Ethics and taste and what we can do.

rvaubel said:
If every photoghrapher had to go through all the moral gymnastics that folks are going through here, all we'd have is pictures of our dogs.

That's not fair, and you know that. Jon raised a problem about taking pictures of a dying person (or dead) in a critical moment. Now, if you consider it's the same as taking picture of your dog, fine. I don't agree, or rather I deeply disagree.
Except if you're a photojournalist, and that's a significant event, there's no justification for taking photo of a person hit by a car. I've got some books of Salgado, HCB, Ronis, Arbus, Charpentier, Lange ...etc. I've never found such pointless shot. If it's for a personal album ... it's just gross.
Now, taking pictures of the rescuers sounds a really great project, and totally different from a moral point of view.
Best,
Marc
 
re: ethics and taste and what we can do

re: ethics and taste and what we can do

since this thread is about moral and ethical considerations in photography...

i have wrestled time and time again with the dilemma of making/taking, posting and/or publishing images that depict personal suffering.

i am not a working journalist, although i have been at different times in my life.

i went to beslan, russia in september 2004 five weeks after the terrorist siege, attack and massacre there at middle school number one. my reason for going was to deliver a community relief effort. that trip changed my life forever.

while i was there i had the opportunity to photograph some of the survivors during interviews being done lynn lansford, a wonderful person who had also started a relief effort. we joined forces back home and travelled together from texas. the people i photographed gave me permission to do so and were so open, unguarded and trusting. as they related their experiences, the grief and suffering on their faces was almost too much for me to bear, too personal and too private for me to intrude upon with a camera. still, i made those exposures for "the world" to see and connect with a person, not just statistic in another story in the news.

upon my first visit to the bullet-riddled, explosion-torn, burnt-out shell of the gymnasium at the school i faced addtional moral and ethical concerns. this was where approximately 1,200 children, teachers and family members were held hostage during the three day seige. this was where close to four hundred of the hostages died and almost the same number injured. while there i saw people placing flowers, bottled drinks, cards, letters, poems, drawings, photographs, and packaged food items upon memorials in the gymnasium. i couldn't bring myself to photograph them from a close distance. i made some exposures with them farther back in the frame because part of me believed that "the world" needed to see these also.

another instance occured when we visited the newly created section of the city cemetery. we had brought, by airplane and train, some 3,000 teddy bears and other stuffed animals to place on the graves of the victims. each one had a tag attached to it with the first name, age, and a message from it's sender. a group of junior and high school girls helped us set out each one. there were many, many survivor family members there that day. some were lovingly adding finnshing touches to the sites, bringing fresh flowers, and mourning their lost loved ones. some were crying softly and some were wailing and calling out the names of the dead. it was difficult enough to photograph a site where a photograph or photographs of the victims was attached to a cross or monument. i found it impossible to photograph the mourners, again, at a close distance, and made a few exposures with the mourners towards the back of the frame.

very recently a web site about the journey and continued efforts to do whatever can be done for beslan was created. it is still under revision and not complete, please check back from time to time for updates. the soon-to-be non-profit organization being formed is called NEVER FORGET BESLAN. the web site came to life as a direct result of scott sexton (sexton consulting of austin,texas). he is a true angel for donating his time, energy, and skills as a web designer to help the people of beslan. great guy, big heart. the website address is: www.neverforgetbeslan.com (i apologize for being such a tecno-klutz and not knowing how -yet- to create a link )

back to the issue at hand. out of my respect for those who died and concern for the survivors i still have qualms about some of the images posted in the "photographs" section on the web site. one of the main goals of NEVER FORGET BESLAN is to make sure that the tragedy that happened there is never forgotten. i believe some of the very images i have qualms about posting must be seen by the world to help achieve that goal. there are links to related sites with more graphic images in articles by various media agencies.

most of us have lost a loved one at some point in our lives and we remember them with fondness and a bit of sadness as well.

still, we remember them. they live on in our memory. the lives of those lost in beslan deserve to be remembered as well. they are not just names of strangers, people we never knew... they are a part of the family of the world - the family of mankind.

what happened in new york city, washington d.c. and in that pasture over pennsylvania on september 9, 2001 tore at hearts not only here in america, but throughout the world. memorial sites have been built and services have been held in many countries out of respect for our loss. i recall reading an article in "usa today" that the earliest condolences to the horrific events of 9-11 came first from former soviet union countries and the russian federation.

as i see life in my mid-fifties, the more we care about the world, the better the chance we will care about our next door neighbor, our co-workers, the man at the news stand, the woman at the toll booth or the driver next to us in traffic. the more often that happens, the better the chance that person will do the same for someone else. when we put caring into action, that has got to be a step in the right direction as our world grows smaller and smaller. i understand that not every kindness or consideration is welcomed, acknowledged, warranted and often not returned in kind.

will it make everything in the world "right"? no.
will it solve the myriad, complex social, political, economic, ecological, ethical and religious debates/battles/struggles going on around the world? no.
i believe itt can give each of us a chance to make a difference in our world.

thank you for taking your time to read this post. thank you for bearing with me as i get some of this off of my chest.

_________________________________________________________

**the seeds we plant today are the harvest of today's and tomorrow's children.**

_________________________________________________________

hasta la vista, adieu, daskorava, fino al prossimo tempo, auf wiedersehen, and
later y’all

kenneth lockerman
NEVER FORGET BESLAN
www.neverforgetbeslan.com
kenneth@neverforgetbeslan.com
_______________________________________

"...patience and shuffle the cards" miguel cervantes
"nothing can be learned" herman hesse
"everybody knows everything" jack kerouac
"some memories are realities and better than anything" willa cather
" doo-wacka doo, wacka doo" roger miller
"we have met the enemy and they is us !" walt kelly (pogo)
“a mans cartilage is his fate” phillip roth
 
Last edited:
Marc-A. said:
. I've got some books of Salgado, HCB, Ronis, Arbus, Charpentier, Lange ...etc. I've never found such pointless shot. If it's for a personal album ... it's just gross.
It is quite probable you can find a shot like that (and likely even worse) in contact sheets of some photographers you mentioned. Publishing is another matter.

I sure e.g. Salgado has thousands of frames of people dying from famine which are just failures from journalistic standpoint. In the eyes of many here all these shots are worthless and vulptuirous (sp?) and shouldn't be taken at all since they will never be published. But this is not how documentary process works! You edit, but you have something to start editing with!

Now, what makes Salgado work on people suffering justified for you? His name? Him being a journalist? People still suffer, and many if not most victims are dead well before the shots are sorted out, people throughout the world become aware and aid is fetched. And how far the point of being journalist can be stretched? A staffer from Smallvile Herald who is far from Salgado league, never puts his life at risk for better of humanity preferring a pub and friday poker to wandering in malaria swapms and warzones, can take photos of an accident that none of you will know or hear about anyway, but a student can't?
 
varjag said:
Now, what makes Salgado work on people suffering justified for you? His name? Him being a journalist? People still suffer, and many if not most victims are dead well before the shots are sorted out, people throughout the world become aware and aid is fetched. And how far the point of being journalist can be stretched? A staffer from Smallvile Herald who is far from Salgado league, never puts his life at risk for better of humanity preferring a pub and friday poker to wandering in malaria swapms and warzones, can take photos of an accident that none of you will know or hear about anyway, but a student can't?

1. About Salgado: being a journalist, with a public purpose, that is a good reason. Being a photographer with private goals doesn't bestow any moral right.
2. Taking pictures of a car accident that is significant, provided it's your job to report it and provided there's nothing better to do, is morally acceptable.
3. the goal of the photographical approach makes the difference: taking photo of dying persons for a private documentary is not right. Wether you are Salgado or a student, doesn't make it better.
Best,
Marc
 
Great posts from rvaubel and smiling gecko. Much to think about.

I don't buy this, 'you should only take certain shots if you are a photojournalist'. It's rubbish.

I think you have to take each situtation as it comes and make a decision. If you get it right, it will show in the photograph, likewise if you get it wrong.

But everything can potentially be photographed, and there are no hard and fast rules as to how it can be done, or who can do it.

As for car accidents, people knocked down in the street, in general I pass by. But then again, never say never.
 
gareth said:
I don't buy this, 'you should only take certain shots if you are a photojournalist'. It's rubbish.

That's a great argument.

gareth said:
But everything can potentially be photographed, and there are no hard and fast rules as to how it can be done, or who can do it.

Easy to prove you're wrong:
Sunday morning - you're out in the counrtyside to take photographs. You're walking along a river and suddenly you hear someone shouting "help". You can't see where he is, so you decide to go on a bridge from where you have a good view on the river. Superb view indeed: you see the guy drowning, the hills in the background, beautiful light this morning...
You decide
1. to take a dramatic photo, and let the guy drowing ... but hey, that's the price for a great photo.
2. to rescue the guy without taking the photo.

I guess you see there's only one moral decision; which means: not everything can potentially be photographed. There are somes rules, hard and fast rules, but you may disagree on which rules we must obey.

There's room between "rubbish" and "categorical bull".

Best,

Marc
 
Last edited:
That's a great argument.

Perhaps a better argument is that we are all potentially photojournalists. Who is it that decides who can and who cannot take a certain photograph. And what if something of note happens, and god help us, nobody sent round the designated photojournalists.

Easy to prove you're wrong:

I don't think you have. I think you have misunderstood. I did not say 'everything can be photographed', I said 'potentially' everything can be photographed, just as potentially all of us walking about with a camera are photojournalists.

Hard and fast rules. How many more pages will it take here before we all know what they are?
 
gareth said:
Perhaps a better argument is that we are all potentially photojournalists.

No. My photos are art or pictures on the wall. They are not for sale. I am not a photojournalist.

But, if I could photograph neighbors doing a brave and yucky job saving lives I'd like to do that for them. Not for me.
 
gareth said:
Perhaps a better argument is that we are all potentially photojournalists. Who is it that decides who can and who cannot take a certain photograph.

Potentially we are all concert pianist or baker; in real life, some of us are, the others are not. Then, you are right, potentially we are all photojournalist. In real life, most of us are not. What interests me, is what you are morally allowed to photograph when in real life you are not a photojournalist.

gareth said:
I did not say 'everything can be photographed', I said 'potentially' everything can be photographed, just as potentially all of us walking about with a camera are photojournalists.

There is no logical difference between "everything can be photographed" and "'potentially, everything can be photographed". "Everything can be photographed" means that "everything is potentially photographed".
Anyway, if "potentially, everything can be photographed", do you think that a drowning person shouting for help can "potentially" be photographed, instead of being rescued by the photographer?

I don't think so. IMVHO, the answer is quite obvious. But I won't argue any further this question.

Cheers,

Marc
 
Potentially we are all concert pianist or baker; in real life, some of us are, the others are not.

I disagree. Anybody can take a photograph, and in the wealthy west most of us do. With the advent of ever more compact cameras, including phone cameras, more of us are walking about with a camera all the time.

The new buzz word in journalism is the 'citizen journalist'. It can be controversial, but like it or not it cannot be denied.

Perhaps there are different kinds of 'citizen journalist'. The accidental 'citizen journalist', who happen to in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time. If they have a camera they have possibly suddenly become the accidental citizen photojournalist.

Then there are the professional and citizen journalists who choose to publish their work in the independent media. With today's technology from digital video cameras and the internet, it's never been easier to publish your story. Just look at the phenomenal success and growth of indymedia.

So yes we can all be photojournalists. Not many us however can suddenly decide to become concert pianists.

Anyway, if "potentially, everything can be photographed", do you think that a drowning person shouting for help can "potentially" be photographed, instead of being rescued by the photographer?

I'm sure there are many pictures in the world of drowning people. There are many many pictures of people in danger, or dying. I'm sure many of the people who have taken such photographs have struggled to make sense of what they are doing, just as I'm sure many have put down their cameras to help. But then again if you can't swim............but then again that doesn't mean to say you just take a picture instead.

In short there is no hard and fast rule that says you can't take a picture of somebody who is drowning.
 
I guess we won't agree eventually.
But just consider that there is a huge difference between taking a photo and being a photojournalist; the same difference as between being a witness and being a journalist.
A photojournalist has a purpose, a constructive approach of his subject; he selects significant events, he knows what he wants to show, the way he wants to show it, the impact he wants to produce.
So no, you can't pretend to be a photojournalist only because you shot your neighbour tumbling downstairs and bleeding. No, you can't pretend to be a journalist because you told the police you saw someone stealing the purse of your dying neighbour; nor can you pretend to be a policeman because you caught the thief.

gareth said:
I'm sure there are many pictures in the world of drowning people. There are many many pictures of people in danger, or dying.

That's the better way no to answer a question. The problem is not about the fact but the moral value. There are also pictures of tortured children. Is it morally acceptable?? Of course not, and who is not able to understand that is just a pervert freak. So yes, there are moral questions about taking photos. The question was: would you rescue the drowning guy, if you could, or would take a good photo instead? As you are not a pervert freak, the anwser is "I would help him!". So in this situation, there is an obvious moral answer.

gareth said:
I'm sure many of the people who have taken such photographs have struggled to make sense of what they are doing.

And the discussion is precisely about how to make senseof such photographs ... you just state the problem, but you don't give any answer to it.

Best,

Marc
 
"But just consider that there is a huge difference between taking a photo and being a photojournalist; the same difference as between being a witness and being a journalist.
A photojournalist has a purpose, a constructive approach of his subject; he selects significant events, he knows what he wants to show, the way he wants to show it, the impact he wants to produce.
So no, you can't pretend to be a photojournalist only because you shot your neighbour tumbling downstairs and bleeding. No, you can't pretend to be a journalist because you told the police you saw someone stealing the purse of your dying neighbour; nor can you pretend to be a policeman because you caught the thief."

Well said Marc!
Sometimes people think that because they have a camera and know how to use it, they can be a photojournalist when the opportunity presents itself.
Not true. I've said it before and I'll say it again. These people often get in the way and MAKE THE SITUATION WORSE! I'm saying this from experience. It takes years of training and working experience to become a good news photographer and know how to handle yourself properly in such situations.
I'm not saying that there should be rules against anyone taking pictures in these situations, I just hope they would have the good tast and common sense to stay out of the way.
 
photogdave said:
I'm not saying that there should be rules against anyone taking pictures in these situations, I just hope they would have the good tast and common sense to stay out of the way.

Me neither; by "rules" I meant moral rules, not legal rules. I hope Gareth didn't think I wanted people to go in prison for a picture. My apologies if it wasn't clear enough :angel:
Marc
 
But just consider that there is a huge difference between taking a photo and being a photojournalist; the same difference as between being a witness and being a journalist.

No it's different. Photojournalism is simply telling a story primarily through pictures. The mainstream media repeatably use 'citizen journalism' It's a fact of life.

How many times have you watched the mainstream news and seen a video piece shot by an amateur or an enthusiast complete with as it happens commentary. How many times have you seen a series of pictures in a news paper taken by Joe Public complete with his account of what happened.

Like it or not it's journalism. And as I said before what do we do when the so called designated journalists aren’t around, pretend nothing happened?

So no, you can't pretend to be a photojournalist only because you shot your neighbour tumbling downstairs and bleeding. No, you can't pretend to be a journalist because you told the police you saw someone stealing the purse of your dying neighbour; nor can you pretend to be a policeman because you caught the thief.

Did anybody say you could?

There are also pictures of tortured children. Is it morally acceptable??

It's not morally acceptable to torture children, or anybody for that matter. But I disagree that's necessarily follows that it's morally wrong to take pictures of those who have been tortured.

The question was: would you rescue the drowning guy, if you could, or would take a good photo instead?

Who gave you the right to decide specifically what the question was? You have changed the question to suit the answer that you wish to elicit.

So to keep you happy I will answer it. Of course I wouldn't stop and take a picture of a person, or persons in grave danger when there was a real possibility that with my intervention that danger could be reduced or removed.

And at the same time I maintain that anybody can potentially a photojournalist, and that each situation has to be taken on it's own merits.
 
It seems that the "one should not take pictures at an accident scene" argument is based on whether or not one is a journalist. What "makes" a journalist? A degree? A piece of paper? A paycheck? It seems rather a shallow criterion when discussing a philosophical subject matter so deep.
 
FrankS said:
It seems that the "one should not take pictures at an accident scene" argument is based on whether or not one is a journalist. What "makes" a journalist? A degree? A piece of paper? A paycheck? It seems rather a shallow criterion when discussing a philosophical subject matter so deep.
All those things do, in fact, make one a journalist. The piece of paper proves you have the education and the paycheck proves you have the working experience.
 
FrankS said:
It seems that the "one should not take pictures at an accident scene" argument is based on whether or not one is a journalist. What "makes" a journalist? A degree? A piece of paper? A paycheck? It seems rather a shallow criterion when discussing a philosophical subject matter so deep.[/quote

Marc-A

What makes you assume I gave up my interest in people when I turned in my press pass. I never ever thought that the press pass was a liscense to photograph people or situations that moved me. While it was my job to chase such situations when I was a journalist, I still have the same instincts and interests. I still take the same style of street photos. Granted, the opportunity for photographing scenes of death and destruction are almost nil, still if I were present at a World Trade Center part II, I wouldn't hesitate for an instant to leap into the fray. The response would be totally automatic without regard to motives. Later, on examining the images I captured, the question of what to do with this pictures would come up. Everything from the valour of firefighters, to the horrors of terrorism could be a valid reason for publishing the photos. How could I know "a priori" what I would do or what I would photograph? Many "civilians" are pressed into duty as drafted journalist. To assume that anyone acting as a visual recorder of the facts is somehow bloodthirsty or whose motives are suspect, isn't fair to anyone, victims included

Rex
 
ethics is something so personal and yet is applied universally. and our own experiences, educational background, culture, the era we live in are also factors for differences in the practice of ethics. but, i think there are common denominators in this thread -- a very high regard for the value of conscience which is the only valid judge of our own ethics and a disdain for mere prudence (which is just a show of good behavior to impress others). and, i enjoy a sprinkling of zany opinions that reminds me of my own humanity. jon, thanks for this thread.
 
Would anyone care to comment on the photograph taken by Robert Frank, in The Americans? You know, the photograph taken somewhere in Arizona on U.S. 66; with falling snow, the bystanders and the body on the ground covered by a sheet? What was his purpose/justification? It is an excellent photograph, in my opinion, though I am sure he did not know the people involved, nor do I think he gave a copy to any insurance company. He simply took advantage of being present at an emotionally charged moment. In fact, he liked the image so much it was printed again in his book, The Lines of My Hand. No harm, no foul.
 
b. czar,
there is even a picture of an accident in the collection with mangled cadavers. the collection was taken in the 50s. this was the era of the baby boomers of which i was a product of. i look at his pictures and i feel like i am viewing museum pieces. however, i think the reaction will be very different if somebody does a robert frank today with the level of socio-political consciousness that many of us have. but i am sure he got some flak during his time but it was more because of the jolting awakening his pictures gave -- part of the message he wished to convey.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom