PSA to creatives: Poverty is not an aesthetic

With the internet as a convenient platform for artists, some would say these days, there is stiffer competition to release content that would stand out from the rest. While this pushes some to create truly remarkable and innovative concepts, there are certain lines every creative must not cross. Poverty porn is one of them.

As a developing country, we have often been portrayed in a certain manner. While some people have genuine intentions like sparking discussion or raising awareness, some capitalize on our poor conditions for the shock factor or for mere aesthetics.

While some people have genuine intentions like sparking discussion or raising awareness, some capitalize on our poor conditions for the shock factor or for mere aesthetics.

The viral Facebook photo set by 7AM Rant is one such example. Shot at a junkyard and the streets at an undisclosed impoverished community, a female model wearing tattered clothing is photographed while posing with a white sack, as if imitating street scroungers. There were also shots where she’s depicted as a beggar getting change from a taxi driver—an all too familiar scene for most of us.

In one photo, she’s interacting with children (who may be actual street kids), essentially making them photo props—one of the most problematic practices in photography and content creation in general (See: Poor Indians used for World Press Photo and an exclusive fitness group using native Kenyans as workout props)

The photo set is titled “Grungy,” which, in its most literal sense, means “grimy” or “dirty.” Before you go off and hypothesize that it may be satirical or that there could be a deeper meaning to it, let me stop you. In an interview with One News PH, the photographer admitted, “Nag shoot kami ng for fun lang.” He also said (he sounded unsure) that the message behind it was to not judge people who look like that.

If you’re confused, you are not alone. Looking at the photos, I don’t really get that message too. For me, it’s more of a really distasteful fashion editorial. Despite depicting her as a beggar of some sort, she was clearly glamorized. Sure, they put grease and dirt all over her body (just paint or makeup)—but not her face. Furthermore, some netizens pointed out that she is actually wearing a full face makeup, complete with false lashes. Her hair, while appearing disheveled, remained polished. 

And yes, while she was wearing tattered clothes, they are ripped in very ~strategic~ places, like her chest and backside, which poses another reason why the shoot is problematic. Okay, yeah, I have no problem with women wearing whatever they like, but this one was just all kinds of wrong. The problem was not because it was sexy per se, but because, in multiple shots, the male gaze was clearly felt. In case you’re not familiar with the term, The Conversationalist explains it as “a sexualized way of looking that empowers men and objectifies women.” This type of masculine voyeurism is seen in visual media. In this case, it can be seen in the calculated camera positions, which forces viewers to look at the model’s body. You need only look at the comments to see what I mean.

In the wake of this controversial shoot, the photographer did apologize and said the public backlash is a lesson on his part to become more sensitive when dealing with topics such as poverty

In the wake of this controversial shoot, the photographer did apologize and said the public backlash is a lesson on his part to become more sensitive when dealing with topics such as poverty. So I think it’s time to move on and instead of continuing the hate, it’s better to educate him and other creatives out there.

Putting out content is not just about them going viral. Much more than that, artists have a responsibility to uphold moral and ethical standards in their work—especially when dealing with sensitive subjects. So for all the creatives out there who are planning on pulling something similar, please really think about what you want to convey to your audience and assess if it comes through. Otherwise, if it’s just some shallow work masked under great aesthetics, it may be best not to click “publish.”