For the rest of my career, I have decided that teaching photography and use my skills to shoot weddings in a documentary style is the best move.
For the last few months, I have been creating a wedding company that caters to high-end weddings. As I set up the business a few issues have come up when it comes to inclusivity. Namely, how to let my intended audience feel welcome to my services when my entire audience is not represented in my portfolio without ‘othering” an entire population with tokenism.
I have been “seconding” with one of the best wedding photographers in the field who only covers weddings that range in the extremely high price range. As a result, my entire portfolio is comprised of exclusively white cis-gendered rich couples. It is important to me that my website makes it clear that my company is forward-looking and is for everybody. Inclusivity is a choice, therefore my marketing needs to make it clear that my business is for everybody.
To combat this problem, I found a possible solution, but it is problematic. It was surprising to find out that is a common practice for photographers new to this trade to photograph mock-weddings-or styled shoots in order to show what they are capable of without having booked any real weddings. An entire industry has been created to help photographers that don’t have portfolios shoot these stylized weddings in order to show off their skills and add to their portfolios. Styled Shoots Across America, a company that creates this experience, sells out throughout the year. While I already have a portfolio, these mock weddings offer the ability to include couples that show diversity along with all parts of the society that should be included.
My main conundrum is multi-leveled. My journalism roots make me squeamish when it comes to lying to people with photographs, however, this is a different industry and follows a different ethic. I feel as long as I label these as mock shoots, that squeamishness is just something I need to get over. What concerns me on a deeper level is how I am using these models to be tokens to fulfill my own objective. These models are paid and know how these images are being used, so I am not objectifying them personally.
Harrison’s et al.'s study on multiracial identity in advertising warns against using stereotypical framing using “exotic” photo techniques because a backlash of seeming inauthentic is worse for the brand than total exclusion (2017, p. 513). This study focused specifically on using multiracial models and how it related to cultural opinions on advertising effectiveness, so it doesn’t directly relate to my problem. However, it does show that it is a very small tightrope to walk. The fact that I would be shooting in live situations eliminates the stylized “othering” part of the equation from my end, but it is impossible for me to know that if I am using a service that is setting up these mock-ups that they will be aware of possible unconscious bias toward their model.
This last fact will stop me from doing this type of mock wedding to be inclusive. That does not stop the fact that I do need for my portfolio to be inclusive and safe. I need to figure out other ways to open up my portfolio to express the way to approach the problem,. This will have to be a “To be continued” blog post so hopefully I’ll have a conclusion by the end of the semester.
Harrison, R. L., Thomas, K. D., & Cross, S. N. N. (2017). Restricted Visions of Multiracial Identity in Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 46(4), 503–520. https://doi-org.libproxy.library.unt.edu/10.1080/00913367.2017.1360227
L’Pree & Corsbie-Massay (2019). Target vs. total marketing: the paradox of producing diverse mainstream content.
Harris, M. S., & Bourke, B. (2008). Selling Exclusion: IMAGES OF STUDENTS OF COLOR IN BOWL GAME ADVERTISING. College and University, 84(2), 18-26. https://libproxy.library.unt.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy.library.unt.edu/scholarly-journals/selling-exclusion-images-students-color-bowl-game/docview/225601235/se-2?accountid=7113