Documentary is a little like horror movies, putting a face on fear and transforming threat into fantasy, into imagery. One can handle imagery by leaving it behind. (It is them, not us.)

The exposé, the compassion and outrage, of documentary fueled by the dedication to reform has shaded over into combinations of exoticism, tourism, voyeurism, psychologism and metaphysics, trophy hunting - and careerism.

Take the Money and Run? Can Political and Socio-Critical Art ‘Survive’?

Just going out on a foray to assemble a collection of street trophies about this or that running social sore can't be effective - and never was.

I was concerned with something like the notion of 'language speaking the subject,' and with the transformation of the woman herself into a sign in a system of signs that represent a system of food production, a system of harnessed subjectivity.

Any familiarity with photographic history shows that manipulation is integral to photography.

How useful are documentary photographs if there is no follow up, no way of knowing what happened next in the story?