<\/p>\n
\u00a9 Andrew Lichtenstein <\/p>\n
Lichtenstein impressed jurors with his fresh look at U.S. history. Above: Women at the bus stop where Rosa Parks began her famous 1955 ride. <\/p>\n
This past November, New York City-based photographer Andrew Lichtenstein won the 2012 Aftermath Project Grant for his project called \u201cAmerican Memory.\u201d It is a series of landscape photographs of sites around the U.S. where historic struggles for civil rights, labor rights and Native American rights took place decades ago, so obvious signs of those struggles have long faded. <\/p>\n
The $20,000 Aftermath Project Grant is intended to support photo projects about the after effects of war. Most of the six grants awarded previously were for projects exploring the open, visible wounds of recent conflicts and ethnic strife outside the U.S. <\/p>\n
Lichtenstein thought his entry would be a long shot, so he contacted Aftermath Project founder Sara Terry to ask if it was too much of a stretch. She encouraged him to apply. Lichtenstein also notes, \u201cThe big problem with this story is trying to capture what doesn\u2019t exist there anymore. It\u2019s hard to photograph the absence of [an event].\u201d <\/p>\n
Terry, who was one of the three jurors, says awarding the grant to Lichtenstein was \u201can exhilarating way to expand the conversation about the aftermath [of conflict]. That\u2019s something I\u2019ve wanted to do for a long time.\u201d The grant isn\u2019t just for documentary projects, she explains. \u201cFrom the beginning I\u2019ve encouraged conceptual and fine-art photographers to apply.\u201d <\/p>\n
Terry says jurors first screened applications for the quality of the images. That winnowed 183 applications down to about 30, she says. From there, judges started to consider the merits of the written proposals. <\/p>\n
\u201cAndrew\u2019s proposal wasn\u2019t a great big statement. It was simply stated: If we don\u2019t address our wounds, the scars don\u2019t heal. And then he listed places he was looking [to photograph],\u201d Terry says. <\/p>\n
Lichtenstein told PDN that the historic sites he\u2019s been photographing \u201care of particular interest to me because of my view of the struggle for justice and equality in this country. I\u2019m not saying America is an awful place built on genocide. I\u2019m trying to say it\u2019s a country like any other, which is actually a radical idea if you look at what some people want to pass off as American history. There\u2019s this idea that this nation is [exceptional] and great for its ability to foster freedom and equality. I want to stop and say, \u2018Which history are you looking at?\u2019\u201d <\/p>\n
He says he explained that idea in clear, direct terms on the application. \u201cI do not know \u2018grant speak\u2019; I don\u2019t write it, I don\u2019t want to write it, I don\u2019t understand it. People should just say what they mean, rather than hide it in terms of elite conversation,\u201d he asserts. \u201cI want it to be as accessible and honest as possible a description of what I believe the work to be about.\u201d <\/p>\n
Lichtenstein says that because he started the project two years ago, it was easier to write about it with clarity. \u201cSo I knew what the issues were about. It\u2019s still a healthy process to put it on paper, and explain it to other people,\u201d he says. <\/p>\n
\u201cWhat brought his application to the top was the degree of imagination,\u201d says juror (and VII Photo agency director) Stephen Mayes. \u201cHis concept is new\u2014it\u2019s a very fresh look at American history. He\u2019s filtering that through current social and political situations.\u201d <\/p>\n
Mayes continues, \u201cThe presentation was clearly written with an introduction that said he was looking for places where past and present intersect, followed by succinct bullet points saying exactly what he was talking about, and then pictures to show it.\u201d Because the locations he photographs show no obvious signs of their historical significance, Lichtenstein\u2019s images depend upon captions for context. But the jurors had no problem with that. \u201cI subscribe to the idea that all pictures need some context. If that comes in form of words, that\u2019s fine,\u201d Mayes says. <\/p>\n
\u201cThere were other proposals that were much more philosophical, that were compelling,\u201d Mayes notes. \u201cBut even if the proposal is theoretical and philosophical, it still has to be clear about what the applicant intends to do and how.\u201d <\/p>\n
The one image that crystallized Lichtenstein\u2019s proposal for the jurors shows three Southern women in antebellum costumes, sitting on a bench at the bus stop where Rosa Parks began her famous bus ride in 1955, launching the civil rights movement. \u201cThat image is amazing. It said so much, and got our attention right away,\u201d says Terry. <\/p>\n
Juror Anne Wilkes Tucker, who is photography curator of The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, observes: \u201cLots of people have tried to find pictures that make you understand the complications of [chosen] locations. The picture of the three women on the bench does that. I\u2019m presuming he didn\u2019t stage it. It\u2019s pretty perfect.\u201d <\/p>\n
That Lichtenstein already had strong images for his proposed project gave him an advantage over those who applied on the strength of images from past projects. Even if those images were very good, Tucker notes, \u201cWe [jurors] just don\u2019t know that they can translate what they\u2019re proposing to do into pictures.\u201d <\/p>\n
Tucker says finalists for the grant weren\u2019t necessarily skilled writers, \u201cBut the ideas were there [in the application]. They knew what they were going to do, how it was going to relate to the theme proposed, what was possible to do and [their idea] was focused enough ... You have to know what\u2019s a manageable project\u201d and convey that in the application\u2014with words and pictures. <\/p>\n
Mayes says some proposals were eliminated \u201cbecause they lacked that clarity. [We\u2019re awarding] a chunk of money\u2014we need to know it is going to be spent with real effect.\u201d <\/p>\n
The four other finalists for the grant were Christopher Capozziello, with a project about the Ku Klux Klan; Michelle Frankfurter, with a project about emigration to the U.S. in the aftermath of the Central American civil wars of the 1980s; Simon Thorpe, with a conceptual project about Sahrawi soldiers who fought for their land in the Western Sahara; and Michael Zumstein, with a project about national reconciliation in Ivory Coast after the 2010 elections there. <\/p>\n
Lichtenstein says he\u2019s applied for only a few grants out of necessity; editorial assignment work is no longer reliable enough as a source of income. Applying for grants, he says, \u201cis a tremendous amount of work, and there\u2019s no kill fee. If you don\u2019t get it, that\u2019s two weeks gone. The plus side is that it really helps you think about the issues of your project and put together an edit, and articulate what you\u2019re saying in your photos.\u201d <\/p>\n
His advice to others applying for grants: \u201cLook at the grant carefully to see if your work is appropriate for it,\u201d he says. \u201cThe second thing is, there\u2019s nothing you can say or do to make up for not having the pictures. It\u2019s fundamentally about the work.\u201d <\/p>\n
Related Articles: <\/p>\n
Picture Story: Untangling the Afghanistan Tragedy
Bringing Documentary Photography To a Grassroots Audience
How to Pitch a Crowd for Project Funding
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Here is the original post: By David Walker \u00a9 Andrew Lichtenstein Lichtenstein impressed jurors with his fresh look at U.S. history. Continue reading
\nAnatomy of a Successful Grant Application<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"