Photographic ethics

[indraneel]

<p>Charles, your image brings up old memories. Over 5000 people died from mostly heat stroke at Varanasi in the summer of 97. Not as many died the subsequent year even though the temperature soared higher, because people were better prepared to deal with the heat and knew what not to do. Other than making the general public aware, images like these were probably also responsible for initiating more research in India on climate changes.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, no. We simply disagree.</p>

<p>I don't know those people you are talking about who would deny others the right to photograph. I thought we were talking about choices we each make as photographers.</p>

<p>Art may be subjective but I hate when it's used as an excuse to do anything, with no sense of concern or responsibility.</p>

<p>Again, I'm not saying people should be stopped from photographing. What I am saying is that it's good to think twice about abusing others in order to get a shot.</p>

<p>Morality is usually a matter of weighing things. Getting the picture may create a greater good than the good of the individual subject. It also may not. Aesthetics with no ethics is a sham, subjective or not.</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>Susan - this may be of interest to you in some ways: <a href="http://www.david-campbell.org/2011/07/16/thinking-images-v-20-famine-iconography-failure/">Famine Iconography as a sign of failure.</a></p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I would recommend that you read 'Unreasonable Behaviour' by Don McCullin (particularly his photographing the dead soldier) and also look up the photograph 'Tomoko and Mother' by W Eugene Smith, and study the history of it. This latter is a case study in photographic ethics. Another that has just come to mind is the execution of the Viet Cong soldier, photographed by Eddie Adams during the Vietnam War. One can justify a photograph perhaps by appealing to the 'greater good' but then one has to decide what constitutes the greater good.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>"One can justify a photograph perhaps by appealing to the 'greater good' but then one has to decide what constitutes the greater good." Excellent point, Chris. What it shows is that photographic ethics simply is ethics, as applied to photography. The fundamental issues in the study of ethics are no different. Whether my act of assisting a coworker in the office was right is no different than whether McCullin's photographing the dead soldier was right. It's the same issue, just dressed in different clothing. </p>

[luis_g]

<p>I think there's at least three levels involved in this. First, the choices the photographer makes afield. He has to come back with more than enough material for the story. Hopefully several stories. Second, the editors choose what to publish from what the photographer brings in. Third, the consumer decides what to watch or read, completing the circle, and providing feedback to the other two parties.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Susan: There is a large body of law about the use of personal images -- with restrictions and exceptions. The literature is extensive. This is settled law. There is also the emerging law of privacy that may have some application here -- particularly as so many smart devices incorporate photographic or video capabilities. You might look at the site run by Ann Cavoukian (a privacy commissioner in Canada). I think the larger and more interesting issue you raise is the one of the ethics. I would take the position that we should be compelled to share the images of the distress of war. It may be the only way for many to learn of the perils of war and possibly contribute to the diminishing of conflict. There are many aspects to the ethical issue that may or may not be influenced by the motive of the photographer and possibly the viewer. I think this is certainly a subject worthy of a doctoral dissertation. </p>

[alan_zinn]

<blockquote>

<p>Susan Santog says we should not take photographs of distress or war</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Susan L.<br>

Can you pass on the Sontag source please? I'd like to see it in context. Seems a bit broad. I asume you are refering to Salgado-type coffee table art books and not editorial books if a line can be drawn at all. Self-promotion isn't un-ethical. Hard to tell where exploitation begins in photography.<br>

Can't believe the subject of <em>Guernica</em> remotely enters the discussion! </p>

[andrew_gardiner]

<p>Following on from Alan I also wanted to ask where specifically does Susan Sontag say you should not take images of distress and war? I have been searching through my books and can't find the passage you're refering to.</p>