Are the photos of Manu Brabo art?

Back to top

There is the saying that one photo says more than a thousand words. 

Photographies allow viewers to see what they otherwise could not see. On the one hand they are used as practical utensil to transmit a certain reality, but on the other are considered art. The award-winning photographer Manu Brabo published some of his photographies depicting refugees in Aljazeera which show the blurring boundaries between art and strechted reality and the importance of the photographer's decisions.

Manu Brabo is a Spanish freelance photojournalist who mainly focuses his work on social conflicts around the world.

Since the early beginnings of photography discussions emerged and with them the question about the aesthetic of photography. Walter Benjamin was one of the people who clearly distinguished art and photography from each other. For him, art carries a certain aura which features aloofness, authenticity and uniqueness. Photography and in particular the fact that it can be reproduced, destroy this aura. However, photography was also the tool that made it possible to portray nature in its exact form and show people what they so far were not able to see with their own eyes. Through photography perception and thinking of our world have changed. 

Over time, technology enhanced and enabled the photographer., But at the echnological and at the same time gave way to deception and falsification. Soon the trustworthiness of photos was doubted. Photography was not seen as an instrument that captured an exact moment in time, but it became a utensil for propaganda and mass media. The myth of freezing a precise moment was marred and the feeling of “only one's own eyes can be trusted” returned. Nevertheless,also  this enabling through technology gave the photographer also freedom. Artistic design and liberty that artists had known before the era of photography returned. It was possible to portray in a way that was truth to the author and not prefabricated by nature. Keeping this in mind, let´s look at the photossome published by Aljazeera.

rt is about truth and anthropologynot reality. This clear distinction is difficult to apply. Aljazeera´s photos clearly are snapshots of a moment in time and therefore one could claim that they show the reality in its purest and most accurate form. However, it is also about composition, design, style, perspective and the subject of the photographer. 

A photo is not only about what can be seen but also about what cannot be seen. Thus we have to consider the person who takes the photo and edits it. He is the one who chooses the image, the one who decides about the “what” and “how”. The photographer frames the reality and separates it from the rest. The whole structure of the image goes back to the photographer and becomes a partly reality with a subjective focus. 

Another aspect that needs to be considered and which is part of the image although it is unseen in the photo, are all the things that are omitted – the left-outs. Basically asking the question: What is in the photo that we cannot see? Clearly the intervention by the photographer part the image from reality. This intervention makes the photos unique, authentic and aloof. If we ourselves would look at the scene with our own eyes, it would appear differently. It would be in another perspective, in colour and with less sharp contrast for example. Three of many possibilities and liberties that the photographer chose to change for his products. In short, he added something. His additions give the photos a certain aura and meaning. (Is this the aura Benjamin is talking about and therefore it is art?) Due to his decisions, he modifies the reality. His starting point was the reality which he froze and edited in a certain way. A subjective meaning was added which lead to a possible truth.

This photo shows a man behind a fence who is looking through the fence into the other side. Half of his face is covered in shade. His glance is straight and trenchant. He gazes in abstraction. The perspective has almost the same height as the man himself but  from a distance. The question arises if the photographer was on the other side. To get this perspective he could have been on the other side or the fence was not yet finished. Also, what is it that the man is looking at? What is in front of him? The light in his face shows that there is light on the other side. Behind him is darkness. Light and shadow emphasise contrast. The lights and darks of the photos can indicate his desire (which is in front of him) and his abomination (which is behind him). Light and shadow might also indicate cultural differences and segregation. On the one side abundance and on the other misery. These photos express beauty and dismay at the same time. The photographer created beauty from a dire situation. Is that morally acceptable? And does that constitute art? Or are these merely images of a stretched reality, a falsification and therefore propaganda? he photographer'´'s technical platform to gain empathy and spread his message perhaps?