Recently, I saw an article while waiting in a doctor’s office in National Geographic called “Serbs face the future” it was photographed by Christopher Anderson.  Today I searched for it online to finish going through the photo documentary.

Where do I begin.....Well it’s SHIT.

Basically, the message the photos send is: “Serbia is a filthy, dejected, desperate, depressive, lonely, aggressive, almost hopeless place where people harvest corn by hand, all are poor, people demonstrate and fight with police all the time.”

Even when text or a photo-caption is telling a bit of something a different story, the photos are hiding it the viewer from it.   Why did you not photograph Belgrade’s glamorous night life, EXIT festival one of the best music festivals in all of Europe, GUCA brass festival, all the different ethnical and cultural differences (especially in Vojvodina), natural beauties, tasty food, wines or rakijas, or jubilant children or famous Serbian athletes. 

Ok, so some will argue it’s a political story, and I guess I shouldn’t expect anything different.  It only deals with political part of Serbia and Serbs in general. But why focus on politics only? Wait I know—it does because that’s what you want the world to see Serbia as, a nation still in war with someone. So National Geographic doesn’t choose to show the world something they didn’t know. (More on this a bit further) Just stick to an “in-a-war-and-generally-very-fucked-up” way and you’re safe.

So, people will read this, thinking it’s some kind of a story about the country and the people as a whole. Even if it said “this is a political story”, people would still get it as a story about entire country and its people and culture.

But the conclusion here is not just about this specific National Geographic story. National Geographic has always been dealing with exoticism. Here’s a definition from Wikipedia:

Exoticism, by definition, is “the charm of the unfamiliar.” Scholar Alden Jones defines exoticism in art and literature as the representation of one culture for consumption by another.

The representation of Serbia in the West (and media in general) has been like this ever since the war in 1990.  It seems to me that what you know of a place before you get there is what you bring back with you. There is nothing you learn. You just go there, and confirm your preconceptions with every shutter release. Only the brave ones learn something, and actually show it.

That’s what documentary photography should be about. Learning about people and places, but really learning about something new and bringing it out. Unfortunately, confirming your audience’s preconceptions is what documentary photography is so often about. I guess it sells better that way.

To National Geographic: don’t make this crap anymore, please. We don’t live in the ‘90s. Thanks.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/07/serbs/anderson-photography

Written by Brian