Ethics in/of Photography

<p>I am researching ethics in photography criticism, writings by art

historians, and statements by photographers. I have read Susan

Sontag's <i>On Photography</i> a number of times now and have not

found another book where as many ethical claims on photography have

been made.</p>

 

<p>So far, I have looked into feminist criticisms of pornography,

numerous discussions regarding manipulation of photographs, and

journalistic practices (such as the ASMP's and NPPA's codes of

conduct), among other things. I would like to know, from those

people who have thought about this:

<br> - What readings have influenced you the most?

<br> - Are there photographers who you think have conducted

themselves in an exemplary manner and who have expressed their

reasons for doing so?

<br> - Regarding people who criticize photographers (or individual

photographs), have there been any who you strongly agree or disagree

with?</p>

<p>Much thanks to anyone who takes the time to respond!</p>

About pornography in general I'd suggest Andrea Dworkins book. I didn't go on reading

about this topic, because this book gave me enough to think about.

Critics: I believe something of the articles against Leni Riefenstahl are exagurated; I myself

rather admire people who do good work according to the crafts rule, than bashing them

for ethical reasons.

I also suppose if one is involved to much in ethics his greatest chance to become famous

is as a nonphotographer.

Try "The Photography Reader" edited by Liz Wells, published 2003 by Routledge, London.

I'm sorry to hear that "On Photography" is a main source of

information. It really is not a very good book. Very fuzzy thinking.

However, there are no books specifically on ethics and photography.

 

But to answer your questions:

 

As far as photography and ethics, there have been no written work

that has influenced me. Photographs influence me more ethically. The

ones I am drawn to appear to be honest - whether they actually are I

don't know. My upbring is more of an influence then anything else.

 

Eugene Smith has commented on ethics. You can get a good interview

with him in "Dialog with Photography" by Paul Hill and Thomas Cooper.

There are other interviews in that book which you may also find

interesting. Most photographer do not talk about ethics because they

believe what they do is ethical. Ethical judgements are usually

judgements from the outside.

 

Susan Sontag would be, off the top of my head, the person I most

disagree with. Mostly because she is not saying anything. Her work is

really a mental fantasy. It is a type of academic intellectualism

that is based on unproven assumptions. Personally I find most critism

whether positive or negative not very good. It seems to be solely

from writers. I find photographers understand the art and issues

better, but most photographers in print are usually not our best and

brightest and seem to be best known for their words rather than their

images.

Oh dear. Will is a bit of a downer. I like good photography criticism, and I found Sontag's book very thought-provoking. She has written recently about the Abu Gharib photos, as you may be aware. One of the most obvious areas to think about ethics is war photography (a rather obvious counterpoint to pornography: sex and violence). Also the issue of photographing homeless and/or vulnerable people. You will find quite a lot of low-brow discussion of this issue in the archives here on PN (much of it repetitive). For a more authoritative discussion, try Don McCullin's autobiography - and there's also a very good documentary on James Nachtwey.

 

I discovered an interesting thing when reading a history of the Magnum photoagency: that many Magnum photographers feel it is their ethical responsibility to present a particular, compassionate, humanistic view of the world, and that as a consequence many of them deeply resented the recruitment of Martin Parr to the agency, because they felt his photos did not toe this ethical line. That issue might be worth exploring in more detail.

...whether an artist admits it or not is another story. Art can be

about ethics but mostly it's about passion, beauty and finding our

own truth.

Susan Sontag's <b>On Photography</b> and her essay on the Abu Gharib photos are excellent. Also, I would recommend Roland Barthes' essay <b>The Photographic Message</b>

try "Why People Photograph" by Robert Adams, "Looking at Photographs" by I can't remember who (my copy is at home), and for a dynamic feminist read, check out Naomi Wolf "The Beauty Myth- how women are affected by stereotypical images of beauty". <p>A.D. Coleman wrote some fabulous articles for Camera and Darkroom many years ago and one is a perennial favorite of mine, an article called "Critical Distance" which greatly helped me in assessing my own work... t<p> The book that helped me most to enjoy seeing as I walk through the world is not really about photography at all. "Pilgrim At Tinker's Creek" by Annie Dillard is probably my favorite book, period. So far. I strongly recommend it.

Don't know if its quite what you're looking for, but Ansel Adam Letters and Images (edited by Mary Street Alinder and Andrea Fray Stillman) has a great deal of stuff about philosophy of photography in the form of Ansel's letters to his friends (the Newhalls, Stieglitz, Weston, Strand, Lange, and others) and others. Not so much ethics as philosophy, but still interesting stuff, especially since the majority of it is absolutely candid. In particular, what Ansel thinks of the depression era documentary photography and what it means to photography as an art is fascinating, not to mention his detestation of Edward Steichen and his philosophy of photography.

 

Again, most of it is philosophy, not ethical discussions on whether or not is is moral to take photographs of this thing or another, but rather what he believes is progressive to the art of photography vs. derogatory to it.

 

In addition, to anyone interested in Ansel Adams for any reason, this book is great, with a good range of well reproduced images and a great selection of letters to give insight into his life.

Terry wrote<p>

 

<i>In addition, to anyone interested in Ansel Adams for any reason, this book is great, with a good range of well reproduced images and a great selection of letters to give insight into his life.</i><p>

 

Thanks for the heads up. Found a used 1st edition, hardcover, w/dust cover at Powells.com for thirty-five bucks plus some additional shipping as I was able to add the order to a pending order.<p>

 

Gonna have lots of reading this Winter during the seasonal downtime:)<p>

Graham Clarke's <i>The Photograph</i> ('97, Oxford University Press) is a well-thought-

out treatise and historical overview. A basic premise is that photography is essentially

non-neutral, no matter the photographer's intent; it is always a part of the cultural context

of the individual who creates the image. A great basis for any venture into critical thought

about the medium.

<p/>

<a href=http://meital.iucc.ac.il/users/www/10769/

How%20Do%20We%20Read%20a%20Photograph%20by%20%20Clarke%20WeB.htm>The

short version</a>

"A basic premise is that photography is essentially non-neutral, no

matter the photographer's intent; it is always a part of the cultural

context of the individual who creates the image."

 

As well as the cultural, social, and pychological context of each

viewer. The social position and psychology of the artist would need

to be included too. But this idea has been around for a long time and

fairly well proven.

"Ethics is how the world stands." Wittgenstein. Photography is the picture we take. Photography, like science takes place within a "research program(Imre Lakatos)." Either you see it or you don't,

as in Dorthea Lange. You understand (or don't) what is trying to be said. As an epistemology, a critique of knowledge, it is Art with a captial "A". It shows the limits of our understanding. It shows what we think is understanding and shows us something new. And becomes a new metaphysics. A new fundamental assumption that guide our thinking and photography (our pratice) (R.G. Collingwoood.)

Walter Benjamin wrote something on photography, he was very much into the meaning of and the use of art (differences between metaphor and allegory), and the fact that things can be reproduced indefinitely, but I don't remember exctly where I read about it. In its collection of short essays probably as a student.

I couldn't take Susan Sontag very seriously as a spokesman on ethics after she wrote in a national magazine, "White people are the cancer of the earth." It is unethical to make such a bigoted statement. It is also, in her case, ungrateful. White soldiers died by the hundreds of thousands in defeating Hitler and saving her and her relatives from the ovens. And it was white medical professionals who made the discoveries and administered the treatments that saved her life when she actually contracted cancer.

 

I can't take Andrea Dworkin seriously on any subject. Her writings give off the unmistakable scent of madness. She's the one who said that heterosexual intercourse is inherently degrading to women. She has no grounds for that opinion. She's gay, and therefore can never know what heterosexuals experience.

 

Read Camille Paglia's devastating analysis of Andrea "buckets of chicken soup" Dworkin. It'll blowtorch away any thoughts you might have of taking Dworkin seriously.

<<About pornography in general I'd suggest Andrea Dworkins book. I didn't go on reading about this topic, because this book gave me enough to think about.>>

 

You didn't go on reading because Dworkin's book meshed with your prejudices and you didn't want to risk running into counter-arguments. But, you will never feel intellectually honest until you face challenges to the Dworkinesque views.

 

And you don't even have to read Dworkin's critics. Just read art history to see how ideological, uninformed, and irrational Dworkin is on this topic. You will also see why, in a hundred years, after the PC clouds have blown over, people will laugh at Dworkin and at anyone who ever took her seriously.

 

Don't be fodder for the ridicule of posterity. Dworkin's kind of propaganda is delicious for those who swallow it, but its effects are a stunting of the intellect and a loss of the ability to see life for what it really is as opposed to how it appears through a fun-house screen of unjustified resentments.

Your first question. Does it not depend on the individual? I am a veteran pro-active photojournalist of the Balkans wars and one of the very few who went so far but remain alive. The book, 'Patches Of Fire,' by Albert French is very dear to me, but it is not abook about photography. Wuthering Heights and Dracula and 1984 and The Man In The High Castle and Susan Sontag and If This Is A Man and many others are also dear to me.

Your second question. I look at some of the work of some of my favourite photographers, Leonard Freed, for example, has he conducted himself in an examplary manner, obviously.

Your third question. Whether I agree or disagree with somebody doesn't matter, what matters is stimulating/satisfying my inner self on a soul level, I don't really mean it that crass, I hope you can appreciate what I mean.

I hope my comments are interesting, Kind Regards, Andrew J.Chapman. I wish I had more time.

Hi, I am a beginner and I love photography. There are lessons to learn from what has come before without doubt, but what comes next is only possible with some imagination, that is the way I see it.

Anyhow, I think that photography has three sides to it, the first is the photographers mind, the second is the subject, and the third is the viewer of the photo. There are complex ways to see that or simple ways, I prefer the simple ways. In other words I try to see things as they are with my own eyes and not through the eyes of any said genius or other diagnostic matrix of evaluation, empirical or otherwise. The coclusions I will come to will form my ideas and drive my imagination, the if's and but's and arguments along the way are of little interest to me. That is my philosophical response to the ethics of photograpy in a nutshell.

 

Cheers.