Naïve or idealistic

[cliveh]

Am I being particularly naïve or idealistic here, but when I see pictures like this -

http://www.auction2000.se/auk/w.MegaPic?inC=WLPA&inA=20140205_1710&inO=87&inSO=1

on the Westlicht-auction site with an estimate of € 2500-300, shouldn’t part of the sale value go to the subjects if they can be identified?

 

[snapguy]

money

I took a photo of a tree in 1973. Should I donate some fertilizer to the tree, if I can still find it?

 

[pbromaghin]

Well, considering it was taken a minimum of about 50 years ago, that would be a bit difficult and very expensive.

 

[cliveh]

OK, point taken and I apologise for a stupid post.

 

[pbromaghin]

No apologies necessary, Clive. You do bring up a good question. You just used the wrong picture, I guess.

 

[gone]

I'll say. That pic isn't worth 25 cents US. Well, it's an auction estimate. Ha! Not everything HCB shot was worth printing. Don't misunderstand, I am not commenting on anything other than composition (if any here), tonal range, idea, etc. I'm glad you posted this because it shows how the art world places inflated prices on stuff just because someone famous took it, regardless of its artistic merits.

In the U.S., the courts have ruled that if anyone is out in public, then there is no expectation of privacy. It's, well,.... public. Everything is fair game for a photo.

 

[Alan Klein]

Maybe the photographer did provide some financial help when he took the picture. Let's think positively.

 

[eddie]

That pic isn't worth 25 cents US.

I would have to disagree. I'm not a big fan of street, or documentary, but I find it to be a successful image.

The photo speaks to the human condition. I think he was addressing those that are marginalized in their societies. The juxtaposition of them, in dirty clothes... shoeless... almost bare children... On the dirty surface while, only feet away, clean marble flooring... Passed unnoticed by a man in clean clothes and shoes... none of the other feet in the photo facing in their direction, as no one was looking there...
Not my favorite HCB, but a timeless image, effectively conveying the photographer's intent.

 

[removed account4]

wouldnt the sale of any "street photograph" goo to the subjects,
the matthew brady photographs go to the dead's families', vivian m's photographs profits go to whoever os on them ... the owner of subjects' get part too ...
not sure if ots the photographers' obligation to compensate, or is it?
good question clive .. its always good to think of those being exploited for $$$ ...

 

[snapguy]

exploited

And how do you know the subjects in the photo were exploited? Perhaps international focus on them, through the photographer's art, brought realization that something needed to be done for their plight. You might look up Lewis Hines and child labor.
Of course I have to ask -- do you presume those people are homeless, hungry? Could they be music fans keeping their place in line overnight so they can score great concert seats? Some folks might think those scruffy hippie-types at Woodstock were homeless and deprived.
Are you absolutely sure some rotten politician didn't stage a phony sit-in to con the voters in tossing out the incumbent so he can belly up to the public trough?

 

[Tom1956]

As a late-teenager in the early 70's, I chose another direction from the crowd in my photographic pursuits. I turned off of the social justice and environmental type causes, and all that idealistic gobbledegook. Finding ugliness and injustice to point my camera at, for the esoteric cause of "raising awareness", to me was just liberal activism. Why would I want to spend my hard earned 95¢ plus 4¢ tax on a roll of Tri-X at the Eckerds Drugs to waste on self-pious social ideals? SOMEBODY had to be different from the rest of the young budding photographers back then. And that crowd never changed; they only became more militant. I've regretted some of my choices in life, but am glad I had at least the foresight to not become an activist with a camera and a chip on my shoulder about all the injustices in the world.

 

[thegman]

It does not leave a good taste for a comparatively very wealthy photographer to take photos of the very poor, and only he gets any money when it sells for a lot. Certainly an ill taste is left, but hard to imagine a way to fairly compensate in this type of case. I think it's just a matter of accepting, that no, it's not 'fair', it's not pleasant, and we might rather it be different, but there is no real way to solve that particular problem.

 

[markbarendt]

It is definitely a reasonable thought Clive.

The people in the photograph are probably not individually identifiable, maybe even not alive any more, but it should not be tough to find a charity that could help people like them.

 

[benjiboy]

There are literally millions of people in India in this condition and even though the Indian government gets massive aid from the developed nations to alleviate poverty India can still fund the astronomical costs of a space programme, and nuclear weapons

 

[removed account4]

And how do you know the subjects in the photo were exploited? Perhaps international focus on them, through the photographer's art, brought realization that something needed to be done for their plight. You might look up Lewis Hines and child labor.
Of course I have to ask -- do you presume those people are homeless, hungry? Could they be music fans keeping their place in line overnight so they can score great concert seats? Some folks might think those scruffy hippie-types at Woodstock were homeless and deprived.
Are you absolutely sure some rotten politician didn't stage a phony sit-in to con the voters in tossing out the incumbent so he can belly up to the public trough?

one could easily see personal gain as exploitation. one could suggest that the gratification one gets from photographing "stuff" ( anything ) is personal gain and then if it is sold as "Art" again personal ( monetary ) gain, and
and in a way this is exploitation. not to say that good can not com from this exploitation ... ( as you mention )
...i would imagine one could easily say that the lions share photography is self serving, and not for the greater good especially in this day and age where people are clouded by getting their 15 seconds of fame
even photography of atrocities or slums one could have a skewed belief are for
personal gain that " the photographer" took the images, owns them as "property" and sells them for money ..
and a lot. of people equate money changing hands as exploitation. or to be showered by praise by the flickratzi ...

its kind of depressing ...

 

[Mike Crawford]

There's another debate to have about this photo or at least the print. It's not a signed print specifically made for exhibiting and selling but a press print made for reproduction. If an agency such as Magnum issued a print or transparency for repro, it was then meant to go back to the agency. However, in reality, it would be difficult to track down thousands of prints each year coming out of Paris, London and New York offices. (Of course, now it's all done by digital transfer.) The auction catalouge states it is from the Antwerp Gazette, but I would imagine the auction house has checked the provinence and that it it OK to sell.
http://www.westlicht-auction.com/index.php?id=5
There was an exhibition at Magnum in London a couple of years ago of old press prints and the backs were displayed too showing the history of where the print had been used.

 

[Mike Crawford]

In fact another one in the same auction has some fascinating stamps on the back of it.

No trimming!

http://www.auction2000.se/auk/w.MegaPic?inC=WLPA&inA=20140205_1710&inO=86&inSO=2

 

[cliveh]

In fact another one in the same auction has some fascinating stamps on the back of it.

No trimming!

http://www.auction2000.se/auk/w.MegaPic?inC=WLPA&inA=20140205_1710&inO=86&inSO=2

Thanks Mike, I found that quite interesting.

 

[Truzi]

The stamp on the back of the originally linked photo - is that a news outlet? If so, it should give us an idea of why the photo was taken. (Yes, that is a rhetorical question, and was mentioned in an earlier post.)

Another post mentioned bare feet, and someone walking past wearing shoes. However, ahead of the person in shoes are more bare feet, in what _appear_ to be clean pants.
As for the children not having underwear, it could possibly be custom for the area/time period/cultural group. Also, notice the women are wearing bracelets.

While I cannot disagree with the presumptions about the subjects of the photo, there are many contextual cues not yet mentioned in this thread, both in the photo and on the back.

 

[AgX]

The auction catalouge states it is from the Antwerp Gazette, but I would imagine the auction house has checked the provinence and that it it OK to sell.

That newspaper is still in existance and in a process of cutting down costs.

 

[AgX]

cliveh,
If you would be the auctioneer, would you reject that photograph?

 

[cliveh]

cliveh,
If you would be the auctioneer, would you reject that photograph?

No, because as an auctioneer it is not their job to take an ethical standpoint. However, I would say that I am pleased that such a stupid post by me has generated what seems to be an interesting discussion, with other people reading into this what I overlooked.

 

[bsdunek]

And how do you know the subjects in the photo were exploited? Perhaps international focus on them, through the photographer's art, brought realization that something needed to be done for their plight. You might look up Lewis Hines and child labor.

I think you make a good point here, snapguy. Wether the photographer directly helps the subjects, his photograph may encourage others to help. The photographer is the messenger. Yes, it would be nice if he would donate some of his profits to the needy, but I doubt if anyone gets rich taking this type of photo.
Just IMHO.

 

[rdg]

No, because as an auctioneer it is not their job to take an ethical standpoint.

That, unfortunately, is the excuse taken far too often. If it is not the auctioneer's responsibility to be ethical in what they sell then who is? If instead of these photographs there was something being sold that was stolen, or the result of a major injustice, would it be fine to still sell it?

The question was about the auctioneer selling the photographs but the morals and ethics are the responsibility of everyone. If we are looking at just photography it is the photographer, the person commissioning the work, those that display it, those that sell it, and even those that buy it who all must be responsible for the ethics and morality of the work. Saying that I did not take the photograph is not absolution from the ethical and moral implications of the work. My ethics and morality are not intact just because I was not involved in the original creation of the work.

I am not going to proclaim any ethical or moral stand on the photograph shown because I really know nothing of it or the circumstances under which it was taken. I do not know if the photographer did in any way compensate those seen in the photograph for the privilege of taking the said photograph nor do I know the story that he was trying to tell with it. Did the subjects of this photograph, potentially along with others, improve their condition because this was published?

It was the news stories of the famine in Ethiopia in 1984 that led to the massive fundraising that helped many of those people. It led to Live AID. Without the images there would not have been the efforts to support those suffering and dying and there would have been many more dead. Were the news stories exploiting the situation? Possibly but in so doing the people benefited greatly.

Richard

 

[Mike Crawford]

That newspaper is still in existance and in a process of cutting down costs.

interesting!