Ethics, Art & Profit

[lex_jenkins]

Ethics and art don't go together. History shows that when artists are pressured to behave "ethically" the result is propaganda.

 

You wanna talk ethics and photojournalism or documentary photography, fine. But keep ethics and art separate.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Maybe art can be the pattern on a tin can peppered by a daisy BB gun too? :)

[photo_dark]

I honestly have come to believe that art is truly one of humanity's greatest paradoxes. It is everything and

nothing. It is ethical and un-ethical. It is 100% in the eye of the beholder.

 

How can we quantify something that is so varied and diverse as ethics? Especially with respect to something as

varied and diverse as art. Especially since none of us ever really seem to see eye to eye on anything anyways ;)

[michael_darnton1]

Lex says:

"Ethics and art don't go together. History shows that when artists are pressured to behave "ethically" the result is propaganda."

 

You're probably thinking Soviet Russia. I'm thinking the Renaissance, and that this may not be a bad thing, appropriately utilized.

[lex_jenkins]

Nope, I wasn't thinking of Soviet Russia. The nexus of art and ethics resulting in propaganda crosses all boundaries of geography, culture and time.

[cheryl_jacobs]

How about we look at this from a practical have-to-make-a-living standpoint?

 

It is, in my opinion, a mistake to judge a photographer's intentions by whether or not they're profiting monetarily from their

work. Think of Mary Ellen Mark's brothel photographs. James Nachtway's image of the starving boy having his food

stolen by a rich man. Both photographers were making a true effort to expose injustices and spark change. However, if

they hadn't profited from the work, how could they afford to continue their efforts? or feed themselves? Or do we have

to literally be starving artists if we want to shoot social commentary?

 

Eugene Smith's image of the Japanese girl in her bath; it was sad, disturbing, and devastatingly beautiful all at once. It

was an amazing statement about the fallout of human conflict. It is also an incredible piece of art and if I had an extra

$50K or so, I would own it. Anyone who thinks social commentary and art are mutually exclusive should go have a look

at this piece.

 

- CJ

[Spearhead]

<i>However, if they hadn't profited from the work, how could they afford to continue their efforts? </i><p>Here's a statement from Mary Ellen Mark in one of her books:<p><i>Working commercially for magazines, film companies and advertising agencies enables me to support myself and my personal work.</i><P>There you have it.

[cheryl_jacobs]

Well, great for her, but she's a major exception. And I'm curious whether you see anything detailing what she does with the

profits from the books, films, and gallery shows of all that personal work?

 

Regardless, if a photographer needs the money from their social commentary to continue to do the work, I fail to see why

they should be judged harshly for it. I don't know too many of those photographers who drive porsches and dine on caviar.

 

- CJ

[cheryl_jacobs]

So here's a question. All those Renaissance artists who profited from painting the crucifixion of Jesus..... unethical?

[lex_jenkins]

Better still, when Tom Cruise takes a photograph, does he put his ethics in it?

[Spearhead]

<i>And I'm curious whether you see anything detailing what she does with the profits from the books, films, and gallery shows of all that personal work? </i><P>I don't know about the shows and films, but the financial value of photography books to the photographer is close to zero.<P>I met up a couple years ago with a documentary photography, book on Aperture, other books, widely published. He went through the payout from books. He makes a living shooting postcard photos that he doesn't even put his name on.

[cheryl_jacobs]

It's important to also remember that profit comes in many forms. Mary Ellen Mark may funded her own personal projects,

however she has profited in the form of wide-spread recognition and artistic credibility. That directly translates into the

ability to secure more well-paid assignments and commissions, as well as charging good money to teach workshops, give

lectures, etc. She has certainly profited off her personal (mostly social documentary) work, as she has every right to do.

 

- CJ

[roger krueger]

So ditch the DSLR and donate the money. Or use the time you spend taking photos and do some practical good in your

community.

 

We lack the strength to confront the callousness of the choices we make, so we get all high-horsey over moral trivialities

trying to feel better about ourselves.

 

Someone starved today in Africa for my art. Yours too.

 

Deal with it. Or cling to your denial--not my problem. But quit trying to reclaim yor moral superiority on the back of someone

else by getting all preachy about some subject's dignity.

 

Look at Winogrand's legless Legionnaire. He's being shot because he's a freak, he's looking right at the camera, he knows

damn well he's being shot because he's a freak. Yet the shot has a punch-to-the-gut power nearly unsurpassed. I'd trade the

dignity of a whole boatload of people for a shot that good. Not even to have a shot of my own be that good, just to have

something that good exist in the world.

[steve_mareno]

I would say that if anyone is interested in defining what art is, then they are probably incapable of understanding it. That's OK too. Art isn't for everyone. Surely it isn't a verbal thing. Of course much of it is in poor taste. Just like most poetry is bad. You just have to wade thru it to find the real stuff. Unethical can be defined as in poor taste. If it is unethical it isn't art, it's something else. Maybe Bad Art.

 

Sooner or later you get down to what someone smarter than I said back in the early days of Modern Art. It's either good art, or it's bad art. And if it's good art it's good art because I (he) says it is. This presupposes that the particular critic knows something about art that you (us) don't. Louis Armstrong said the same thing about music (or Music). When someone asked him whether he listened to country or other kinds of music he said "There's only two kinds of music, good music and bad music".

 

Anyway, someone's wedding photos on flickr ain't art, so it's a non issue.

[lex_jenkins]

<i>"Anyway, someone's wedding photos on flickr ain't art, so it's a non issue.</i>"<p>

 

What about a photographic homage to Jan Van Eyck's "Arnolfini Wedding" on Flickr. Meet your definition of art, or is it the choice of display site that invalidates art?

[jon_kobeck1]

well since my destitute series is such a hot topic, here is the link:

http://www.jonkobeck.com/gallery/13439/Destitute

 

For those who think this is exploitive I can tell you its not. Its generated alot of controversy and your discussing it, so it is

in essence socially redemptive.