National Geographic

The article “A World Brightly Different: Photographic Conventions 1950-1986” mentions, in reference to National Geographic Magazine and their use photos, that “It draws attention, at least implicitly, to things that define ‘us’ in our unmarked and usual state of humanness, that is, as people who dress and act in ‘standard’ ways” (90). Rather than trying to look at the pictures in National Geographic from a different vantage point, we look at the pictures with a Western view, in order to reinforce our way of life as the norm. Looking at those pictures does not make us feel sorry for the pre modern (when compared to the Western culture) people we see; rather it helps us to be content with what we have. All the pictures show happy people and there are no pictures of sadness. Thus, no pity is spared by the viewer for the poor in the pictures, as we assume they are content and fully satisfied with their lifestyle. Instead of analyzing the reality of the pictures, we are encouraged (by the context of the magazine) to appreciate at the pictures as art, as noted in the article, “The act of appreciating them lets the viewer see himself or herself as both human (because the photographed are still recognized as people) and as cultured (because the photograph is like a museum piece, a work of art)” (95). This is why nudity is accepted in National Geographic, because it is ‘appreciated’ as art of an exotic species, where as a topless bather at a beach in North America is looked as trashy. By doing this, youth are taught to dismiss African (or any other culture that is unlike that of the West) nudity from all its sexual associations, which further extends the label of ‘other.’ We are taught through the pictures, that they are so different from us, that we should not even be sexually attracted to their beauty. Instead, we are influenced to look at these exotic people as nothing more than interesting art.