I was reading Jörg Colberg's interview with Alec Soth and I came across a topic which I thought would be interesting for discussion. The excerpt reads:
JC: (...) and that is the question of whether people have to be asked if their portrait ends up in a gallery or book. The general feeling amongst many photographers seems to be that as long as you are in a public space, a photographer can simply take your photo. But I do think that to some extent, somebody who feel(s) uncomfortable about having his or her photo taken and/or exhibited needs to be taken seriously. I realize this is not a very simple question, but what do you think about this?
AS: Photographing people, with or without permission, usually leads to all sorts of ethical dilemmas. It is unavoidable. (...) I ask permission. (...) the truth is that when I take a picture of a person I am ʻusingʼ that person. They are becoming material for my work and Iʼm turning them into an object, (...) All I can say is that on the long list of ethical crimes a(nd) misdemeanors, photographing people in the name of art isnʼt the worst violation.
What is your opinion on that matter? Does the fact of the portrait taking place in a public space, whether or not it is noticeable immediately gives the photographer complete liberty? Do you think this needs to be explained o the subjects? Would you dare to dwell in the gray areas of law by not sharing this information beforehand? How do you approach this matter?
Please do comment and help this blog also be a place for discussion.
Jörg Colberg's Blog Conscientious
Alec Soth's Website
I agree with Alec Soth that there are worse crimes than taking pictures of people in public and turning them into objects. However, I'd like to nuance that point a bit by adding the question of methods to the forum. In the BBC series, The Genius of Photography, we are shown quite clearly that all street photographers are not the same. I am referring to the agressive man near Time Square who sticks his Leica in people's faces and shouts abuse when they dare balk his endeavours.
ReplyDeleteIt would be wonderful if someone might be able to find and upload that that sequence. Sadly, the BBC has removed it from Youtube. But perhaps some bright young spark might turn it up elsewhere.
I think it would also be interesting to address another aspect of portraiture: that of photojournalism, where the photographer claims to be saving the world or at least the person photographed. What of that blatantly false claim? It's one thing to admit to objectifying the human you photograph to further your career/hobby/paja mental and quite another to act as though you are doing so in their interest. How many people in warzones and slums have been saved by appearing in National Geographic or Time magazine? I have a friend with a new business model for that sort of photography whom I'd like to invite to take part in this discussion. I think both in terms of ethics and commercial practices he'd have some led to shed
Let's see if he balks at my intrusion.