The Brief

Read these two articles:

Cohen, A. (2018) “What Do Photographers Owe Their Subjects? Four Photographers Weigh In.” Artsy [online].

Molitor, A. (2017) “Every Photo Comes with Built-In Debt, or: The Ethics of Photograph.” Petapixel [online].

Reflecting on your experiences in photography so far, describe how you feel about your relationships with the people in your images. What kind of relationships do you have with them – if any at all? What responsibilities do you feel towards them? Have these articles prompted you to think differently?

Reflection

The first article discussed what the photographers owe in terms of a specific debt to their subjects, and introduced some cases that resonated with my own experiences. I’ve long been interested in the work of Philip-Lorca diCorcia, in particular his portraiture and advertising work, because of his use of the constructed tableau. His Hustlers series, which is discussed in the article, incorporates a fantastical scene in which a male prostitute is seen. In terms of representation, the scene conflicts with the title of each image, which is restricted to the model’s name, age, location and fee. diCorcia uses the fact that they were paid their usual fee for sex as payment for their image to anchor the pictures in a common aesthetic that is associated with sex work. Reflecting on previous learning in this degree, we know that accompanying text like a title can dramatically alter the meaning of a picture. In this case, a strong narrative thread is created for a series of images that could simply just be portraits of young men. Ethically, the payment made to the models also influences the way they react to the photographer, potentially responding more to direction because of the ‘contract’ between them. The NPPA, which I looked at in part 1, has declared the payment of subjects in photojournalism to be unethical, which is understandable in the pursuit of so-called ‘truth’. Perhaps diCorcia’s earlier career as a fashion photographer distinguishes his work in Hustlers from the traditional photojournalist. Whatever the reason, there is a thought that the subjects were essentially ‘for hire’ and that perhaps any characterisation of them within the circulation of the images is perhaps less damaging than their choice of profession. I don’t think this excuses any disrespectful representation of them, however, which arguably this series is from an ethical perspective. I’m facing a similar ethical question this summer with the photographing of Malvern Pride (discussed in Part 1), because this year I am being paid to do it. Does this make a difference? Previously, I volunteered to document the day as I saw it, which as a straight man was somewhat biased towards the significance of Malvern holding the ‘party’. The committee were very happy with the work, but with this year being the third event there is a pressure to reinforce the messages of equality. If I am being paid to shoot the event, ethically I need to carry out the assignment as the committee wants it, but as an artist my own interpretation of the meaning of the event is also important, since objectivity doesn’t really exist in photography. I am going to have to discuss the needs of the community and the organisers carefully in order to help me make the work. This relates to the experiences of Gillian Laub, whose Southern Rites series depicts the newly integrated school proms. Her work with the organiser of the ‘whites only’ prom was intended to be an honest representation of the individual’s role. She had expressed the desire for the series to not depict her as racist, which is how Laub approached the shots. However, when the images were viewed by the public, racism was a significant reaction, which caused the subject to suffer online abuse. Ethically, the artist had done their best to represent them respectfully, despite disagreeing with her views. In my case, I am part of the Malvern community, but not the LGBT+ community, so while I will do my best to respectfully represent the celebration and the campaign for equality (I wholeheartedly support their position), I am aware that, despite my efforts, there will be some sections of the public that are triggered by the series.

My conclusion from the first article isn’t really a surprise as Respect was one of my key ethical values in Project 1. Our responsibility to the subject and how they are represented comes down to a ‘best effort’. The focus on the first article is on collaboration, the relationships between the photographer and their subject, with some examples being directional (diCorcia and Laub) and some that depend much more on ideas from both parties (Dubois).

In the second article, we are introduced to an ethically unsound use of context. The image that LensCulture used to advertise their competition was taken out of the context of highlighting child sex trafficking, which was the artist’s original aim for the project. For me, the direct contrast between the intent and subsequent use causes two major issues. The first is that the public reaction to the advert, which is entirely justified, demonises both the image and the artist, without understanding the context of the work. The artist specifically asked LensCulture to not use that particular image, but instead to use another from the series. We can make the argument that he relinquished his ethical debt to the subject rather too easily, but also that he’d transferred it to the editorial at LensCulture. The article explains the artist’s position on his own work, citing the subject of the picture as having asked him to photograph her (a little hard to believe from a Western cultural perspective) and that this constituted ‘consent’. My takeaway from the article as that the subject may well be abhorrent and shocking as in this case, the artist’s attitude may come across as being arrogant or misguided, but from an ethical point of view, did he represent his subject faithfully and respectfully? I am definitely in the camp of be disturbed by the idea of documenting abuse of children, but have to accept that the artist is behaving loosely in line with my perspective of photographic ethics. It also reinforces the idea that ethics are defined personally and are not a set of rules that everyone works within. The best we can do is to understand why people have different reactions to the work. Art is defined as being a creative medium that invokes a response in the viewer and the kind of work definitely achieves this. For their part, LensCulture subverted the meaning of the image by using it for a commercial advertisement. I would say that they failed in their responsibilities in respect of the subject, the artist and its readership. In my own experience, I’ve had images stolen by others and repurposed for other uses without my permission or control. However, the difference has been that the thief has been the subject of the picture themselves. In this scenario, there is no harm to them and the situation is easily remedied by setting more rigid terms and conditions and pursuing transgressors.

Conclusion

These two articles were interesting in that they introduced the concept of ‘debt’ within the idea of ethics. There are different approaches to representation that involve directional or collaborative, but when a photograph is of a person, there is a responsibility that the photographer has to that subject. In some cases, this debt can be transferred, as in the example of editorial, but it must be discharged ethically (respectfully and with the intent to do no harm). In my own work, I’ve become acutely aware of these points. I’ve recently had a highly constructive discussion with a client, which resulted in my perspective on ethics influencing his thinking about the series that he’s after. What I mean here is not a manipulation of his requirement, rather providing new ideas for him to consider. I’m interested to see how this course continues to influence my approach.