Out of bounds and not ethical

[cliveh]

In the sphere of artistic photographic imagery, are their subjects that you consider out of bounds or not ethical? If so, what are they and why?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

No... but I'm a pervert.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Clive, before we propound on this subject, how about you jumping in the water first with your list?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Clive, before we propound on this subject, how about you jumping in the water first with your list?

Huh?? This from a person who juxtapositions for coggling?

You know I'm just messing with you... right, PE?

 

[Photo Engineer]

That is "croggle". As in, "I was croggled by the poor spelling of old-n-feeble people!".

PE

 

[benjiboy]

In the sphere of artistic photographic imagery, are their subjects that you consider out of bounds or not ethical? If so, what are they and why?

When I start producing "artistic photographic images"I'll tell you.

 

[cliveh]

Clive, before we propound on this subject, how about you jumping in the water first with your list?

OK, anything that exploits the innocent of children, the infirm or mentally ill for starters.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

That is "croggle". As in, "I was croggled by the poor spelling of old-n-feeble people!".

PE

Arrrrrrr...!!!

 

[benjiboy]

OK, anything that exploits the innocent of children, the infirm or mentally ill for starters.

That would put most photojournalists out of business.

 

[Vilk]

OK, anything that exploits the innocent of children, the infirm or mentally ill for starters.

This nudges the discussion into a slightly different plane--specifically, what is "exploitation?" Once we fix this, the rest easy, just don't exploit, create.

 

[cliveh]

This nudges the discussion into a slightly different plane--specifically, what is "exploitation?" Once we fix this, the rest easy, just don't exploit, create.

Well lets expand the discussion. What is exploitation?

 

[Jim Jones]

A variation of the Golden Rule is a good guide to ethics: do nothing to others that you would not have done to you.

 

[digital&film]

OK, anything that exploits the innocent of children, the infirm or mentally ill for starters.

Also.. most homeless shots.. except for limited exceptions.

 

[snapguy]

tell us

Tell us, benjirentboy, does that include Jackie Kennedy who was an enquiring photographer for a newspaper in her days before she married Jack?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

That would put most photojournalists out of business.

That kind of stuff can be legitimate subject matter for journalists telling a story about poverty, mental illness, child abouse, etc. The OP asked about fine art, not journalism.

 

[adelorenzo]

Out of respect for the dead I don't feel comfortable shooting cemeteries or grave sites, even the touristy ones.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, lets define exploitation then. After all, a prizewinner is not a prizewinner if it is hidden away in a box, or just shown to friends, is it? An exploitative picture in a box? Is that exploitative? Or is it just a random picture. In fact, you may have taken it and then put it away, upset at what you did.

BTW, what about war pictures? Things being done in the mideast, the Boston bombing marathon and the aftermath? NBC did several follow up series on the latter. Was it exploitative?

PE

 

[MattKing]

Was "Migrant Mother" exploitative?

It was, of course, documentary in nature, and therefore might not be considered to be strictly "artistic" in nature.

There are probably some photographs that appear exploitative when they are new, but over time come to be appreciated as illuminating.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

After all, a prizewinner is not a prizewinner if it is hidden away in a box, or just shown to friends, is it? An exploitative picture in a box? Is that exploitative? Or is it just a random picture?

Only Schrödinger's cat knows for sure. That is, if he's in a condition to know. Which we don't know...

Ken

 

[Photo Engineer]

The photos in "Show Me" were considered to be informative and illuminating when published and are now considered to be exploitative and close to being child pornography.

This is the reverse of what you describe Matt, so it goes both ways.

PE

 

[bdial]

I don't know that a photograph just on its own, can be exploitive. I think the exploitation comes in the way the photo might be used.
For example Sally Mann made and exhibited photos of her children nude. Though people's opinions do vary, i think it's safe to say that child porn was not her intent.

OTH, porn is not the intent of Show Me, either but it probably qualifies in the context of current standards.

 

[Eric Rose]

OK, anything that exploits the innocent of children, the infirm or mentally ill for starters.

Cliveh what is your definition of exploitation?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Bdial, you have a significant though here! It is the intent?

PE

 

[bdial]

Well, my opinion is that she was not trying to exploit her children, at least not in a negative way. But, she gets a lot of criticism for that work.
I think that she is one good example of what may or may not be out of bounds or not ethical. I don't happen to think it is out of bounds, I am not sure whether society does or not, but there are plenty of people who do.

 

[mopar_guy]

I think that this is a slippery slope. I can hardly walk out in public these days without being recorded by surveillance cameras. I am hardly news worthy on most days, so there is no journalistic excuse for this. I don't think that it could be called fine art to take my image while I am buying produce at the supermarket. I regard this extremely common practice as exploitation. What is the justification for this mass surveillance? I suppose that it is in common practice because everybody is doing it. Why would you have ethical concerns about making unwanted images when it is commonly accepted by the public?