The Irony of Blind Photography: A New Art Form or Just Another Liberal Gimmick?

Imagine a world where the blind lead the way in photography, capturing images they can't even see. Sounds absurd, right? Yet, this is exactly what's happening in today's topsy-turvy world. Blind photography is gaining traction, with exhibitions popping up in art galleries from New York to Los Angeles. This trend began gaining momentum in the early 2000s, with artists like Pete Eckert and Bruce Hall leading the charge. The idea is simple: blind individuals use their other senses to capture images, often with the help of technology. But why is this becoming a thing? Because in today's society, where everyone is desperate to be seen as inclusive and progressive, blind photography is the perfect way to virtue signal without actually addressing real issues.

Let's be honest, the concept of blind photography is a paradox. Photography is inherently a visual art form. The very essence of taking a photograph is to capture a moment, a scene, or an emotion that can be visually appreciated. So, when someone who can't see is taking photos, it raises the question: who is this really for? It's certainly not for the blind photographer, who will never truly experience their own work. Instead, it's for the audience, who can pat themselves on the back for supporting such an "inclusive" art form.

The rise of blind photography is a classic example of how society is more interested in the appearance of inclusivity than in actual inclusivity. It's a feel-good story that allows people to ignore the real challenges faced by the visually impaired. Instead of focusing on improving accessibility, education, or employment opportunities for the blind, we get exhibitions that serve as little more than a spectacle. It's a distraction from the real issues, wrapped up in a neat little package that makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Moreover, the technology used in blind photography is often expensive and inaccessible to the average person. High-end cameras with voice-guided features, specialized software, and other gadgets are not something every blind individual can afford. So, while a select few may have the opportunity to participate in this trend, the majority are left out. This is yet another example of how the so-called inclusive movements often end up excluding the very people they claim to support.

The art world, always eager to jump on the latest trend, has embraced blind photography with open arms. Critics rave about the "unique perspective" and "emotional depth" of these works, conveniently ignoring the fact that the photographer had no visual input in the creation of the image. It's a classic case of the emperor's new clothes, where everyone is too afraid to point out the obvious for fear of being labeled as insensitive or unenlightened.

Blind photography also raises questions about authorship and authenticity. If a blind photographer relies heavily on technology or assistance from sighted individuals, who is really creating the art? Is it the blind photographer, the technology, or the sighted assistant? This blurring of lines further complicates the narrative and makes it difficult to take the art form seriously.

In a world where everyone is desperate to stand out and be different, blind photography is the perfect way to do just that. It's a novelty, a gimmick, and a way to grab attention. But at the end of the day, it does little to advance the cause of the visually impaired. Instead of focusing on real solutions, we get exhibitions and accolades that do little more than make the sighted feel good about themselves.

Blind photography is a fascinating concept, but it's important to recognize it for what it is: a trend that prioritizes appearance over substance. While it may provide a platform for a select few, it ultimately does little to address the real challenges faced by the blind community. So, the next time you find yourself at a blind photography exhibition, take a moment to consider who is really benefiting from this art form. Is it the blind photographer, or is it the audience who gets to feel good about their progressive values?