Do you have a photographic ethic?

Norma Desmond · April 7, 2010

Dick, I'm glad you talked about feeling like a hypocrite because I often feel that way, too. I think that's the tension I was referring to. Most significant acts have a bit of a give and take. Life and interactions can be messy and often aren't black and white. Shooting people on the street bothers me as well, at least on some level. Yet, I've done it and can live with it. I judge it case by case, but sometimes even do it despite a certain judgment I make. I overwhelm myself sometimes!

Norma Desmond · April 7, 2010

Steve, thanks. I think much of this is personal and that's how I hope I posed the question and many seem to be taking it . . . in terms of what each of our thoughts are and how each of us chooses to act. I expect that many of us will make different ethical choices and I respect that. That doesn't mean I don't sometimes judge what other photographers do. I wouldn't be honest if I claimed to be without those judgments. But I do try to modulate those judgments and accept that each of us has to live with ourselves. I guess it's up to each of us to determine when someone else is causing so much harm that we feel we should or could step in and say something or do something to try to change their actions.

DickArnold · April 7, 2010

Fred. Probably as you have, I have had many situations in life where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't and you can only await the outcome to determine the efficacy of the decision. And, parenthetically whether that decision was ethically correct in ones mind. Black and White only comes in photographs but surely not in life.

luis_g · April 7, 2010

My ethics can be reduced to "Be kind".

Matt: "Photographs of the day's happenings have huge potential for being seen out of context. It's my duty to compose/show photographs that provide as much context as possible, in order to convey my subject's own ethics as they applied to what he was doing, and how he did it.

...and the issue of hunting is a touchy one in the US. It is a vanishing sport, due to many reasons. I used to do a lot of hunting, now only when invited. Depictions of hunting are very carefully constructed, depending on who's doing the photography and for whom. Context is mutable, both by the photographer and how the viewer interprets it. There are many realities to any visual situation. The photographer, wittingly or unwittingly, emphasizes some, even discards others. The client's ethics are a big part of life for a pro.

David, your regard for the photographic community is a thoughtful point. I think we have trait (what Fred calls 'core') and state (situational) ethics. I have no problems with manipulation in my own work , but rarely take it very far.

Dick, thanks for the wisdom in your hard-earned lessons. It takes courage to acknowledge doubt, and human frailty, something easily avoided by all of us at one time or another.The harmonics of doubt are like a tuning fork, the work and discipline show us our own way.

Dick " I delivered what I promised in a timely manner."

One of my mentors used to say that this was the main difference between an amateur and a professional.

Julie, I share your feelings about caricature when it comes to mean-spirited or denigrating types. But that is not all there is. Leonardo's caricatures and Daumier's, say a lot about what it means to be human. The origins of street photography have tendrils going back that far.

Fred "The making of, the existence of those pictures removes the option of denial."

Hmmm, yes and no. Before they were sent out to others and on their way to becoming viral, it would have been a few keystrokes to make them vanish. And a significant number of them are still denied and kept secret because they show the horrific truth of what transpired there, what we allowed to happen, and most of all, who we are. With regards to what Satan's pro bono barrister (Julie) said, I understand the burden of being a witness. You have to speak up. A photograph speaks on its own.

Wouter, street photography... is a delicate thing. Many layers, lots at play, including one's responsibility. Every practitioner has to hopscotch their way across that mine field in their own way. For me, it is part of a long-standing artistic tradition in which I (sometimes) partake. I feel love and respect, yes, compassion for the sometimes unwitting participants in a play that is writing itself, in which my role is that of participant and editor.

Rajat, I have pointed my camera down at subjects, but never to diminish them. Intent matters and manifests itself in one's pictures.

Leslie, I've found myself in some places with enough hardware dangling from my neck to keep one or two families of the inhabitants alive for a year, if not longer. I understand the implications of offering a gift in return, but speaking strictly for me, I am much more concerned about the people crossing my path, specially the ones who have given me of themselves freely than I am about the zillions of others like me who may follow. When I don't tip in impoverished places, it feels like a kind of imperialism. In the West, I often offer to mail the subject a picture of themselves.

I went through a brief "Bum Period", until I asked myself what was I doing? Why? I swear, I think I heard that bubble pop.

Fred - " I honestly want to steal money from the bank, run by people I hate who I believe have stolen and continue to steal from us."

Wow. I would not have thought Fred had that in him. The idea doesn't even occur to me, though I've had redistribution-of-wealth fantasies on more than one occassion. Speaking strictly for myself, no one forced me to hand my money over to the bank, and for me to do what they did would make me their equal.

"You were there. You did see." So what?

You witnessed, you know, you remember.

Norma Desmond · April 7, 2010

Luis, you accidentally attributed this to me:

"The making of, the existence of those pictures removes the option of denial."

In fact it was the devil in Julie's clothing who said it. I didn't address it but would disagree with it to the extent you have.

As far as the stealing of money, yes, I do think about it and I can live with those thoughts as long as I don't act on them. Likely an imperfection, of which I have many. I don't agree that an immoral response to a wrong done to you, by an individual or an institution, makes you the equal of the one who first perpetuated the wrong. I understand that two wrongs don't make a right, but I disagree that the two wrongs are equivalent. Initiating actions and responsive reactions carry different moral weights for me . . . again, on a case-by-case basis. I also don't buy the idea that I have a choice about whether to utilize a bank. In an ideal view, perhaps. But practically speaking, they are extremely hard to avoid. I'd say they've got us by the balls.

Your response to that simple quote -- "So what? -- absent the rest of what I said about it, leaves me wanting. I'd prefer to hear your considered thoughts on the greater context. It says more than the sound bite does.

Norma Desmond · April 8, 2010

Luis, it's on my mind so I guess I'll reinforce the context of the sound bite you and Julie seized upon: "You were there. You did see. So what?"

I said "so what" to Julie's "You were there. You did see." in the context of talking about the ethical rightness of taking pictures of that significant thing you saw. One can witness and know and remember and even recount without the need to take a picture of it. I'm particularly mindful of this having grown up in a Jewish home where my parents, grandparents, community, synagogue, and others were in a constant state of NEVER FORGETTING. As it should be! A worthy admonition. Good that people could bear witness and good that we all will stay mindful. Good that we have photos as proof, though it's not that effective for the hateful few who deny it and don't accept the living and incontrovertible proof anyway.

By quoting just the sound bite, you and Julie make it sound (not intentionally, I know) like I don't understand the importance of being there, seeing, knowing, and remembering. Of course I do.

What I'm saying with the "so what" is that I don't translate that into a moral injunction (even self-imposed) to take a picture of it. If thousands of guys are taking pictures of the atrocities that I can reasonably assume will bear witness quite well, then I would have to question my own motivation for taking the picture also. I'd wonder if, perhaps, my time might be better spent doing something else at the moment. And I'd wonder if there weren't something a bit self serving about my need to have a picture of my own. I think these things are open to question and I'm NOT saying we should all come up with the same answers. We all make choices among a variety of actions we can take in a given situation. On the other hand, if I knew I was the ONLY witness, and the documentation were solely up to me or if I felt I had such an intimate and unique perspective that it would somehow surpass most of the other images, I would likely feel a lot more obliged to take the picture.

I don't find Julie's devil's interpretation of *not* taking the picture of homeless people very convincing.

luis_g · April 8, 2010

Fred - "What I'm saying with the "so what" is that I don't translate that into a moral injunction (even self-imposed) to take a picture of it."

I see what you mean, and I would agree with that. I also don't take a picture of everything I witness. There's one's own visual vectors, atrocity fatigue,the numbing power of cliche's and more that enter into the equation. I agree that this is open to question, and that we all must come up with our own answers. I mentioned above that I went through a brief "Bum Period", until I asked myself what was I doing? Why? I didn't do it again, but I don't look away either.

______________________________

Sorry about my mistaken attribution. On the bank-robbing impulse, it wasn't something I saw as a flaw (hey, just because I haven't thought of doing it doesn't mean no one else should). I've always been touched by the Robin Hood story, and not just because archery had a place in my family and heart. It was a surprise to find a bit of Dillinger in you.

One question that arises with the " who first perpetuated the wrong." idea is that in the real world, it regularly leads to a lethal kind of "Who's on first" morass, with both sides justifying ping-pong atrocities and enormous amounts of waste of lives and resources all too frequently, while both sides claim the moral high ground. It becomes the kind of problem that can only be "solved" by utterly vanquishing the other, or being vanquished.

Julie H · April 8, 2010

The Devil is feeling thwarted. Carbuncles for everybody. [Off the record >>> *big smile*]

But on his behalf, I sense a contradiction in some of the posts above. One the one hand we have the "be nice" ethic. On the other we have the "warts and all; don't even think about manipulating" ethic. On the one hand we are tastefully control what we shoot; on the other, we're told that we darn well better not pretty things up.

Photography comes with a burden. In many people's minds, photography = history = truth. That umbilical connection to a pre-post-modern conception of a linear history prompts all kinds of ethical imperatives that don't happen to a card-carrying post-modernist.

Related point prompted by Luis's suggestion that digital images can be deleted in an instant. When is it ethically okay to delete? Who is ethically entitled to delete? Nobody? Only the maker of the pictures? Someone with "better" ethical sensibilities than the maker of the pictures?

This connection to ideas of history/truth makes photography different from almost every other hobby/avocation. It entails, at some level, a duty -- until or unless you come to believe that there is no connection (to history, or perhaps to society, ethics being a social/communal phenomenon) and therefore no duty.

Leaving my Devilish job for a moment, I want to mention something really sappy that I take as an ethical part of my photography. Cue the violins and maybe a few trumpets at the end.

For me, and I suspect for many/most people in fields that are about exploring the unknown -- science as well as art -- I feel a duty, not just a for-myself enjoyment, to ... try to the best of my ability. Having been endowed with reasonable cleverness and capability and the good fortune to possess the tools, the time and the opportunity to make/find/do, I somehow feel more than a passive responsiblity to get to it. To strive. For me, this goes beyond just "doing what feels good" or what I enjoy for no reason beyond personal satisfaction. If I'm not using what I've got to the best of my ability, I feel like I'm wasting a gift and that gift (however small or trivial) is FOR something more than just me. This attitude applies throughout one's life, but, at least for me, the sort of inter-mediary nature of photography-to-the-world carries with it an especially communal/social obligation that is governed and driven by ethical concerns. Corny, sappy, a little bit ridiculous, but there it is.

luis_g · April 8, 2010

[Carbuncles are bad enough, but there?]

I think I fit both hands.

"When is it ethically okay to delete?"

When you feel like it. When the towering stack of HDs is beginning to resemble a leaning phallic symbol in Pisa, Italy?

"Who is ethically entitled to delete?"

The creator of the pictures. Sometimes the client or the editor.

"Someone with "better" ethical sensibilities than the maker of the pictures?"

I've been hired, sometimes by photographers, to edit sets of photographs for the web, books and exhibitions. Editing is not identical to deleting, but it has some similarities. It is a tremendous responsibility to know that one's decisions mean some pictures will likely never see the light of day. I've edited the work of one photographer I consider a genius on more than one occasion. It was extremely difficult to select a few from literally thousands of pictures, any of which most photographers would kill to have taken (OK, a little ethics hyperbole). It is a process of successive approximations and sometimes lengthy discussions about individual images, sequencing, coherence, etc.

The problem with the duty thing is that there are, as we've recently seen here, many interpretations of history and truth, therefore there are also different kinds of duty. Whether one sees a linear history, a hypertextual one, pandemic, endemic, hermetic, personal, or fictional, everything, every thought and feeling has a past and a future. One can use a multiplicity of words to address it, but the connectedness (and duty?) is there, even if denied. I think this transcends photography, though it does seem more pronounced with this medium.

Julie - "Leaving my Devilish job for a moment, I want to mention something really sappy that I take as an ethical part of my photography. Cue the violins and maybe a few trumpets at the end....I feel a duty, not just a for-myself enjoyment, to ... try to the best of my ability. Having been endowed with reasonable cleverness and capability and the good fortune to possess the tools, the time and the opportunity to make/find/do, I somehow feel more than a passive responsiblity to get to it. To strive."

I suffer from an equally sappy and similar dharmic affliction. Here I thought it was Catholic guilt.

Norma Desmond · April 8, 2010

Julie, on the matter of some of the contradictions you've pointed to, that's why ethics are so tricky. It is very hard -- and I'm not even sure it's worth striving for -- to be utterly consistent. One has to think about a lot and deeply in order to maintain a consistent ethic and, even then, it will always be easy for another to find holes in your consistency. Since I believe there are a variety of foundations on which a decent code of ethics can be established, different criteria may wind up being applied in different situations. The non-manipulation injunction (self-imposed) may apply in general while specific exceptions to that may be allowed so as to be kind to a subject who might be better served by the removal of warts. As Dick so eloquently stated above, there will often be conflicting ethical interests we face. And humans are bound to be hypocritical at times. Overt hypocrisy and hypocrisy that seems wanton (the kind that allows a politician to espouse family values when legislating and campaigning and cheat on his wife simultaneously) are hard to excuse. The kind of hypocrisy Dick describes, on the other hand, seems expected and understandable.

Luis, to be honest, the first thing that occurred to me after my post on "who first perpetuated the wrong" is that I should have written "perpetrated." Relieving myself of that shame, I can go on ;))))

I agree with you only to an extent. The Middle East conflict, for example, is a good case to help make your point. It's gone on for so long and is by now so mired in "who did what first" and "whose more to blame" claims that it seems wiser to let go of all that (as if it could be done), start from the point we're at, be a little practical, and try to move forward rather than dwell on what happened in the past. Sometimes practicality and survival have to trump deciding on what seem like only ideological ethical battles.

But the counter-argument comes when I think of the case of the religious right in the U.S. and its position against gay people. The religious faction claims that they have every right to think being gay is wrong and therefore the abridgment of the rights of gay people is necessary to fulfill their moral code. (We'll leave aside the fact that a good percentage of the priests advocating this crap are diddling little boys in the protected confines of their churches, one of the great and horrific hypocrisies of our time.) And they think gays are trying to abridge their own religious freedom to be moral and foster that morality by insisting on equal rights. Gay people react to that with some amount of vitriol, telling the fundamentalists and particularly the Mormon and Catholic churches (who spent fortunes overturning approved marriage laws in several states) that they are bigots and trying their best to out-maneuver and out-scream the churches. Many journalists and some news stations will portray this as an equal fight, as equivalent matters, as each group trying to shut the other down or each group simply trying to express themselves. That's ridiculous at this point. Sure, maybe if an actual war ensued between the two factions and real violence were occurring, we'd have to negotiate like we're wanting to do in the Middle East. But at this stage it's pretty darn clear who went after whom first, who the instigators and perpetrators of the wrong against the other are, and who's reacting to being discriminated against vs. who's doing the discriminating. These are not equally competing claims.

Blacks in the 60s were performing civil disobedience (the disobedient part tells us, in some sense, the behavior was breaking an established moral code). It was the right thing to do, the reaction has been vindicated by history, and any "wrong" aspect of it was not at all the equivalent of the wrongs that had been done to the black community in this country for centuries.

DickArnold · April 8, 2010

Matt and Luis. On hunting. I did a lot of it before, probably both of you were born. It was more a part of the culture then than it is now. I hunted pheasant behind dogs in the rice fields of California's central valley and skulled a boat in the middle of San Francisco Bay to shoot ducks. We shot a hell of lot more ducks than my mother could reasonably cook for us to eat. We loved the dogs and they got more attention than I did growing up with them. This leads to what I think has been, for me, a real ethical contradiction. How could I care so much for my own animals and then go out and shoot a deer. I did not resolve this internal conflict until exposed to the wholesale killing in Southeast Asia. When I came back I got rid of my shotguns and my deer rifle and have not fired a shot at an animal since. This is visceral. It is not based in any thoughtful rationale; it is just based upon the fact that I cannot do it any more. I just can't. I don't take any moral high ground. I just can't do it. Hunt if you want this is just personal. I have since taken up a camera to shoot birds. Some of which are in my PN gallery. I like that. I stalk just like I used to do in the rice fields only without the dogs. I am very careful not to disturb the habitat. I lead the birds on the wing in the same way that I did with a shotgun. I don't hit many with the camera but I feel better about the pictures than I did about killing my prey. I understand almost all of us eat animal flesh so I am not completely rational about this. My reaction to killing is physiological more thant psycological. I metally wretch at the thought. I am not on any crusade. I believe photography, in this case, helped me solve my ethical conundrum in a positive way. It allows me to still go in the field and enjoy what surrounds me. I took a lot a pictures in Big Cypress and the Everglades in blessed solitude away from any civilized activity. Just the Alligators, a few crocodiles, the birds and me. And all of us survived to live another day. There is no bag limit on how many birds you can photograph in one day.

luis_g · April 8, 2010

[Warning, a lot of this is somewhat off-topic. If that offends you, please skip over my post]

Dick, I'm in my sixties. Back when I was a boy, it seems like practically every male adult I knew went hunting. It wasn't an elitist sport back then. Licenses were affordable, there was enough public land, or generous landowners to go around.

People even fished out of canoes and old jonboats.

My own, repeat, my own, ethics regarding hunting go like this: Everything that lives must kill in order to eat. When I buy a steak, I feel I am killing by proxy. Once, decades ago, I worked for a long summer at what was then the 2nd largest meat-packing operation in the world, so I have an excellent, first-hand idea of what goes on there, too. That sums my ethics WRT killing game animals and loving my host's hunting dogs, or my porcine cat.

I also respect and hold in reverence the creatures I have killed. Eating them was an intimate meal, a kind of primal communion. Almost from the beginning, as a youth I read, maybe in The Golden Bough, how earlier hunters apologized to their prey for killing them, and prayed for the Animal Master to accept their soul, a practice I have engaged in ever since.There's also a version for the plants we kill to eat, and trees we down to build with.

Curiously, almost all my anti-hunting friends have called me when a beloved pet died, or was about to be put down, for me to remind them of this prayer, or want me to come along, to say it over the body of their beloved. Devotion, respect, and love level most human differences, as we all mingle in one common dust.

Back to photography...I enjoy watching animals in nature while hiking and kayaking, but have no photographic interest in them.

______________________________________

Fred - I see your point about the other side of the coin with the "Who's on first" thing. I think we should be careful about generalizations on this topic. When I was a child, I was an altar boy. I was naive as could be sexually, and surrounded by French Catholic priests, and have to say that nothing untoward ever happened to me from anyone in the church. I often wonder just what the numbers are percentage-wise in the Catholic church. The gay "issue" seems so simple to me....but my own sister (who is very religious) is against gay rights, and thinks of it as a pathology -- and sin, of course. As with the race issue, I believe in the end, the turning point with gay rights will be the military service. I'm in solidarity with gay rights, and civil disobedience, having taken part in more than a few acts myself. Yeah, ethics is a tangle, but a worthwhile one to think about and work with. It's not like one finds perfect solutions or anything, but like all organic processes, it's redundant, messy and sticky.

___________________________________

Norma Desmond · April 8, 2010

"I often wonder just what the numbers are percentage-wise in the Catholic church."

Luis, sorry to go further off topic, but consider this. The numbers are only one aspect. (The number of dollars in damages the church has paid out can be viewed as damning enough.) But here's even more reason to suspect the morals of the church (NOT CHURCHGOERS AND NOT ALL PRIESTS, BY ANY MEANS), as it practices them rather than as it preaches them:

A documentary entitled Sex Crimes and the Vatican, produced by a victim of clerical sex abuse for the BBC in 2006, included the claim that all allegations of sex abuse are to be sent to the Vatican rather than the civil authorities, and that "a secret church decree called 'crimen sollicitationis' ... imposes the strictest oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest dealing with the allegation, and any witnesses. Breaking that oath means instant banishment from the Catholic Church - excommunication." The documentary quoted the 2005 Ferns Report: "A culture of secrecy and fear of scandal that led bishops to place the interests of the Catholic Church ahead of the safety of children".

Canon lawyer Thomas Doyle, who was included in the documentary as supporting the picture that it presented, later wrote with regard to the 1962 Crimen sollicitations and the 2001 De delictus gravioribus, and the Church's formal investigation into charges of abuse: "There is no basis to assume that the Holy See envisioned this process to be a substitute for any secular legal process, criminal or civil. It is also incorrect to assume, as some have unfortunately done, that these two Vatican documents are proof of a conspiracy to hide sexually abusive priests or to prevent the disclosure of sexual crimes committed by clerics to secular authorities."

However, two years later in 2008 Doyle said of attempts to reform the Catholic Church that it was like "trudging through what can best be described as a swamp of toxic waste".

The Church was reluctant to hand over to the civil authorities information about the Church's own investigations into charges. In the BBC documentary, Rick Romley, a district attorney who initiated an investigation of the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, stated that "the secrecy, the obstruction I saw during my investigation was unparalleled in my entire career as a DA...it was so difficult to obtain any information from the Church at all." He reported archives of documents and incriminating evidence pertaining to sex abuse that were kept from the authorities, which under the law could not be subpoenaed. "The Church fails to acknowledge such a serious problem but more than that, it is not a passiveness but an openly obstructive way of not allowing authorities to try to stop the abuse within the Church. They fought us every step of the way."

</blockquote>

Wouter Willemse · April 8, 2010

It's not all that off-topic... How can we be ethical about photography if we do not bear a wider sense of ethics inside us? The examples given are clear examples, to me, of unethical behaviour (by the Catholic church denial, the priests who abused their position, by raving "Christians" who condemn gays on basis of misreading a very old book, and racial issues I don't even want to get started on).

Is it ethical? No, by no means. Moral? No. Is all this human? Yes, I believe it is.

Being an ethical and responsible person is not easy, and takes commitment, understanding, and it requires the insight to take unethical choices if they serve a larger (ethically justifiable) goal. A lot of people struggle to do this, for a wide variety of reasons. Striving to be ethical is also a luxury (of time, oppurtunity, functional brains etc.). Being a moral person, considerate and respectful to others, is not. It's what everyone should strive to be.

Julie argues sometimes, there is a "moral obligation" to take the picture, to let you voice be heard. It's not that I disagree, but that freedom does not always exist, and I'm not the right person for all battles to be fought. Crudely said, the world doesn't always work like that. Might be ethical, but impractical. Fred seems to argue that ethics can change depending on who started... it has a nearly childish sound to it, and I cannot really agree. Because I think it shouldn't be like that, ethics should be near-constants., But we're human, and sometimes you need to fight to keep your place. Morally, I have no issues there. And sometimes you need to stay silent and let the storm pass - again, nothing there against my ideas. And many will argue that it's never ethical, and you should turn the other cheek. Personal ethics differ, but for me, the situation dictates a whole lot more.

Which makes me recall a Dutch documentary on a resistance hero of the second world war. Due to one of his action, several Germans died, and the SS took revenge and killed a lot of people in his village. He felt bad the rest of his life - because he killed people, and because his actions had more people killed. I'd say a highly ethical person, and because of that very condemning of himself. His story tore me up, because he's right, but what he did was also justifiable.

To speak up, or not: is it ethics, or is it a judgement call? Is it being human, and striving to be as good as possible in being just that, taking the responsibility afterwards for the effects of your choice, but understanding also the limits of yourself and what you can do and cannot achieve?

Behind your camera, I think you make a judgement call, which has your (personal and cultural) ethics, the situation, oppurtunity and other influences in it. When you decide to publish a picture in one way or another, ethics play a more present role because you must consider your audience, but it still is a situational decision.

So, am I ethical? No, most probably not, not in the strict sense. But I am who I am, camera in hand or not, and I do have some (moral) values I will try to uphold.

(OK, I guess it's sufficiently clear now I really have no answers, but I found it a waste to not share some thoughts)

aarkp · April 8, 2010

Continuing on my ‘nuts-and-bolts photographic considerations’ theme, <a href="http://giantrangkong.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/photography-code-of-ethics/">here</a> is a link to a blog post addressing ethical concerns in the taking of photographs of people, of wildlife; and ethics in photojournalism. Of course, they are singular opinions and perhaps simplistic.

aplumpton · April 8, 2010

There were some sub-topics mentioned in my initial comments on photography and ethics that I have thought a bit more about.

Responsibility as humans (including and beyond that of photography) :

Each society has its own deontology of sorts. We can see that in the responses above of persons of differing national and cultural background. For instance, and without seeming to appear high-mined, my macro-society (Canadians) rejects the death penalty, believes in social and moral redemption of criminals, established a charter of human rights and the provision of equal medical attention to all of its citizens. Beyond these and some other codes of conduct, the moral and social values of the society ethics are nonetheless there and deeply felt, but more obscure. However, within the society, certain groups, such as the medical doctors and professional engineers I previously cited, possess their own specific codes of ethics or deontology.

Because photography is so varied in its practitioners and their aims, the situation is somewhat like the varied responses of my fellow photographers in the preceding comments, and in some cases hypothetical responses. The lack of a collective photographer’s deontology (except perhaps in the realm of scientific or journalistic photography) leads to some obfuscation of the matter.

The moral responsibility of the photographer is important, but is unfortunately not written down clearly as a code for the group as a whole. I believe it comes down to two things, firstly, the defining of one’s personal ethic (as the thread is titled), which in turn, secondly, intermeshes with whatever collective moral values (or ethics) that might be in place in each cultural region. The ethics of Scandinavian photographers will be different in some details from those of a Nigerian, Indonesian or American photographer and will influence the confluence of the two codes.

I originally mentioned the famous photo by Kevin Carter, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his photo of the young child dying under the patient gaze of a vulture. Some viewers are influenced by the photo and might have intervened rather than passing it off to other aid workers, or at least to use it to militate in eliminating abject poverty and creating a level playing field for the children of the world, while others may consider it as, or simply write it off as, the collateral damage of a war and something we cannot do anything about. It comes down to one’s definition of personal moral responsibility and not something the photographer can ignore because he is somehow remote from what is happening by being behind a camera and its lens.

When you happen to be in a position where you can help, I think you are morally obligated to do that. The judgement of where and how is perhaps not always clear, but at what point do you decide to stow the camera and help? At what point does your humanity and ethics become more important than getting the image?

Legality and ethics :

The use of babies and small children to advertise commercial products is accepted in some cultures and highly disdained in others, as also in the case of the sexualisation of vent children and attempts thereby to create lifetime consumers. Photography becomes a tool in those endeavours. Legal? Yes. Ethical? Not in all societies. The collective moral values of a society add to or subtract from the photographer’s personal ethic. If there are seven or more persons in a scene that is being photographed thee is in many jurisdictions no need for the photographer to obtain the acquiescence of the individuals before using the photograph for commercial use or widespread diffusion. In some cases this recognized legality of not obtaining approval could be unethical.

A former Prime Minister of Canada, Monsieur Chrétien, suffered polio when young and retained an inability of use of some of his facial muscles. This lead to awkward appearing expressions when photographed and some journals and photographers used these images when portraying the vents en reported vents. Legal, yes. Ethical. I think not (at least not regularly). Caricatures, as I think Julie pointed out, are not ethical, at least not for those other than sketches in the editorial page and meant not to be serious or to convey the political context or humorous absurdity of an event but not necessarily to reflect negatively on the person. A caricaturist’s legal position, but not a photographer’s (who is making greater claims for reality)

Private and public spaces :

Evidently, the privacy of private spaces does not transfer to public spaces. It is OK in my mind to photograph in the latter, but not without considering the consequences of our images. A public space has its private events or visually demeaning situations and the consequences of photographing them should I believe be considered not lightly by the photographer.

Crossing lines :

Ethics and taste seem to me to be often confused. Taste is personal, but also reflects cultural values or experience. Taste is to leave on or turn off the TV, or switch to another program, when scenes of easy violence or demeaning sex, or esoteric art or literature, or other scenes we wish not to view are presented or about to be. Ethics have more to do with the reasons the director of the program has produced, or perhaps should not have produced, those scenes. Crossing lines can occur when he may be contravening a society ethic, or in our case when you know a photographic situation is not ethically palatable, irrespective of questions of taste, but you cross the line anyway. If the reason is sincere and constructive and related to an ethical or important social message, it may well be OK (as in some art) to cross the line.

aplumpton · April 8, 2010

For the philosophers who may have trouble with my logic and values, herewith a commentary on the way engineers consider life:

To the optimist, the glass is half full.

To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.

To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Norma Desmond · April 8, 2010

And many just pick it up and drink! ;)))

Julie H · April 8, 2010

"... the glass is twice as big ..."

"... just pick it up and drink!"

= [a short while later] ... Niagara Falls.

Norma Desmond · April 8, 2010

. . . right through the looking glass . . .

aplumpton · April 8, 2010

Good spontaneous responses, but my error in adding slightly self-depracating humour at the end of the post, or maybe the philosophical discussion has run its course?

luis_g · April 8, 2010

Arthur -" The lack of a collective photographer’s deontology (except perhaps in the realm of scientific or journalistic photography) leads to some obfuscation of the matter."

Which to me seems like a good thing. One of my favorite things to get spontaneity out of models is to give each of them separate, and slightly different instructions. They enter into an unexpected situation and the results are often much better than a heavily scripted one.

Arthur -The moral responsibility of the photographer ... is unfortunately not written down clearly as a code for the group as a whole.

Nor should it be. We're creatives. The moment we get a code like that, the best of us will turn it inside out in our work. The day (less than a month after 9/11) the cops announced it was illegal to photograph Chicago bridges, I photographed every single bridge in the Loop. I even got a few cops to pose on the bridges.

Arthur - "The ethics of Scandinavian photographers will be different in some details from those of a Nigerian, Indonesian or American photographer and will influence the confluence of the two codes."

Seems ideal to me, allowing for maximum diversity and locality.

Arthur - "When you happen to be in a position where you can help, I think you are morally obligated to do that."

Ideally, yes, in reality, things like disaster fatigue displace a lot of feelings.

Arthur - "At what point does your humanity and ethics become more important than getting the image?"

I have fast reflexes, but I've rescued people out of crashed cars and not taken a single picture.

Arthur....The stripperization of American culture can't be complete unless it involves children! What are you, a Commie? :-)

Arthur - "Evidently, the privacy of private spaces does not transfer to public spaces."

In a public space, people also have responsibilities. The onus doesn't all fall on the photographer. There's another concept that we don't usually consider at all: Private time. a lot of gestures can be considered shared with only one person, but when photographed, they cease to be. Photography is as much (or more) about time than it is about space and the forms that occupy it.

_____________________________________

Fred, thanks for the addendum on the Church's handling of their sexual predators.

Norma Desmond · April 8, 2010

"The moral responsibility of the photographer is important, but is unfortunately not written down clearly as a code for the group as a whole." --Arthur

I would address this for different uses of photography. In terms of my own use of photography, I don't see much difference between photography and other art forms. There are no ethical codes written down for painters or sculptors. I imagine there may be some for architects because of the more practical side of their creations. Architects have to deal with all kinds of regulations. I've mentioned that the relationship between aesthetics and ethics is tricky because, to some extent, art can supersede morality because of its artificiality. But it would be a mistake to think of art as amoral. A lot of art is about moral stuff and a lot of moral questions come up, as we've seen in this thread. Because the artist-photographer, artist-painter, artist-sculptor has so much more freedom than the doctor, lawyer, or building contractor, his moral code will naturally be more individual and less codifiable.

I make verbal or written agreements in advance of making a portrait even when there is no pay involved. Especially when doing nudes, we discuss parameters and there may or may not be lines that don't get crossed. It's only happened once that a guy I photographed signed a release, did a bunch of nudes, and he then decided he didn't want any of the nudes to be shown to anyone. As disappointed as I was, I honored his request even though he had signed the release. I wouldn't have felt comfortable binding him to such an agreement.

"At what point does your humanity and ethics become more important than getting the image?" --Arthur

I can think of a couple of times. It didn't seem like an ethical choice at the time. I wanted to be fully engaged and felt the camera would get between me and the moment, a feeling I don't often have. One was at Denis's special needs community. We were in a group circle and people were sharing about their week. It was quiet, still, and seemed like the right time to set my camera down so I could be present and the click of my camera wouldn't distract others. Soon afterwards, Emily's out-of-town sister arrived and Emily jumped up and shrieked with joy. It would have been quite a shot of Emily in the foreground and her sister walking into the great room in the background. I did wind up getting <a href="../photo/10509185">THIS SHOT</a> once they came together.

Another time was in Florida, when I took my dad to visit a dear friend of his, my dad in his eighties, Harold over ninety, both widowers. Harold had had throat surgery and couldn't speak, but still had his sense of humor and smile. The two were hand gesturing to each other seemingly in complete understanding. The lighting was amazing and their love was oozing all over the place. I was impotent. I could not reach for my camera.

The first situation I have no regrets about. I did what I considered the right thing and don't mind not having the shot I might have taken. The second situation I have regrets about. Harold died not long after that day and I do regret not having a picture of the two of them. It would have meant a lot to a lot of people, me included. The first situation didn't have much of a moral tinge to it. The second did for me. I didn't want to exploit an intimate moment between two friends and didn't want to disrupt the sweetness of the mood. I now realize I would have done neither. I wasn't a stranger to either of them and I shouldn't have felt like an onlooker. I was participating in their joy and conversation and the camera could have been an extension of me. From that experience, I learned! At least the picture remains in my head.

P.S. Luis, this is getting eerie. Once again, we've written simultaneously, so I'm sorry for any redundancy. I haven't read your comment yet. I will now.

aplumpton · April 8, 2010

"The stripperization of American culture can't be complete unless it involves children! What are you, a Commie?" (Luis)

Luis, I appreciate your other comments, but on this one, you've completely lost me. "Stripperization"? "Commie" (why invoke the former soviet social system)? Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what you are attempting to say and what part of my comments it possibly refers to.

luis_g · April 8, 2010

Arthur, "stripperization" refers to the sexualization of everything in the US, including children. We now have "sexy" lingerie for sub-10 yr old girls. The "commie" comment was in jest, meaning the stripperization is part of capitalism, and to offer resistance is tantamount to treason.

Sign In

Do you have a photographic ethic?

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