Reluctant subjects

[albert knapp md]

Chip- You did the ethical thing by asking and then RESPECTING

their wishes. You will never know their motives but it is their

perogative. You "shot" at photographic immortality will come

someday! In the interim, I respect you.

[nesrani]

What a lot of words about a picture that never got taken!

[rene_c.]

Andrew,

 

It's true that PJs typically shoot first and ask questions later. But, when they

are trying to shoot an intimate story on a person's life, permission is required.

That's when they can lose out.

 

-Rene

[michael_bender]

Actually, in this case Rob Appleby is right: <br>

why talk, adjust your behaviour to the circumstances and remember that your aim is to produce images.<br>

AS an aside,

<br><i>"3 generations that dedicated a good portion of their lives serving our nation, demanding peace as opposed to war"</i><br> is a bit too thick about a Korean, Vietnam, and Gulf war participants.<br>

It's like saying that now 80-year-old Vermaht soldiers did their duty for their Fatherland - they actually did. It should never be said. The proper attitude is to be ashamed of it.

[cd thacker]

Hi, Chip,<P>

 

Just a couple of things that were rolling around (like marbles) in my skull earlier today. This probably is already clear to you, but just in case - when I talked about pursuing the story, I meant, of course, photographically. <P>

 

It seems as though there are two (at least) fundamental approaches to shooting - the "wedded to the aesthetic", more or less single image approach - typified by, for instance, Ralph Gibson, William Eggleston, even HCB, really - largely non-judgemental and apolitical, and treating its subjects almost exclusively as picture elements, rather than social concerns; that's the one approach. <P>

 

The other is perhaps more narrative, possibly more concerned with documentation, but in any case more concerned with telling a story, usually involving social issues or human problems, often told sequentially - and this might be typified by, say, Eugene Smith, Rob Appleby (not necessarily in that order) (hope you don't mind, Rob), or even Nan Goldin. (And then there are those, such as Salgado, who it seems to me fall somewhere in between; and those more difficult - for me - to place, such as Mary Ellen Mark.) <P>

 

For the story-teller, obviously each picture is important, but not if it's at the expense of the whole story. Whereas, for the shooter of solely aesthetic concerns, the image is the only thing that matters, and there is no story beyond it.<P>

 

What I've found that works for me is to decide and make a commitment to what kind of shooting I want to do, in a given day, month, year, decade. Then I treat it accordingly - as a professional, with a firm idea of where I'm going with a shoot - not what I'm going to shoot, but how and why. I think having that kind of clear idea and commitment is the most important thing - it really adds to your confidence level, as well. Knowing where you want to go is the stage; getting there is the improvisation.

[cd thacker]

Hope you don't mind my adding those additional words.

[cd thacker]

And obviously - I add this before someone else does - the categories drawn above are somewhat arbitrary. The important thing, I think, is not the examples I give - those are the trees. The important thing is the forest - how you have photography mapped out in your own conception, and having a pretty good idea of where it is you belong and want to be on that map. That's what i was trying to say.

[Alex_Es]

Chip,

 

I think I understand the medals. They add authority to the protest. They cut short a lot of personal attacks.

 

Photographs would have been great. The good fellowship is also great. I agree that you did the ethical thing in respecting their wishes.

 

One reason they might not have wanted to be photographed would hae been because they may have felt terrible personal sadness about protesting against institutions that they had dedicated their lives to. No doubt they are questioning their lives.

 

I recall a film clip of Vets protesting the war in Vietnam by throwing their medals into a pile by (I think) the Washington Monument. It was, you could see, painful for them to do this.

 

A photo of the medals alone would not have told this family's story. You'd need words. Their words as well as your own.

 

Best,

 

Alex

[roland_schmid]

For me it is quite simple: if I leave people, which I photographed, with a bad conscience, I did something wrong and it was not worth the picture.

[louis1]

I spoke to a relucant subject and got 2 Good Photos. Story etc:

<hr width=30% size=4 noshade>

<p><h3 align=center> <a href="

http://www.photo.net/photo/1323758" >Click

for photo </a></h3></p>

[stephen hazelton]

What is your motivation to photograph? And what is their motivation to be photographed? You get a good picture. You can perhaps sell it for money, or post it on the net. They get nothing. And perhaps some personal embarrassment at some point from seeing their actions out of context. You have nothing to lose and something to gain by taking the picture. They have nothing to gain and something to lose by posing for it.

[a._goldeneagle]

<P>*Sometimes* it makes sense to offer to simply shoot and .. remove

and give-them the film.</P>

 

<P>Why?<BR>

Because it means creating ongoing connection with them,<BR>

it offers trust,<BR>

it changes the relationship from "I take, and you are merely my

subject", to "we act, we choose" <BR>

( the emotional dimension is waayyyy too oft ignored by the

'efficient' values, and yeah, even mathematics is discovering

emotion's existence, re the replacement for "game theory" that is

called "drama theory" ), <BR>

it widens one's network/web of aware minds .. who can, if

cultivated, contribute to one's opportunities...,

etc.</P>

 

<P>IF it is committed this way.</P>

 

<P>Downsides? it costs a spool of film..</P> <BR>