Reading this section “Bearing
Witness” in Photography: A Critical Introduction, I was especially intrigued by
the idea of ethics in photography, of the fine line between exploitation and
education or empathy. Susan Sontag’s quote resonated with me: “Transforming is
what art does, but photography that bears witness to the calamitous and the
reprehensible is much criticized if it seems ‘aesthetic’; that is, too much
like art.” Photography’s ability to
represent the world as it is often makes objectively photographing catastrophe
and injustice impossible. I am reminded of the infamous photograph by
photojournalist Kevin Carter, in which a vulture stalks an emaciated Sudanese
child. He received a Pulitzer Prize for the image, but committed suicide that
same year. He was constantly questioned and criticized for allegedly not
helping the child in the picture, even though he chased the vulture off after
the image was taken. I think the essential thing to remember is that we are
humans before we are photographers, and when photographing, we must stay in
touch with our gut feelings and sense of human empathy. If it feels wrong, it
probably is. Personally, I am more interested in using photography as a tool to
help those who need help, rather than making these people a spectacle for
others. Photography has a tendency to be very passive, to show images of
starving children and the aftermath of war, where it sits silently on a gallery
wall for people to walk past. I believe the solution to crossing that fine line
between exploitation and empathy is activating photography, and using it as a proactive
problem-solving instrument rather than an inert spectacle.
1 comment:
It definitely is a very strange thing, creating real, "documentary" photographs without feeling like you're exploiting the subject. The same issue arises when critics and viewers are curious if the artists pay the subjects for the "portraits" of their life. Last semester, a visiting artist, Waswo X Waswo, came to UConn to show his work. Waswo photographed people from India in their everyday lives, doing unique jobs and having distinct, charming personalities. And however much praise Waswo got for his work, people always accused him of exploiting his subjects if they weren't paid. However, if Waswo did admit to paying the subjects, critics accused his art as being fake and set up. There was no winning for him, finding a struggle in creating "real" art that was emotional and true without exploiting the Indian subjects. And the fight only continues in controversial portraiture when disabled or mentally ill people are photographed. Even if the photographer has the best intentions to shed light on an mental illness or the personality of a specific disabled person, a viewer of that photograph can't help but wonder if the subject was taken advantage of. We only see that one moment in time-- that one snapshot. But no one gets to see what goes on behind the camera, or how the people in front of the camera feel.
Post a Comment