Maybe I need a new prescription...

Photograph by Leslie Alsheimer

When you look at this picture what do you see?

I'm taking a photography class and this week's assignment was to bring in two pictures that are somehow related and then discuss the visual symbolism in both of the shots. The picture above was brought in by one of my classmates. As soon as the picture projected onto the screen Tone and I both began gushing about how much we loved the picture. Tone even went as far as to say if he has a daughter he would frame the picture and put it in her room. Strangely, no more than three sentences into her description, the student who was presenting said, "You can clearly see the poverty in this picture."

Clearly?

At first glance all I can see is two girls sharing a moment of uncontrollable laughter. Second glance, I'm loving the freedom of the older girls movements. It's like the laughter is making her dance. Third glance, I notice the embrace of the younger girl and it reminds me of how a little sister would cling to a big sister. Fourth glance, their dresses make me think of summer and crisp cotton. Fifth glance, the palm trees and the shack remind me of Jamaica. I know it can be anywhere tropical but that's what came to my mind first. Last glance, I see the building in the far left. Could be a house, or a school, or a church but there aren't enough details for me to know. There is NOTHING in this picture that blatantly or even subliminally suggests poverty. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but her statement was much too strong.

No sooner than she finished her sentence I blurted out "Where in the picture do you see poverty ?" Several students in the class chimed in with similar questions and it felt good to know that I wasn't the only one baffled by that remark. The presenter attempted to say that the shack in the background and the little girl not wearing shoes were examples of poverty but the class quickly refuted those statements. One girl from Jersey said "You can see shacks like that ANYWHERE. I see them all over Jersey..." and someone else said it's not unusual for children to play outside barefoot. All valid points but the presenter was insistent on telling us why there is indeed poverty in the picture, claiming that in the caption on National Geographic's website the photographer said it was taken in Uganda, "A nation known for its impoverished conditions." Forgive my ignorance but I don't know anything about Uganda and caption or no caption, the picture still only evokes positive feelings within me. I took it upon myself to Google the caption.

"It is the light, it is the curl in the corners of the mouth, the sparkle in the eyes, and the unedited and untainted laughter. It is a child that does not yet understand the meaning of poverty. It is the child that has not yet seen the violence and destruction so prevalent in the world. It is the child that lost their mother to AIDS or child birthing complications, yet remains joyous and youthful despite the suffering. Dignity: The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect."

The caption CLEARLY states that these girls have not been exposed to poverty. Granted the writer said they have not been exposed as yet but the point is the picture was appropriately titled "Girls Laughing, Uganda" because that is all you can see. I was and still am so thoroughly offended by my classmate attempting to force a vision of poverty on me. Another person in the class used the same picture for her presentation and compared it to a photo of a close up of a dutch girl laughing backstage before a festival performance. In the class discussion of her two photos one young lady said "You can tell that this girl [the dutch girl] is from a more advanced civilization because of the doors." No joke. She said this with a straight face and the presenter actually nodded and made comments that supported that ridiculous statement. The girls in Uganda are CLEARLY outside. How can you compare the inside of this building in god knows where to the palm trees of Uganda? Palm trees now symbolize societies that are less advanced in their development? All I could do was shake my head.

Maybe I'm biased. Maybe I'm upset because the people who chose these pictures took a beautiful moment and attempted to make it ugly. Maybe I'm subconsciously pulling a race card. Or maybe they just couldn't see this picture for what it really is.

What do YOU think?