Hi fellow bubblers. A couple of days ago I uploaded my entry into the real photo comp. It fostered some fairly blunt debate with another member of red bubble about what was ethical and what wasn’t in photojournalism. At first i felt uncomfortable about the debate but on reflection I find it really interesting. I see that Jessica Tremp has also faced the same dillemma. I admire Jessica’s work enormously and I encourage you to view her latest piece here Whilst you’re there check out her other shots, she’s excellent. If you want to see the one that started the debate :-) Check out mine here I’m interested in the discussion and welcome all points of view. It’s great we have the bubble to share our thoughts in…:0)
Jessica Tremp, about 1 year ago
blushes geez, enough of the flattering Mel….
Jessica Tremp, about 1 year ago
:)
Jessica Tremp, about 1 year ago
opened a forum thread on this
Nicole Goggins, about 1 year ago
Melinda i find both your work and jessicas v. inspritation and moving – both had me in tears! I think more people need to see photos like these and hear their stories and maybe, just maybe some of us in our own small little way can make a difference…
kathleen
,
about 1 year ago
my comment on jessicas pic, thought it should be here too:
kathleen, 3 minutes ago /
I think it’s important to note as well that there are people in destitution in every nation of this world, without minimalising the suffering of those in extremely poor nations, there are indigenous people in australia whose conditions are not much different… I don’t want to take from this image in its impact but it’s just as confronting for me to think that this ‘lucky country’ leaves many of it’s own in similar situations without the major government infrastructure that is required to bring them to the standard that ‘a’ ‘majority’ of australians see as ‘lucky’ or ‘rich’…
Cheryl Ridge, about 1 year ago
I think the man in India and the woman in Africa are both terrific images.
I was first really confronted with poverty when I visited Cebu in the
Philippines. I would love to share a couple of photos I took years ago
but they were street/grab shots. I generally don’t feel comfortable ‘publishing’ photos of
people unless I have permission – what should I do, would you?
Popular Mr, about 1 year ago
My all time favourite photojourno is a War photographer Don McCullin. His take on this is “to preserve their dignity”
I love taking photos of people as well. I do not usually share those photos in public. I might put one or 2 in time.
If you have consent, that changes then the its alright. In that case it is up to your scruples not to use it in a non appropriate mannor
Jessica Tremp, about 1 year ago
Daijiro, I looooove Don McCullin…isn’t he fantastic.
David Mack, about 1 year ago
Copy/Paste what I already wrote merely for another point of view.
I agree with u all but I can also understand why Jessica felt uneasy putting it up. Photojournalism has its limits, I feel, merely due to the highly visual and emotional medium which can often perhaps go too far.
Now, I know I’m a lone wolf here, but it’s hard taking shots like this, especially in the 3rd world, because it is very degrading whether we like it or not. Jessica’s portfolio is broad and diverse and she captures effortlessly the beauty, joy and, importantly, the humanity of people from all walks of life but on the same hand, photos like this, are typically Western in the way they look down on others. Whose to say this man (and from what I can see it is) deserves to have his dignity, even in death, made worse by a Westerner photographing it and then publishing for all of us to goo and gaa over? Whose to say his family has no objections to Jessica publishing an image of his naked body?
We might talk of the “greater good” such photos do in highlighting injustices but, on the same hand, these are real people who deserve real dignity and they, or their family, have the right to be asked permission on whether they wish to participate. Ask yourself how you would feel if your parent or child’s mangled corpse was photographed artisically without your permission and then lauded over as art and important… There’s no dignity in death, but there can be respect.
Durotriges, about 1 year ago
I hope you don’t mind me adding my two cents to the debate. Probably what I’m going to say is blindingly obvious. Surely the issue here is one of purpose. One photo has consent for the story to be told, the second does not and yet both fulfil a very powerful purpose: to tell a story.
David Mack says, “Ask yourself how you would feel if your parent or child’s mangled corpse was photographed artisically without your permission and then lauded over as art and important…”
The big question is – is that the purpose of this image? Has it been produced in order that the individual might be lauded as an artist? Or has it been produced in order to communicate the pain and suffering that goes on in the world? Are the two things even mutually exclusive? Is there art in suffering & death? My answer to that would have to be yes – look at the art produced in WWII, for example.
A photojournalist is there to tell a story through pictures in much the same way as a print journalist is there to write. Should consent be gained to tell a story? Wherever possible, I believe it should. But if you’re in the middle of a war zone, you don’t always have that luxury – so should that stop you from telling the story?
I’ve just noticed that there are a lot of questions in this piece! Maybe that’s because I don’t actually have any answers, but I feel that unless people like Melinda and Jessica are actually out there telling us how it is, then these are stories that would be ignored & forgotten.
Thank you to Melinda for allowing this debate in her journal. I shall continue to read with a great deal of interest.
David Mack, about 1 year ago
I wasn’t as much referring to the agenda of the photographer (although it may have seemed that way) as much as I was pointing out the (almost) hypocricy of all these people talking about what a wonderful reminder of humanity and life the photo was, yet no one thinking of the man in the photograph and how he may have felt.
The fact is we all know there is suffering, death and poverty in the world but that doesn’t make it any better for (most) Westerns travelling in the third world to get off an air-conditioned tour bus, gawk at the shanty town, take some photos of the suffering natives and go back to their hotel, whilst never paying any real respect to the people they photograph. I’ve taken photos in Asia, Africa and the Middle East and this is something that I have consciously tried to avoid – capturing poverty for poverty’s sake. Rather, I think what is of more value is finding the beauty and humanity in the poor – so we can feel more akin to them, rather than snapping thier misery.
Melinda Kerr, about 1 year ago
Hi everyone. I’m really glad this has stirred some debate, it’s great and thanks everyone for contributing. David, regarding your points. You raise some really important questions. And for the most part I agree with your points. I guess the one I would challenge is in your last post. You said The fact is we all know there is suffering, death and poverty in the world but that doesn’t make it any better for (most) Westerns travelling in the third world to get off an air-conditioned tour bus, gawk at the shanty town, take some photos of the suffering natives and go back to their hotel, whilst never paying any real respect to the people they photograph You are right. If people are merely hopping off a bus for a gawk it is wrong. And if they take a photo of what they are gawking at for a bit of sensationalism for their slide night at home, it’s also wrong. But, if a journalist captures the same shot for the purposes of telling a story, I don’t think it’s wrong. Yes we all know there’s death & poverty in the world. But do we also know it is entirely preventable? That it takes relatively little for everyone in the world to have access to drinking water, to shelter, to education? That the only thing really stopping people from dying of diseases such as malaria and typhoid etc is lack of access to drugs? The thing is we (the west) has the answers. Most of the issues facing these people are man made. West-made. So how do we stir people to action? In my opinion by showing the truth. The cold, hard truth. Does that mean we infringe on people’s dignity? Well, not in my opinion. But, and here’s a comment guaranteed to spark controversy!!! If it does, then so be it. The issue is too big. If we are to dignify the living, we need to confront.
Durotriges, about 1 year ago
Just as a question with regards to your last statement Mel: Where would you draw the line on this? I think you are right that some stories demand to be told in order to confront the tourists in their air-conditioned coaches.
But where does the need to tell a story and confront become paparazzi voyeurism? (Not that I’m in any way accusing you of the latter, in case you were wondering!)
Melinda Kerr, about 1 year ago
Yeah good question Durotriges-and no offense taken. I think voyeurism takes place when we look for our satisfaction only. When the ‘benefit’ is only for the viewer. When there is no ‘good’ that can come from the exersize other than self-satisfaction. Then, I think we start to get potentially unethical. Especially if the focus of the shot has no control over the publication of that shot. Really that’s what this is about, control. Maybe??
David Mack, about 1 year ago
This is so interesting!
Durotriges, about 1 year ago
Yes, I think control, purpose, photographer’s agenda are all crucial in understanding a shot, especially a provocative shot. When we take a picture, any picture, aren’t we trying to communicate something?Isn’t the first thing we ask when we see a picture, “What is this person trying to say? What is their purpose in taking this shot?” Some people lay their purposes pretty much out on their sleeves, others like poets and writers will allow the viewer or reader to make their own judgements.
Which is why I think the photos in this case have no questions of ethics around them – they have a clearly defined purpose, ie. to provoke – like good journalism should. With strong stories supporting them, I can’t imagine any editor spiking them.
David Mack, about 1 year ago
It seems to me that there is a very fine line that everyone is tredding here. I’ve thought about it again and I just can’t support this image being published here. No matter what it “provokes” or makes us “learn” or “appreciate”. The fact of the matter is that man has been photographed in a very degrading light (no matter what Jess’s intentions) and MOST importantly, he has no say.
Durotriges, about 1 year ago
Although I respect your opinion, David, and completely understand your point of view does that mean you wouldn’t take pictures of the victims of war? Or the homeless? If these things exist in the world, is it not the duty of the artist to provoke a response? What, then, is the duty of the artist?
Durotriges, about 1 year ago
If we don’t take pictures of this nature, are we not left with propaganda?
Melinda Kerr, about 1 year ago
Interesting. Ok, here’s a thought. Do we own our own image. What I mean is. What ‘right’ do we have to protect ourselves from being photographed? Should people have to ask our permission? Why do we get annoyed when people don’t? Is it an invasion of privacy? Or are we being unrealistic and soft? I know this is an extreme view by the way-and I’m not sure I agree with it. But it does beg the question…
David Mack, about 1 year ago
There is a huge difference between photographing a homeless man and a dead, naked man lying in a gutter. It doesn’t matter what the duty of the “artist” is – it’s not their body and not their dignity at stake.
Melinda Kerr, about 1 year ago
Fair point. I was deliberately being provocative :-) Good discussion though.
Durotriges, about 1 year ago
“There is a huge difference between photographing a homeless man and a dead, naked man lying in a gutter.”
Is there though? Are both not entitled to the same dignity? Is it not merely a question of degree? If that is the case, where do you draw the line? And for that matter, who gets to decide where that line is drawn?
Popular Mr, about 1 year ago
“There is a huge difference between photographing a homeless man and a dead, naked man lying in a gutter.”
Is there though? Are both not entitled to the same dignity? Is it not merely a question of degree? If that is the case, where do you draw the line? And for that matter, who gets to decide where that line is drawn?
I fell that the answer to that is empathy.
I believe it is not a matter of to shoot or not too shoot, but how to shoot it.
To tell a story in one frame is what makes Don McCullin who he is, and me on the same planet, in a different world.
David Mack, about 1 year ago
Yes there is a difference. A major difference. Although I do understand what you’re saying: it all falls into the same category: respect. However, I feel that when dealing with death in particular, there must be even more respect.
Gustav Nordlund, about 1 year ago
I find this issue very diffucult as in one way there is the concern with the respect for the individual and in the other there is the need/will to provoke by showing a hard and uncomfotable truth.
Of the two pictures mentioned in the original post I find one harder to accept due to the simple fact that it is for sale. Provoking action and through a picture that shows misery and suffering can be effective and done in the right way I have no problem with it. When the “provoker” is in a position that can be seen as making money of the same misery and suffering, things get a bit tricky.
I am not saying you should not make these kind of pictures avaible to buy, just that doing so might put the motive behind showing the picture in doubt.
Just my thoughts, hope noone was offended…
Gustav Nordlund, about 1 year ago
hmm, I see I made some typing errors… I wish it was possible to edit posts, but I hope I made some sense anyways…
Gustav Nordlund, about 1 year ago
I just got home and read my post. Just wanted to make it clear that I did not mean and that I’m sure Jessica is not trying to make money from suffering and misery, but that selling pictures that contain such things is a bit tricky.
Melinda Kerr, about 1 year ago
Gustav thanks for your input. Don’t ever worry that people will take offence. I can’t speak for Jessica, but from my point of view you wrote your post with respect and that’s all anyone can ask for. Great to have your input.
Gustav Nordlund, about 1 year ago
Thanks Melinda :) Normally I have no worries when communicating in English, but in this kind of discussion I sometimes worry that my choice of words might have a stronger impact than I intend :)
Durotriges, about 1 year ago
Depends who you’re selling to doesn’t it? I can’t imagine that anyone would want a framed print of Jessica’s print to hang on the wall of their living room. Not that it isn’t a powerful picture – but I’m not sure that it’s something I would want to be looking at while I eat my dinner! But if a publication wanted to use it alongside a story about poverty and starvation in India, then that’s a different ballgame.
I guess what it comes down to is context. So I don’t think there’s anything particularly unethical in making it available for sale. A photojournalist has to make a living somehow…
David Mack, about 1 year ago
i think the dead naked man might not feel the same way,,,
Gustav Nordlund, about 1 year ago
The problem with pictures of dead people is always that they cannot voice their opinion. One question that might be interesting is if one would publish a picture of ones best friend dead in the gutter without their prior approval. I know I would not, and therefore I would not publish a picture of a random person dead in the gutter either.
If the photographer believes the end, in this case to show an uncomfortable and sad truth, justifies the means, in this case to show a picture of someone who cannot object to the publication of the picture, then he/she show go ahead and do it, but in doing so the photographer must also be aware that alot of people might not approve of it.
However, if the photographer publishes a picture without ever being able to get the opinion of the person in the picture, how can the opinion of others have any affect on the decision of whether to publish or not to publish the picture?
Jessica Tremp, about 1 year ago
can i just pop in here that the man in question isn’t dead in the picture and David, if you feel so strongly against this image, why don’t you report it, isn’t that what that button is for?