Photo-violence

<p><<<<em>That's not really the point is it?</em>>>></p>

<p>I don't know what you mean by this. I was simply trying to point out that many photos of humans don't celebrate the human condition and there's a place for those. I wouldn't want to pre-judge what photos must do or be about. Part of the human condition is a much darker, non-celebratory side, and that may effectively be shown and ought to be, along with more celebratory kinds of images. Non-celebratory images wouldn't be limited to or necessarily even have to include torture or exploitive pathos. </p>

<p>I don't see how you cannot know what I mean, Fred. Trap a man under ice and photograph his struggles- bound to get a decent shot. It's simple reductio ad absurdum.</p>

<p>I believe an exceptional artist, when circumstance allows, manages to simultaneously capture that kernel of compassion/ pathos/ strength/ weakness necessary to make a truly complete image. There is a big difference between a striking image and an erudite statement of the human condition. I believe the difference between the talented artist and the truly exceptional lies in capturing these diametric poles simultaneously. We have many photographers on this forum with great skill, who make great effort for their craft, but I feel the unique confluence of circumstance and talent which propels an image to iconic status cannot be forced, should not be forced. Maybe I am wrong in this- maybe it is naieve to believe that the manipulation of an imaging tool should be held to these standards. But I have seen many images which are technically perfect, in which a striking person is captured flawlessly, to which I have responded with little emotion. Other images have had such power it is almost supernatural. What is the difference? Immediacy, naturalness, authenticity. These properties can be manufactured by the photogapher (e.g. saying something flattering/lude/unexpected just before taking a portrait) but the truth, I hope, lies in the image. In something other than the photographer's art. It lies in all of us</p>

<p><<<<em>cannot be forced, should not be forced.</em>>>></p>

<p><<<<em>I have seen many images which are technically perfect, in which a striking person is captured flawlessly, to which I have responded with little emotion. Other images have had such power it is almost supernatural.</em>><em>>></em></p>

<p>Fine. I have similar experiences. What's this got to do with your claim that "<em>if you're not trying to celebrate the human condition you shouldn't be taking photos of people"?</em><br /> <br>

Technical perfection often falls short of emotional impact. That's a completely different discussion from whether or not a (good) photo must celebrate the human condition, which is the comment you made that I found questionable.</p>

<p>I don't agree that the ultimate image is the one that achieves iconic status. I believe there is a significant place for much smaller images and statements, more localized, more personal than universal. A masterpiece is one thing, but some of the greatest works of art and the most important are NOT masterpieces. They are humble and small. Many of the most powerful bodies of work are composed of pieces well short of masterpieces. Striving only or even mainly for masterpieces, IMO, is a likely path to oblivion and failure.<br>

<em> </em></p>

<p>And how does this relate to the original topic of violence . . . or violation . . . being an aspect of photography?</p>

<p>Did you bring up force in terms of violent force or force as related to violence?</p>

<p>When something feels forced, it can be a negative, a distraction.</p>

<p>But some kinds of force are very human and can be well depicted and effective. Some types of force or forcing when photographing can be an effective tool in some situations and for some photographers.</p>

<p>Stephen Conkie: "Hey, zoom in on a mother's face while she witnesses her child being killed. Lots of "pathos" there no doubt."</p>

<p>The topic of this thread is photo-violence, that which photographers inflict on their subjects. The above quote is about the photography of violence being perpetrated on another, but not by the photographer. </p>

<p>Both those points come across as a bit heavy. Not that there can't be a bit of truth hidden in them but they are slightly over the top. I'm surprised Johnny Depp who spends many hours of his life in front of cameras feels that way about a portrait or two. </p>

<p>Fair enough, Fred G.</p>

<p><<<<em>Both those points come across as a bit heavy. Not that there can't be a bit of truth hidden in them but they are slightly over the top.</em>>>></p>

<p>Yes! Thanks for that. It's part of the reason I chose them. Would you be willing to elaborate on what you think some of these kernels of truth are? That's where I wanted to go (and where many have gone) in this thread. It's been great hearing all the divergent reactions to this. In what ways do these bits of truth apply to how you think of photography, your own and that of others? I did not post these quotes thinking they were a kind of universal and decisive be-all and end-all description of photography. I posted them because I found them stimulating and a bit puzzling. </p>

<p>Being portrayed, even voluntarily, advantages the portrayer. Photographic subjects being unfairly seduced and <em>taken</em> seems overly dramatic a description for most cases. <em>On Photography</em>, as well as other revisionist writing of the time, seemed that way to me. The outrage back then at Sontag's violence to orthodoxy was shrill and continues even now.</p>

<p>Examining proof sheet arrays of a portrait session illustrate more about the photographer's relationship with the subject than a single image can. Depending on the ambient intensity of feeling present, suddenly caught expressions affirm both their states of mind. So called "body language" lab studies where viewers are asked to "read" pictures could examine this. </p>

<p>Everybody loves to see proofs and "never before seen" pictures of celebrities. Knowing this, poor Johnny D. can't be blamed for feeling raped every time he submits to publicity. Think of Avedon's subjects knowing full well the master and his crew isn't there to make them look good. They just glumly submit. Bravo Avedon!</p>

<p>A portrait is by nature an exercise of divergent, aggressor and prey roles. In editing and choosing from the session's <em>captures -- </em> that relationship continues. As the subject, you want to look like <em>you</em> want <em>you </em>to be portrayed. As the photographer, how the subject most <em>truly</em> is or isn't may not matter to your expressive intent. The subject is rightly betrayed. </p>

<p>Turning the table -- is the artist <em>harmed</em> by the subjects vanity? </p>

<p>Susan Sontag? She was a mess. Use your own brain, not her's.<br>

<br /> I sometime get accused of exploiting homeless people. Well, I never made a dime of my pix. So not much exploitation there.<br>

<br /> I was thinking the most exploiting of togs are the newbie / poor quality togs. They grab a family member or a person to shoot with the selfish hopes of learning to be a good tog. They do not produce anything worthwhile or their experiments fail. And the subject has had their time wasted by the exploitative efforts of the tog.<br>

<br /> But...togs have to learn someplace, so we all have exploited our poor subjects one time or another trying to be better togs. Shooting homeless people is one of the least exploiting of all genre's of people photography there is. With homeless people, they have nothing else to do. They are on the street, I am not wasting their time. And such photos may also bring attention to the homeless and help send some charitable $$ to that area of social need.<br>

<br /> So, homeless photographs exploit the subject less than the newbie tog does with their family and friends they corral to experiment on.</p>

<p><a href="http://s685.photobucket.com/albums/vv219/keepitlow456/Photography%20BW/?action=view&current=img074-2LR.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv219/keepitlow456/Photography%20BW/img074-2LR.jpg" alt="Photobucket" border="0" /></a></p>

<p>Anyway, I'm looking for a new 'home forum.' My last forum did not like my pix, so here I am. Will see how this one works out.</p>

<p><<<<em>Susan Sontag? She was a mess. Use your own brain, not her's.</em>>>></p>

<p>Hey, thanks for the advice, tog dude. And the impressive vocabulary. And the misplaced apostrophe. :-)</p>

<p><<<<em>Well, I never made a dime of my pix. So not much exploitation there.</em>>>></p>

<p>I see. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hey, thanks for the advice, tog dude.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can't stop laughing! </p>

<p>I think we all need to be true to our own personal values when photographing people. I suppose some photographers are less concerned about making exploitative images of people. I personally am somewhat uncomfortable photographing people candidly; I do get a sense that I am being exploitative to some degree. But, I have done a lot of candid type portraits over the years and I much prefer that my subject is fully aware of what I am doing and I even like to get eye contact for a direct sense of "contact" with me as I photograph them. I think this is one of the hallmarks of my own style. I even do this with portraits of animals as well. </p>

>>> With homeless people, they have nothing else to do.

 

Insightful...

 

>>>They are on the street, I am not wasting their time.

 

And very considerate of you.

 

>>> And such photos may also bring attention to the homeless and help send some charitable $$ to that area of social need.

 

Ahhh... Raising awareness. How noble. And no doubt those charitable $$ are now rushing in as you read this.

 

 

You know, depending on where you live, I bet you can find within a couple of blocks of the helpless guy you snapped up above, three or four able-bodied guys in their 20-30's, hanging

around on the corner in front of the neighborhood bodega; keeping an eye on things, maybe even transacting a little business once in awhile.

 

Why not saunter up to them and take a few snaps? They probably don't have anything else to do, and you won't be wasting their time. And it would

be another awareness-raising opportunity to get those charitable $$ flowing into the neighborhood.

<p>IMO, violent (as in blatant unpermissioned violation of a person's privacy) gets so much social blow-back that it's self-punishing and therefore self-correcting. IMO, the vile face of photographers/photography might better be characterized as parasitic. Where the picture-maker parasitizes his subjects -- insidiously, without breaking any metaphorical skin. Definition of "parasite":</p>

<p>"An organism that lives on or in a different kind of organism (the host) from which it gets some or all of its nourishment. Parasites are generally harmful to their hosts, although the damage they do ranges widely from minor inconvenience to debilitating or fatal disease." -- <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parasite"><em>from Free Dictionary</em></a></p>

<p>Parasite works. </p>

<p>I was looking for an appropriate quote to accompany one of my posts in another thread and came across these two by Arbus, which seem to go along with the spirit of this thread. </p>

<p><em>"I always thought of photography as a naughty thing to do – that was one of my favorite things about it, and when I first did it, I felt very perverse."</em></p>

<p><em>"Taking pictures is like tiptoeing into the kitchen late at night and stealing Oreo cookies."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

[i do think there are aspects to all this that are more than metaphorical.]</p>

<p>Sorry, just found this one, which cracked me up and I thought I'd share it because it's a hoot . . . and distantly relevant when I think about it.</p>

<p><em>"They used to photograph Shirley Temple through gauze. They should photograph me through linoleum."</em> --Tallulah Bankhead </p>

<p>Parasitic may sometimes be confused with a photographer who is simply a curious observer. The subject can often discern between the two and determine which, if either, is a violent intrusion. Paparazzi have a job to do and their sometimes disrespect for the rights of their subject can be termed violent. Many reactions can be expressed by the subject and we have minimal control over that. That my photography of others is non-violent is I trust understood by many subjects by my friendly smile and calm relatively non-intrusive behaviour, mixed with a willingness to either ask beforehand or to comply with the declared wishes of my subject. In great part, the reason I photograph others is to know more about myself.</p>

<p>Arthur, isn't it possible that intent and good will doesn't always matter. Would it be possible to be friendly, smiling, non-intrusively behaved, willing to ask permission and get it, even compliant with the wishes of one's subject and still explore aspects of the acts in question that could be considered violent or parasitic?</p>

<p>As I alluded to above, one of my subjects has come right out and asked to be objectified and fetishized. I have mixed feelings about that, both from an ethical and aesthetic standpoint. Not sure it's what I want to be doing with the camera. Nevertheless, as I am exploring personas and masks and the artificiality I find in the real world, why not a little approved objectification and fetish play? But the approval I have from the subject only carries me so far. There is still the perception of the viewer, not to mention my own doubts and questions about exploiting even with approval.</p>

<p>I find these situations challenging but not always easy to assess. The doubt and questioning is good for me. It's what I mean when I talk about the importance of getting out of a comfort zone sometimes. It can mean doing things that I'm not sure others will understand, even the subjects of my photos, including viewers, and including myself.</p>

<p>I think when I "push the envelope" truly, I can be doing so with uncertainty about some of the ethical, emotional, and aesthetic ramifications of what I am doing. I am learning and actually taking risks. What else would risk be (other, of course, than physical risk)?</p>

<p>What did "The Migrant Mother" think of Dorothea Lange?</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Owens_Thompson">From Wikipedia</a>, "Florence was quoted as saying "I wish she [Lange] hadn't taken my picture. I can't get a penny out of it. She didn't ask my name. She said she wouldn't sell the pictures. She said she'd send me a copy. She never did.""</p>

<p>She felt used. Parasitized.</p>

<p>On the other hand, sometimes the worm turns. For example, Lisa Lyons and Mapplethorpe.</p>

<p>Good point, Julie. She did feel used, and I can acknowledge that and still be glad the photo was taken and has been shown. One consideration that may be important . . . I'll have to think about it more . . . is that Florence seems to have felt exploited not specifically because her picture was taken or because of the way the photo portrayed her, but because she got no compensation for it. Certainly a valid and understandable complaint. But somewhat different than some other photos where the portrayal itself is the exploitation and money doesn't necessarily enter into the equation.</p>

<p>When someone shoots down at a sleeping, passive, homeless person amid garbage, I may well see exploitation right there in the photo. When I look at most of Lange's photos, the expression, environmental context, gestures, perspectives may show sadness and even in some cases resignation or helplessness, but they don't seem to cluelessly objectify or dehumanize, as a matter of fact they do anything but.</p>

<p>Fred - I've been reading this thread with great interest. Its a natural follow-on to the street photography thread where some of these ideas were expressed, and I'm glad you chose to ask this specific question as opposed to having that thread wander off somewhere else. Both have been very interesting. Not my kind of thing - I'm naturally shy and holding a camera doesn't make me more bold as it turns out. I always feel like I'm intruding in another person's space unless I know them quite well, and feel like the whole process is consensual and no photos will be publicly distributed without everyone agreeing. That's just me, but this thread has helped me to put some more of that into words. Having said all of that I find much about some of the photographers mentioned here, and even some of the posters, quite compelling. I think what you, Jeff and Brad produce is marvelous and wish I had that kind of perspective.</p>

<p>On the Migrant Mother question, I disagree a little about Florence Thompson's motivation. One of the things she said was that the photo motivated her and her family never to be perceived as poor again. I understand that motivation may have turned out to be a good thing, but it appears to me that she did not appreciate being presented in the way she was, which I think is core to your point about the power of a photographer in the relationship.</p>

<p>Thanks, David. I hadn't read that about Thompson, so it adds to my understanding of her story.</p>

<p>Photos really do have a power to tell truths or to be perceived as telling truths that not all subjects want to see and not all subjects think are true to begin with. For Thompson, it is likely she saw herself as MORE than just a poor person and I can empathize with her concern that the photos could be seen as having reduced her to just that. There are some ways in which photos are reductive, slices of life, incomplete pictures, sometimes leaving out the bigger picture, the periphery, the "more than." A photo can be merely a glimpse, though a significant one!</p>

<p>Yet a photo can sometimes tell a deeper than superficial truth, a truth as opposed to a literal accuracy. I don't know that I can come up with a good ethical answer to my multi-faceted feelings about certain photographic situations like Thompson's. And there's always a question about individual vs. collective needs. Truth and honesty are usually hailed as virtues, yet do we always want or need to tell or show the truth, especially if the person on the receiving end of it will suffer because of it? And what was the truth in Thompson's case anyway, and from whose point of view?</p>

<p>I think Lange was doing her job and ultimately I hope her work had a positive impact on society and brought to light a situation which might not have been viscerally understood without her work and the work of others like her. I don't know how to assess the overall good those photos may have done and the important picture they showed while also acknowledging the negative impact it wound up having on Ms. Thompson.</p>

<p>It reinforces my suspicion that there really is no such a thing as a universal and/or fixed truth. What is the truth of Thompson's situation and does the photo show the truth? A lot depends on perspective.</p>

<p>The best I can do is be aware of as many perspectives and possibilities as I can and also be aware that there will always be other ways besides my own of looking at something. Humanity and photography are LIMITED by perspective and yet both have unlimited power and potential. Doubt is helpful and important. I think we're ahead of the game as long as we're questioning. And questioning can also be inspirational.</p>

<p>Fred, a curious observer (as photographer in my example) can certainly have an intent that may not be welcome by his subject, but he has at least attempted to obtain the agreement of his subject to be photographed, and if the subject had questions about whether that act would be violent or intrusive or not he has had the ability to say no. Apparently Lange either introduced herself to Thompson before making the image or at the very least had some conversation with her afterwards, at which point the subject might have complained and asked that the picture not be published.</p>

<p>While the act may be considered parasitic and violent to Mrs. Thompson, as Julie suggested, should not the global effect of the image be part of the consideration? I have no statistics to measure the extent of the document as a humanitarian argument, but I expect that most who have viewed it have recognised its value in that sense, one of sensibilising and touching the wider collectivity in regard to the plight, perhaps only temporary, of a mother and her children caught in distraught times and conditions. Photo-violence may be only one aspect among others of different nature, such as this credible humanitarian statement, when it comes to assessing the effect of an image. The famous image of the little girl in Vietnam running in horror from an agent orange or napalm attack is an example of photo-violence towards the subject (or subjects) by the photographer, in a situation where violence is occurring. However, the expression of the image does not reside uniquely in that photo-violence in respect of the subjects (who would not likely have sanctioned a photographic record of their plight) but in the greater value of the image in humanitarian terms and its message about the tragedy and fragility of simple citizens caught in the action of a war zone. Like the Lange picture, the image has other messages and cannot uniquely be characterised as photo-violence.</p>

<p>Just a detail, but the statement of Mrs. Thompson is curious: "She didn't ask my name. She said she wouldn't sell the pictures. She said she'd send me a copy. She never did." How might Mrs. Lange send an image to Mrs. Thompson without having her name and address? Or did the administration have someone who recorded those details of all the subjects appearing in photographs? </p>

<p><<<<em>While the act may be considered parasitic and violent to Mrs. Thompson, as Julie suggested, should not the global effect of the image be part of the consideration?</em>>>></p>

<p>Yes, it should. That's why I said so in the post just above yours:</p>

<p><em>"I hope her work had a positive impact on society and brought to light a situation which might not have been viscerally understood without her work and the work of others like her. I don't know how to assess the overall good those photos may have done and the important picture they showed while also acknowledging the negative impact it wound up having on Ms. Thompson."</em></p>

<p>Arthur, I agree with the sentiments you're expressing. My post above had to do with thinking that there is no either/or, no right or wrong. It can be true that some amount of injustice was done to Ms. Thompson and some amount of good was done with regard to informing society and making it feel something. I don't have to assess that as either good or bad in total. It is what is. Good and bad. Morality, IMO, is rarely simple or black and white and is often a matter of trade-offs and balance. That's life and that can also be photography.</p>

<p>I don't think Sontag was saying that the photographic murder of subjects or the "violence" a photograph can do is necessarily a bad thing or a thing one must avoid. And regardless of what Sontag may have thought, if I find a parasitic or violent aspect to photography, I don't think it has to be (or even can be) avoided completely. I just think it's something worth noting and considering. </p>