Out of bounds and not ethical

[Arklatexian]

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

Maybe you won't be forced into producing "artistic photographic images". Possibly if you keep taking pictures that you enjoy, in time they might just become art. There was a professional photographer in Baton Rouge, Louisiana who, while still a teenager, restored an old sailboat and with his 5x4 old speed graphic went along the coast and into the bayous of South Louisiana photographing the fishermen and their families. Shortly before he died, he appeared on TV and made the following statement: "I just took those pictures because it was fun to do so and now they tell me that they are art". And they are...............Regards

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Maybe you won't be forced into producing "artistic photographic images". Possibly if you keep taking pictures that you enjoy, in time they might just become art. There was a professional photographer in Baton Rouge, Louisiana who, while still a teenager, restored an old sailboat and with his 5x4 old speed graphic went along the coast and into the bayous of South Louisiana photographing the fishermen and their families. Shortly before he died, he appeared on TV and made the following statement: "I just took those pictures because it was fun to do so and now they tell me that they are art". And they are...............Regards

An extreme example of that would be the John Waters movie, "Pecker".

To me, exploitative photos are ones taken where the subjects are either incapable of expressing consent due to age, mental infirmity, or other kind of diminished capacity, or where the photographer is aware that the subject would refuse consent if they were aware of the photo being taken.

 

[Bill Burk]

I know a situation where I invariably put my camera down. Not claiming moral superiority, but just saying... it's how I operate.

When there are lives in danger and I am in a position to help, I always do my best to help. This has cost me some beautiful photographs.

A specific example is a backpack trip I took with my wife and some friends. We left my cabin in Camp Nelson, CA and headed up a nearby trail to Pecks Canyon one Memorial Day weekend (May). We were a few miles in the backcountry, and got caught in a brief freak snowstorm. The next morning we had to make our way back to the car with several inches of snow on the ground, inadequate gear and no trail visible. The scenery was beautiful and I had slide film in the camera. But the camera didn't come out. We weren't really prepared for snow and needed to get out.

I had a general idea of the route, but it wasn't an obvious trail like most. I remembered an unusual turn where we had come down from a ridge and I knew if we missed that turn, we'd head into a ravine. What saved our day was the tree blazes. These are cuts in the bark shaped like exclamation points or boot footprints. This was the first time I had to rely on them. I learned that day to appreciate that each blaze is set within view of the next blaze... So once you find one blaze, just stay at the tree with the blaze and look around until you see the next. At least in the Sequoia National Forest it works that way.

I also focused my attention on making sure my wife's feet were warm, since she had thin trail shoes. I gave her some plastic bags to create vapor barrier socks, they worked well enough (since the blazes kept us on the trail) because we got back to the trailhead in the shortest possible time. Only then we found out my buddy didn't bring chains for his minivan, and he quickly got us stuck off to the side of the road.

Bill Roberts, a well-known "local," arrived within a few minutes, loaded up his horse trailer and left us there as he helped everybody else out. I usually tell the story that he figured we'd be alright since I was a "local." At the back of my mind I was worried that he had somehow seen me drinking coffee from my "Sierra Club" mug... I was worried about being discovered ever since he told a joke at dinner one night at "The Alpiner" that he likes to line up "Sierra Clubbers" and "Endangered Species" so he could shoot them both with one bullet.

Anyway, everybody else was taken care of but us, and we were getting cramped and cold in the minivan. At one point we heard the ranger had driven over an edge of the road and had to be pulled out. I finally left our party and hopped in the bed of a pickup truck, determined to just hitch a ride back to my cabin where I could get my own chains. Didn't get as far as my cabin, someone had a set of chains to loan us, so I hopped a ride back to our minivan, chained up and all was well.

I didn't take any pictures the whole day. I wouldn't have it another way.

 

[cliveh]

An extreme example of that would be the John Waters movie, "Pecker".

To me, exploitative photos are ones taken where the subjects are either incapable of expressing consent due to age, mental infirmity, or other kind of diminished capacity, or where the photographer is aware that the subject would refuse consent if they were aware of the photo being taken.

I would agree with this.

 

[benjiboy]

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

But do it first

 

[digital&film]

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.

Other than Afghan Girl, this is one of my fav's:

 

[Gerald C Koch]

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

One of the most striking BW photographs I have ever seen was the face of an inmate of a mental institution in Haiti. Forget the name of the photographer.

 

[cliveh]

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.

This photograph is a very good example, as it could be said to be exploitative when taken, but over time it has become a very artistic image.

 

[Photo Engineer]

How about the naked Vietnamese girl running from the Napalm explosions, or the naked children being treated in a Vietnamese hospital?

 

[Photo Engineer]

This photograph is a very good example, as it could be said to be exploitative when taken, but over time it has become a very artistic image.

I would call it an expressive or emotional rather than artistic. Remember that the photographer got paid, but the mother likely did not. IDK the actual circumstances.

PE

 

[cliveh]

How about the naked Vietnamese girl running from the Napalm explosions, or the naked children being treated in a Vietnamese hospital?

I would say these are classic photo journalistic images portraying the horrors of war, but not one to be considered exploitative or in an artistic context.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Then, is photojournalism ever exploitative?

 

[cliveh]

Then, is photojournalism ever exploitative?

Probably not as the definition of photojournalism rules out exploitation. However, this was not the premise of my OP.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I would call it an expressive or emotional rather than artistic. Remember that the photographer got paid, but the mother likely did not. IDK the actual circumstances.

PE

IIRC, this was taken by Imogen Cunningham while working for the federal government and she made very little profit. She saw what she saw and did her best to convey that woman's unhappy predicament to the rest of the world. Was the image exploitative? Perhaps... but it did a damned fine job of opening others' eyes... didn't it?

 

[cliveh]

IIRC, this was taken by Imogen Cunningham while working for the federal government and she made very little profit. She saw what she saw and did her best to convey that woman's unhappy predicament to the rest of the world. Was the image exploitative? Perhaps... but it did a damned fine job of opening others' eyes... didn't it?

No, it was taken by Dorothea Lange, or are you talking about a different image?.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

No, it was taken by Dorothea Lange.

Right... sorry... but the rest is correct.

 

[digital&film]

Dorothea Lange did this too...

 

[MattKing]

The recent excellent Dorothea Lange biography on PBS American Masters series included an interesting discussion of "Migrant Mother". It seems that the woman who was the subject of that photo wasn't so much bothered by the original use of the photo, but rather the extensive re-publication of it a variety of locations and forms.

The photo is actually referenced on her tombstone.

 

[Photo Engineer]

There you have it again Matt. She approved of the original use but later re-publication bothered her. Did it then become exploitative? Did something change? Can a subject of a photo change their minds?

PE

 

[removed account4]

one person's exploited is another's not exploited.
i don't think there is a benchmark ...

 

[Gerald C Koch]

OK, anything that exploits the innocent of children

For a long time SCOTUS has avoided a definition of obscenity. Hence the argument against it has been "pivoted" to one of exploitation. However what constitutes exploitation has conveniently been kept rather vague. In the US anyone under the age of 18 is considered a child under the law. From a legal perspective this is a very thorny issue and the courts have really been of little help.

 

[Wayne]

Digital.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Yes. In terms of "street" photography:

I don't take hobos pictures. I don't take old people pictures if they are suffering due to their physical condition. I don't take pictures of disabled people.
I do not like to take pictures of eating people and walking zombies a.k.a. mobile phone users pictures.
I don't take street pictures of drug addicts and drunks.
It is all same act of coward. Same as they do with long legged ladies shots taken with long tele from the back!

Taking pictures of less fortunate people are subject for social documentary to raise awareness, not for "street photography" crapshots.

 

[jovo]

One of the most beautiful and heartbreaking photographs I know is "Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath". Smith's crusade against Minamata Disease, (that resulted in serious physical injury to him) was instrumental in ending wastewater containing mercury flowing into water used for human drinking and cooking. Though Smith set up the shot with Tomoko's mother's permission, the family asked that it be withdrawn perhaps for the same reason that "Migrant Mother" offended its subject after a time.

Had this possibly exploitative image not been made, however, mercury poisoning might have continued indefinitely. For me, a lot has to do with one's intent when making a photograph. Each photograph should be assessed individually.

 

[bvy]

Taking pictures of less fortunate people are subject for social documentary to raise awareness, not for "street photography" crapshots.

Is street photography not a form of social documentary -- incapable of raising awareness? I'm thinking more of the kind of work that Winogrand did. I agree that too many self-proclaimed street photographers see the homeless and disabled as low hanging fruit, and their pictures amount to nothing special. They're all over Flickr.