These are my initial reactions to Blind Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in Photography. As I crafted a polite response to another situation earlier this week, I have to admit that I’m a little out of fucks to give about tidying things up to be persuasive about my points, so some of this might come across as indecent or vulgar. Fuck it. I also don’t think this particular article deserves much decency in my response.
And who am I to respond? Just some dude who is tired of the constant hypocrisy, tired of listening to white people talk about change and diversity when they never abdicate positions or give equal value. I do tire of the continuous and patronizing “there, there” on diversity talk from those in power who never seem to relinquish their authority. You can file my complaints at the bottom of the queue. This list very much reminds me that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Dreams of an imagined interview culled from statements from the original article.
BF: First, why do you think we need such a preposterous list in the first place? Let’s start there. Is it so that we know the key gatekeepers to avoid? Is it to give us a target list of legs to hump for our bone? What inspired you and your team to put this together, and what can you tell us about the process?
BM: Photography has always been more than just a medium—it’s a language, a witness, and a catalyst for change.
BF: Has it? Is it a language, or perhaps a communication? Is photography itself a witness? Can you provide sufficient evidence to suggest that photography has a broad impact, spanning all photography ever produced, and how it changes things, or do we mean a minimal number of photographs over the trillions produced that elicit a reaction? Or is this an aborted platitude gifted to a medium treated like an institutional phenomenon?
BM: From the early days of film to today’s digital revolutions, the photographic world has been shaped by visionaries behind the camera, as well as by those who publish, curate, distribute, critique the work, or develop tools for photographers.
BF: Explain revolution and visionary in detail, please, because in 2025, these are not the revolutions I am looking for.
BM: This non-exhaustive list of the 100 most influential figures in the photography industry today celebrates the people redefining the landscape across editorial platforms, museums, festivals, technology, publishing, and advocacy.
BF: Ok, fair that it is non-exhaustive, but why bother then? How do you judge the 100 as being most influential? Where is the metric for this? Did you poll it, or is it some intern sheepishly copying the Penumbra list and Art Review Power 100 list and having a dig through, then regurgitation?
BM: At a time when visual culture is more powerful and pervasive than ever, influence is no longer confined to household names or award-winning images. Today’s most impactful figures operate at every level of the field—from directors of prestigious institutions like MoMA and Aperture, to editors behind global outlets like The New York Times and Le Monde, to grassroots organizers uplifting marginalized voices. These individuals shape what we see, how we interpret it, and who gets to participate in the conversation.
BF: So why have you decided to focus primarily on institutional players in the so-called field? Are they more powerful? How so? Again, what is this influence you speak of? How do you measure this impact? Oh, so institutional influence is what you see as impactful? Not artists themselves. Who are these mythical grassroots organizers uplifting marginal voices? I have to question why they are all so white and Eurocentric. I mean, why not include Hito Steyerl or Ariella Aïsha Azoulay when you can feature a gallerist like Emmanuel Perrotin, or an editor from a newspaper nobody reads, or a white critic who’s unknown?
Why is Tanvi Mishra not in here, or Oluremi C. Onabanjo, one of the museum choices? Mariamah Attah? What about Teju Cole? What About Stanley Wolukau-Wanambwa? Thyago Noguiera, one of the busiest curators out there? I mean, why not these people and why the others? I mean, the choices are baffling. I mean, where is Mark Sealy? Sunil Gupta? Bindi Vora? These are people I can name off the top of my thick head who are certainly vital, and you could have exchanged for several of your French choices. or Benedikt Taschen? Like, really? Is Steidl still relevant in 2025? No offense to either, they were both vital for me early on, but they don’t seem to be doing that much in photography recently.
BM: Compiled with a global perspective, this selection reflects the ability to challenge conventions, push boundaries, and drive photography forward—whether through innovation, education, inclusion, or fearless storytelling. Together, these 100 people represent the diverse ecosystem that defines the contemporary photography industry.
BF: Bruh, this selection does fucking none of that. This selection solidifies all the shit we are trying to change up. It’s not very global, sorry. It reflects minimal boundary pushing outside of my nerves. Fearless storytelling-sorry, you might’ve given that award to Alessandra Sanguinetti, whose relentless posting of the genocide happening in Gaza from the beginning would be key to the word “fearless”. Same with Adam Broomberg, whose positions of fearlessness make your assessment both safe and a bit wretch-inducing. Who here is fearless? Most of what I see here are bureaucrats- no offense to them, but I don’t generally award them superhero capes, even if I respect their work. This is possibly the least diverse ecosystem choices that you could have drummed up. It’s lazy, weak tea, and you’ve been told by now. It defines nothing by perpetuating all that we want to dissolve.
To be fair to the people who were chosen, you probably didn’t know how this was being developed, so I don’t take issue with those included, per se. What is astounding is how white and French/Eurocentric the list is and how few people of color enter it, let alone the global south or even Asia. What about Indian representation? There aren’t many people there, right? Come on. Who compiled this list? It feels like an intern did, as any sensible person would not place themselves in the crossfire by putting this inane list together that
A) doesn’t declare how influence is judged and by whom
B) doesn’t bother to look past their nose for candidacy (does photography exist outside of Europe and America)
C) Even the choices within the white world of photography are somewhat baffling at points, like Emmanuel Perrotin. (almost like it was hard to find 100 people)
The follow-up comments on the original posts have been gold, though, with the editors copying and pasting the same generic response to every critic.
As we share your views on diversity, it is just a fact that a lot of key positions in the industry in Europe and America are held by mostly white people, sadly. If you read Blind regularly, you know that we defend diversity among photographers and are quite socially engaged.
Could this be copied and pasted with any less sincerity? It’s like they can’t even be bothered. Either this or this blog has a very cunning way to boost their social media presence.
I will leave you now with some post highlights….
Shaminder_dulai Seeing the same tone deaf copy/paste response from @blind.magazine is very telling. So, alright, since we’re taking this road. Let me ask you’d what was the goal of this “story”? Your editorial team considered it and green lit it, so what was the intention?You can argue people reading it are misinterpreting your intention, so what was your intention of platforming this list and speaking as an authority on what is important or influential. You can’t have it both ways.
Alexxphoto: I don’t read this publication so I’m not aware if y’all have a history of writing buzzfeed listicles of people in power in the photo world but this reads exactly like an American sports league hosting a World Series that only has players from three countries in it and they all border the US. Calling it a World Series is just the 20th century version of saying diverse. It doesn’t mean anything. Additionally, these people are influential because you say they’re influential, sure, but save a few editors and publishers who put out work I like, these people aren’t influential. They’re employed in positions of power. These things are not the same. How are you gauging the scale of influence? Because as a normally developed grown adult with a mature practice, I’m not looking at Roxana marcoci or David campany for reasons to pick up camera. Like any other artists, I look to music, literature and life for influence. This list reads as a self congratulatory pat on the back for you and all of your white friends and I think the editors need to do more to answer why Greenberg gallery director is important but japans premier gallery director isn’t.
gangster_bighouse: Why try to extinguish the flames in a house that needs to burn down? Blind Magazine—the irony is so laughable rn—is only holding up the mirror and we’re seeing the elitist and exclusionary reflection of the First Art World. It’s also ridiculous to allude there’s “good white people” on this list because they all practice uphold, and benefit from the same type of exclusionary practices that keep this cycle of collusion the mode of operation. I wonder how many of them, if any, have asked to be removed from a list generated from poor and racist research?
“The struggle against racism is necessary to expose contradictions, raise consciousness, and educate Black [and non-white] people to the system; but as a primary strategy for liberation it is a bankrupt line…It purports to hit at the root of the system, but engages the movement in endless piecemeal confrontation that, as soon as resolved in one area, re-appears in another.” —Black Liberation Army Study Guide
chiragwakaskar: Congratulations for assembling a “global” list of influential figures in photography that’s basically a guided tour of the Western hemisphere – only to wrap it up with your own Director Jonas Ceuninck neatly parked at #100. Colonial chic meets corporate ego. Bravo
ebrom: Is the inclusion in the room with us?
dawoudbey:@blind.magazine Please do better. The glaring lack of true diversity in this list is disappointing. While I know and have worked with any number of the wonderful people on this list, I can also attest to the presence in the field of some equally as important persons of color who would be fine and fitting additions. Do better.