Just this semester I had a class on photography. Shelby Lee Adams was the last person we focused on. The one thing we gathered as a class, was even though some of us thought he was exploiting while others thought he was doing good work, was that he obviously cares about these people. He is also from the area, which I think helps. He isn't an outsider looking into this, strange, unknown world.

Luis Buñuel did this kind of thing twice: first, with the 1932 documentary Las Hurdes, Tierra sin Pan and then during his exile in Mexico with Los Olvidados. Las Hurdes is a territory in northern Extremadura that used to be shockingly backwards in that time, but partially because of the public outrage after Buñuel's documentary the government undertook its development seriously. Nowadays it's just rural rather than medieval, and they've got a successful tourism industry going on.

Buñuel also staged some of the documentary's scenes dealing with animal cruelty. There is one with a donkey being stung by bees to death that was filmed with the donkey being covered in honey and having its legs tied, and another with a goat falling down from some heights was done with the goat being shot with a gun at the beginning of the scene.

unless you're photographing a plant or a chair there's no way you can assume/predict whether or not your subject will necessarily relate to other people's reading of the photo. it's also slightly elitist to assume they won't "understand" a certain demographic's reading of the photo. exploitation involves a complete lack of sympathy and understanding and i think what we have here is an artist who creates meaningful images using the surroundings he (to some extent) relates to, or has related to. therefore, i see no "exploitation". the fact that he stages some photos is slightly off-putting but remember that these are more than just documentary photos.

Oh god, not him.

I'm Appalachian. I think his work his horrible. It isn't compassionate. It renders the subjects grotesque.

And for the record, Jen, he isn't considered a local among the crowds that I run in.

I find it fascinating that these images are considered bad or "grotesque" in any way. What I see is the kind of working class people that the media never shows - the ones who aren't beautiful, or peculiarly successful, or actually middle class. Why would, for instance, butchering your own pig be a bad thing? Simply because society has placed a greater value on buying food at the store than killing or growing your own, while the latter are usually considered things that only pathetic, lowly people do.

As an artist myself, authenticity is overemphasized. There is no such thing as "authentic" (or objective) because everyone has their own concepts of what makes something genuine. Art is specifically the depiction of the artist's own version of authenticity filtered through the abilities of the artist, the medium s/he used, and then through the eyes and minds and preconceptions of the audience. That's too many filters to go through to claim any form of authenticity on the other side.

I think half the issue is that people are uncomfortable with the photographs being real. They don't want to see poverty, and the idea that you shouldn't show those people because they can't possibly consent to being shown is more dehumanizing and grotesque in my mind than any photograph could be.

I'm far more bothered by the idea that there are people there who can't afford a pig than the idea that someone would photograph abject poverty. Other people in the area may not appreciate being represented by that, and it might be more valid for him to label the subjects as something other than the totality of the region, but since the point of art is to make you see something and feel something you wouldn't otherwise I think he is a successful artist.

I could see the argument that he is putting them into situations that purposefully "other" them, but I don't think that is the case unless the people looking at the photographs are willfully ignorant of American poverty. I may simply have too much faith in the empathy of Americans, though.

I am taking an art history class right now on American Regionalism, and we recently discussed the work of Walker Evans. In the late 1930s he and James Agee traveled to the rural South for Fortune magazine and captured tenet life of farmers. It was discovered in later years, with research done by James Curtis, that most if not all of Evans' photos were staged, everything from depictions of the family to the furniture within their respective homes. In many respects, I was disheartened upon learning this, for I took the images at face value (and I must admit this was done rather naively), I believed I was discovering the cold realities of tenet life but it turns out that Evans wanted to promote true composition and form rather than capture the raw emotion which was most certainly present, without any staging. I can't help but draw the same conclusion to what Adams has done, first of all his photos are extremely similar to Evans' in both subject matter and execution but more importantly I believe this work represents pure art for art's sake rather than an attempt to document rural Appalachian life, since many objects would have never been at the disposal of the locals.

I'm intrigued that Shelby Lee's images generate such ardent reactions. Yes, the people with whom he works are often poor but he is a welcome guest in their lives. If his pictures are "set up" its because he uses a view camera and lights the better to present them as well as he may. Close examination reveals his images framed or otherwise stuck up and displayed in many of these people's houses. He chronicles their lives for them and they appreciate it. Society in general pays them little enough attention as it is. They know his books and see themselves in them -- with pride. Regretting what people exterior to their lot in life might think of their reproduced images is irrelevant to the facts of their lives. They are proud to be in the work and that's enough. Shelby Lee can tell long stories about any one of the people in his work -- life stories. He is Listening to them and recording them and respecting them. These folks don't get a lot of such attention elsewhere in their lives. Do Shelby Lee's critics have suggestions to where they might?

Would those critical of Shelby Lee's images be as critical of the FSA photographers if they were working now and making those same images? We treasure that work because it is such a strong and meaningful record of what people survived during the great depression. The way of life Shelby Lee documents back in the "hollers" is gradually disappearing so the images have just as much value as straight anthropology as they do art.

No, Shelby Lee is one of the hardest working, authentic artists I know. I admire him profoundly. What he does is a long way from easy -- I know this as I am a view camera photographer myself. The spontaneity he achieves in many of his images takes heroic technique and doubtless costs him untold sheets of exposed film that missed the moment. He and I compared notes recently and agreed that we both spend only about 1% of our time actually making pictures. The rest of our time is spent doing the social work (and, as it is a pleasure to be with friends, it is no "work" at all) that makes the 1% possible. You can see that reflected in his pictures because his "people" do not trust others easily. Life mocks them far too often for that to happen. But Shelby Lee's gaze is affectionate and they know it.

An artist working with people has two important responsibilities. He or she must respect the humanity and dignity of those who give themselves to the camera. And he or she must also be true to their own voice and vision. The latter may not be achieved at the expense of the former. There is an exception out there concerning subjects who are themselves actively evil (klu klux clan, nazis, etc) but it is not relevant here. Anyway, Shelby Lee has both poles well in hand. Truly.

And let's not forget one final thing. For artists like Shelby and myself (if posterity decides I am one) we do not CHOOSE our subject in art. It chose us. And we had practically no say in the matter. None of us really gets to choose what is our favorite color, do we? It is what it is.

Jock Sturges
Seattle

Shelby's subjects are a culture of people that exist here and no where else, and I think Shelby's work is hugely important for documenting this in a beautiful and real way.

As a past city dweller who chose to move to a town close to where Shelby photographs, I am able to look at the folks here as perhaps other outsiders may. And I must tell you, that even if Shelby sets up his shots, he is not setting up the environment. Every yard, every house, every animal, and every person in his photographs are real. It's not staged, and it is not made to look different or worse than what it is. It simply is. And remember, people always pose for a portrait.

It is important to note that Bill Gorman, the Mayor of Hazard, said in an interview (immediately before the quote at the top of this page), that "If I looked under a rock, I could find the pictures that he found." This quote at the top of this page is taken out of context, and when looked at as a whole, you can start to see the disrespect that is thrown at Shelby's friends. Gorman was not defending these people, he was insulting them. Consider this statement, please. The people in Shelby's photographs are NOT minorities, but make up a substantial portion of the areas inhabitants. So why the shame coming from Gorman? Does it mess with the prosperous coal image that Hazard likes to proclaim?

As an outsider in this area, I can honestly say that I am proud to be these people's neighbor. They put up no walls and wear no disguises. They are honest and true and do not try to hide who they are or where they come from. It is definitely not a perfect society, but a society none the less. And I am proud to be Shelby's friend. I truly believe that he respects and loves the people he photographs, and he takes their photos in an original and authentic way.

I've heard people say that Shelby's photos are shocking, and maybe they are to some. But I believe the shock comes from the fact that before we looked at these photos, most of us did not know that the society within these photos existed. As a person from Cincinnati, I had no idea that people lived this way. I had no idea that people were this poor. But they do and they are, and that is the way it is. Should they not be photographed because they are poor?

I also believe that the fact that Shelby is from here is not as important as some believe. If I took these pictures would they not be real? Would I be making fun of them because I didn't grow up here? Would I not be able to take a photo with compassion for my subjects? Would I be stereotyping and exploiting, or simply photographing what is really here? I would say that it would depend on what is in my heart.

Although I am not from the specific geographical location that Shelby photographs, I am responding to this as a native West Virginian and I definitely have ties to Appalachia.
I grew up in the mouth of a holler in a small town in West Virginia where the road was a dead end on both side of town; you would enter the center of the town via an exit ramp from the highway. I lived the majority of my life in a trailer (and it wasn’t one of those fancy double-wides made by the Amish either) on a hillside. For several years we hauled water in milk jugs from a local spring because there was not enough money to have a well drilled. I am not saying we were poor but most of the time money was in short supply.

I now live in Colorado but I miss and love my upbringing. I suppose if there ever was a living stereotype of a hillbilly it could have possibly been me. With my pack of beagles, shotgun and Jeep pickup truck with rust holes big enough to throw a cat through, I was happy. And I would bet that most of Shelby’s subjects are happy as well. I was and am proud to be from a region that has a strong cultural background, we know who we are and for the most part are okay with it. Sometimes it’s hard but are you going to tell me that even the rich and famous don’t have their problems as well? Or maybe their problems are easier to look at?

Shelby has been accused of promoting stereotypes. If he photographs, and he does, real people going about their everyday living in real life situations, can someone explain to me how that is stereotyping? These Appalachians are part of a true and authentic culture, it may be a small dying subculture, but none-the-less it is real and it is honest.

If one would take time to view Shelby’s work in its entirety they would see that he has been photographing the same families, multiple generations, for more than three decades. You can only do this if you are loved by your subjects and exploitation does not create love. It angers me to hear critics claim that these “holler dwellers” aren’t intelligent enough to understand how the photos represent them to the outside world. Bullshit! Since when does culture equate to stupidity. These people know how they appear to the outside world, unfortunate they live and deal with it every day of their life.

With his work, Shelby has taken the “holler dweller” and validated their existence. And, he has validated them as human beings. These are his friends and if you can take time to truly look at the photographs you will see this. We sometimes get so caught up in the commercial and worldly definition of beauty that we can’t see that these are beautiful images of beautiful human beings. When we as individuals can bring ourselves to find beauty in the flaws and shadows of life, then we will truly understand the importance of Shelby Lee Adams’ photographs.

Timothy S Morehead
West Virginian by birth

For a philosophical view of Shelby’s photography, you can read a great interview with him here: http://www.interviewwithanartist.com/?p=323

Why all the controversy ? Why the negative comments against Shelby Adams ? tsk tsk tsk !!! Obviously the ones who are saying the hurtful and shameful words live in glass houses without a clue to REAL life in general !

Appalachia area and people are just that. Nothing more nor less than their CULTURE and upbringing of generations and generations. Poverty does not equate stupidity !! It's just their way of life. The so called negative critics are just prejudiced and little minded because they feel that people of ANY kind are exploited if they don't fit into THEIR social class.

Shelby's work is documentary. The images are environmental portraits that have soul and spirit. Only a person who is connected to the subject can create such emotionally charged creations. Obviously Shelby Adams has gained the love and trust of his subjects in order for them to take their picture. Just like anyone else who takes pictures of their loved ones. An obvious consent between friends and/or family. Just LOOK at his work and see the TRUTH !

Shelby Adams work is HUMAN and REAL. His work is masterfully done that I admire . It's rare to find talent like that nowadays where one can capture the true spirit and soul of the people REGARDLESS of whom they are and what they do !!

Rock on Shelby Adams if you read this !! You have a great GIFT
and I'm a big fan of yours ! Ignore the negative words because they mean nothing in the scheme of things. Keep being you and thank you for sharing glimpses of YOU and your heart as well.

As a person who works with the developmentally delayed in small-town Canada, I was heartened by the relationship I saw documented between Mr. Adams and the Childer's family. I wish if only all people could treat those with developmental delays - or impoverished people, for that fact! - with the warmth, respect, and humor that he showed, the world would be a much kinder, gentler place. Even if he may not think it, "The True Meaning of Pictures" reveals him to be a man of deep humanity, if not in the manner that his own empathetic lens does.

As a West Virginia native, sometimes art student, and long time student of Appalachian studies, I can definitely understand how these images may be viewed as offensive. They don't offend me personally, and I don't believe there was any ill intent on behalf of Mr. Adams, but I can see how they may be viewed as reinforcing negative stereotypes (for example, the shoeless lad.. probably has shoes somewhere, and probably does not always run around in his just his underpants, and probably cleans up fine and looks like any "city" boy... but which sort of image would is more visually dramatic?)
Anywhoo, obviously I hope any viewer would realize, in this day and age, that not all people in Appalachia can be painted with this brush, and that not all rural people live in poverty such as this, and that not all poor people are the same, and if someone doesn't understand by now, that then it's not the fault of the photographer. Some of us do wear shoes, after all. They are beautiful images of a world that is real, and I can't judge if the people and places have been made to seem better or worse or just more artistic or dramatic than they are in reality. I'm not sure if it matters.
What I find incredibly more offensive is Mr. Coleman's statement that "these people" don't have "the education" to understand how others may view these photos. That is absolutely absurd. Though education in Appalachia may leave something to be desired (as does education elsewhere in the country in both rich, poor, rural, and urban areas), to say that the people in these photographs do not understand how others "out there" might view them is ridiculous. The people of this region have been maligned and mocked in popular culture for well over a century, they know perfectly well what sort of jokes and taunts are made about them. They aren't *that* isolated. They do have radios, and even TVs. Some even go to the movies! Shocking, I know. (Please, I hope you can see my sarcasm.) Do they often visit art galleries or have books of photographs sitting on their end tables or study art history and theory? Probably not, but it's a long stretch to say that because they aren't "well bred" they cannot understand or know how "the city folk" might feel when they view these photos. That sort of stereotype is nearly worse than any manner of stereotype people might see in these photographs. Bleh. That's all I have to say. By the way, I love this blog! :)

The pictures are striking, impactful, and incite empathy. They are beautiful, on their own. But this works, I think, because the viewer buys into the photo - they believe in the reality, the context of it. When that reality is brought into question, you have fiction. I beautiful, striking fiction, but a fiction nonetheless that causes me to see these photos far more mundanely. They no longer feel so alive.

I think when people view this photos they bring with them there own views and percetive of how they thing people and socity should be, forgotting, that there view is not always right.

I was playing Fallout 3, recently, a game about a post apocalyptic Washington DC. Recently, the company who made the game released an add-on that allows the player to travel to Point Lookout, Maryland. At first I thought it would be cool to play through the swamp, perhaps encounter mutated salamaders as one often encounters mutated crabs, but the only real addition to the plethora of opponents were "swamp folk." If I had to guess, I'd say the developers drew direct inspiration from photos like these. I was immediately appalled at how feral and ridiculous they came off. They spoke in nonsensical half sentences, hooped and hollered menacingly, and attacked the player with double barrel shotguns. Their ramshackle homes were surrounded by bear traps and there was even a mission to help an old woman repair her still and make "moonshine."

The obvious disdain that when into creating scrawny white people with dirt obscuring their mouths, thin hair, round heads, caved in chests and potbellies was obvious. And with the exception of that single old woman and her still, all of them were men. I don't consider this kind of exclusion typical of Bethsoft, the company responsible, headquartered in Maryland. It was pretty disappointing.

I'm nearly a year late on this one, but I'm glad I found it.

I have about a dozen fading pictures of my mother and her close family living in eastern Kentucky (Pikeville, Virgie and Robinson Creek). Granted this was in the '40s & '50s. She was the youngest of eight siblings spanning a 30 year age range. They were poorer than poor. Her father (my grandfather) was a coal miner killed by a runaway coal cart when my mother was a child. So her and her numerous siblings were brought up by a single mother in rural Appalachia. Food and shoes were both hard to come by.

Shelby Adams photos resonate with me.

I don't understand the qualms about them being posed. He didn't hire production designers or make-up artists. He bought a pig and asked them to smile or frown.

There's nothing false or fake really about them. Everytime I visited my Kentucky relatives I saw scenes very similar to the ones in Adams' photos. But the few photos I took failed to capture the rawness, grit and underlying beauty of a life spent grinding away on life's gristmill. So I can understand Adams' need to pose the figures. I think he finds a deeper truth and more accurately captures the struggle and resulting pride.

I'm late on this one, too, but I feel I must comment. Arguments that Shelby's photos portray Appalachia poorly are themselves entirely classist. Middle-class Appalachian people's resentment of the photos' stereotyping of Appalachia demonstrate, in turn, their resentment of Adams' subjects. i.e. Saying, in effect "Not all Appalachians are hillbillies!" implies a disdain for the "hillbillies" in question.

I think back to the early days of the Gay Liberation movement. I remember seeing a gay man in a suit on a television talk show explaining that flamboyant drag queens gave gay men a bad name. His comment revealed, first and foremost, his resentment of people whose gender expression deviated too far from the norm. He dissociated himself from them in hopes that he might be more readily accepted into the mainstream.

Conditions like those in Adams' photographs exist in Appalachia (and elsewhere; I'm from Texas, where such conditions are also not uncommon). To proclaim that their documentation gives the region a bad name is to condemn those communities to the realm of the abject.

Every country has its Appalachia. Every land has its poor people, who smoke, drink, hoard, kill to eat, smell, live in filth. If Shelby Lee Adams is such a realist where are his images of the people who bathe, work or go to shool, stay neat and clean, live and eat healthfully, who incidentally live in Eastern Kentucky?

His work is definitely a continuation of the branding of Appalachia with these pictures of the people he has carefully selected. The impressions are unmistakeable. No one who views his work can come away with any other reaction but the one he imprints.

To begin with, I am an appalachian myself being raised in Western NC, with deep roots in the Scotch-Irish and Cherokee cultures. Shelby Adams' book is not the first to deal with this subject matter. Horace Kephart is renowned for his work in that area, even though pictures sometimes move the emotions more quickly than words do. I have had relatives that lived in such a manner as described in both books. Most of them are deceased now. To say that Adams is not a realist is to say you've never seen such families and or living conditions and certainly never spent time with such families. I don't believe he's branding anyone or any culture. The pictures are real! I have seen such for myself. The people though living differently than most, seem relatively happy. Guilt, that's what most people feel when viewing his pictures.

Documenting people as they are you can do various kinds of emphasis. But the documentation of people in their homes does give a sort of dignity. Steve Evans does something the same with General Store Publishing. Heart & Soul, for example, is going among the 'common people' in their homes.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=YhP1Y5GzNzUC&pg=PA200&dq=general+store+publishing+Steve+Evans&hl=en&ei=h7N-TPejG8SUnAeP-LHwAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=general%20store%20publishing%20Steve%20Evans&f=false

In this case they added a section of in their own words to accompany the portraits.

both this and Shelby's catch a transient moment in time that isn't photoshopped and of the young people paid and framed to sell perfume. it's nice to have these sort of images around and people who will document for decades.

Here's the thing, Shelby L. Adams is a portrait photograppher. By definition, portrait means portraying something. He's portraying an image as he sees it. It is artistic license. If you've seen the documentary, you can tell he has compassion for the people, he provides groceries, appliances, and yes, a pig. What we see is his perception as he wants us to see it. Maybe he does 'buy' the people by bringing them 'gifts' of food and necessities. They are not buying his product, he is paying them for their service in the way that they need most. I've lived in the south all of my life and done very extensive travelling through every southern state, seeing all walks of life and know enough of the various people/lifestyles to know that when people don't have a formal or traditional education, it does not mean they are ignorant. Watching him you can tell he's doing his best to be sure that they are comfortable enough and understanding enough to be sure they know what he's talking about. Yes, there is controversy, but it is their real life, hard as it may be. If it weren't for people like Shelby preserving these images, they would be lost to lore. Afterall, you don't hear the same kind of criticism, say, of Cold Mountain, which showed similar, yet different era, of the same kind of lifestyle. Reality is that in the Appalachian areas, poverty is still at the pre-Civil War era level. I think he's done a wonderful job.

"“They [the pictures] call for a very sophisticated kind of reading. And I’m not sure that these people have the education, the visual educational background, to understand how these pictures read.”

Others suggest that that doesn’t give the Appalacians enough credit."

It's not so much giving credit for so called "sophistication" as it is acknowledging that the audience which is viewing these images is steeped in a different visual culture than the subjects of the images, and will thus interpret these images in ways that the subjects cannot possibly not comprehend, just as these art buffs can't comprehend exactly how these Appalachian people would view staged images of them.

Thanks for this post and the questions you pose at the end. I always felt reassured that Adams is from Appalachia and connected to the region, not an outsider looking in. Not sure if that really makes a difference, per se, but he to my eye, he is clearly at home in the work and the images appear to have been crafted carefully and over a period of some time.

The imagery reminds me some of Sally Mann, but I think her relationship to subject/sexuality is far more fraught and deserving of critique, due to the consent or nonconsent issues around her children.

Even if he is portraying the most poverty stricken groups of the area how does that make it wrong? Plenty of people photograph the poor and homeless of the country. It doesn't change anything.  He's purposely focusing on them to show who they are and he's not denying that. After all would you want to look at photos of a bunch of middle class families sitting on a couch in an average house watching tv? I doubt it, and I doubt any real photographer would want to photograph that either. It's art, as long as it doesn't break any laws there are no restrictions over how and what you photograph and noone has the right to try to impose any. If you don't like or approve of it either don't look at it, or go take those photos of the middle class family and see how many people you can get to look at them let alone pay for them. And as far as the posing of the subjects goes, who cares?! Photographers pose people all the time! Just because he asked a certain person to smile and another to stand in his underwear doesn't change the fact that they are still standing in front of their homes made of sheet metal and wallpapered in newspaper. This is still their life no matter how you pose the subject.

Above and beyond all the hoopla and intellectual ramblings, the fact is many people in the U.S. have no idea how much diversity exists in our culture.  Television here is sanitized and people's lives on television, except reality TV, as well as their images (faces, clothes, belongings, environments, and etc.)  are homogenized to such an absurd extent Shelby's photos could only be viewed with distain by most and viewed as exploitive by many.

Growing up in Colorado and traveling extensively across North America I have seen many cultural examples of the contentedness amidst seeming poverty portrayed in Shelby's photographs.  I say seeming poverty because Shelby's images portray lives rich in family, tradition, and complexity.  None the less, when I first viewed these works via the New York Times online this morning, the visceral shock and wonder of them hit me on a gut level.

This is powerful stuff!  These photos show the many faces of the holler where Shelby grew up.  To view the photos in context is important.  Knowing Shelby has had an on-going relationship with these people says everything:  they are not ashamed so why are others ashamed for them?

Perhaps others are ashamed to be unhappy and discontented in the face of Shelby's people when they themselves have so much?

I'm a Bay Stater who recently moved to Kentucky for a job, and was fortunate to fall in love with a wonderful woman originally from the Hazard area of Kentucky. Her family lives in obvious poverty, but definitely is not in need of love, laughter, and happiness. Her Thanksgivings and holidays are just as fulfilling as my own upper class Cape Cod home on the ocean celebrations. No doubt, they're hard and amazing people, but in my opinion to see the resilienant love and joy they experience would be a nice change from the cliche.

Also, really... the whole they couldn't afford to butcher/own a
pig? Hazard has a Walmart that sells ham and all sorts of deli meat. Why would they need to afford a pig? Guess an Oscar Meyer sandwich doesn't sell as well.

You can't take issue with images being staged.  All images are staged.  Very few moments in documentary film, television, or photography are "real."  Look at and documentary film about Appalachia or anywhere else.  Almost every shot is staged: people sitting on the couch talking to the camera, walking around the property, driving over to see their family member, etc.  Of course it is staged that is how media works.  Their was a moment in documentary life -- before everyone was making their own films -- where the camera could capture moments of life, but again, people know they are being filmed and moments are staged.