresented via disproportionate representation of its constituents."
can you elaborate on what the idea of the act of photography is and how its misrepresented? What is its true self versus is apparent representation? how should it be presented?
are you talking about the act of photography as a profession, or as an art form / journalistic / historical archival etc etc. xx being hired to shoot some corporate head shots is very different to xx shooting an historical documentation of a culture in an unknown part of the world. Is there a underrepresented amount of black people shooting corporate headshots? Or do you think there should be more black people shooting their own culture?
too many questions....not intelligent enough to articulate them all.
I would love to read a considered analysis of the topic, but if this was an article for the sake of clicks...call it that.
That is pretty amazing Alex. You've managed to take a hobby/profession that anyone of any age/race/gender/religion/nation/etc can enjoy and turn it into a racial storm. I think this is one of the more serious issues with this generation, to find offence and bigotry in everything. It's the 22 enigma really. You have a bias, you project that bias in all walks of life. No, I won't apologise for being a white male just as I would never ever expect someone to apologise for something they were born with. I think you have too much time on your hands if these are the pressing issues you need to write about.
So each photographer needs to provide their race, gender, age, eating habits and what ever else you can come up with so that there can be a handicap system assigned when judging their work. Really?
I'm mixed race myself, German/African and whilst I don't really care for statistical breakdowns, I have, whether it's right or wrong, used it to my advantage. Most of my subjects expect me to be a middle aged white dude, and it often seems a surprise when they discover I'm not. I won't describe how they attempt to diplomatically express this observation, but it nearly always ends in some kind of 'you're not like other photographers comment'. hopefully they mean that in the positive sense. I'm glad I can remembered for such differences, irrelevant or not - it's a good thing for me, and it's also human nature.
Facepalm
So what suggestions do you have to address this "problem"? Let's set up a government agency which controls employment and even hobbies simply by race and not skills??? Just give more power to a couple hundred predominantly old white males in Washington...
Nobody in this country is being held back/stopped to peruse a career in photography-there's no oppression here in this regard... So no problem!
I expected better from fstoppers to default to race baiting. I'm sure that since most photographers are white males-that the majority of the fstoppers community are white males, way to shame the majority of your audience and customers.
Well, I think it says a lot when I'm only the second female to comment on this article. Some of these comments are very off base. I like men. So don't accuse me of hating men. I don't resent men for having a larger representation, but I also cannot relate to a lot of their images. I do not like looking at half naked white women. I do not find that "glamour" genre appealing. Before you stereotype me, I do not like babies and families, either. Overwhelmingly on this site, I see nothing but half naked white women in the high ranking images and featured images. It is boring and predictable. I would love to see variations from other voices.
Maybe, a better way to counteract the imbalance without raising the ire of the trolls, is to feature photographers from all different demographics. You could also have a feature article regarding icons from the past who are from different demographics. Instead of another article praising or quoting Henri Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams, or Richard Avedon, how about an article about Gordon Parks, Dian Arbus, Berenice Abbot, or Zanele Muholi?
"everyone who disagree with me is a troll"
The predictable every time cry of someone who can't win the argument.
The Strawman.
The predictable response when you've run out of Non Sequiturs and Gish Gallop.
A strawman is when you argue against something the other person never said.
She actually did call me a troll for having a different opinion than her (and also having the brain cells to understand the difference between "all" and "more likely").
So that's not a strawman. Nice try though.
No, she didn't say "everyone who disagrees with me is a troll."
She actually said "Maybe, a better way to counteract the imbalance without raising the ire of the trolls, is to feature photographers from all different demographics."
She literally didn't call you or anyone else a troll for having a different opinion to her. She didn't call you out directly. She didn't name you. She didn't imply that you were one of the "trolls" she was referring too.
You literally are arguing against something that Donna did not say. Thank you for posting the definition and proving that I am correct.
I gave up on any form of discussion with him. If you look at his history, he's only commented on this article. Additionally, he's edited most of his comments, as Alex pointed out.
Thank you for defending me. However, I did call him a troll in a previous comment. I don't know why he chose to post his comment on a completely unrelated one. Since he's posted inflammatory comments, then edited his posts afterward, I have removed my troll comment. It is unfair to post inflammatory comments, have someone respond, then turn around and change his original post.
I think most of us agree, his sole purpose is not to have a civil discussion but to fan the flames. There have been many others who have disagreed and done so with intelligent and civil comments. We respect those commenters.
You gave up because you couldn't grasp the difference between "more likely" and "ONLY", and tried to argue than an obvious to anyone who isn't being purposefully obtuse and not even debatable fact, that women are *more likely* to own lots of shoes and purses than men... Was not true because you personally only had two pairs of shoes.
I asked you to defend your position with actual data and you couldn't. So you gave up and started calling me a troll, which is what your kind do whenever they lose an argument.
Leftists also love to diulte words until they don't mean anything anymore. Racist, sexist, misogynist, Hitler, until they mean nothing because you apply them to anyone and everyone at the slightest intrusion into you comfortable bubble of groupthink. I think we can safely add "troll" to the list of words that has been rendered meaningless through overuse and misapplication.
I think it's great to feature people from all walks of life but I'm against the notion of featuring someone purely based on their gender/race/etc. It should always be based on their competence of work IMHO. Which is why even though I'm the target of this article, I shouldn't get featured because my work is not great like some of the amazing artists worldwide. That's completely fair.
Oh I agree that quality of work must be top notch. My point is that we hear about the same photographers over and over and there are many others who are just as good, maybe even better, who never get mentioned.
Oh yeah I'm with you there. It's certainly a good thing to hear from a great variety of people from different genres. Like you've stated certain genres sometimes get the most attention but it's best IMO to view a vast variety of works. Sometimes the images that aren't the same old stuff are the ones we are really drawn to. I know what I know about photography but there's always someone else out there that knows something that I don't and that's awesome. Variety is really our best chance for inspiration and education. :)
Prove it.
Well, aren't you just a ray of sunshine?
There are more men than women for a variety of reasons: dangerous careers, heavy gear, genres that historically interest men, etc.
As for the race thing, it could be due to the historical wealth of white people. It makes entering the market easier.
I don't think it's anything sinister.
Sony's Artisans;
Men 46 (82%)
Women 10 (18%)
White 47 (83%)
black 3 (5.3%)
Asian 5 (8.9%)
Hispanic 1 (1.8%)
by not including Sony, does that make Fstoppers a photographic discriminator?
You know as a black woman, I tried to get into the NikonAmbassadors program but was denied. No explanation. I guess I'm a little too dark or ethnic or maybe my hair ain't what they are looking for. Too bad for THEM! I am a GREAT PHOTOGRAPHER with a GREAT PERSPECTIVE! I have STUFF to contribute as well as anyone else. But if my perspective is not welcome, as well as my color or BLACKNESS, well, I guess I'll just have to move on! It's now the President Rejects country for the next 2 years before someone with common sense picks him off anyway! We LIVE in a RACIST world! Been black ALL MY LIFE ! Can't change that so I'll just change my circumstances and make my own way . . . as I've done for the past 50+ year! Peace and Blessings to you all . . . no matter your color, race, creed, or national origin. YOU are special regardless of anyone else's insecurities!!!
Is this you? http://www.imagesbykecia.net/
If so you didn't remotely get passed on because of your skin color.
First of all I just want to say that there should be more diversity in photography. I believe different ideas and views challenge how we see our craft and pushes all of us to think and see things in a different way.
Articles like this cause the cesspool of comments below because no one wants to be lumped in with misogynistic racists. I'm a white male and I've struggled trying to make it in the industry and any time I get recognition, I feel like I've earned it. It would destroy me to think that because of my race and gender that I won or lost an award or job. I want it to be because my work is good... that's all I want.
We as an industry need to stop alienating groups of people and start promoting diversity. Singling out an entire race or gender is just going to upset people. Maybe sites like this one should put in an initiative for example to promote up and coming photographers from diverse backgrounds, instead of seeing another Ansel Adams post. If you take any photography class or read a photography book they all mention him. His name and estate don't need your help getting the word out they'll be fine. Don't get me wrong...his work is amazing but we're never going to grow unless we start branching out.
Alex, I want to say THANK YOU for your article. It is thoughtful and critical and highlights a real problem in this industry. Personally, I am not a photographer, but I work with hundreds of photographers as the publisher of a print and online magazine, and without question the industry is dominated by white males. It is a FACT that those white males have been helped to rise to the top of the industry because of their race and gender. It is a FACT that our society, especially in the US, has systemically hindered the success of women and minorities. It is a FACT that the only way this will change is for us to take a critical eye to the systems in place.
To the white men who are commenting that they don't like being made to feel bad about something they can't control, let me just say WELCOME TO THE CLUB. Women and minorities have been made to feel less than for things they can't control for centuries. We have developed a thick skin when it comes to such criticism, though it is still painful every time it happens. Because this might be the first time your worth has been questioned because of your race and gender, I imagine it stings a little, but I think your frail white male egos will just need to get used to it and toughen up.
FACT: You keep on using that word, I do not think you know what it means.
I can't imagine how badly this article hurt a statistician.
A quick google search of photographers doesn't prove anything. If you're going to properly represent this in the title you should say "Are Nikon and Canons ambassador programs over run with white males" otherwise you are extrapolating your limited research across a much larger population and that is extremely disingenuous to represent as a clear portrayal of a issue in the industry.
Matthew, my point was that the leaders of the industry seem to be disproportionately represented by white males and then asking why that is and what that implies.
Alex, thank you for this post!
I'm a black male "don't own any Jordans or Kanye sneakers!" but I don't think that photography is overrun by white males "out in the workforce." I see women, minorities the whole melting pot out working, attending workshops and producing good and bad images quite often.
The difference is when it comes to speakers, endorsements, ambassador programs, etc. I feel that there are plenty of women, minorities qualified to serve in these roles that for one reason or another have been excluded.
Maybe the problem (is it really one ?) is that photography is hobby picked up mostly by white men. I'm a white man and I live in a very diverse environment (suburb in Paris, France). Most photographers I know from my area are white men. There is the odd woman and black/arab/asian guy, but they are a very small minority.
wtf my comment got put under this thread
great topic and something that should definitely be spoken about, but I do think it's a bit insesitive to categorize white people as a "collective culture" when there are hundreds if not thousands of different cultures within that realm. it would make sense when referring to first/second generation white Americans who aren't in tune with their cultural heritage, but it's stated in a way as if whites have little culture to hold on to which is just not true.
you can compare many different latino, african and asian cultures to one another and have vastly different views while the only similarities may be the skin tone or language used if even that.
of course this is difficult topic to discuss and I'm sure that you didn't intend for it to come off that way.
This is just astonishing to me.
I love to come here and read the articles. I don't believe I've ever even posted in one of these discussions but this one just left me with my jaw dropped where I wonder, why? Is this statistic even real? If it is, why is it a problem? Ever think that MAYBE it's due to personal choice? Is the white man holding down minority photographers now? Maybe people aren't interested enough in photography to even care beyond their phone? Why does their skin tone matter? My white, male, father is that way. "I can take just as good pictures with my funny phone here as I ever did with a camera."
Alex, there's life beyond someone's skin color.
The statistic is real. You can go look at the ambassador pages and add up the numbers for yourself. Did I say it was a problem? Can you quote where I used that word? Or did I ask what it implies and if it says anything about our culture? Did I say the white man is holding down minority photographers? Or did I say every ambassador in those programs has earned the right to be there?
You've completely sidestepped what I said and just asked a bunch of nebulous questions.
"Is this statistic even real?": Yes. As I said, go count up the numbers for yourself.
"Ever think that MAYBE it's due to personal choice?": I don't know. Maybe it is. If that's the case, why do more white males seem to choose it? That's an interesting sociological question in itself.
"Is the white man holding down minority photographers now?": I don't know. But you seem to think that I'm saying that's the case. Feel free to cite, with quotes, exactly where I said that.
"Maybe people aren't interested enough in photography to even care beyond their phone?": I have no idea what people who aren't even interested in photography have to do with a discussion about the demographics of people who *are* interested in photography, but ok.
"Why does their skin tone matter?": It doesn't. That's kind of my point.
You seem to be confusing identifying sociological trends with individual persecution.