Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article critiques digital photovoice, a method deployed by social activists, developmentalists, and anthropological researchers. I argue that the uncritical use of photovoice methods (1) has allowed a reinvigoration of a positivist orientation toward image authenticity and (2) inadvertently supports hegemonic regimes of value. To revitalize photovoice as a method, I argue that practitioners must view their project as an aesthetic one, in which image‐makers are considered auteurs producing realities. I provide an example from my fieldwork in Adavisandra village near Bangalore, using one of my students’ photographs to consider how representations of her life change when we take her aesthetic‐auterial sensibility seriously.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arjun Shankar (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: