I kept it to myself for fear of getting lynched by other photographers or photo journalists... however, as a compassionate human it's something that I'd like to discuss and hear your thoughts on.
I do believe that photographers and photo journalists are cut from the same cloth - telling a story via visual photographic art - but while the photo journalist focuses more on the raw and unadulterated emotion, a photographer such as myself aches to capture light, beauty, emotion - yes, and just like a photo journalist: moments.
The difference is that in the following situations of photos I would have put down my camera. Even as a photographer I believe there's a time and a place for everything. For instance, as the official photographer for last year's Spencer Bell Legacy concert, there were many moments that my eyes captured that my camera didn't.
Pressing forward...
This photo is from the Battle of Gettysburg and while even though there's death in this photo - it doesn't bother me as much as some of the others taken as recently as the ones in Iraq where there were photo journalists in pits with soldiers while they're getting bombed and shot at. Perhaps it's just me, but I would have felt out of place and in the way.
I understand the world wants to see what's going on and these photographers earn Pulitzer prizes for their photographs... but...
From the Vietnam war... this photographer won a Pulitzer for this shot... and then later apologized to this man's family for the irreparable damage that this shot did to his family. This was taken moments before this man was shot.
I could not fathom having my camera out at a moment like this, let alone having it pressed to my face and finger on the shutter.
And the shot that prompted this blog...
Photographer Kevin Carter took this photo of a patient vulture stalking a starving child in Africa. He won a Pulitzer for this shot... after which he was ridiculed for not helping the child and instead spending 20 minutes setting up the shot... Three months after taking the photo he committed suicide.
My heart is too big. I would rather give up my camera for eternity than to watch something like this - let alone document it for others to be subjected to... for it to be preserved for all time... It's horrific.
I know that concert photography is something different from photo journalism... as I stated in the beginning of this blog. Even on stage I use my better judgement on when to snap and when to stop. I've been asked once to put my camera away by an artist and I did so as soon as I was prompted.
Courtesy.
Ethics.
Art doesn't have to cross all lines of humanity.
While the world may or may not be better because of your shots... there are some things that aren't worth a Pulitzer.
Tell me your thoughts.
Additional photo credits: Timothy H. O’Sullivan – Battle of Gettysburg; Eddie Adams – Nguyễn Ngọc Loan executing Nguyễn Văn Lém.
10 comments:
I'm not a photographer, but I agree wholeheartedly. There are times when it is important for a photo to be taken so that the world can see what the story is, and take action. But there are also times when it is better to hold your heart in your hand, instead of your camera, and take action yourself.
You summed up my entire blog in an eloquent paragraph. <3
I agree 110% with Gailavira's response. I can't say it any better.
It's so hard to definitively stand on either side of this controversial subject. Art is subjective, and photojournalism to me, is the art of telling a story through imagery.
Obviously, the images you have here would be disturbing to any sane and logical person. In the same respect, an image of a war protester burning the American Flag might be just as painful to view to an American soldier who fought in the Vietnam war.
Or a photo of African American youth's attending their first day of school at an all white college under the protection of riot police wearing shields and holding automatic weapons would be to an African American that either didn't have that opportunity, or fought for it.
In instances where the photojournalist could have helped in some way but did not, then I find that despicable. But in many cases, the situation would not have been better or worse regardless of their presence, so the image was captured and people either learned from it or did not. I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong, so please nobody bash me for this!!! I'm just putting my little inner debate to print!!
Amen Jodie!
This was a great post Jodie. There is such a fine line and a vague boundary when it comes to ethics so far as photography goes.
The images you shared are truly heartbreaking. I understand that these photos are the kind that snap people into reality, and make them aware of what is going on around them. Tho I don't like that they got an award for them. I personally couldn't take those kinds of shots. I'd rather take shots of examples of compassion in the world.
I agree with Cass. If you're going to take a photo of pain, you should at least try to help after taking the photo. Capturing an image to "speak" to the world is fine. But as human beings I think that if you're trying to make a statement about world affairs, you should also try to show the flip side--as I said, photos showing compassion. And stopping what you think is unjust. If you are taking a shot to show the injustice, and cruelness of the world, you should work to end that cruelness, or at the very least try to make the world better.
It's only my humble opinion and honestly, I can't speak for these photographers and what emotions they had going through their minds. I think it is important that shots like the one of Gettysburg exist. It really lets you know how terrible it was, and gives you perspective on what you're studying in school, or it gives you a reminder of the sacrifice some very brave men made.
But all in all, I agree with you. I"d rather capture the small moments of compassion and love in the world to make an impact. But that's just me. Photography ethics is a hard subject, like religion and politics. Every photographer is different in their goals. I just think that photo journalists need to keep a strong hold on their humanity and not become "numb" so to speak and become too engrossed in getting shots such as the ones besides Gettysburg. I'm glad that that man apologized to the family.
I'm really glad that you adressed this issue. Very well written.
I'm not a photographer. However, I AM a nurse, and ethics is something I work with day to day.
Yes, these images are disturbing. BUT, I am thankful they are in existence. Yes, the photographer that took the picture of the starving child could have put the camera down and done....something. He could have helped THAT CHILD. But, in taking this picture and posting it for the world, he may have opened the door to helping his village, because now people like you and I are extremely aware of his plight.
Could the photojournalist helped that man in Vietnam? No, not without having a bullet in his brain as well.
Pictures are the best way to shock normal people into action. "It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it." applies here. Americans, especially, are prone to going about their lives, heads buried in the sand, because we are comfortable. Shit like this? Way of life for people around the world, and do you think 10 articles would be as effective in raising awareness as just one of those photographs? You can read an article about starving children in Africa, mumble about how awful it is, then put the paper down and wander off to your daily routine. THAT photo will inspire rage, disgust, horror, pity, sadness, and action.
I see your point. At heart, I totally agree. But I also see the other perspective and how important it is.
I'm not trying to sound heartless, mean, argumentative...just, playing devil's advocate I suppose.
How about instead of taking pictures of happy bands realise that these photos (like all REAL photos taken) have a meaning, a purpose.
You think because someone chooses to document a historical moment they are bad people? No, they are PHOTOGRAPHERS! They try to portray a story or act through a photo, it's no way un-ethical.
This post makes me very angry, angry at the fact that people are so blinded by real events happening! These photos open our eyes to the true world, not eveything should be protected.
This is life, and you can't hide it behind some crappy band pictures.
I'm glad that my post sparked some fire into you!
Hi Jodie. Long post ahead – sorry, emotive and complicated issue. My two cents - I don't believe that your heart is necessarily any bigger than those of the photographers who took those pictures. You may choose not to take them but that does not make you a better person. I don’t know enough about the other pics to comment on them, but that picture of the child in Sudan raised so much awareness and so much money for aid which in turn saved lives.
While I agree that all subjects should be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of how desperate their situation is, I think that the sort of moralising you are doing is a western middle-class luxury that has no place in such a brutal and desperate situation as the one in Sudan when that picture was taken - 10 years of civil war and mass starvation. I would be interested to see you explain your thinking (bearing in mind how much aid that photo generated) to a parent who is watching their children starve to death because there is not enough food and whose survival is dependent on aid - which is paid for by foreigners who, for one reason or another, are aware of the problem and motivated to help. IMO that picture was not gratuitous and I see no disrespect there. To me it is a very strong and compassionate call for help and it is well documented that help is exactly what it did.
Having said that, I do agree that where there is nothing to be gained from taking a picture of someone’s suffering then just don’t do it – I don’t understand why anyone would.
I also think that one cannot say that the photographer should have done “something” without specifying exactly what they should have done – and you can only do this fairly if you have a full understanding of the situation on the ground. It is not always possible to help without potentially making things worse - and not always possible to know what to do in the heat of the moment. The photo of the child was taken at an aid station (not 1 km away, as legend has it – according to another photographer who was there) and the girl was able to walk (although obviously very weak) so there was probably very little the photographer could have done. They were instructed not to touch the famine victims – who are extremely vulnerable to disease and would probably be easily injured, frightened or hurt by mishandling - and you can’t feed someone in that state without medical expertise. Perhaps he could have followed her but its not possible to judge without being in his shoes. There were hundreds of starving people all around him. His job was to be a messenger – the aid workers were there to provide immediate help. It is also worth noting that according to Joao Silva (the other photographer) the adults had left their children only briefly while they went to collect the food.
Not saying your choice to take happy pics is wrong but please don’t take the moral high ground over those people who understand that the world is not all happy westerners enjoying their favourite band in the sunshine and that those who suffer terribly in remote corners of the world deserve and need to have their stories told too – regardless of how uncomfortable it makes us lucky ones.
Post a Comment