Are you an ethical photographer?

[AlanKlein]

Pick your taste:

 

 

Without freedom of expression, good taste means nothing.

 

...Neil Young

 

 

Good taste has everything to do with being cultured and being refined, and if art has to do with anything, it has to do with being human.

 

...Rich Mullins

[tommyfilmist]

For me, a lot boils down to the photo. The photographer’s reasoning may influence me, but what the photo shows will ultimately determine my judgment of ethics.

 

Others have heard Sally Mann’s reasoning and still judge her work unethical. Her reasoning simply doesn’t persuade them. Though I am ok with her photos and would defend them, I leave room for others to judge them unethical. We are not always going to agree on these matters. There’s no universal assessment of most ethical questions.

 

Some people on PN have defended their sexy girl on the beach photos with a whole lot of sincerity that doesn’t persuade me in the least. I judge some ethical and some unethical NOT solely because of the reasoning or motivation of the photographer but because of what the photo says to me. There’s something in the photo I find exploitive regardless of the photographer’s sincere reasoning.

 

Yes.

 

I think the relationship of photo and viewer is another key. A photographer can certainly make a photo, for example, that is a denial of the holocaust or that is in some way racist or misogynistic that is a problem between photographer and viewer more than between photographer and subject.

 

I made a photo recently with a female statue and two close women friends were offended. I stand my ground on my own intentions and at the same time I had to recognize the offense they took once I saw it from their point of view. It’s an important photo for me precisely because it exists in a murky area that makes me a bit uncomfortable. Photos take on a life of their own. Viewers take photos personally, so ethics very often is about the relationship of the photo and the viewer. What a photographer does about that is anyone’s guess.

 

 

This is an illustration of the politicalization of photography with everything else.. the idea that someone with a hairbrained grasp upon reality can brow beat another into surrendering is attrocious.

 

To illustrate, consider a schizophrenic person who goes on a tirade against photos of rabbits for being evil, demented, and speciest because they dont like a photograph you took of your dog chewing on a bunny slipper.

 

That is what you are doing when you are creating laws, morals, and social thought on photos. The LAW is clear on what consittues a crime in relation to photographs of nude and semi nude children. Very clear to all that if any of US walked into a police department and the found a sally mann style photo on our phone, wed be playing "wife" in state prison for 10 to 20 years.

[samstevens]

the idea that someone with a hairbrained grasp upon reality can brow beat another into surrendering is attrocious.

You missed the point of the story. No one browbeat anyone. My friends had negative reactions. No one surrendered. I recognized their offense. There was a dialogue. Hyperbole was avoided. (No one ranted.) Understanding was sought. The photo provoked that. The process worked as it should.

the politicalization of photography

A lot of photos have been political since the beginning. By nature. Not by the meme of “politicization.”

[je ne regrette rien]

I made a photo recently with a female statue and two close women friends were offended. I stand my ground on my own intentions and at the same time I had to recognize the offense they took once I saw it from their point of view. It’s an important photo for me precisely because it exists in a murky area that makes me a bit uncomfortable. Photos take on a life of their own. Viewers take photos personally, so ethics very often is about the relationship of the photo and the viewer. What a photographer does about that is anyone’s guess.

This is very interesting. Do you happen to know whether your friends were offended by the way you photographed the female statue or they were (would have been) offended by the statue itself?

Edited March 26, 2022 by je ne regrette rien

[samstevens]

 

They were offended by the way I photographed it. I sent it with no backstory. After they reacted, I explained that the figure was being dusted in a shop window as I walked by. I anticipated the moment and snapped the shot. I saw the photo simply as a bit of whimsy and liked that it illustrated how timing can tell a story and that something mundane was happening that the photo seemed to transform. I haven’t shown it in public yet, but the three women who’ve seen it in private all took it personally as portraying violence against women. They all viewed it separately yet reacted similarly. I respect them all and their responses mean something to me. I care about the three of them (and other women) enough to take in their response and see it from their point of view. That doesn’t mean I will beat myself up over making the photo. But there's nothing wrong with a viewer's response opening up my eyes to possibilities I may not have imagined. There may be more gray area to be explored than I originally thought.

[tommyfilmist]

[ATTACH=full]1421660[/ATTACH]

 

They were offended by the way I photographed it. I sent it with no backstory. After they reacted, I explained that the figure was being dusted in a shop window as I walked by. I anticipated the moment and snapped the shot. I saw the photo simply as a bit of whimsy and liked that it illustrated how timing can tell a story and that something mundane was happening that the photo seemed to transform. I haven’t shown it in public yet, but the three women who’ve seen it in private all took it personally as portraying violence against women. They all viewed it separately yet reacted similarly. I respect them all and their responses mean something to me. I care about the three of them (and other women) enough to take in their response and see it from their point of view. That doesn’t mean I will beat myself up over making the photo. But there's nothing wrong with a viewer's response opening up my eyes to possibilities I may not have imagined. There may be more gray area to be explored than I originally thought.

 

You illustrate the massive trend in recent years to turn everything politically correct. The fact that people witha political mindset took offense at your photograph based upon their political theology, and then made you APOLOGIZE and feel sorry for taking it shows how it works.

 

There are forums for photography that even hinting that political "equalization", ie giving a photo job to someone simply for not being a white heterosexual male is WRONG unless the person who recieved the job has better photography skills will get your entire account deleted, every thread, mention, reply made to what you said or that someone made to something you posted/threaded is just GONE.

[samstevens]

You illustrate the massive trend in recent years to turn everything politically correct. The fact that people witha political mindset took offense at your photograph based upon their political theology, and then made you APOLOGIZE and feel sorry for taking it shows how it works.

Would you read carefully please. I didn't apologize or feel sorry for taking the photo. That's your agenda-driven projection, having nothing to do with what I wrote or what happened. A dialogue about the photo is not an apology. Willingness to listen and hear a viewer's reaction and even empathize with it is not an apology or a matter of feeling sorry for something. This had nothing to do with political correctness. It had to do with the genuine feelings and reaction of three friends. Good friendships don't evolve without these kind of honest interactions and mutual respect. Get a life.

 

It sounds to me like you've had some trouble on line and your rants are mostly based on that negative experience with others. Sometimes what you may assume is the politically correct police being after you may just simply be others' reaction to a jerk.

[AlanKlein]

Sam was the picture taken in a foreign country and were the women who commented foreign or foreign-born? Different cultures have different standards. What might be acceptable in one place isn't somewhere else. Frankly, my reaction was why is that guy trying to anesthetize a statue?

[samstevens]

Sam was the picture taken in a foreign country and were the women who commented foreign or foreign-born?

No, it was taken in the U.S. a few miles from my home on a nice, generic shopping street.

 

The women who commented are American born.

 

In this case, I sense the reactions would be more different between men and women than between people of different nationalities, but I've only got a few reactions from men and women to go on.

[samstevens]

And ... I think both men and women might see it similarly but react differently. In any case, what the discussion with the women showed me was that I could empathize with them and they could empathize with me and we could each own our differing responses and respect the point of view of the other. No one went into Internet hyperbole mode and no one resorted to twitter-like rants. We were adult, civil, and addressed both reality and photography.

[AlanKlein]

Well, women would be more negatively affected by it. After all, it shows a man who looks like he's suffocating a figure that looks feminine (nail polish, eyebrows).

[samstevens]

Sam, you mentioned that the three women who viewed your photo all formed the opinion that the image could represent violence toward women. Did any of them offer any suggestions regarding what your should do with the image? ie: show or not show it, delete it, never speak of it again, use it in an anti-violence against women campaign?

No. If I were to use it and I’m in a provocative mood, I’d show it as is. If less so inclined, I would create a context for it, possibly with other photos, that would make it less toxic for some viewers.

 

I should add that men I’ve showed it to saw the violence aspect and understood the reactions as well.

[Ian Shalapata]

And ... I think both men and women might see it similarly but react differently. In any case, what the discussion with the women showed me was that I could empathize with them and they could empathize with me and we could each own our differing responses and respect the point of view of the other. No one went into Internet hyperbole mode and no one resorted to twitter-like rants. We were adult, civil, and addressed both reality and photography.

 

Sam, you mentioned that the three women who viewed your photo all formed the opinion that the image could represent violence toward women. Did any of them offer any suggestions regarding what your should do with the image? ie: show or not show it, delete it, never speak of it again, use it in an anti-violence against women campaign?

[tommyfilmist]

No. If I were to use it and I’m in a provocative mood, I’d show it as is. If less so inclined, I would create a context for it, possibly with other photos, that would make it less toxic for some viewers.

 

I should add that men I’ve showed it to saw the violence aspect and understood the reactions as well.

 

 

Your liberal leanings an learnings suck..

 

It doesnt matter if THEY have the nerve to create a false back story to a photo. People do that all the time.

 

Its like the old hamilton versus sally versus sturges debate... hamilton is called porn now,, but the other two are called "art" even though Hamilton used models that were of legal age and actually consented to be photographed.. unlike the other two.