Photo-violence

Norma Desmond · August 7, 2012

“To photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as they never see themselves, by having knowledge of them that they can never have; it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed. Just as a camera is a sublimation of the gun, to photograph someone is a subliminal murder - a soft murder, appropriate to a sad, frightened time.” --Susan Sontag, On Photography In an interview a while back, Johnny Depp was asked what it was like to pose for the cover of Vanity Fair. “Well it just feels like you’re being raped somehow,” he said.

_______________________

Vulnerability of subjects can run the gamut from discomfort to feeling violated. And, in the role of photographer I have sensed some play with the notion of camera as weapon (sometimes projected onto me by subjects, sometimes considered by myself) and felt that a camera has the potential to force itself on a subject, even a willing one. The power of some subjects can also be enormous and I can sometimes be made to feel quite vulnerable myself.

There is obviously a metaphorical aspect to this violence or rape and I worry that it could be seen as trivializing actual rape, which is not artistic, photographic, or metaphorical. My guess is that Sontag was, in part, relying on the shock value of the analogy in order to pierce social sensibilities about the times in which we live, the veils of privacy that have been lifted if not ripped off us, the raw power of taking pictures. The power to create, the power to fabricate, the power to show harsh realities, voyeuristic power, journalistic power . . . I can make someone look good or bad at my whim, I can create a narrative about someone or about a situation if I want. I can embarrass someone (notice the many shots poking fun of fat people), exploit someone (pathos-eliciting shots homeless people who don't have a place they can call their own where they might escape the gaze of prying eyes and lenses), even my own agreed-to portrait work where I do consider exploitation factors, plays of power, sublimation, making intimacy public.

I am conscious of working with various discomforts (though not always when I'm actually in the process of shooting) so Sontag's and Depp's passionate (and disturbing) metaphors work for me and intrigue me, though they DON'T completely describe or pretend to describe the photographic act, but rather an aspect of it or of its potential. And you?

User_5888660 · August 8, 2012

I've been feeling very depressed lately. Suicidal actually. Now I don't have to buy a gun and blow my brains out--I'll just take a self portrait. Goodbye cruel Photonet.

cyanatic · August 8, 2012

I am mostly not conscious of violating people when I am photographing them, and mostly not conscious of it even afterwards. I am intrigued by Sontag's comments, much less so by Depp's. (Mostly because there is context, a rich before and after, for Sontag's words, very little for Depp's.) I rarely analyze what I do, or why I do it (photographically, not in all aspects of life!) For me it's a little like being in a car that is driven by someone else. Outside of it being a very powerful and satisfying outlet for my creativity, I do not really know why I spend so much time taking, and working on, photographs. I don't know why I am drawn more toward certain types of photography than others. My most deeply satisfying images are the ones I take of people. Even photos I may take of buildings, or alleys, have an implied human presence to them. Scenics, landscapes, and beautiful sunsets are throwaway, incidental shots to me.

So this deep urge to photograph my fellow human beings in candid situations overrides any sense or concern that I may, in fact, be "violating" them. And that, to be honest, is telling in its selfishness. Selfish not because I don't care, selfish because I am so absorbed in it that I very rarely stop to consider whether there is even anything to care about.

There is some ethical and moral governance at play. I don't want to embarass, exploit, or humiliate anyone. I may take 10, or 20, or 100 photographs in some public setting and come away with only one or two that I may post on my blog, my website, or on photo.net. That one image is a pointing to a moment and saying, "Here, look at this. Do you see the moment, mood, or significance that I have found?" It's never saying, "Here, see how pretty, or ugly, or sad, or ridiculous this person is". That's not an excuse or an apology, that's just the way it is for me. But then, if I catch an ugly, sad, or ridiculous moment, it does not end up being the one image of the 100 that I choose to share with the rest of the world.

I can only think of one candid image I have taken, and shared, that gives me pause. It's of two older women at a Balkan Festival at the University of Chicago. They are dressed up, and made up, for the night. In a manner, perhaps, that seems to be a reaching back for their youth. (Something which, at my age, I can empathize with.) I caught them uninintentionally in a quiet and reflective moment. They appear tired, haggard, bored, and very much alone. Was that the truth of that moment for them? I have no idea. But it appears that way to me. It is not a flattering moment. There may be many other candid photographs I have taken which would seem a violation to the person(s) who appears in it. But none seem so blatant a potential "violation" as the one I've just described.

Perhaps, Fred, it is easier for me in that the vast majority of my images are candid. But you, who seem to concentrate more on interactive portraiture, have a heavier burden and responsibility toward the people you photograph. I catch as catch can. Your moments are all intentional. Offset somewhat by the act of willing participation, but in that willingness they have put themselves into your hands so to speak. Or is the comparison between candid and posed not relevant? It's just a thought that occurred to me.

luis_g · August 8, 2012

Although her point has substantial ground to stand on, I personally disagree with Sontag on the gun/murder issue. Photography is routinely masculinized with memes like "Shooting", "Weapon", etc., which Sontag read as she did in the above quote, for me photography is a very feminine endeavor, and personally more akin to (still?) birth than it is to 'murder'. When we see anyone else, or they see us, they re seen " as they never see themselves, by having knowledge of them that they can never have..."

I agree that "...it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed.", perhaps far more literally than that. Feshitization is one of the things photography does effortlessly and well -- within limits. Of course, there are different kinds of fetishes, and they range from the benign snapshot to the opposite.

A lot of it depends on the photographer's philosophical approach (not necessarily at the time of the photographic act), but the reality is that there are other sentient parties involved, and their attitudes are often unknown and/or unspoken. Just because someone doesn't react does not mean they were in agreement or comfortable with being photographed. Many photographers, myself included, develop awareness and strategies to deal with this. Visual dominance, mesmerizing, extreme speed, taking advatage of distractions, learning to discern between the the all-too-easy dualities between introverts-extroverts, powerless- powerful, angry/tense-laid back/easy going. These paths facilitate but also define one's work, and their effect can be seen as repeating tropes in the work (not that IMO, SP doesn't suffer from beat-to-death cliche'd, outdated versions already). All of these approach-avoid axes define our landscape and aesthetic.

I am concerned with what passes through the boundary layer between my subjects and I. Some discomforting photographs also happen to be extremely compelling, and it isn't just with SP, but when there is a kind of social contract, as with consensual ad even formal portraits. Portrait photographers pushing their subjects outside the boundaries of their expectations is commonplace.

How to justify this risk-taking with another human being? What is fair or unfair? Even in nature and/or animal photographs there are socially acceptable ethical limits. How do we settle these debts to others and to ourselves? The SP/photographic tradition provides support for the photographer, but less so for the subject.

monika_epsefass · August 8, 2012

A violation implies that there is no consent. If I agree with another person to take pictures of him/her, it's a mutual act. If afterwards, both parties agree on which images are being shown, it's also a mutual act.

Granted that in some moments it may be delicate to request authorization or consent, then what I'd rather see as a violation is the type of 'street photography' showing people in whatever unfortunate pose they might find themselves in, and without giving them the tiniest chance of letting them know. This in particular as IMHO, photography is a more than intimate issue - if I take portraits (or other pictures of people), I'll know all their weak points afterwards. I know every mole, spot or bruise. At the same time, the object of my desire completely surrenders to whatever I'll do.

Susan Sontag's approach may be a bit harsh, but it's a confrontation, and any other way she probably wouldn't polarize with this statement.

Just as a camera is a sublimation of the gun

</blockquote>

Strange enough (as you raise this issue here), in Germany a book called "Photo shooting" has recently been published, which aims to teach on the psychology of being behind the lens, and not behind the camera, and which strongly relates to an article by Susan Sontag. The cover of the book shows a man pointing a gun at the photographer.

Julie H · August 8, 2012

I don't think it's about photography; I think it's about power. The camera just happens to provoke the event.

"Soldiers now pose, thumbs up, before the atrocities they commit, and send off the pictures to their buddies. Should we be entirely surprised? Ours is a society in which secrets of private life that, formerly, you would have given nearly anything to conceal, you now clamor to be invited on a television show to reveal. What is illustrated by these photographs is as much the culture of shamelessness as the reigning admiration for unapologetic brutality." -- Susan Sontag; 'Regarding the Torture of Others'

steve_swinehart · August 8, 2012

Tired, worn out metaphor. With 100's of millions of cell phones with cameras being used daily - there's a lot of "raping and violation" going on. Funny - no one seems to notice or complain.

Julie H · August 8, 2012

OP >>> "In an interview a while back, Johnny Depp was asked what it was like to pose for the cover of Vanity Fair. “Well it just feels like you’re being raped somehow,” he said."

Comparing a Hollywood star (who depends on photo exposure for his living) getting his photo taken for the cover of Vanity Fair to rape is offensive and belittling to rape's true victims.

Norma Desmond · August 8, 2012

Like cameras, it's provocative to think of penises as weapons or guns as well. Challenging metaphors can be inspiring to consider. The analogy is part just imaginative fiction. Luis's analogy to birth is another idea I can carry with me when photographing. Any of these analogies can be useful to try out or keep in mind as well as being descriptive of what's already happening. Some aspects are quite real and do point to ethical matters. Monika, candids are as likely to be emotionally distanced as intimate. And posed shots can reveal much later on through accidents and surprises. Subjects have told me they had no idea what I was visualizing, no clue how background, lighting, or my perspective were imposing themselves on results. A photo can go beyond what they thought they were agreeing to, beyond what was seeming to happen. Steve Gubin, more and more, I've come to see the the superficial (what we see on the surface) as a gateway into the significant. How someone looks, what they wear, their girth, their awkward smile or even their pearly white teeth can be very important to the more significant effects of a photo. Photography is visual and, even in candid situations, I have chosen to shoot certain people because ofhow they look, though that's usually a beginning. One reason I included what Depp said is that I wanted to provide something from the perspective of a subject. No one's ever said to me they feel like they're being raped though, as Luis mentions, the dynamics can and have gone to places where we have pushed beyond some boundaries that do feel palpably uncertain and/or questionable. Some subjects have surprised me by pushing me. Luis, I like the point you make about the lack of support for subjects and think that's part of what Sontag was getting at, or at least what I have taken away from various discussions.

shutterbud · August 8, 2012

What a load of rubbish. Depp is living in a fantasy world and should stop doing movies immediately if he feels like this. Sontag seems to have personal problems. Of course it is possible to make exploitative photographs because it is merely a device under the control of humans. Honestly, some people need to be reminded there's a lot more to worry about in the world.

luis_g · August 8, 2012

"A violation implies that there is no consent."

That's not always true. Lots of famous and I imagine a lot more non-famous photographs involved pushing the subject around. At what point that becomes a violation is hard to say sometimes.

"... what I'd rather see as a violation is the type of 'street photography' showing people in whatever unfortunate pose they might find themselves in, and without giving them the tiniest chance of letting them know.."

That depends on a lot of factors. I do both consensual portraits on location and SP. Subjects vary tremendously. Some love the camera and even ask you is there's anything you'd like them to do, others are shy and/or reticent, more guarded and/or defensive. Curiously, the camera seems to love many who do not love it i return.

As I mentioned earlier, it's easy to pick out the extroverts, or to go to venues/events where they gather. SP is full of 'good' pictures of them. But even they do not have control of the photons bouncing off of them, and a lot of that responsibility lies in the hands of the person with the camera.

One easy way to tell the degree of the comfort level of a subject in a typical smiling portrait is by their smile. A genuine smile involves the squinting of the eyes that causes crow's feet. A camera smile does not. Errol Morris wrote a great account of this in "Believing is Seeing", a great reading for photographers. While eminently useful for this thread/discussion, the masculine 'weaponization' of photography is the common default. It dominates the language, therefore the landscape and discourse of photography, with the consequences that Sontag mentioned. Alternate treatments, to me, seem truly provocative -- if not subversive, but that's another thread.

Norma Desmond · August 8, 2012

Luis, I haven't read the Morris piece you reference. Thanks. It stimulates a couple of thoughts.

I might oppose a camera smile to a natural one. I have often found camera smiles to be very genuine reactions to cameras, part of a long tradition of how people almost automatically react, often showing a very genuine side to people. I wonder whether a camera smile says much about comfort, as sometimes people seem very comfortable in their somewhat traditional put-on grins for the camera. And both camera smiles and non-camera smiles can be uncomfortable. Many candid smiles look uncomfortable and are. Though I've noticed smiles causing crow's feet, I've never noticed a camera smile not doing so and will have to watch out for it. That's intriguing. The same way I talk about the truth and even authenticity of personas and masks, I would consider that adopting a smile for the camera, if played right by the photographer and presented right, could convey a whole lot of genuineness. At least I would challenge myself, even in family snapshots, to do just that. Though I've been known to give instructions to family members NOT to look like they are smiling in a typical way for the camera, finding alternatives to that reality could be unauthentic or disingenuous in certain ways as well.

aplumpton · August 8, 2012

Another interaction with either a stranger or a known person is that of verbal exchange, which can be thought of as being in some ways parallel to that of a photograph. I was with a European distant cousin the other day and we were both visiting a local site when a stranger suddenly entered into conversation without any prior introduction of himself. For me that was a bit like a photographer pointing his camera at an unknown (or even known) human subject. My reaction was immediately interactive (the initiator was careful not to enter that close one foot or so of private space) and the discussion ensued solely on the basis of its content. My cousin was visibly annoyed at this unsought interjection and didn't take part. The difference between that conversation and being the subject of a photograph, rather than an impromptu discussion initiated by a stranger, would seem to be that in the verbal example the subject can interact with the initiator and so is not disadvantaged or threatened by him, whereas seldom does the photographed subject get to see the image and be in a position to agree or disagree with his involvement as subject.

Violence may be too strong a term for the action/result of an unexpected or unsollicited photograph, but other terms, such as invasion or appropriation, may apply in some cases. There are several photographs in my collection that are of subjects that I have never communicated with - although in some cases I have later made that attempt when my objective was to diffuse the image to a public - and whose opinion of my photograph in the sense of what it says about them may not be entirely acceptable to them. The other factor that can emphasize the aspect of invasion or appropriation is that a photograph is normally recognized by the photographer and his subject to be the product of only a very small fragment of time, which may not (or may in some cases) accurately represent the subject and therefore be unwelcome (an appropriation?).

shutterbud · August 8, 2012

I never keep a photograph which shows a person in a humiliating light. I've deleted several shots taken inadvertantly of people picking their nose or looking annoyed at my presumption- that's fine, it just gets deleted, sorry to bother you. I have kept a couple of shots when I feel the annoyed person is commenting on me, from a position of power, as in "Look at the idiot Westerner" or " Stop looking at my beautiful daughter". "Street photography" of prone homeless or beggars is too easy and exploitative, unless it's part of a series which will definitely be exhibited in, say, The City of London. I might try to snatch a click very quickly (such as spinning round unexpectedly when there is a group behind commenting on my foreign-ness) and I try to be subtle, but never covert. I think if you're not trying to celebrate the human condition you shouldn't be taking photos of people.

aplumpton · August 8, 2012

Too late to re-edit in place, but my last parenthesis was meant to read: (appropriation and/or perceived distortion).

Norma Desmond · August 8, 2012

Arthur, your comment makes me think further about there being some sense of "violence" (or perceived violence) in the fact that a photo can be a very different animal from the thing it is a picture of. People expecting an "accurate" or "representational" likeness can sometimes feel violated by a photographic rendition or interpretation that sees something very differently from the way they saw or perceived it, often and especially including photos of ourselves.* On the other hand, some viewers are delighted by the difference between what they remember having seen and the alternative visions a photo can show them.

* Ironically, sometimes the accuracy of photos of ourselves is what feels like a violation, when we would prefer not to be shown the truth.

aplumpton · August 8, 2012

Fred, you are right that the result is often a surprise or a sense of violation of "reality" when the subject can view his or her image. I am more concerned however with the "inequality" between the photographer and his subject, when the person suspects that he or she will (or may) never have a chance to see the result, contrary to the greater ability to retort to an unsollicited verbal interjection by a stranger. Can we say that a person who has given consent to being photographed and to see the result is in as insecure a position as someone who is a subject and has no or little control over the action and result? The latter goes beyond the question of accurate representation and may be considered as some form of aggression by the subject.

Norma Desmond · August 8, 2012

<<<Can we say that a person who has given consent to being photographed and to see the result is in as insecure a position as someone who is a subject and has no or little control over the action and result? >>>

Sure, I suppose so, in the sense that the latter will often never even know where the former may very well have to live with and be embarrassed by the result. I don't think there would be a universal way of looking at which is a more potentially offensive situation. I think it would depend on each individual case.

<<<The latter goes beyond the question of accurate representation and may be considered as some form of aggression by the subject.>>>

I assume you mean "aggression by the photographer?"

I agree that consent could be pivotal here and lack of consent does lead to certain ethical problems. To me, it would be less about the subject not getting to see the result and more about the subject not being provided the opportunity to give permission, though some street shooters claim that being on a public street is tacitly giving approval. I am skeptical about this claim morally even though the legality seems to be established in most cases, though the use of photographs can affect the legality.

That being said, as Luis says above, even someone consenting to be photographed can be pushed around and taken advantage of, violated on some level. Their getting to see the results won't necessarily mollify the feeling of having been violated and in some ways seeing the result will actually add insult to injury.

richard_john_edwards · August 8, 2012

Fred

I can agree that photographing someone can in a way "violate them" people have sued over defamation because an image has portrayed them in a light that is contrary to their approval and paints them in a bad light. To me this is the exception rather than the rule. There are just as many photographs that make people look better or portray them better than they actually are. (so i would not call that violation).

I have recently done a series of portraits that depict the subject in a very different light than what there character actually is. IN Fact they are quite negative and confronting. I did however advise the model that this was my intent. One of them in particular depicts the girl in a manner that could be construed as violation, perhaps even violation of trust, I had issues when i posted the image because of this. I was not sure if i had gone to far and would offend the model. (even though it was my intent and i had advised the model of that intent.)

rossb · August 8, 2012

For 20 million dollars a movie I would feel excited about being photographed. But in the real world it does not make any difference to me if someone wants to take my picture.

Norma Desmond · August 9, 2012

<<<I think if you're not trying to celebrate the human condition you shouldn't be taking photos of people.>>>

Stephen, I understand the sentiment behind this and find it an admirable approach, though there are situations where important photos don't celebrate the human condition. Examples I immediately think of are photojournalistic/documentary, where human degradation might need to be shown. I'm thankful we have pictures documenting the holocaust and, though many of them show the strength and incredible humanity of those being or about to be slaughtered, many show the depths that humanity will sink to. Photos of lynchings in the U.S. show the evil and base side of humanity. Photos of criminal acts can help police find perpetrators and can show our darker side. Finally, even art photos can depict drug addiction, alcoholism, crime, degradation, meanness, often with much less than a celebratory tone though still conveying significant human emotions and occurrences.

__________________________

Richard, thanks. Your uncertainty seems like a good and constructive place to be. Part of my purpose here was to do some honest questioning about what I do, what we do, and what is the potential of our chosen means of expression/communication/depiction. Honest inquiry and doubt is healthy. I've had my own conflicts with a few subjects about my depictions, as I said in the OP. There's even been some ironic tension with one particular subject who prefers to be what I would consider fetishized and even objectified. It's been interesting to deal with that and to recognize some of the positive aspects of doing that (especially at a subject's request). It can be done with the recognition it's being done which I think is different from being done without a clue that you're doing it. I hope the difference would be noticed in the results, especially in the course of a body of work if not in an individual photo. While a single photo might seem to exploit, when put into the context of other work, it might have a very different effect. One might have to or at least choose to exploit in order to comment on it and transcend it in some way. Or at least one might have to risk appearing to exploit in order to accomplish something real at times. Or one might fetishize without judgment one way or another in the hope simply of provoking the viewer. Such provocation can have significant effects. It will often not really be done in the mode of celebration of humanity.

shutterbud · August 9, 2012

Fred, the rationale behind taking pictures of atrocities is surely to try to ensure those responsible are punished and to make a repeat of those acts less likely. I have no experience of this kind of thing- the nearest I got was visiting the Hiroshima memorial in the UN Building, which made me feel sick to be honest. But it is of course deeply important that these images are captured for all time. The films of Guy Ritchie stand out to me as a perfect example of how NOT to film violence as he has always struck me as celebrating and revelling in depravity. Those who cherish our humanity must do everything they can to ensure it is protected from those who would take it away. I do not envy photographers working in Gaza, Fallujah etc.

Norma Desmond · August 9, 2012

<<<Fred, the rationale behind taking pictures of atrocities is surely to try to ensure those responsible are punished and to make a repeat of those acts less likely.>>>

I don't necessarily think that must be the case. I think they can be made as documents of what is happening or has happened and can be judgment free. I think that's just as valid as making such pictures for propaganda or with an agenda in mind, good or bad. Some picture-taking is done without the knowledge or context to know what the ramifications of the actions being photographed are. They are made out of curiosity or a NEED to photograph, an inability NOT to take a photograph. They aren't made with the intention to celebrate or degrade. The judgments and contexts will come later, if at all.

Some photos are voyeuristic in nature, not high-minded.

luis_g · August 9, 2012

Arthur - "Can we say that a person who has given consent to being photographed and to see the result is in as insecure a position as someone who is a subject and has no or little control over the action and result?"

Is that purely situational, or dependent on the individual, too? I think both. It's not just being able to view the result, but do they have any control over it? Perhaps the very revelation of seeing it makes them aware of something that feels like a transgression, something that they would have been spared if they had not seen it.

Stephen - "...looking annoyed at my presumption- that's fine, it just gets deleted, sorry to bother you."

Some pictures of annoyed, bothered, or pushed-around people are great photographs. For me, this issue is not so clear-cut in terms of approach-avoidance.

http://www.mnartists.org/uploads/news/296324a2f66138be951a51c79c92defb/296324a2f66138be951a51c79c92defb_scale_411_419.jpg

Stephen - "I think if you're not trying to celebrate the human condition you shouldn't be taking photos of people."

I understand the sentiment, but think there's a lot more to photography than that. The idea probably reached its photographic peak with Steichen's exhibition The Family of Man in 1955.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_of_Man

https://www.google.com/search?q=steichen+the+family+of+man&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=5YQjUPCIPJP08ASx2YHYBA&ved=0CEIQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=496

shutterbud · August 9, 2012

Well, I'm sure you could make a lot of great photographs if you had good equipment, a tripod and held people down while torturing them. Hey, zoom in on a mother's face while she witnesses her child being killed. Lots of "pathos" there no doubt. That's not really the point is it?

Sign In

Photo-violence

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in