First up, congrats Shel on stirring up the folk with the 'hot' topic- unfortunately I missed the majority of early discussion and got whopped with it when I woke up this morning (OT: always wondered- if your birthday was around 7pm US time, say on a Monday the 2nd of some month, if you moved to Australia or NZ, wouldn't your real birthday be on Sunday the 1st?. Btw Cotty, just living in Aus I feel some kind of obligation to support the Wallabies.. I don't follow rugby, but it sounds like it's going to be a good game..)
Just some raw thoughts- I suppose it'd quite easily fall into photojourn considering the rich editorial, and photojourn does place a lot of emphasis on candid observation. The documentary photographer doesn't have the same ultimate goals as the humble or artistic photographer, ergo has no real obligation to portray the subject in any form other than what it appears to be. So I figure that it's really a decision for the photographer to make (which one are you, and are you comfortable with that decision?), and that decision becomes his/her moral compass. Shel: "Am I being judgmental or just recording a scene?" Shel, I'm guessing you've already decided which one you are and raised this question as a guide for discussion. However, I propose that if one asks this question in earnest, he/she is doing neither per se, but is in fact guilty of doing both, which might be seen to be a somewhat reckless, unfocused (no pun intended) approach to photography. This would be the case if one decides that there are situations he/she'd be non-judgementally recording the snapshot (e.g. if that lady was your wife/kid, and this was a pitstop on a roadtrip to Vegas) and situations that he/she tells makes a judgement (e.g.Smithsonian contest has a category for Americana, and you think hey yea easy- I'll get a photo of a fat white person (in context) in a fast food place). So back at you Shel- Christian and Raimo picked sides, which team are you playing for? (Can't remember where I heard this bit: "you know what happens to those who sit on the fence? B*lls gets squashed.." and how apt given my argument!) With regard to 'permission', I seldom find myself in situations where it's an issue. Most of the time when I ask, I just get very hearty go-aheads (but then again, I'm not going for that TMAX your-dictator-is-eviller-than-my-dictator shot). It's probably just situation dependent. At parties, there's a big difference shoving a chunky SLR in someone's face (especially using anything larger than a 50 1.7.. some people scare at the sight of a motordrive, a battery grip or even a petal hood..) instead of a slinky P&S, even if your intent is just 'one for the albums'. I suppose that's one big joy for Leica or Diana users.. Back to 'permission' in the right context, William: "I think the best argument for taking this picture is that you generally cannot go back and recreate a missed opportunity. "Shoot first, ask questions later"." This is probably the best maxim if you're adopting the photojourn standpoint. This way if you successfully surreptitiously captured the first frame, you might even get a second shot (potentially better, but probably of 'lesser value' given it's non-candid nature, but then there's the value of having a non-candid beside the candid too..). Of course if you get a 'you-b*stard-do-you-make-it-a-habit-of-stealing-souls' subject, who then proceeds to disarm you of your camera, followed by a surprisingly quick unloading of your ammo into a poignant ribbon in the wind (mmm.. it sparkles in the sunshine..), I don't think you can claim your income lost or anything for that matter from anyone.. Unfortunately, this is one of the things that points to the sensibilities of digital.. sigh. With a digital you'd just be able to ask your subject straight out, and isolate that frame once you heard the "I'd rather you didn't actually.. sorry". I think the next most relevant photo (to Shel's) to bring up for the sake of discussion would be the infamous one Weegee did of the two lovers in the palace theatre making out. http://www.1earthmedia.com/photography/weegee.html That one's as voyeuristic as it gets, with the IR flash filter technique. And I don't really think he went up to them after the shot asking for permission (I may be wrong though). To a certain extent there's editorial, but there's also a very artistic element isn't there? Also, Mat mentioned, "Art isn't always beautiful. But it should always make you think..." And that's something I've heard a lot lately in art lectures I go to (I'm no expert btw). However, that phrase doesn't really take into account the ethical concerns of "Art at the expense of others" Paul (Stenquist): "Street photography is most certainly art." I don't think anyone can really identify what isn't Art. Marcel Duchamp surely challenged it with his off the shelf purchase and subsequent exhibition of a prefab urinal. I suppose that would point in the direction that Art is whatever you call art. I'm pretty sure most of us here would admit that it takes skill, timing and a good eye to find the frame in street photography. For me personally, a portion of the enjoyment in the appreciation of such frames is subject to taxation: Shel, with reference to your image, I get appreciate the quality of the frame and the story it tells me. However, I lose a percentage of satisfaction thinking about the subject's possible reaction to the image- much like tax.. Also something to think about would be 'side-choosing' in the viewers' appreciation of the final product, as there is in the photographer's role. I personally think the viewer has slightly less liability for being an apathetic consumer of the image (i.e yes, I may like the image, but I wouldn't go out and take that picture). I suppose a parallel would be in the use of marijuana- between the role of a dealer and a user.. graywolf: "The viewer's personal biases are not the photographer's concern (except the photographer's personal biases to himself, in this particular case)." I'm not too comfortable with this standpoint, personally. I think when the (ideally neutral) photographer is aware of the potential viewer bias, it's a rare and subtle skill to make a statement which encourages analysis of existing discourses without giving conflicting ideologies ammunition. As you hear so often in discussions about art and the like, "Art is not made in a vacuum". I'm not sure who said it, but it's reasonably understandable, and if not, Yahoo's got pages and pages of it.. Paul: "I think the photo itself is fine, the thing that urks me is the title "Big Eater" i think this degrades both the photo and subject." Shel, Paul's pointed out that you've indeed made a judgement. Working title or not, it's insight as to where you stand don't you think? Ann: "IF you took the shot without showing her face at all, for purposes of showing how ill we, as a nation, are making ourselves - perhaps." Ann, that's a great call. Anyway down to wire, the common definition of ethics is 'doing the right thing' when nobody else is looking (at least not the subject, in this case..) Shel : "My question to the list: Should this photo have been taken?" My answer- it depends. Who by? Certainly not by me. Best Regards, Ryan PS. For anyone who actually reached this postscript, thanks!
