Representations of the Maasai: Jimmy Nelson’s fantasy – Mareya A. Khouri

Representations of the Maasai: Jimmy Nelson’s fantasy

MAREYA A. KHOURI

In 2013, world-renowned travel photographer Jimmy Nelson published his project Before They Pass Away, a collection of photographs of indigenous tribes and their “symbiotic… and sustainable” connection to their surroundings (“Jimmy & Projects”). He claims he intends to “put [indigenous people] on a pedestal” by showing the viewer what they “really…look like” and he believes his work is important as these “beautiful people” are “vanishing” due to the forces of globalization, urbanization, and industrialization (“Gorgeous Portraits”). Hence, he feels he must “raise awareness” in order to mitigate the effects of cultural erosion (“Jimmy & Projects”). His supporters believe that his photographs “celebrate the diversity and beauty of people” and are a “beautiful homage to the world’s indigenous cultures” (Geo; The Daily Beast). While it is undoubtedly admirable of Nelson to attempt to document the beauty of culture and diversity around the world, it is his approach in doing so that is under scrutiny in this essay. Stephen Corry, a critic of Nelson’s work and the director of Survival International, a global organization for tribal peoples’ rights, asserts that his photographs “echo a colonial vision” as they are “manufactured” and fail to convey the true reason why tribes are “disappearing.” Furthermore, Corry suggests Nelson portrays tribal people “as different to “us” as possible” by altering their dress and how they are asked to pose. This is “damaging to the imagery of tribal people” as it glosses over their real context and presents them as a “throwback to a past era” (Corry). The fundamental ethical issue here is that the presence of manipulated untruths delineated as realist ethnographic photographs legitimizes the archetypical tropes that the West associates with the other. In essence, what is prevalent in these photographs is an unmistakable power structure whereby Nelson’s controlling gaze portrays the Maasai people through a colonial vision.

A framework that can help shed light on the extent to which power is played out in Nelson’s photographs is found in Linda Nochlin’s “The Imaginary

Orient,” an essay from her book The Politics of Vision. Nochlin argues that “Orientalism itself cannot be confronted without a critical analysis of the power structure in which [Orientalist photographs] came into being” (34). What she is effectively saying is that it is crucial to consider the photographer’s approach when criticizing an Orientalist body of work as it will shed further light on the intention and perspective of the photographer. Drawing on Nochlin’s framework, this essay will argue that despite the apparent semblance of documentary realism, there is a prevalent power structure in Jimmy Nelson’s photographs, which distorts the representation of the Maasai and presents them as inferior and primitive. As a result, the Maasai are used as tools to fulfill Nelson’s fantasy of how tribes are stereotypically perceived and to reinforce colonial ideas about Africa and the superiority of the West.

Nochlin’s lens is useful as it analyzes the issue of colonial power prevalent in nineteenth-century Orientalist art — the fundamental ethical premise of this essay. In the text, she claims that “photography… is hardly immune to the blandishments of Orientalism,” hence her framework can extend beyond nineteenth-century Orientalist art and be applied to Jimmy Nelson’s photographic body of work (39). Nochlin’s criticism of Orientalism is based on the notion of the power structure creating “absences” in the work (35). She states that the absence of history is ubiquitous in artwork representing the other and it suggests that this Oriental world is unchanging. She also claims that although there is an absence of a Western colonial or touristic presence in Orientalist art, the Westerner is implicitly present and “control[s] the gaze,” which convinces the viewer that the works are “scientific” and “exact” representations of the other (37). Additionally, the absence of scenes of work and industry present the Oriental world as “lazy, slothful, and childlike” (39). Nochlin asserts that these absences become so “conspicuous” that they begin to “function as presences” (35). There is merit to her framework as these pseudo-realist motifs, although concealed on the surface, can work to subconsciously mystify and alienate the other. One might reasonably contend that this framework is both a binary way of looking at the world — East versus the West, self against the other — and rigid in its exploration of the issue of power prevalent in photography. For example, Nochlin’s argument that

Orientalist art can specifically portray “men’s total domination over women” is not entirely applicable to Nelson’s works as he is guilty of dominating both genders (43). Also, we do not see her claim that “violence of Orientals to each other was a favored theme” in Orientalist art reflected in Nelson’s works as his photographs tend to be close-up portrait shots or still, statuesque, and staged depictions of tribal people (52). In fact, a common theme in his work is for his subjects to be presented without motion. Finally, the idea that Orientalist artists “project” strong “erotic and sadistic desires” and fantasies is irrelevant, as Nelson does not sexually objectify his subjects (41). Despite these contradictions, Nochlin’s text serves as a helpful lens as the other absences highlighted in the framework are relevant and can be applied to Nelson’s work to explore the prevalent power dynamic. This can be illustrated further by studying Nelson’s photographs and his approach.

A key approach to Nelson’s photographs is that he claims to be putting his subjects on a “pedestal” to give them power (“Gorgeous Portraits”). However, close analysis suggests that this is not the case, and his strategies demean them and present them as inferior. He argues that “we have to start documenting [tribes] very quickly because they’re going to disappear” and this is important because “it is our authenticity… it is our origin” (“Jimmy Nelson Channel”). This outdated and colonial idea that indigenous people are vanishing is immediately problematic because it effectively freezes them in the past and denies them a place in the world. In fact, there are approximately 370 million tribal people alive at present, but Nelson neglects this (Cultural Survival). This indicates that he fails to research and understand the tribes he is photographing. Drawing on Nochlin’s framework, Jimmy Nelson serves as a superior power over these inferior people, whereby he is spreading false information to the viewers of his work and controlling their representation through pseudo-education strategies. Before even looking at the photographs, the viewer is biased to believe that this is the inevitable fate of tribes around the world. The use of the word ‘before’ in the title of the project assumes that they are in need of help and idealistically informs the viewer that Nelson’s photographs are a call to action. This is a recurring idea in his photographs of the Maasai. For example, the photograph of five Maasai people standing in proximity to a rusty, dilapidated car serves to reinforce their primitivism and

relationship to modernity. Nelson’s gaze deliberately presents them under the common Sub-Saharan African stereotypes: they are wearing simple clothing, holding spears, on barren land that lacks vegetation. While one might argue that the presence of the car can suggest modernity, they are shown not to know how to use it. For example, two people are awkwardly positioned on top of the car which shows that they are “untouched by the historical processes improving the altering Western world” (Nochlin 36). These elements serve to mystify the subjects from the viewer and hence, reinforce the distinction between the self and the other. Stephen Corry asserts that Nelson removed “Western manufactured items” such as watches, mobile phones, and modern clothing from his subjects while photographing them. This relates to Nochlin’s claim of an absence of history: it presents the Maasai as unchanging. This also gives more “credibility” to the realness of his work and thus, “authenticates [Nelson’s] Orientalist fantasy” (Nochlin 38). If Nelson had presented the tribes as modern and developed, this would have opposed the common stereotypes associated with them and created a less believable fantasy. This is supported by Nochlin’s argument that artists can “make us forget that art is really art” by “concealing evidence of [their] touch” by using “authenticating details which denote the real” (38). This gives his work more credibility. Nelson claims that his photographs are “not meant to convey a documentary truth,” but are instead his “own artistic and creative interpretation” of the beautiful people “that struck him as an outsider” (“Jimmy & Projects”). Although he claims that these works are not meant to be reportage, they are still harmful as there is a greater issue of misrepresenting an entire culture at stake. Susan Sontag even argues that “the photographer’s intentions are irrelevant to the final result” (57). Hence, Nelson’s intentions are irrelevant as the final products he creates dangerously misrepresent cultures.

According to Nochlin, the other “exists as an actual place to be mystified with effects of realness, it exists as a project of the imagination a fantasy space onto which strong desires could be projected” (41). Jimmy Nelson’s gaze works to stage his photographs to present a particular predetermined story or idea. To visually portray this story clearly, he implements common stereotypes about the Maasai into his photographs to give his work credibility. This is found in most of his long-shot photographs, such as that of the Maasai tribesman

standing on a cliff wearing a headdress with a shield, depicting a barren background, lacking signs of industry. This informs the viewer that Tanzania and Kenya, the countries where the Maasai are located, are underdeveloped.

Tribal people and their relationship with modernity (Nelson)

This can dissuade the viewer of the photograph from visiting the countries, which, on a grander scale, can impact their tourism and economy. Nelson also photographs his subjects wearing tribal paint and ornate beaded jewelry. Although these are innate to the Maasai culture, it is significant to consider that these are not worn daily, but only during traditional ceremonies and events. Hence, Nelson uses these accessories to portray the Maasai as exotic; the viewer immediately notices the differences between themselves and the other. Although Nelson’s celebration of beauty is not problematic, his act of staging the photographs and manipulating the truth in order to fulfill his fantasy is. One might argue that Nelson is not at fault as it is the viewer who enjoys looking at exotic photographs and considers the idea of seeing what is often unseen pleasurable. However, his approach is dangerous as it presents them as props to entertain the viewer. Although Nelson claims to promote the “positive visibility” of tribes, his reliance on clichés to illustrate his ideas is harmful to the Maasai as when the photographs are viewed, the colonialist tropes are reinforced and the culture is misrepresented (“Jimmy & Projects”). Although Nelson claims that his photographs are not documentary, they still work to psychologically educate the viewer. This is also exemplified by the contents of Nelson’s book Before They Pass Away, in which Nelson attempts to

embellish his works in pseudo-educational factoids. Before his photographs of each tribe, he includes information about them, which has been translated into multiple languages (Nelson) This gives “credibility to the realness of the work” and thus, authenticates the “Oriental reality” brought about by his “colonial” gaze (Nochlin 38). One might argue that Jimmy Nelson has good intentions as he created the Jimmy Nelson Foundation in order to fund projects that “put indigenous people on a pedestal” (“What Drives Us?”). However, the issue is that he is asking for donations and there is an implication that by photographing these people, they will automatically be saved from vanishing. Instead, the donations are going directly to Nelson and he is directly benefiting from this, not the Maasai people.

Another issue with Jimmy Nelson’s work concerns consent. When photographing the Chukchis, he was unable to photograph them “until [he] got to know [them]” and wait to see “how [they] interact with one another”, and after many weeks, he was able to photograph them(“Gorgeous Portraits”). While it is admirable of him to ask the Chukchis for consent, an issue arises when we consider what it is they exactly consented to. Did they consent to an aesthetic representation that presents them as props to fulfill a white man’s fantasy? Were they aware of the extent to which the photographs will be viewed —books, TED talks, exhibitions viewed by hundreds of thousands of people? Although Nelson often “shows them [his] pictures” (“Gorgeous Portraits” ), it is crucial to note that they are shown the unedited selection before Nelson cherry picks the ones that tell his story the best. In her well-known book Regarding the Pain of Others, Susan Sontag argues that when photographs “hang on walls” or are “published in books”, their representation is reduced to “art” (104). Jimmy Nelson’s fantasy extends beyond the composition of the frame, his photographs are edited to have a sepia or blue tint with a vignette blue around the image. This creates a cinematic photograph, which fictionalizes the Maasai and makes the struggles they face such as the “theft of their land and resources” by developers and the fact they are “invaded and annexed… raped and killed” seem insignificant (Corry). While one might argue that presenting the violence the tribes face would still not help them, it is still a more authentic representation than Nelson’s as it presents the reality of their lives not the reality of Nelson’s

gaze. Nochlin argues that the function of this picturesque representation is “destruction”, it results in “incipient modification and cultural dilution” and creates the mindset that “precious remnants of the disappearing ways of life are worth hunting down, preserv[ing], and transform[ing] into exotic images for enjoyment” (50-51). What she is effectively saying is that the picturesque encapsulates the Maasai and presents them as culturally inferior because their representation using alternative conventions distinguishes them from the viewer. This is harmful as it presents them solely as objects of voyeurism, hence demeaning them.

Ultimately, there is merit to Linda Nochlin’s framework and when applied to Jimmy Nelson’s body of work, it can serve as a tool to unpack the power dynamic present between Nelson and the Maasai. Despite the appearance of documentary realism, there is a prevalent power structure which distorts the representation of the Maasai and presents them as inferior and primitive. Hence, the Maasai are used as tools to fulfill Nelson’s fantasy of how tribes are stereotypically perceived and to reinforce colonial ideas about Africa and the superiority of the West. Although one might argue that this framework is both a binary way of looking at the world and rigid in its exploration of the issue of power prevalent in photography, it still functions as a useful lens.

This conversation is crucial in terms of today’s concern over how tribes are photographed and approached by foreigners. When considering the recent story of the American Christian missionary who illegally trespassed on a remote Indian island to “declare Jesus to these people” and was killed by arrows, this issue becomes more important (Withnall). Foreigners need to respect tribal people and their traditions when visiting their land and photographing them in a way that does not misrepresent them or undermine their struggles. Although Jimmy Nelson is guilty of projecting his fantasy onto the Maasai, a photographer who does this better is Mohamed Altoum, a 33-year old Sudanese photographer who strives to capture “how urban migrants identify with the home they left behind and how they reconcile that longing to… find their feet in the big city” (Orubo). Altoum represents modern Maasai people in a manner that is devoid of the common tropes associated with them and highlights their highest and lowest points (Altoum). Another photographer, John Obiero, documents “shifts in Maasai architecture” brought

about by changes in economic status or the disappearance of local building materials (Orubo). What Jimmy Nelson and travel photographers as a whole can learn from these photographers is their approach in representing the Maasai, which strives not to fulfill the photographer’s fantasies but to present a more authentic reality of the subjects’ lives — be it the beautiful or the ugly. A flawed and distorted artistic representation of an ethnic group results in the alienation and inferiority of that group from the majority and such a basis for representing the other can even function to harm them in further aspects. The artist’s harmless intent does not warrant a harmful representation, and an abstract artful representation can be misinterpreted as one that is realist ethnographic.

The most riveting photographs are captured by accident, without excessive on-site adjustments to the mise-en-scène and over-editing; such images can arise through an appreciation of the captivating diversity that exists between the self and the other. Hence, photographers need to be aware of the power they possess when representing the dignity of the other: they should approach a cultural group with respect by avoiding prejudices, making time to educate themselves beyond the camera frame through conversations with the people, and ultimately, putting the subject first. They are partakers in the culture, but it is not their own.

WORKS CITED

Altoum, Mohamed. “Portraite.” Mohamed Altoum. 22 Nov. 2018, mohamedaltoum.com/photostory/portraite/.

Corry, Stephen. “Turning a Blind Eye to Pure Old Vibrations.” Truthout, 1 June 2014, truthout.org/articles/turning-a-blind-eye-to-pure-old-vibrations/. Cultural Survival. “Issues.” Cultural Survival. 22 Nov. 2018, www.culturalsurvival.org/issues.

“Fotograf Jimmy Nelson: Im Überschwang Der Bilder.” Geo. 6 Nov. 2017, www. geo.de/magazine/geo-magazin/19883-bstr-wie-jimmy-nelson-die-vielfaltund-schoenheit-der-menschen-feiert.

Nelson, Jimmy. “Jimmy & Projects.” Jimmy Nelson, 2015, www.jimmynelson.com/jimmy-projects

Nelson, Jimmy. “Gorgeous Portraits of the World’s Vanishing People.”

TED, Oct. 2014, www.ted.com/talks/jimmy_nelson_gorgeous_portraits_of_the_world_s_ vanishing_people?language=en

Nelson, Jimmy. Jimmy Nelson Channel. YouTube, 1 Aug. 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=67SrRDc55Bk. Nelson, Jimmy, and Mark Blaisse. Before They Pass Away. TeNeues Verlag, 2017. Nelson, Jimmy. “What Drives us?”, Jimmy Nelson Foundation, Aug. 2018, jimmynelsonfoundation.com/foundation/.

Nochlin, Linda. “The Imaginary Orient.” The Politics of Vision: Essays on Nineteenth-Century Art and Society. Westview Press, 2010. pp. 33-59 Orubo, Daniel. “20 East African Photographers Capture The Maasai People Free

Of Stereotypes.” Konbini United States, Konbini United Kingdom, 23 Nov. 2017, www.konbini.com/ng/inspiration/20-east-african-photographers-capture-the-maasai-people-free-of-stereotypes/.

Sontag, Susan. Regarding the Pain of Others. New York: Picador, 2004. “A Beautiful Homage to the World’s Indigenous Cultures.” The Daily Beast,

The Daily Beast Company, 14 Oct. 2018, www.thedailybeast.com/a-beautiful-homage-to-the-worlds-indigenouscultures.

Withnall, Adam. “American Killed by Remote Island Tribe Was Missionary

Trying to ‘Declare Jesus to These People’.” The Independent, Independent

Digital News and Media, 25 Nov. 2018, www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/john-allen-chau-killed-tribenorth-sentinel-island-andaman-christian-missionary-a8646201.html.