What gives, Magnum?

[Alex Benjamin]

Magnum is getting to be a huge embarrassment to the photo community. Amongst other things, there's their involvement with the promotion of unethical photographs which @duckrabbittblog has documented on Twitter, and also, recently, the promotion of these terrible and exploitative picks of what they call "overlooked" people by Bruce Gilden.

I really don't get where they are going.

 

[ic-racer]

I don't follow tweets or know what a duckrabbit is.
Why do you think there is an embarrassment? What pictures do you think are unethical, and why do you think that.

 

[Richard Man]

Bruce Gilden will always be controversial. Some people love, or at least love to collect and sell, his stuff. Not my cup of tea.

Obviously some people in Magnum think that these photos are good.

 

[Don_ih]

Are Gilden's photos of these people (who agreed to be photographed) exploitative? Or do you think they're exploitative because you think there is something wrong with those people?

I'm just wondering.

 

[awty]

Bruce Gilden's work is great as is most of the photographers in Magnum group.
I don't need someone telling what to like.

 

[halfaman]

I have the book edited by Leica about this work. I find nothing wrong or unethical on this pretty straight set of portraits.

 

[snusmumriken]

Is it Bruce Gilden you consider exploitative for making social documentary photos? Or Magnum for making them better known? Or Magnum for making money out of the process?

 

[Pieter12]

Magnum is a commercial, syndicating agency. They are not necessarily a cultural institution. Although they do screen applicants for membership, I'm guessing they also observe today's market for what sells. And the images in the original post must be selling.

 

[haliderollei]

Thank you for your moral high-ground, and enlightenment, you are a true saint, don't make me laugh. I dislike his photo's but who are you to judge?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Thank you for your moral high-ground, and enlightenment, you are a true saint, don't make me laugh. I dislike his photo's but who are you to judge?

So, essentially, every time one engages in the question of ethics in photography, one is taking the "moral high-ground" ? This reminds me of the time when, on another forum, I participated in a discussion about consent when photographing the homeless and someone replied that they were all "fair game". Didn't bother to go further into that discussion. Any photographer who thinks people are "game" doesn't deserve my time.

I happen to believe that you should care about the people you photograph, and that you photograph them in order to bring out their dignity. This holds especially true with the homeless, as with the many people who are suffering from poverty or war in Africa and elsewhere. That makes me a saint ? Gee, they've lowered the requirements for the job, but fine.

Now, if you take the time to read a bit and do some research (Dude, Google is your friend), you'll see that Magnum has been into a lot of controversies these past few years, and they have themselves acknowledged that a revision of their ethical principles is needed, especially regarding the photography of children and of the poor.

The problems with Bruce Gilden's style of photography are also well discussed, here and elsewhere. What he did for Médecins sans frontières (MSF) in Haïti, the way he photographed the victims of the earthquake, is problematic, at least, and this as other examples should at least make every photographer ask himself or herself basic ethical questions about what to shoot, how, when and why. And many do.

But I guess that would make too many saints out there, right?

Oh, and to answer you "who are you to judge" question: I am Haïtian, I've lost family and friends during the earthquake, and I've been there enough times to see the ravages of poverty. That's who I am to judge. But that doesn't matter. Anybody that possesses the combination of a conscience, a minimum of empathy and a camera should also feel the right to judge those who exploit the misery of others for their own photographic gains.

Not your thing? Don't worry, I won't judge you.

 

[halfaman]

The problems with Bruce Gilden's style of photography are also well discussed, here and elsewhere. What he did for Médecins sans frontières (MSF) in Haïti, the way he photographed the victims of the earthquake, is problematic, at least, and this as other examples should at least make every photographer ask himself or herself basic ethical questions about what to shoot, how, when and why. And many do.

The thing is the regular Gilden criticsm is not related with this particular book. Some people is assuming that the portraits here are candid photos but they are also part of the "Face" project and all were taken with the consent of the model during a session. You may like it or not but there is nothing "wrong" with it.

 

[haliderollei]

So, essentially, every time one engages in the question of ethics in photography, one is taking the "moral high-ground" ? This reminds me of the time when, on another forum, I participated in a discussion about consent when photographing the homeless and someone replied that they were all "fair game". Didn't bother to go further into that discussion. Any photographer who thinks people are "game" doesn't deserve my time.

I happen to believe that you should care about the people you photograph, and that you photograph them in order to bring out their dignity. This holds especially true with the homeless, as with the many people who are suffering from poverty or war in Africa and elsewhere. That makes me a saint ? Gee, they've lowered the requirements for the job, but fine.

Now, if you take the time to read a bit and do some research (Dude, Google is your friend), you'll see that Magnum has been into a lot of controversies these past few years, and they have themselves acknowledged that a revision of their ethical principles is needed, especially regarding the photography of children and of the poor.

The problems with Bruce Gilden's style of photography are also well discussed, here and elsewhere. What he did for Médecins sans frontières (MSF) in Haïti, the way he photographed the victims of the earthquake, is problematic, at least, and this as other examples should at least make every photographer ask himself or herself basic ethical questions about what to shoot, how, when and why. And many do.

But I guess that would make too many saints out there, right?

Oh, and to answer you "who are you to judge" question: I am Haïtian, I've lost family and friends during the earthquake, and I've been there enough times to see the ravages of poverty. That's who I am to judge. But that doesn't matter. Anybody that possesses the combination of a conscience, a minimum of empathy and a camera should also feel the right to judge those who exploit the misery of others for their own photographic gains.

Not your thing? Don't worry, I won't judge you.

Thank you for the thoughtful answer, I'm going to give this some thought and reply tommorow

 

[Vaughn]

There seems to me to be two levels of concern. One is the relationship of the photographer to the individual photographed. The other is the relationship of the photographer to the group of individuals being photographed (for example, the homeless). On both levels, is the photographer's relationship one of mutual benefit? A one-sided profit/fame gathering? A giving back or a taking?

Does a photographer who has aquired fame, income, and further commissions/grants/projects through his/her work photographing the poor owe anything back to the community s/he was photographing? Or is it moral enough to walk away and think that giving them "exposure" is good enough? (How many times do photographers,and artists in general, get hit up for free work 'for the exposure'?)

I do not know enough about Gilden's work and his relationships with the subjects of his photos to make any judgement...but I would base it on the above.

For the record, my subjects tend to be redwoods, creeks, deserts and such. I hope I have given back and continue to give back as much as I have gained through my photographing of those Places.

 

[Paul Howell]

These are all valid questions, have been asked from the beginning of photojournalism. It is a gray area, as mentioned taking pictures of the homeless. If a homeless person image is captured for news, on a public street without the expectation of privacy it is news worthy. Taking a picture of a homeless person and selling that image without a model release and sell that image as "fine art." is not only unethical but illegal. Second question, if the person who is homeless is living with serious mental illness, and at the time psychotic can he/she give consent? Is it exploiting a person of limited income without knowledge of the business of photogprhaly to pay him/her a token amount of money for a model release rather then the going rate for a hour of a model's time?

The question is what is exploitation when engaged in street photography?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The thing is the regular Gilden criticsm is not related with this particular book. Some people is assuming that the portraits here are candid photos but they are also part of the "Face" project and all were taken with the consent of the model during a session. You may like it or not but there is nothing "wrong" with it.

Thanks for the precision, halfaman. As I mentioned, my problem with Gilden is more linked to his work in Haïti, so I admit I am biased toward the totality of his works.

I understand that he has the consent of these models — as opposed to his street work, which is at times pure aggression. I also read that his esthetic is to "show people how they really are", an ideal which could be noble and interesting were it not that he's using every trick of the trade — flash, over saturation of color, etc. — to emphasize what he calls "character", but what in truth he sees as "freaks", for lack of a better word.

Just compare his work with, say, what Bruce Davidson did when photographing Jimmy Armstrong from the Clyde Beatty Circus, or Nan Goldin's work. It is possible to photograph people living "in the margins" of society and preserve their dignity.

I'm not saying Gilden's work is "wrong". I have no beef against him — whether or not he has any moral fibre or not doesn't change the fact the he's allowed to do the photographs he wants or thinks he should do, for the reasons he wants. My original post was addressed to Magnum. As an organization, my belief is that it should work a little harder to ask itself basic questions about ethics in the representation of vulnerable populations. Especially if it ends up selling this works and making money out of it.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The question is what is exploitation when engaged in street photography?

That is indeed an excellent question.

 

[Sirius Glass]

These are all valid questions, have been asked from the beginning of photojournalism. It is a gray area, as mentioned taking pictures of the homeless. If a homeless person image is captured for news, on a public street without the expectation of privacy it is news worthy. Taking a picture of a homeless person and selling that image without a model release and sell that image as "fine art." is not only unethical but illegal. Second question, if the person who is homeless is living with serious mental illness, and at the time psychotic can he/she give consent? Is it exploiting a person of limited income without knowledge of the business of photogprhaly to pay him/her a token amount of money for a model release rather then the going rate for a hour of a model's time?

The question is what is exploitation when engaged in street photography?

Does that include someone who did all the right things but lost a job and because homeless? Someone who did all the right things but got sick and because homeless? Someone who did all the right things but got COVID, could not catch up with the rent and because homeless? Damned straight it does! Please keep up your posts.

 

[pentaxuser]

Alex, all I see is 2 faces, a tatooed arm and what looks like street art. I'd need to know a lot more about the background to each picture and that of presumably most of the others in the book to be able to judge whether there is any unethical, exploitative or terrible about what Bruce Gilden did

Maybe you have the book from which to be able to make judgements. If you do and assuming that you are not breaking copyright/ infringing on intellectual property could you give us more detail to substantiate your conclusions?

This may or may not help me to understand why your opinion is as it is Otherwise it is just an opinion isn't it and one based on a disgust at his work on Haiti.

Unless you know a lot more about his book on the Black County then I fail to see how these 4 pictures have resulted in your opinion.

Just my opinion, of course

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

Thank you for the thoughtful answer, I'm going to give this some thought and reply tomorrow

Me too. Had that been expressed yesterday I wouldn’t have spent so much time scratching my head.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Alex, all I see is 2 faces, a tatooed arm and what looks like street art. I'd need to know a lot more about the background to each picture and that of presumably most of the others in the book to be able to judge whether there is any unethical, exploitative or terrible about what Bruce Gilden did

Maybe you have the book from which to be able to make judgements. If you do and assuming that you are not breaking copyright/ infringing on intellectual property could you give us more detail to substantiate your conclusions?

This may or may not help me to understand why your opinion is as it is Otherwise it is just an opinion isn't it and one based on a disgust at his work on Haiti.

Unless you know a lot more about his book on the Black County then I fail to see how these 4 pictures have resulted in your opinion.

Just my opinion, of course

pentaxuser

Hi Pentaxuser

Guess my fault in my original post was not making it clear enough that I'm putting into question Magnum's sense of ethics (or lack thereof). This is based on many circumstances that have been documented in the recent past, notably about how the agency portraits poverty and its many problems in what are still called "Third Wold Countries" — the sexual exploitation and rape of children in poor countries, in which the victims were fully identifiable, being one of many cases. Magnum has been under attack for this, and, at times, has acknowledge that it needs to review its policies.

I don't care about Gilden. I do think his pictures are exploitative, but that's my problem. The story popped up on my Twitter timeline, and I guess reading the crap the Magnum publicist wrote — the last thing Gilden is interested in is "documenting", "unveiling" or "studying" anything, least of all a specific community — rattled my chain a bit too much.

I think asking whether Magnum is more about about making money than it is about documenting — or, to be more precise, asking what compromises Magnum is willing to take when documenting poverty and its consequences knowing that poverty and misery sells — is a valid question, and I think in that sense, asking whether or not Gilden's photos are exploitative is also a valid question. Not saying everybody should ask it or even care. Just saying it's a valid question.

 

[Paul Howell]

Does that include someone who did all the right things but lost a job and because homeless? Someone who did all the right things but got sick and because homeless? Someone who did all the right things but got COVID, could not catch up with the rent and because homeless? Damned straight it does! Please keep up your posts.

Dorothea Lang's famous photograph of the homeless, migrant woman in the late 30s. In a follow up documentary she was found alive and well living in the Central Valley. The woman Florence Leona Thompson only complaint was that never earned money from the thousands and thousands of reprints, inclusion in text books ect.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks you Alex for the reply. I now realise that the Black Country book was chosen by you as a manifestation of what you believe to the change in behaviour of Magnum and its former ethical standards

Well OK I have never followed Magnum so do not know enough about it to comment and I will let the others debate this with you

All I would say is that without knowing a lot more about Mr Gilden's book you may have chosen an example that may not be a propos

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Taking a picture of a homeless person and selling that image without a model release and sell that image as "fine art." is not only unethical but illegal.

I'm sure it is imprudent.
And against my principles as well, if I did it without at least engaging with the subject and confirming their agreement.
I'm not sure that it is always unethical, but ethical issues should be addressed.
But I can't think of any reason it would be illegal, although in places like Germany or Quebec where there are special, more restrictive statutes that deal with privacy rights, claims for damages might arise.
As for the model release, they tend to be required by publishers, because they protect publishers from potential litigation, but their main advantage is that they confirm consent.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Does that include someone who did all the right things but lost a job and because homeless? Someone who did all the right things but got sick and because homeless? Someone who did all the right things but got COVID, could not catch up with the rent and because homeless? Damned straight it does! Please keep up your posts.

Dorothea Lang's famous photograph of the homeless, migrant woman in the late 30s. In a follow up documentary she was found alive and well living in the Central Valley. The woman Florence Leona Thompson only complaint was that never earned money from the thousands and thousands of reprints, inclusion in text books ect.

But Dorothea Lang had both permission and compassion.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

But Dorothea Lang had both permission and compassion.

Exactly!

And both should be considered equally no matter where you are in the world. That last part is important. Amongst the ethical problems Magnum has recently faced there is the case of Iranian photographer Newsha Tavakolian, who photographed teenage victims of rape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, photos in which these victims were all identifiable. Both Magnum and MSF were pushed to review their practice after many complaints.

Magnum photographer defends images of teenage gang rape victim after humanitarian organisation removes them from website

After controversy on social media surrounding Newsha Tavakolian’s photographs of East Congo, Médecins Sans Frontières announces internal review

www.theartnewspaper.com