Would an argument in terms of positive vs negative imagery be insightful in terms of the representations of black people in Britain? Possibly, at least in the first instance. But if we want to get to broader questions about the production of certain imagery and its political effects we have to go beyond seeing one aesthetic style as a solution. The answer is more likely to lie beyond the frame.

The aid world is an industry fighting for cash and often, but not always, the message they fall back on is

‘they are fucked, give us your money.’

There is a classic example of this on the front page of Save The Children’s website. Go and have a look.

Having lived in Ethiopia though I question your belittling of the ‘the unhelpful distinction of positive versus negative imagery.’

Would you have written this if you were talking about repeated negative images of black people in Britain? Is that a shallow debate?

Journalistically there is a ‘glamour’ in famine which means whilst we are presented with the suffering, little time is spent engaging with the solutions.

Isn’t in interesting how charities spend so much time and money photographing the ‘they’re fucked’ side of things, but so little actually visually demonstrating impact?

I will linking to this important work.