I believe the article is a quite harsh on Jimmy Nelson and his representation of the indigenous tribes/communities. I think the article is very bias, I believe the authors opinion is that Jimmy Nelson represents the different tribes very poorly and the article goes on to explain how some of the things he has stated are believed to be incorrect. But this being said I still think the work that Jimmy Nelson does attract a serious amount of attention which I happen to think is a good thing as it is interesting to learn about the different communities and tribes and the way they live their lives. Not only that, the images he takes are also stunning. It was interesting to read that some of his images are being sold for 45,000 pounds which suggest that there is some element of exploitation here and it would be nice for me to know where all of this money is going, is it going towards the tribes that he photographs, the foundation he has created, or is he just keeping it all for himself?
Another reason as to why I think the article is bias is that it goes on to state that there is not political or historical in any way. This to me is not what Jimmy Nelson would have intended for the images/books to portray. He has even said that the images/books are “intended to be aesthetic rather than factual. “There is no sociology, no statistics. It’s how I see the world. I am aiming to document the variety and importance of what is left of indigenous culture. Yes, it’s idealistic. Indigenous peoples are usually portrayed [by groups like Survival] as impoverished. But they have a wealth and a pride. It’s not only about material possessions. I shoot from a very personal, aesthetic point of view. Different people can interpret what they like.”
Overall I think the work that Jimmy Nelson has done is extraordinary and should not be so harshly judged as it must have been very difficult to achieve, is very interesting and draws a lot of attention towards those tribes and communities.
ZAKARIAH 