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.
No one cares. Sorry.
Just for the record & this is not to promote visiting another website; however, it is about extending some names & the works of Black photographers from the 20th century. I wrote these essays which are below, & they are about Black photographers beyond Gordon Parks (whom I wrote about as well). This would not fill up half of a room in a massive mansion with many rooms, when it comes down to Blacks being involved in Photography during its 190 years, ever since a camera was aimed for a successful latent image. So many Black photographers, who were professional, good, great, dedicated, & intelligent, did not get to the levels of praising success & it may not have had everything to do with racism, but it sure had something to do with racism.
Gordon Parks & Roy DeCarava: http://www.afropunk.com/profiles/blogs/feature-gordon-parks-roy-decarava...
The Exhibition of American Negroes in France, 1900: http://www.afropunk.com/profiles/blogs/feature-the-year-was-1900-there-w...
Jamel Shabazz: http://www.afropunk.com/profiles/blogs/feature-jamel-shabazz-the-clarifi...
James Van Der Zee: http://www.afropunk.com/profiles/blogs/photography-james-van-der-zee-188...
Peter Magubane: http://www.afropunk.com/profiles/blogs/op-ed-peter-magubane-a-fortitude-...
Jeanne Moutoussamy-Ashe: http://www.afropunk.com/profiles/blogs/feature-jeanne-moutoussamy-ashe-t...
Malick Sidibé: http://www.loeildelaphotographie.com/en/2016/12/29/article/159923960/mal...
Canon and Nikon Ambassador program is just behind the times. In my area, its over 80% white female photographers.
Time to unfollow on Facebook.
Fact: Nikon Ambassador and Canon Explorer programs are heavily weighted towards white and male-identifying photographers.
Fact: Zero percent of Nikon Corporate Directors and Officers are white males, and 4% of Canon Directors, Audit & Supervisory Board Members, and Executive Officers are white males.
Conclusion: White male photographers are 0% at fault for these circumstances.
Why does this not have a million upvotes?
Fascinating article Alex! I understand the discomfort this topic might bring, esp. with the wave of political nonsense that is sweeping across the nation. Yet its an interesting topic that not many seem to think about, yet if you're a minority, its something you constantly have to deal with.
I'm a black photographer, who has won several major awards through Canon, specifically Canon Project Imagination. Ive been shooting my entire life, but I didnt take it serious until 2004 when I landed a magazine job. Growing up we all look for inspiration in those before us, who typically share the same ethnic background. I of course looked for black artist, but lets face it, 80s-90s pre-internet researching restricted me to books I found in the library. And of course there were few if any, books on contemporary artist that had an ethnic background. I honestly grew up (in the South) believing that the only form of black art was folk art. It wasn’t until I reached college and took contemporary art courses that I learned about Basquiat. Yet the topic of black photographers was still a limited avenue and the only known personalty I was able to reflect on was Gordon Parks whom is known specifically for documenting civil rights in the USA, and shooting some fashion photography. My point being is, there are few famous black artist paving the way for us to be inspired by. Secondly, art is expensive. A majority of my schools, mostly black, didn’t have well funded art programs, and of course photography wasn’t even an option. I didn’t consider art as a career until my art teacher surprised me with an art scholarship. Finally, after shooting for the magazine in my hometown for so many years I had developed a following, yet not many people knew what I looked like because I didn’t like being photographed. There are few images of me on my social media profiles. With my last name, Saxon, it came as a slight shock to early clients when I showed up to some local shoots not being white. It became an inside joke between me and my team, yet Ive noticed that people simply associate photographers race and gender based on their subject matter (especially in fashion) . If you fill your book with black models, you are assumed to be a black photographer and, and likewise with white models. Ive faced some racism as well after meeting with some clients to plan the initial photoshoots. Despite them praising my work when they reach out to me through email, and my services being a fraction of the cost as others in my area, …BFA…MFA…I didn’t get call backs from these particular individuals once they realize I’m brown. Through gossip it became evident that it boiled down to the color of my skin. So to avoid that, I simply engaged in posting images of myself. People can yell as much as they want about how there is no need to push for equality, and that minorities have the same opportunities as the majority, but its easy to make statements like that when you’re on the outside looking in.
Great work, Sammie.
Well, so much for enjoying photography for what it is. It's not about color, race or gender. It's expression... that's it. Sure if you dig deep enough you can reason your way into anything, but why? To counter the 'angle' addressed in this post, I would get on Instagram and see the wealth of female and non-white male photographers out there and realize that maybe it all depends on where you're looking for your data. We all know there's some 'elitism' in the world of high performing photographers, and that's the only place your numbers might stand true. But in the real world of collaboration, social media and artistry I'm encouraged by the cross gender and cultural sharing.
In short, there are different ways to present findings and this post was a negative spin. How about a post about the emergence of people cross-collaborating now from different parts of the globe, connecting and encouraging each other in their photography quests!? A title more like, "Transitions in Photography; New Gender and Cultural Perspectives" would have been a more productive approach. Check Instagram... that's your new world of imagery. A diverse one.
If you've ever watched any of the fstoppers videos you'll find they are predominately white males, interestingly enough. Their series on 'critique the community' demonstrates a kind of elitism towards their perceptions of how others' photos should look or whether or not they're a 2,3, or 4 (since 5 is the white unicorn). So to their point in the article... we're only getting a white male take on their perceptions of what photography should be. Interesting they chose to publish this article. Again, check Instagram and you'll see a significant movement away from white males as photographers. I see a vast array of women and cross-cultural publishers and that's what I love about that platform. Photographers of all colors, races and backgrounds can now 'self-publish' without having to be judged or critiqued by those who feel the must weigh in. Gone are the days of albums, as songs now are king. Same with photography... gone are the days of rediculous standards set by a few and images, not photographer are king.
Happy shooting all... and don't look at photography with a white, black or any colored eye. Enjoy the craft, not the critics and soapboxers!
To anyone who is interested, Black participation in photography goes back to the earliest days of its creation. If you want to get information on the history of Blacks in photography, get the book, "Reflections In Black-A History of Black Photographers 1840 to the Present" by Dr. Deborah Willis and view the DVD, "Through A Lens Darkly-Black Photographers and the Emergence of A People" by Thomas Allen Harris.
Dear Mr. Cooke,
As a doctoral student in mathematics, (per your response to Brian Lewis a couple of days ago), I am hoping that you can shed some light on the methodology you used to support your inquiry regarding the racial and gender makeup of the ambassador programs for Nikon and Canon. I do not possess even a fraction of your mathematical skills so I hope you can scale any response you might care to offer accordingly.
Basically, I do not understand how a sample of the 65 individuals in these manufacturers’ programs could be in any way relevant to a population of over 300 million in the US alone. It seems to me the infinitesimal degree of confidence in such a comparison would render any attempt to characterize the results as moot. Could you please help me to understand how these demographic figures led you to your inquiry?
You begin your article with the assumption that anyone can learn to work a camera, i.e. take pictures. Is this true? I see a lot of articles asserting that camera design is biased to ‘right-handed’ users and, indeed, in many cases require both fully-functioning hands to use. From there you have ISO, Shutter speeds, apertures, lens focal lengths, depth of field, hyperfocal distances, and inverse square laws. And that’s just the camera. From there you have photojournalism versus fine art and the ethical and legal issues of where you can or can’t take pictures and of who or what that would keep the fStoppers community boiling for years. It seems to me that it could be intimidating and, as such, produce yet another set of biases to offset a desire to participate.
Yet another consideration could be the ability to support one’s self in such a profession. You could almost hear a Dad’s response, “Photography is fine as a hobby but you should have a real job to fall back on.”
I am curious, too, if there have been any studies where anyone could identify the ethnicity or gender of a photographer simply by looking at a photograph they had taken? Since the term ‘anyone’ might be overly broad, it may be necessary to say general population, other photographers, or curators of photography from major galleries or museums.
Thank you very much for your time and for your consideration of my inquiry. I hope that I have managed to make some small contribution to the conversation.
Regards,
Kurt
Anyone that can hold a camera in their hand and press a shutter can take a photograph. I can sum it up in one word:
AUTO.
Mr. Logan,
While you are absolutely correct that anyone with the ability to hold a camera, or just about any smartphone produced in the past ten years, has the ability to take a photograph in AUTO mode, it seems safe to assume at least three things about that photograph:
1. It will probably never be printed. Anywhere.
2. It will do little or nothing to advance that person’s professional standing as a photographer.
3. It will do nothing to equalize the ethnic or gender equities discussed above.
It is merely a response to this sentence and nothing more: "...You begin your article with the assumption that anyone can learn to work a camera, i.e. take pictures. Is this true?". Because of the mindset of auto and the advent of digital photography, any and all people are picking up cameras and calling themselves professional photographers.
Mr. Logan,
All noted and TKVM for the clarification.
BTW: Beautiful images in your portfolio.
Where can we get some more information on your eBook?
Thank you so much for liking my work and thank you for your inquiry. Here is a link to my eBook:
www.dallasjlogan.com/ebook/
It is shameful that camera companies seem to mostly white male photographers as masters and exceptional artists. However historically within art photography, there have been fewer barriers to women artists when compared to women artists who paint or sculpt. Looking at the art world which is usually very white male, there are many women in the canon of great artist photographers, Nan Goldin, Cindy Sherman, Kiki Smith, Annie Leibowitz, Bunny Yeager, Margret Bourke White, Dorothea Lange, Diane Arbus, Mary Ellen Mark, Francesca Woodman, Sally Mann, Carrie Mae Weems, Lisette Model, Lorna Simpson and the list goes on. Certainly photographic art history still skews towards men, however the field has long been well ahead of the gender equality curve. This makes Canon and Nikon's lack of female ambassedors far more egregious and out of touch with the photography community they sell to as there are so many accomplished woman in the field.
Like all research, it is how we research. I am not saying you researched to meet your articles criteria; however it sounds like you might have done some top searching. Meaning that without really looking into sites or looking further into the industry you might not have really seen what is going on.
I guess the first thing I would say is not knowing what field of photography you are talking about really plays a part, what part of the country, etc... There are a lot of criteria that can change the results. (Just saying these things to try to help quiet some of the hoards).
In regards to the Ambassador programs, I'm not sure how much weight I would let those carry. The day those programs are run by women, you will see those numbers turn around. I can tell you that those programs are quite heavily politically based as well. Not as in Democrat and Republican, but if you ever get involved in something like the PPA where the Ambassador program is also selecting from heavily, you will understand what I mean. It is who knows who, and who is doing what for who.
I know enough large successful studio owners that when I hear someone talk about this classification of photographer, we are talking 4+ photographers in their studio. Surprisingly enough almost all of the time, those photographers are females. The reason for that is people are much more comfortable with female photographers today, plus when they bring their teenage daughters in for their senior pictures, there is that feeling that the female photographer is "safer".
If you search by individual cities in different parts of the country, you will find a huge difference in who is doing what. Again, it is depending on what type of photography you are talking about. There are so many types of photography out there it is impossible to break it out in an article.
Now, this is going to sound so incredibly sexist but hang on and bear with me. I do know that a lot of young women who have worked for me who are incredible photographers and can do any type of work they want have gotten married within a couple of years after they left my employment. That isn't to say they couldn't have continued with their photography, but for some reason they chose not to. It was disappointing to see they didn't continue. I don't know if that was their choice or not. I am NOT saying that women don't photograph or don't go into the industry because they get married or have to make a choice. What I am saying is that like men and women a like I do believe there is a part in all of us that are artistic to say something along the lines of "my work will never be good enough"... "if I have a way to have the steady income"...."if I do "this" now, I can go back to my photography anytime". I do believe women have a much harder time getting support from family, friends, loved ones to pursue photography. Even if you are a man how many of us get that full support from people that say "Go for it... you will succeed and you will be rich and famous...' or anything even close? Not very many photographers have ever had any kind of full support from people. They usually look at us like we are crazy.
There are many more women out there than meets the eye. They may not be the ones with the web site, or their name on the web site, but I am here to tell you that in a lot of cases they are the reasons for keeping businesses afloat. There is still a good ol' boys club out there in this industry, make no mistake about it. Go to a PPA Annual Conference sometime. If you hit one that has 4000+ people at it, be ready to see some women photographers. These gals are true professionals. They are out there. They may not need to toot their horns as loud as the men.
.
I would never have imagined to see an article like this. Photography and race?...... No...... just no. Photography and sex/gender, yes, there are definitely more males in photography than females, or at least it is thought of more as a masculine craft/industry.
What!? So we're not allowed to talk about the issue of racism, but we are allowed to talk about the issue of sexism? What a silly comment. And not 'just...no'. You have to qualify a comment like that. Why not? Why are you allowed to stand up for women (probably just white women though right?) but somebody isn't allowed to stand up against racism?
Please calm down. I stated my contextual point of view, that is all. If you read again, you will see that I didn't say anyone shouldn't state their own view, nor am I telling anyone what to talk about. I'm black African by the way, but I don't care about racism in the sense that I don't promote it. I'm used to sexism in the photography industry, towards myself too, but racism? Considering I live in a dominantly black country.... well...... I'm sure you get my point. The subject of this article is actually HIGHLY contextual, for people in America (I don't know where you are from, nor will I assume) the racial aspect makes sense, for people in Africa, it doesn't. Have a nice day!
It's a shame to see so much negativity in the comments section incited by this article. Best to keep race out of here to be honest. It has nothing to do with photography.