Photographic Responsibilities

I'm reading Orson Scott Card's 'Heartfire'. And in it, one of his characters

says, "Being an artist doesn't give you special privileges. If anything, it

gives you greater responsibilities."

 

I think that sums up how art affects the world. It is at its best when it lives

up to its responsibilities. But the more I think about it, the more I think

every artist has a different set of responibilities.

 

I just started thinking about this, so this is very preliminary. But I think MY

responsibilities are in the area of honest appraisal. In that I think I have

the ability to see the value of things that others may overlook or perhaps over

estimate. I think I help the world see the true value of things.

"I think that sums up how art affects the world...I think I help the world see the true value of things."

 

the only responsibility an artist bears is being true to his intentions and inspirations. What you can only do is say with your art and actions "this is what is important to me, these are there true values to me." as an artist that is your highest aspiration.

If others find your observations and opinions to be of value to them, they will let you know, otherwise only expect the world to be indifferent.

"In that I think I have the ability to see the value of things that others may overlook or perhaps over estimate. I think I help the world see the true value of things."

 

Doesn't that suggest that your perception of value is superior to that of others'?

 

I do agree that an artist's ability and opportunity to influence how other folks see the world carries a responsibility for honesty and integrity, but it's still going to be only that artist's subjective appraisal and not some definitive standard held up for others to emulate.

 

Can there be any one "true value of things"?

I don't think art has much to do with value, I think it has to do with feeling and

communication. Value is a concept (whether financial or in terms of "bettering" the world)

extrinsic to things, given to them by outside sources, not something found with the work of

art.

 

Some artists take on responsibility by making a certain kind of art. Others don't.

"Doesn't that suggest that your perception of value is superior to that of others'?" was just asked by Dick Hilker.

 

Of course whenever I chose to breathe air that might be more beneficial to others if I did not suck it up, then I wonder whether I have the right to anyting in the world. Are my values and aspirations, Dick, superior to those of others when I live?

 

In other words, am I simply immoral by living my own life according to my own karma? Should I and everyone simply do a quick suicide, in order to not put one's own above that of others?

 

Original sin or not, that seems to be the question if put that way. And I do not think there is much to that.

 

Each of our lives and purposes is valid. There is no "superior" value or person on earth. We all share our talent and aspirations. And the air and water.

 

And that simple affirmation of ones own life and breath is not egotistical, Dick. Think about it and do continue to breathe, by all means.

A film and a video I've seen in the past week that seem relevant to me:

 

Current version of "3:10 To Yuma" brilliantly teases do-or-die commitment (to good or bad) out of standard frames of reference.

 

Graham Greene's "Third Man" (incidentally with Orson Welles) contrasts values and lack of values (the latter a specialty in "Greene-land").

 

These two seem to me to address the same issue from different angles.

 

"Third Man" also has the very best B&W cinematography I've seen...

 

No male accomplishes real middle age without reading some Greene :-)

..by "lack of values" I didn't mean "immoral" or "amoral", I meant something like "uninvestigated values" or "convenient, perhaps accidental values."

 

In Greene-land, god, if there is such an entity, may not be good, or just may not give a damn. That may be a frightening proposition, only a step away from existentialism, less comfortable than cynicism or post-modernism.

 

Salgado seems to explore Greene-land.

"Being an artist doesn't give you special privileges. If anything, it gives you greater responsibilities."

 

Why would it? and why should an artist have greater responsibilities?Why would Oscar think such thoughts?

 

An artists only responsibility is to be true to himself...if he wants to.

My question, Frank, related to his assertion that he might be in a position to show others the true value of things which they may be less able than he to comprehend. That sounds to me as though he feels he knows more than they do, a seemingly superior posture.

 

As for your karma, run with it -- just not over my toes, thanks. Breathe all the air you like, but please leave enough for the rest of us.

 

Your egalitarian stance is surely noble, but perhaps a bit idealistic. Yes, all men are created equal, but some do a lot more with their share than others -- don't they?

Don, Frank, Artistic narcissism is not an unmixed curse, or not to every narcissist, seemingly. I'm not sufficiently narcissistic to think myself an "artist," for example. My pragmatism shows in my utilitarian images. Still, I may be technically superior in some respects to others.... :-)

<i>I'm reading Orson Scott Card's 'Heartfire'. And in it, one of his characters says, "Being an artist doesn't give you special privileges. If anything, it gives you greater responsibilities."</i><p> This is more sentimental than a practical guide to what artists really do. What exactly did the speaker mean? Did Mr. Card elaborate by development of character or other dialog or means to help the reader understand the sorts of responsibilites he imagined in his character's mind?<p>Who says that art must be preoccupied with message? Surely some of it is, but a lot of photographers produce work that is remarkable for its visual impact and cleverness without a hint of the presence of any sort of outside world at all. How can a reasonable artist take this sort of sentiment seriously?

"Third Man" also has the very best B&W cinematography I've seen..."

 

While "The Third Man" is one of the best of the film-noir genre (thanks to Graham Greene's script), it really is a tribute to Carol Reed's talent and his vision of what the film should look like. You can't really credit a single DP on that film, as Carol Reed insisted on running three separate film crews to get all the shots he wanted - and directing the individual film crews himself.

 

For a singular vision and translation of that into B&W, I still have to go back to Lazlo Kovac's work on "Paper Moon." The choice of prime lenses only, the filtration, and replication of camera movements and scene framing from the 1930's is just a masterful piece of cinematography.

I wonder what other fictional characters hae to say about my rights and responsibilities. (Sigh.)

.[. Z -- try Huck Finn!

I think Glen should see what Tyler Durden has to say.

I think Orson Scott is talking in ideals.

 

It's a pity that in todays world few feel the need or desire to live up to ideals...and take an 'every man for himself' attitude...and we're getting exactly the world (society) that we now, on an individual basis, aim for.

 

A far less than ideal society in my mind.

Bob--

 

The question would be, whose ideals do we live up to?

Take your pick Fred...personally I don't see too much wrong with that age old standard 'the Golden Rule'...you know, do unto others.

 

But thinking such as "An artists only responsibility is to be true to himself...if he wants to." is exactly the thinking that has, on a societal level gotten us road rage, people who ignore others in distress, and on a national level an administration who feels they can ride roughshod over other countries to further their (national) interests.

 

And you know where it all starts...on a personal individual level. Whether it be the pop star/athlete who no longer feels that part and parcel of their millions $$/year salary is to be somewhat of a role model...or an artist that feels his only responsibilty is to him/herself...were building a world where it's every man for himself. Maybe that's your idea of progress...it isn't mine.

Just an aside...Bush recently presented the Dalai Lama with the U.S.'s highest humanitarian award...I doubt he'd feel that artists do not have a responsiblity to the greater good.

 

 

So there's a good starting point Fred.

I think the Golden Rule is a good starting point.

 

So is being true to oneself.

 

We all bear responsibility to each other. Responsibility to self is a good forerunner to that.

Artists bear no more or less responsibility than

others.

 

The honest expression of one's emotions is important. The response of others, in a variety

of ways of responding, is also important.

 

Artists don't have to perform a function.

 

We each contribute what we can.

 

Not all of us spend all our free time feeding the poor. If we were all responsible in any

absolute way, we'd all be spending our time a lot differently than we are.

 

Some contribute by donating, some by soliciting for charities, some by going out into the

streets to make improvements, some by self expression.

 

Sometimes we play. Some would say we have a responsibility to play yet play is by nature

less responsible than other activities.

 

Art is many different things to many different people and I don't think it should or has to

be one thing and I don't think it has to have a particular goal.

 

Self expression and responsibility for self shouldn't be confused with selfishness.

 

I agree with you, we have become a very selfish society. I don't think self expression and

truth to oneself adds to or causes that. I think money, power, selfishness, fear, hatred,

lack of understanding, for the most part, do.

I agree with much of what you say Fred, and think we are probably splitting hairs over the ways we are presenting our viewpoints.

 

As an exhibiting photographer I am 'true to myself'...I think every person on the planet should be, yet at the same time I always try and make myself aware of how my images will affect others. From personal experience...an image taken by an aquaintance of mine...a photo of a grieving mother over the death of her child (for example) that was taken without her consent or knowledge may make a moving image...but it wouldn't be taken by me...it was an invasion of privacy and did cause the family further anquish when it was published in a local newspaper.

 

The above example is what I'm trying to explain when I say that I feel that Orson Scott is on to something. Hiding behind the quise of 'artist' or 'photographer' does not, in my mind give me special priviledge to intrude on others emotions or lives...unless it is for the common good of society.

Bob--

 

I agree that we are on the same track. I'm a philosopher by nature and trade, so splitting

hairs is familiar territory to me. Sometimes, discussing the fine points leads to much

greater understanding than just easily agreeing to agree. I good debate about fine points

often is very enlightening, whether total agreement is achieved or not.

 

I also agree that I woulnd't invade someone's private space in most instances either. Your

acquaintance, I

believe, crossed a line.

 

I do a lot of street shooting and believe that most public activities are fair game for my

camera. I also think homeless people, for example, are entitled to privacy, the same

privacy I am entitled to when I'm in my home. So if someone is sleeping in a doorway, I

won't take their picture. At the same time, there are many good photographers with good

motives who have taken important pictures of homeless people and that puts them in the

public eye and educates society to an extent.

 

We each have to determine our intent. Many of the photographs of homeless people that I

see on PN, for example, seem exploitive to me. Homelessness is an easy way to elicit

emotion from an audience and I think a lot of people think they are conveying emotion by

simply taking a photo of a homeless person. On the other hand, some photographers

involve themselves with street people or approach them in such a way that it feels

sensitive and responsible. It's a very tough line to draw. I think it is often evident whether

someone is taking a picture for their own aggrandizement or they are taking it with

empathy and sincerity. More often, photos of homeless people are taken because they

make good

pictures and not because of any investment on the part of the photographer or because

there is true meaning behind the photo.

 

I try to do the same in my portraits. I think it's fairly easy to exploit people when doing art

portraits, when doing even tasteful nudes as well. I try to explore each person whose

picture I take and bring something out about them. While I may be expressing myself, I

really try not to use people. Look at the nudes on PN. You will see mostly objects. Look

carefully at most portraits. Same thing.

 

Naturally, as photographers, we all "use" our subjects to a certain extent. Recognizing

that, to begin with, is a great step forward. From there, we can all learn when that "use"

has sincerity and when it doesn't. I generally assess photographs, to a great degree, on the

sincerity I think is behind them, among other things. I'd probably start there instead of

with responsibility.

 

Still, there are inherent flaws with any stated starting point to art, so I try to take each case

as unique and assess it on its own terms.

Again, can't say I disagree with anything you've said.

 

I guess it boils down (in my mind) to always trying to be aware of the impact we have on others. As you allude to however, everyone is going to have a different level of where they feel our responsiblities lie. I guess I would just hope that everyone at least gives thought to how their actions affect others.

 

On an aside I've been a photo-net member for years, over on the Leica forum. I'm glad I found this place...I guess you'd call me a serious/pro photographer and a hobby philosopher.

Glad you found this forum, Bob. You will add a lot.

I have to disagree a little, here. I guess the fact that I'm a PJ by profession is a factor, but I

also exhibit, and I never understand the concept that people in public, whether they be

homeless or wealthy, are "entitled" to privacy. Not that I don't understand the ethical point.

I certainly do. But what privacy do I extend to a homeless man sleeping in a doorway by

not taking his picture when hundreds or thousands of people walked by him during the

day and saw him there? Does a photographer have some level of ethical responsibility that

isn't shared by all those other people who looked at the homeless man? Should they have

averted their eyes and not looked? Is ignoring the problem the solution?

<p>I think we attribute too much "responsibility" to what we do as artists. We have far

more ethical impact in other areas of our lives, such as how we raise our kids, than we

could ever have with photos in a gallery. Yet we are more casual about child rearing than

about art.

<p>We have to simply be true to our own vision as artists of any kind. We have no control

over how that art is interpreted by others once it's out in the world. Nor, I believe, do we

have ultimate responsibility for the results of that interpretation. A mother and father see

love and empathy and compassion in a photo of their young daughter. A pedifile sees a

sexual object. Are the mother and father responsible for the pedifile's response to the

photo they took?