Ray Bradbury’s Sun and Shadow Shines a Light on Photography’s Potential to Exploit

Ray Bradbury’s Sun and Shadow Shines a Light on Photography’s Potential to Exploit

2560 1440 James Tocchio

Reaching us from 1953, Ray Bradbury’s short story Sun and Shadow should be required reading for anyone who aspires to any level of editorial or street photography. It beautifully articulates the tension that I’ve often felt about photographic cultural appropriation, about the ways that photographers boldly and often carelessly photograph the people of the world as if they were created solely to exist in our cameras.

In Sun and Shadow, Ricardo Reyes, a man in a Mexican village, wages war against a fashion photographer who, in Ricardo’s view, is engaged in unforgivable photographic appropriation.

The story’s opening paragraph is intended to align the reader’s allegiance. In it, Bradbury describes a clicking camera held in the “tenderly exploiting hands” of a photographer. We may not know it yet, but by these words the reader should suspect Bradbury’s position; that the photographer exploits not just the camera, but much more besides.

From the window of his village home, Ricardo watches in annoyance as the photographer uses Ricardo’s alleyway as a backdrop. The photographer positions his fashion model subject against the cracked plaster of the building opposite Ricardo’s. He places her delicately against Ricardo’s own banister, with the weathered paint so artfully peeling. He positions Ricardo’s own son, Tomás, in the alleyway, within view of the camera’s lens. This is the final straw.

Ricardo shouts out the window to the photographer and model. “You there!”

Ricardo’s wife, Maria, embarassed, urges him to stop. “They’re not hurting anything.”

Storming out the door, Ricardo replies to his wife with Bradbury’s exaggerated sense of humor.

“I’ll cut off their heads!”

When he reaches confrontation range, Ricardo tells the photographer to get away from his house. The photographer assures Ricardo that it’s okay, that they’re only making fashion photos. The photographer is sure that this argument will work. He will tell Ricardo that they’re taking photos and Ricardo, like hundreds of others before him, will understand and let them get on with their work.

Ricardo won’t allow it, and he makes his point:

“You are employed; I am employed. We are all employed people. We must understand each other. But when you come to my house with your camera that looks like the complex eye of a black horsefly, then the understanding is over. I will not have my alley used because of its pretty shadows, or my sky used because of its sun, or my house used because there is an interesting crack in the wall, here! You see! Ah, how beautiful! Lean here! Stand there! Sit here! […] Oh, I heard you. Do you think I am stupid?”

Ricardo eventually berates the photographer until, exasperated, the photographer flees the alley. The battle has been won but the war is not ended. Ricardo wants the man gone not just from his alley, but from his entire village.

When the photographer tries unsuccessfully to pay Ricardo to leave him alone, and then announces loudly to his model that they’ll go take pictures on the next street over where earlier he’d noticed “a nice cracked wall there[…]”, Ricardo announces (louder still) that he’ll follow them.

Keeping pace with the fleeing photographer and his model, Ricardo once more makes his point.

And this paragraph, I think, is the heart of the argument. Ricardo wants his family and his friends and his village, his life and his place in the world, to be seen not as props, but as people. He demands no less.

“Do you see what I mean? My alley is my alley, my life is my life, my son is my son. My son is not cardboard! I saw you putting my son against the wall, so, and thus, in the background. What do you call it – for the correct air? To make the whole attractive, and the lovely lady in front of him?”

“We are poor people,” said Ricardo. “Our doors peel paint, our walls are chipped and cracked, our gutters fume in the street, the alleys are all cobbles. But it fills me with terrible rage when I see you make over these things as if I had planned it this way, as if I years ago induced the wall to crack. Did you think I knew you were coming and aged the paint? Or that I knew you were coming and put my boy in his dirtiest clothes? We are not a studio! We are people and must be given attention as people. Have I made it clear?”

Here, Bradbury has broached the subject of class and economics. Ricardo is poor. By contrast, the photographer and his model, with the hat boxes and makeup cases and assistants and expensive gear, must be rich. Bradbury shines a light on the power dynamic at play here, and the cultural looting done by traveling photographers who spare no expense for the perfect background or the artfully weathered wall, or the beautifully devastated face. The cracked hands of the sweatshop worker in Sri Lanka, or the blood-rimmed eyes in the blackened face of the coal-miner. The blistered feet of the man pounding pans in the streets of Kolkata for less money per day than an American would accept for a minute’s work. The photographers go out to hunt for the underpaid of the world, before returning to “civilization” to collect their pay.

But the photographer in the story isn’t listening. He’s moving his production along to the next alley. Once there, he comes across some colleagues shooting their own fashion shots. Here, Bradbury sprinkles his sense of humor, as the photographer greets his irreverent colleague and apprises him of the situation.

“How you doing, Joe?”

“We got some beautiful shots near the Church of the Virgin, some statuary without any noses, lovely stuff,” said Joe. “What’s the commotion?”

“Pancho here got in an uproar. Seems we leaned against his house and knocked it down.”

“My name is Ricardo. My house is completely intact.”

To this point in the story, it’s not perfectly obvious whether Ricardo is a fanatic lunatic or a reasonable man simply taking a stand against what he sees as an injustice. Bradbury presents the counterpoint to Ricardo through a number of characters within the story. These assert that the photographers aren’t doing anything wrong, that they’re simply making a living.

Ricardo’s own son laughs happily with the photographer. Ricardo’s wife tells him to leave them alone, saying in no uncertain terms that “they aren’t hurting anything.”  When the photographer positions his model in front of a local shop, one which possess a “nice antique wall[…]”, Ricardo is stunned to find the shop owner watching the photo shoot with mild amusement.

“Jorge! What are you doing?” […] “isn’t that your archway? Are you going to let them use it?”

“I’m not bothered,” said Jorge.

Ricardo shook his arm. “They’re treating your property like a movie actor’s place. Aren’t you insulted?”

“I haven’t thought about it,” Jorge picked his nose.

“Jesus upon earth, man, think!”

“I can’t see any harm,” said Jorge.

But seeing that no one is going to stop the injustice, Ricardo takes action. As the photoshoot continues, he surreptitiously positions himself for the next salvo.

The photographer directs the model to pose this way and that, delicately composing his shot for the maximum effect, and just as he’s about to fire the shot, Ricardo bounds into frame and drops his pants.

“Oh, my God!” said the photographer.

Some of the models squealed. The crowd laughed and pummeled each other a bit. Ricardo quietly raised his pants and leaned against the wall.

“Was that quaint enough?” he said.

The plot of the story continues in this way for another page or two (the entire story is only eight pages long). Ricardo thwarts the cameraman by dropping his pants whenever a photo is attempted, all while a growing crowd of his fellow villagers look on bemusedly.

The photographer soon sends his assistant for a policeman. When the unhurried policeman arrives, he assesses the situation and sees no fault. Ricardo is simply standing there, naked. And in the policeman’s estimation, there’s nothing wrong with a man of the village standing there with his pants down.

They argue the point, but Ricardo has found allies in the villagers and policeman. When the photographer finally gives up, he tells his models “Come on, girls, we’ll go somewhere else.”

Ricardo is ready with a victorious reply.

“France,” said Ricardo.

“What!” The photographer whirled.

“I said France, or Spain,” suggested Ricardo. “Or Sweden. I have seen some nice pictures of walls in Sweden. But not many cracks in them. Forgive my suggestion.”

As the story ends, the photographer and his models retreat down the street toward the docks and Ricardo watches in satisfaction. He relives the moments before and plans his evening ahead. Here, Bradbury uses gorgeous lyrical writing to remind us of his position. That the world is not made for just some of us, it is here for all of us, and we are all equally deserving of it.

Now, Ricardo thought, I will walk up the street to my house, which has paint peeling from the door where I have brushed it a thousand times in passing, and I shall walk over the stones I have worn down in forty-six years of walking, and I shall run my hand over the crack in the wall of my own house, which is the crack made by the earthquake in 1930. I remember well the night, us all in bed, Tomás as yet unborn, and Maria and I much in love, and thinking it was our love which moved the house, warm and great in the night; but it was the earth trembling, and in the morning, that crack in the wall. And I shall climb the steps to the lacework-grille balcony of my father’s house, which grillwork he made with his own hands, and I shall eat the food my wife serves me on the balcony, with the books near at hand. And my son Tomás, whom I created out of whole cloth, yes, bed sheets, let us admit it, with my good wife. And we shall sit eating and talking, not photographs, not backdrops, not paintings, not stage furniture, any of us. But actors, all of us, very fine actors indeed.

By the end of the story, Ricardo is confirmed as a quiet hero. As the photographers flee and Ricardo pulls up his pants, the villagers literally applaud him.

Bradbury wrote this story in 1953. At that time, photography as a mainstream middle-class pursuit was relatively new. The Leica M3 didn’t exist yet. Most people didn’t know what an SLR was. Kodak hadn’t yet begun monetizing our living memories as “Kodak Moments.” And yet Bradbury was already writing about cultural photographic larceny.

I shudder to think what he’d write about the era of smartphone cameras, and Instagram and TikTok. An era in which travelers (often wealthy ones) seek out the “authentic” places (often code for “poor”), stand in line with dozens of other “photographers” and slice away their little piece of someone else’s world for display on social media. All without ever really interacting or experiencing the true cultures of the people whose land they’re shooting.

Don’t get me wrong. There’s no crime in photographers of a majority culture photographing people of a minority culture, or the other way around (though this happens far less often). That’s called cultural exchange, and it’s good.

But I think the critical judgment of whether something is cultural exchange or cultural appropriation should be held in the hands of the minority. It’s the duty of the majority to listen to the minority. And if any one member of a minority takes exception to the actions of anyone of the majority, that should be enough. Just one voice calling out for justice should be enough for the majority to listen, as happened in Sun and Shadow.

If, in the story, Ricardo had not existed, there would have been no conflict. The photographers would have absorbed the Mexican village into their photographs and carelessly jetted away. No one in the story, besides Ricardo, thought that the photographers were doing any harm.

Ricardo was the one voice. The one protesting minority voice amongst his indifferent fellows.

“Am I the only one in the world with a tongue in my mouth?” said Ricardo to his empty hands. “And taste on my tongue? Is this a town of backdrops and picture sets? Won’t anyone do something about this except me?”

No one in the story does, in fact, do anything about it. Ricardo is, in his own words, the “one man like me in a town of ten thousand,” who allows the world to go on as it should. “Without me,” he opines, “all would be chaos.”

Sun and Shadow currently appears in Ray Bradbury’s A Sound of Thunder and Other Stories

Buy A Sound of Thunder and Other Stories on Amazon here

Buy A Sound of Thunder and Other Stories on eBay here

Follow us on Twitter, FacebookInstagram, and Youtube

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

James Tocchio

James Tocchio is a writer and photographer, and the founder of Casual Photophile. He’s spent years researching, collecting, and shooting classic and collectible cameras. In addition to his work here, he’s also the founder of the online camera shop Fstopcameras.com.

All stories by:James Tocchio
  • I remember reading that story many decades ago, when I was a teenager who both read a lot of short stories and usually carried my Olympus OM10 in my schoolbag. It made me stop and think then too, I lived in a very photogenic part of the world, where there are lots of pretty old buildings and as a result I always thought twice whenever photographing too near to people and their homes.

  • A great article that I really enjoyed. I commonly photograph “poor” neighborhoods because I think they are beautiful. I do so for my own pleasure and never for profit. For those that may be inclined to do something similar, I should mention that the approach is really important. Be a genuine person, wear simple clothes, smile at people, and be confident.

    • I almost included in this article my own personal experience of hosting a photo walk in Boston. The people came mostly from the suburbs, since, I assume photographing Boston streets isn’t super interesting to people who live in Boston. The suburban photographers would not stop taking photos of every homeless person we passed. It was awful in that none of them engaged or even spoke with one of the people whom they were photographing. I felt embarrassed and it’s stuck with me, but I ultimately cut the anecdote from this article.

      Anyway, I do think pictures of any person are valid. But I think there needs to be a dialogue. The subjects need to have a voice. Not just be there for our consumption.

  • Well, James, I liked the piece – quite a nice reading! And I love the story! But I think your conclusions are perhaps a bit ill-fetched. Somewhat ironically, words like “cultural exchange”, “cultural appropriation” and so on are part of the part of the American culture, and even 70 years later would not touch a heart of an average Joe in Mexico or Spain (or elsewhere). Framing the story in this context looks like another form of cultural appropriation to me, perhaps even more so than simply taking pictures of cracked walls. Bradbury’s story is timeless because it’s not about society, or culture, majorities, minorities, or cultural appropriation. But rather about the essence of ever evading thing which makes us humans. Our love, which moves buildings, our loneliness and certainty that true understanding is probably not possible even between two closest people, let alone the society or rich photographers from big cities. Of course, the things you’re talking about are also part of the story, but imho not the most significant part. It’s not “the duty of the majority to listen to the minority” (and btw, poor people are not the minority, you/I are). The duty of every human being is to be a Human, which is much more than any social or cultural obligations or buzz-words.

  • Isn’t Bradbury doing through his written description what the photographer is being criticised of here? romanticising and using the backdrop for his attempt at a moral lesson?

    • Quite possibly! Although I see a difference between working on the side of those who may have less of a voice, in this case the fictional villager has a smaller voice than the published fashion photographer.

      But I get your point. I suppose in a perfect world this story would have been written by the villager in the first person, or not written at all!

  • You are assuming a lot about a photographer’s motives when taking photos in a strange of picturesque things. The words cultural appropriation is much over used and almost always only one way.

  • Rather a prescient passage, there has always been this tension, but indigenous and minority peoples are bringing these things to our attention now, in a way that they perhaps felt unable to do in the past. Some street photography makes me cringe, because it is obvious the subject has not consented, and often the photographer has captured a moment of discomfort. That seems to me more like voyeurism than art. I do not want to be that photographer.

  • Thought provoking piece James! I guess the ultimate example of this type of photographer is Steve McCurry. The photo that basically launched his career was Sharbat Gula aka Afghan girl in 1984. The majority of his career was spent in places like India, showing it in a Norman Rockwellian light given how the images were cleaned up in post to remove trash and other detritus, whether human or not, that affected the composition. He shows an idyllic POV, and not really one that the locals are living.
    But that’s the thing, I look at the pictures, see the smiling faces, the saturated colours and it’s only when I start to the think about it more deeply do I wonder if he is unwittingly insulting, being patronizing, or celebrating the people and their culture?

  • I enjoyed reading this article, and will have to pick up the short story now, because I want to experience all of the other details inside it! Thank you for directing me to it. While I don’t think there is anything wrong with photographing other cultures per se, and while I think “cultural appropriation” has been taken much too far in a culture that basically kind of looks for ways to guilt people for sport (forgive me for that cynical take), there’s definitely something to be said in the story here, something to be learned. For me, the immediate answer I would go to is “shoot what you know.” Another way of saying that would be “shoot your normal surroundings.” I believe the photographer has a lot more credibility if they’ve worked through all of their own circumstances and surroundings with the same exploratory, critical eye that they might go to an exotic location with – a version of the philosopher’s saying “know thyself.” If you’ve examined your life with the camera, you might have more solid footing to start examining others with it. At the least, you’ll have more to connect with. There are certain people who use travel photography like a pirate, plundering the riches of different cultures. Don’t be that.

  • Very interesting especially considering this was written in 1953. I do have some issues with this story and the “message”. It does seem to fit the anecdote from Boston, which, being from that area I can completely agree with. However, what is presented by the author is one very specific type of photography which then gets tagged with the title of “cultural appropriation” which I have always had issue with because it is vague and manipulative. This term implies a taking or removing with no return of value. In this particular case (fashion shoot) it seems to fit. However, I am sure there are a lot of photojournalists who might take exception to this branding because in their case (as I understand it), when they show the down trodden and horrible conditions people live in, it is with the intent of shinning a light on the situation so as to bring attention to the plight of the subject. In this case there is a definite return value for the image capture. Steve McCurry was cited in one of the responses and while there has been controversy over his image(s), it is also true that attention was brought to that people which had some benefit. It has been and can continue to be argued about the value of that attention, and for this discussion, that is another topic. The point is it would never had happened at all if not for Steve’s published image. My basic point is that all photographers were branded as being the bad guy in this story and that is a very broad brush indeed. What if that photographer was there to document this culture to share with a publication’s readership to increase awareness of the plight of these people? Is that the same? I don’t think so and this is the problem I have with generalizations. Having said that, very thought provoking and a worthy read. Sometimes it is good to be uncomfortable.

  • Brilliant short story.

    At an Arbus retrospective at the V&A in London many years ago I asked people entering the show if they’d let me take a photograph of them then and there, and most said no. The older, more affluent looking visitors without exception refused, most would not even acknowledge me. I’m shy and this was stressful but security quickly ordered me to desist but when I carried on asking people some curator staff /security management were called to the entrance. I kept going while it was eventually reluctantly decided amongst the staff that I was entitled to continue as long as I was asking people for permission first, which I had been. As most people here will know, an Arbus exhibition is largely portraits of strangers who had been stopped in the street. Some people got the joke, and said yes.

Leave a Reply

James Tocchio

James Tocchio is a writer and photographer, and the founder of Casual Photophile. He’s spent years researching, collecting, and shooting classic and collectible cameras. In addition to his work here, he’s also the founder of the online camera shop Fstopcameras.com.

All stories by:James Tocchio