Ethics and taste and what we can do.

[FrankS]

From my point of view, this thread is simply a discussion, it is not a heated argument. It's fine that people have different opinions. That's what makes talking about things interesting.

Just to get this out of the way, I have been in circumstances where I could have taken photos of accident scenes and the misery and misfortune of others. In each case I chose NOT to take any photos.

But now to the issue: Isn't this the photographic version of the freedom of speech lauded in America? You know: I may not agree with what you're saying, but I"ll fight to defend your right to do so. (And just to keep things straight and prevent misunderstanding, it is not my intention to 'rub America's nose" in anything with this, I'm making astraight-forward analogy.)

We're talking about a photographic activity that is not against the law in Canada or the US or other parts of the free world. Law-makers influenced by social norms have not seen fit to criminalize this activity over the decades that photography has been around. Melanie, would you change this to make it illegal? Would you impose your standards/morals on everyone else on this issue?

And here's the kicker; Isn't that the reason in principle, that United Nations troops are involved in some foreign countries, to prevent? (And again, just to be clear, this is not an implication of the foreign policy of any country. In fact I just ordered a Canadian "Support our Troops" cap.)

It is my position that since it is not an illegal activity, it is up to the individual photographer to decide whether to take or not take photos, and to examine the nature of their motivation should they decide to do so.

But Melanie, the weekend is coming up, and I'm not so emotionally attached
to discussing this further. I don't care to change anyone's opinion on this - it's a personal one I believe. Let me end by apologizing for making you feel condescended too. I do not, nor did not wish to offend.

BTW, I take none of this personally, but that polygamist marriage thing is off. 😉

 

[Jamie123]

1. it's lazy because it means: everything's relative; the middle classes have their own ethics, others have their own, I've got mine ... yes you're right, and Saddam has his own. Mere relativity is a non sense from a logical point of view.

I agree with your second criticism of foolproof's statement, which indeed is logically inconsistent. However, I don't see why this "mere relativity" as you describe should be a non sense from a logical point of view.

 

[Ash]

Nooo!!! Don't throw away polygamy as well!! 😀

 

[foolproof]

marc a : in know its lazy, im tired and have too many beers. apologies on the lazy comment.

jamie 123 : just because i want to be a documentary photographer doesnt mean i have to do a series on something. that has, and will come. is my photograph not a document / documentation ? " (i.e. documenting it). "

 

[MelanieC]

Melanie, would you change this to make it illegal? Would you impose your standards/morals on everyone else on this issue?

Straw man. And no, I would not. I would think that my posts made that very, very clear.

Have a nice weekend.

 

[Jamie123]

@FrankS: Your analogy with freedom of speech is quite accurate. I don't think anyone that does believe in freedom of speech would ever want that taking photos in certain situations should be illegal.

I feel that this thread is more about what is in good taste and what is not than about what should be allowed. Those are two very different issues!

 

[Ash]

I think photography already comes under freedom of speech, just as body language, speech, and writing does. Photography is the more solid visual form, just as graffiti and painting is.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I don’t have anything to add to their arguments. Maybe this: there is always room for disagreement in ethics

Ah, you have not seen the wrath of "absolutism" of politics in U.S. TV -- shouting matches ensue over "room for disagreement"; it's best there is none. Some Amendments are taken a bit too far.

 

[foolproof]

if thats a strike at my photo, its uncalled for, considering the word promoting comes just above a promotion for a friend. i was only posting the photo to illustrate my point of view. i kinda wish i hadnt now.

beautiful greyhounds by the way. 'off the track' greyhound extermination is a big issue over here, and im glad to see another who cares for and appreciates this beautiful breed for more than a form of entertainment.

 

[Marc-A.]

Ok I have another topic on ethics and photography (sorry for trying to hijack this thread). I just read this evening an interesting debate over egalitarianism, in Sovereign Virtue by Professor R. Dworkin (yes it's a highbrow thing). I quote:
"... the would-be photographer is free not to buy expensive equipment, for example, but (...) he should not be forced into a worse financial position if he decides to buy it. (...) That is why, G. Cohen declares, society should compensate the photographer, whose taste for photography arose from no choice [that is it is a mere preference]." p.288 (§ "Equality and Capability")
And he concludes: "[The photographer] did not have an equal opportunity for welfare, and he deserves compensation for that reason". p. 289

Hum that's interesting. We should demand a financial compensation for our expensive taste!

Some thoughts?

Marc

 

[foolproof]

Racing will end some day.

please god.

 

[mc_vancouver]

I went to college and studied journalism....

So did I! And I quit about a week before the end of first year, I was so pissed off at how they were teaching us to deliver the news and what "news" was. Why have we defined news as tragedy, what makes that any more newsworthy than someone trying to do something good? It is SPECTACLE, that's what contemporary journalism is about. (Actually, its about selling stuff, unless you're shooting for a non profit organization, and even then they have their agendas.)

I'm not a photojournalist nor did I continue with journalism. I appreciate great photojournalist shots, for their artistry, humanity and, often, bravery--of subject and photographer. But I'm still mystified by how we determine what is news, that it seems to be perhaps inherent in us that we gravitate toward the terrible, the tragic, the macabre. There's a great European magazine out in Canada and the US now called ODE, which isn't some Polyanna-ish optimist thing, but they focus on what good is being done, and its really refreshing to read it, to counter the daily news.

 

[mc_vancouver]

...We should demand a financial compensation for our expensive taste!

Some thoughts?

Marc

Right on! To start with, my government should immediately buy me an M8, a tri-elmar...I'm performing a public service, recording civilization at the edge of the abyss...

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Some thoughts?

In Utopia, we'd all be compensated for our abilities and contributions to society. This is what the C*mmunists (dirty word, that, this side of the pond) thought should be done, but that is also why the CCCP was actually a very class-defined society: the good sportsmen/women, artists (musicians, painters, etc.) were given whatever they needed, and the goods needed to fulfill these needs would be allocated to them first (that is, unless the military wanted it first).

That is why I like to quote Dread Pirate Roberts (aka Westley): "Life is pain. Anybody who says otherwise is trying to sell you something". Sounds like he was a buddhist. 😉

Edit: Westley, not Wesley.

 

[Bryce]

MCVancuouver-
Thank you for the link to ODE's website. I've just glanced at it, but I like what I've seen.
Off topic, but here's what your old 15mm C/V lens has been documenting- mining and industrial ruins around the Northwest.

 

[Toby]

I think no matter how engaged you are with your subject matter ultimately you are more often than not a tourist in other people's misery. By that i mean that you as a photographer always have the option of packing up your stuff and going home those who you document do not. Whilst this realisation has never stopped me taking a photo it has tempered my belief in the 'goodness' of photojournalism. Having said that I don't think anyone should ring their hands to much about taking photos of difficult subjects it's whether you publish or post them that really matters. It always brings to mind a conversation I had once about the death of princess diana. I said that as long everything possible was being done to save her life I would have no problem taking pictures, indeed it would be a brave photographer who would have returned to his picture editor with no images, I felt that in such a situation it would be the subsequent outcome that was important, in other words pictures that were considered beyond the pale would have almost certainly been publish if princess diana had lived. And further more almost everyone in the western world would have bought a publication with those images in. I think it's very easy for people to point the finger at the media for poor taste subject matter - at the end of the day the media only publishes what will sell, and it is the public at large who control that

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Thank you thoughtful people.

I still have tears for the woman under the truck.

And a lot of admiration for my friends and neighbors of the volunteer fire and rescue service.

Maybe later today, maybe, I'll walk over to the fire and rescue people and ask if they'd like photos of their people at work, for whatver use they desire.

I don't want to sell a photo, any photo, but certainly not of a dead traffic accident victim. But I do want to recognise the volunteers who crawled in and cared for her last minutes.

Yes, photograph the onlookers. That's a good idea. At the last solar eclipse I photographed people in dark glasses looing at the sun. I like them.

 

[dostacos]

A woman just died right outside my office. One hour ago, maybe less. Big truck small woman.

I went with everybody else to see. The fire and rescue were fantastic.

But even though I had my camera on me could I have photographed the 'brave and talented' fire and rescue people or would it have been 'the poor crushed woman photo?

depends on the shot, mostly fire/rescue good, mostly poor crushed lady not so good.

wide angle showing the whole scene probably better at least for me.....

 

[rvaubel]

I'm usually pretty good at these philosophical agreements. But I have a feeling that all good photojournalist have a bit of "ambulance chaser" in them. I had a short career in PJ during the 60's, covering the anti-war stuff, civil rights, etc. One of the things that I noticed about myself was the tendency to run towards the sound of an explosion or the sight of smoke. The adrinaline starts to flow and autopilot kicks in. I never had time to weigh the relative value of the shots I took. In many, many cases I never really knew what I shot until I had examined the developed image. If I had captured something truly dramatic (a police beating was always good copy) my editor would be on my case to get the image to the printer. I printed a lot of negatives wet.

I still shoot this way in my street photography. Recently, I was in Vancouver in my tourist mode. I was hanging out in a rather seedy park near Gastown, shooting the bull with the local drug addicts (and grabbing a few pictures). My wife was shopping at Robson Square. She thinks I'm crazy to be hanging out with the lowlifes but I kind of like the lowlifes. I'm on vacation after all. I take pictures of just about anything.

I don't get all the moral dilema stuff that is being discussed here. I'm just taking pictures of interesting things and interesting people. If something blows up, I'll take pictures of that too. If it bothers you to take photographs of people, don't do it. My people pictures generally have a positive feel to them because, for whatever reason, I tend to empathize with the street folk. But that's not the point. I have taken photos of rather middle class people that end up being less than flattering (as in Diane Arbus). But, so what?

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.

Rex
arf,arf

 

[varjag]

Oh my, it's here again.

Everybody here making villains out of photographers, please direct your angst onto the truck driver for a moment. Thank you.