So a war photographer should stay home? Newspaper photographers should put their cameras away? ...
I must politely disagree. Photo journalist at war zone is doing his job - taking pictures. But if a medic would decide to take a few snapshots (with the idea to have his kodak moment, not for the medical documentation purpose) first before administering the wound, that would be something different, don't you agree?
Any hospital environment by itself is stressfull enough for an injured/ill person. Especially for a child. So the relatives, especially parents, are the only sources of comfort. And when this source starts thinking of some photo assignment instead of easying the child's situation - it's not very far from the medic situation above...
I'm not passing judgement, since I'm in no position to do so.
Morevover, if that be my assignment, I'd go to the ER car, operation room, morgue, or cemetery. But if my family member is in need of a medical assistance - trust me, the whole photography thing would be the last thought on my mind.
Here is another example to ponder. A major medical situation happens all the time that people have no qualms about bringing a camera to photograph. There is a lot of blood and pain and the chance for death. The birth of a baby is quite often documented with a camera.
Creator of Dgrin's "Last Photographer Standing" contest
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
I have been thinking about your post for a few days now. And I have to say they are still good points. They made me pause and think about things and modify my view. Good post!
I was clearly using a double standard because I personally don't like posed shots of people pointing a gun at their head. But I have to realize that it is just that, a presonal dislike for the photos. I shouldn't build them out to be something that they are not.
Creator of Dgrin's "Last Photographer Standing" contest
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
... A good example is the many photos we all have seen of someone pointing a gun at the camera or at their heads in an attempt to infuse the photo with emotion. That is nothing more than a cheap trick and devalues human life and in my view is actually exploitive...of the viewer of the photograph.
... So being known as the photog of the group, they asked me to begin taking pictures of the indigent population and posting them or collecting the pictures for some future appeal to the town.
I refused, explaining that it was exploitation and improper to take pictures of people in that situation. I wouldn't even do it if I had a signed release by the subject. Some lines are not meant to be crossed. At least, I won't cross that one.
But here is where I am going with this... not too many years ago, taking pictures of the indigent was not considered exploitation. Times and views change.
Along similar lines ... as a former photo journalist I have a very thick skin when it comes to public comments and a total lack of inhibition in shooting ... well anything.
I shot a few homeless in Santa Monica, a very wealthy Californian coastal community, (I know wealthy Californian coastal community is redundant), just to make a social statement ... extreme wealth and extreme poverty living together (*sigh* I know it's shallow) ... the shots were up for a day or two ... then I removed them ... not because "some lines are not meant to be crossed" ... but rather I felt I was only touching the surface of the problem. My photos lacked the depth of telling the complete story ... my photos only reflected what I saw ...not what the homeless felt.
Along similar lines ... as a former photo journalist I have a very thick skin when it comes to public comments and a total lack of inhibition in shooting ... well anything.
I shot a few homeless in Santa Monica, a very wealthy Californian coastal community, (I know wealthy Californian coastal community is redundant), just to make a social statement ... extreme wealth and extreme poverty living together (*sigh* I know it's shallow) ... the shots were up for a day or two ... then I removed them ... not because "some lines are not meant to be crossed" ... but rather I felt I was only touching the surface of the problem. My photos lacked the depth of telling the complete story ... my photos only reflected what I saw ...not what the homeless felt.
So a war photographer should stay home? Newspaper photographers should put their cameras away? An x-ray tech shouldn't look because there may be cancer in that film? Just because you anticipate something unpleasant or bad may happen doesn't mean you should not bring a camera to capture what happens. Documentary is simply capturing what is at the moment, good *or* bad!
May I remind you of my previous post #24 & #25
I said very clearly that I have no problem with the documentation of suffering, be it war, injustice, death, whatever. And I would hardly praise the photographs of James Nachtwey if I disagreed with proper documentation.
So I would appreciate if you could read my comments properly before you ridicule them.
I have to agree with you Robert, there's a World of difference between photographing large scale human suffering and sorrow in order to bring it to the wider public's attention and taking snaps of children in distress and putting them in the public domain, particularly for your own gratification or advancement.
I have to agree with you Robert, there's a World of difference between photographing large scale human suffering and sorrow in order to bring it to the wider public's attention and taking snaps of children in distress and putting them in the public domain, particularly for your own gratification or advancement.
Charlie
So if the suffering and sorrow are wide scale enough it is ok, but when it is distilled down to a single individual it is not?
Isn't distress a common conditon of young children? Why should that be off limits to cameras when it is so clearly all around us every day? Many of the shots in the contest of kids crying or otherwise having a bad time are very moving and touching in a way that make me feel empathy for them. It reminds me that they are delicate and should be treated with care.
If all we see is happy smiling pictures of children, don't you think that skews perception?
Creator of Dgrin's "Last Photographer Standing" contest
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
No, not at all Shay, no one needs educating or informing that children regularly get upset, we all see it every day.
However when people are suffering due to war, famine, oppression etc it important that it's brought to the attention of a wider audience who do not experience it at first hand so that those responsible can be brought to account or action can be taken.
No one needs educating that children get upset in every day life and nothing will be learnt from seeing such an image, it's exploitative and unnecessary. I can see the argument made for taking such pictures to share with family and friends, but the public domain, come on, who's benefiting?
No one needs educating that children get upset in every day life and nothing will be learnt from seeing such an image, it's exploitative and unnecessary. I can see the argument made for taking such pictures to share with family and friends, but the public domain, come on, who's benefiting?
Charlie
Hmm, interesting points. I will ponder them. However, as to the last point, I at least found myself benefitting from some of the children photos.
Creator of Dgrin's "Last Photographer Standing" contest
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
Surely a simple shot does not require the instant love of a parent to ward off a life time of mental anguish. I know I wasn't lavished upon every prick and nick I recieved growing up. It seems foolish to expect it here.
And now the child has suddenly become a distressed individual who’s suffering and sorrow needs to be exposed?
So if the suffering and sorrow are wide scale enough it is ok, but when it is distilled down to a single individual it is not?
Isn't distress a common conditon of young children? Why should that be off limits to cameras when it is so clearly all around us every day? Many of the shots in the contest of kids crying or otherwise having a bad time are very moving and touching in a way that make me feel empathy for them. It reminds me that they are delicate and should be treated with care.
If all we see is happy smiling pictures of children, don't you think that skews perception?
I don't know the answer to that. But I will tell you, I'd never do that to my own children.
This is where the conversation goes off track a bit -
You'd never do what to you children? Make them cry and take a photo of it? I know of a photographer here, a good one, who did it. He didn't PURPOSELY make his child cry, but when the kid did, because he got yelled at, dad snapped off a shot. Mind you, he's the furthest thing from a child abuser... he's a great father.
I'm sure you've made your kids cry. As parents, we ALL have. At that age they'll cry at nearly anything. They'll cry to get their way. They'll cry because they've been scolded. They'll cry because they're afraid of a new person or place. I think it took guts for Jill Greenberg to make a conscouis choice to photograph a series like that... and it's isn't child abuse to take a kids lollipop away.
Want controversial? Look at some of Sally Mann's work of her own children. Now there's a woman who people made a huge stink over. She has a picture of one of her kids laying on the floor with a bloody nose. She was accused of all kinds of abuse. I think she merely recorded her kids living their lives like they always do, and the photos are incredible. Sometimes life isn't pretty. Actually, most of the time, life isn't pretty at all.
Let me rephrase that... sometimes you have to be willing to see beauty in even the mundane, the ugly, the uncomfortable, the tedious...
and crying children... that's tedious! (, I'm so glad mine aren't toddlers anymore!)
Amy Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep. The Dang Gallery on DangRabbit - Follow me on Twitter or on Facebook Leica M8: Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon and 50mm f/2 Planar; Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5, 50mm f/1.5 Nokton and 75mm f/2.5 Heliar
Olympus E-P1: Zuiko 14-42 and 25mm f/2.8 Pancake; Panasonic 45-200mm and 20mm f/1.7; and M-to-m4/3 adaptor
Olympus e620: Zuiko 14-54 f/2.8-3.5
This is where the conversation goes off track a bit -
You'd never do what to you children? Make them cry and take a photo of it? I know of a photographer here, a good one, who did it. He didn't PURPOSELY make his child cry, but when the kid did, because he got yelled at, dad snapped off a shot. Mind you, he's the furthest thing from a child abuser... he's a great father.
I'm sure you've made your kids cry. As parents, we ALL have. At that age they'll cry at nearly anything. They'll cry to get their way. They'll cry because they've been scolded. They'll cry because they're afraid of a new person or place. I think it took guts for Jill Greenberg to make a conscouis choice to photograph a series like that... and it's isn't child abuse to take a kids lollipop away.
Want controversial? Look at some of Sally Mann's work of her own children. Now there's a woman who people made a huge stink over. She has a picture of one of her kids laying on the floor with a bloody nose. She was accused of all kinds of abuse. I think she merely recorded her kids living their lives like they always do, and the photos are incredible. Sometimes life isn't pretty. Actually, most of the time, life isn't pretty at all.
Let me rephrase that... sometimes you have to be willing to see beauty in even the mundane, the ugly, the uncomfortable, the tedious...
and crying children... that's tedious! (, I'm so glad mine aren't toddlers anymore!)
This is all personal choice.
As many here already said, it all depends on a purpose. If you're shooting for UNICEF with the intention to ease the life of abused children by drawing world's attention to this abuse - more power to you. However, if you're abusing children with the intention to take a picture that would get you an extra vote in a local "sorrow" contest - that's a totally different story.
We have an old saying in Russia that can be loosely translated as follows "would trade his own father for a quick word" (for my Cyrillic-enabled friends: ради красного словца не пожалеет и отца), which means a person that would trade one of the most sacred things in life to get a temporary and utterly unimportant piece of attention. Kinda biblical "birth right and lentil meal", but more modern and personal.
In the end we are utterly responsible for what we've done.
One thing that James Nachtwey says in his documentary is that "In a war, the normal codes of civilized behavior are suspended."
He goes on to say:
"It would be unthinkable in so-called normal life to go into someone’s home where the family is grieving over the death of a loved one and spend long moments photographing them, it simply wouldn't be done. Those pictures couldn't be made unless I was accepted by the people I'm photographing, it's simply impossible to photograph moments such as those without the complicity of the people I'm photographing. Without the fact that they welcomed me, that they accepted me, that they wanted me to be there. They understand that a stranger who's come there with a camera to show the rest of the world what’s happening to them gives them a voice in the outside world that they otherwise wouldn't have..."
This is all personal choice. ... In the end we are utterly responsible for what we've done.
So very true ... and Nik ... we are also responsible for what see see.
On one end of the spectrum lies most of us ... we slow down on the freeway and rubber neck, in anticipation of catching a glimpse of a bloody arm emerging from an accident on the oncoming traffic side. A bit of gory gossip for after dinner conversation. On the other end are journalists, and on the most extreme are war correspondents ...
A bit of my story, I went to cover the war and the war covered me (somewhat ironic); an old story, unless of course you've never heard it. I went there behind the crude but serious belief that you had to be able to look at and report anything. Serious, because I acted on it and went, crude because I didn't know better.
There wasn't a day when someone didn't ask me what I was doing there. Sometimes an especially smart grunt or another correspondent would even ask me what was I REALLY doing there.
I couldn't say anything honest about why I was there except "Blah, blah, blah,... cover the war" or "Blah, blah, blah, . . . doing a book.". Maybe we accepted each other's stories about why we were there at face value: the grunts "had" to be there, the spooks and civilians whose corporate faith had led them there, the correspondents whose curiosity or ambition drew them over. But somewhere all the mythic tracks intersected, from the lowest John Wayne wet dream to the most aggravated soldier-poet fantasy. And where they did, I believe that everyone knew everything about everyone else, everyone of us there was a true volunteer.
Not that you didn't hear some overripe BS (similar to "...writing a book".) Hearts and Minds, Peoples of the Republic, tumbling dominoes, maintaining the equilibrium of the Ding Dong by containing the encroaching Doo Dah; you could also hear the other, some young soldier speaking in all bloody innocence, saying, “All that's just a load, man. We're here to kill. Period." Which wasn't at all true of me. I was there to watch them kill.
It took the war to teach moi the lesson; it taught that you were as responsible for everything you saw as you were for everything you did. The problem was that you didn't realize that until later after it happened. A lot of what you saw never made it completely in as a conscience thought or memory at all, it just stayed untranslated as some form of energy or dream, stored there in your eyes or somewhere deep in your unconscience. Time and information, rock and roll, ... the information isn't frozen you are.
So very true ... and Nik ... we are also responsible for what we see....
Gary, man... What can I say... Re5pect!
You've traveled on your heart where not many braves dwelled.
I kinda know what you're talking about (being next to Afganistan and on the edge of death, even though not from any man's hands), so I think I understand...
"Being responsible for what you saw..." Very powerfully said!
So very true ... and Nik ... we are also responsible for what see see.
This is what I've always loved about you and your work, from the first time I saw it or exchanged emails with you . Powerful, straight to the point and brutally honest.
Dana
** Feel free to edit my photos if you see room for improvement.** Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if
no birds sang there except those that sang best. ~Henry Van Dyke
Comments
I must politely disagree. Photo journalist at war zone is doing his job - taking pictures. But if a medic would decide to take a few snapshots (with the idea to have his kodak moment, not for the medical documentation purpose) first before administering the wound, that would be something different, don't you agree?
Any hospital environment by itself is stressfull enough for an injured/ill person. Especially for a child. So the relatives, especially parents, are the only sources of comfort. And when this source starts thinking of some photo assignment instead of easying the child's situation - it's not very far from the medic situation above...
I'm not passing judgement, since I'm in no position to do so.
Morevover, if that be my assignment, I'd go to the ER car, operation room, morgue, or cemetery. But if my family member is in need of a medical assistance - trust me, the whole photography thing would be the last thought on my mind.
Just MHO...
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
I was clearly using a double standard because I personally don't like posed shots of people pointing a gun at their head. But I have to realize that it is just that, a presonal dislike for the photos. I shouldn't build them out to be something that they are not.
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
Man I hate cheap tricks.
28693866-M.jpg
Unsharp at any Speed
One day they will remind you how they were crying for your help and you kept clicking in their face...
But, as you have just said, it's totally personal...
Good one, Gary!
I shot a few homeless in Santa Monica, a very wealthy Californian coastal community, (I know wealthy Californian coastal community is redundant), just to make a social statement ... extreme wealth and extreme poverty living together (*sigh* I know it's shallow) ... the shots were up for a day or two ... then I removed them ... not because "some lines are not meant to be crossed" ... but rather I felt I was only touching the surface of the problem. My photos lacked the depth of telling the complete story ... my photos only reflected what I saw ...not what the homeless felt.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
I totally concur with this line of thoughts...
May I remind you of my previous post #24 & #25
I said very clearly that I have no problem with the documentation of suffering, be it war, injustice, death, whatever. And I would hardly praise the photographs of James Nachtwey if I disagreed with proper documentation.
So I would appreciate if you could read my comments properly before you ridicule them.
Thanks Nikolai, I've been wanting to say this all along, too. Just was afraid to broaden this debate even further.
Charlie
So if the suffering and sorrow are wide scale enough it is ok, but when it is distilled down to a single individual it is not?
Isn't distress a common conditon of young children? Why should that be off limits to cameras when it is so clearly all around us every day? Many of the shots in the contest of kids crying or otherwise having a bad time are very moving and touching in a way that make me feel empathy for them. It reminds me that they are delicate and should be treated with care.
If all we see is happy smiling pictures of children, don't you think that skews perception?
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
However when people are suffering due to war, famine, oppression etc it important that it's brought to the attention of a wider audience who do not experience it at first hand so that those responsible can be brought to account or action can be taken.
No one needs educating that children get upset in every day life and nothing will be learnt from seeing such an image, it's exploitative and unnecessary. I can see the argument made for taking such pictures to share with family and friends, but the public domain, come on, who's benefiting?
Charlie
Hmm, interesting points. I will ponder them. However, as to the last point, I at least found myself benefitting from some of the children photos.
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
An interview with Jill Greenberg
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
And now the child has suddenly become a distressed individual who’s suffering and sorrow needs to be exposed?
I think I’ve had my share of this conversation.
That really does it. If that’s not child abuse – where do you draw the line?
I don't know the answer to that. But I will tell you, I'd never do that to my own children.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
This is where the conversation goes off track a bit -
You'd never do what to you children? Make them cry and take a photo of it? I know of a photographer here, a good one, who did it. He didn't PURPOSELY make his child cry, but when the kid did, because he got yelled at, dad snapped off a shot. Mind you, he's the furthest thing from a child abuser... he's a great father.
I'm sure you've made your kids cry. As parents, we ALL have. At that age they'll cry at nearly anything. They'll cry to get their way. They'll cry because they've been scolded. They'll cry because they're afraid of a new person or place. I think it took guts for Jill Greenberg to make a conscouis choice to photograph a series like that... and it's isn't child abuse to take a kids lollipop away.
Want controversial? Look at some of Sally Mann's work of her own children. Now there's a woman who people made a huge stink over. She has a picture of one of her kids laying on the floor with a bloody nose. She was accused of all kinds of abuse. I think she merely recorded her kids living their lives like they always do, and the photos are incredible. Sometimes life isn't pretty. Actually, most of the time, life isn't pretty at all.
Let me rephrase that... sometimes you have to be willing to see beauty in even the mundane, the ugly, the uncomfortable, the tedious...
and crying children... that's tedious! (
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
The Dang Gallery on DangRabbit - Follow me on Twitter or on Facebook
Leica M8: Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon and 50mm f/2 Planar; Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5, 50mm f/1.5 Nokton and 75mm f/2.5 Heliar
Olympus E-P1: Zuiko 14-42 and 25mm f/2.8 Pancake; Panasonic 45-200mm and 20mm f/1.7; and M-to-m4/3 adaptor
Olympus e620: Zuiko 14-54 f/2.8-3.5
This is all personal choice.
As many here already said, it all depends on a purpose. If you're shooting for UNICEF with the intention to ease the life of abused children by drawing world's attention to this abuse - more power to you. However, if you're abusing children with the intention to take a picture that would get you an extra vote in a local "sorrow" contest - that's a totally different story.
We have an old saying in Russia that can be loosely translated as follows "would trade his own father for a quick word" (for my Cyrillic-enabled friends: ради красного словца не пожалеет и отца), which means a person that would trade one of the most sacred things in life to get a temporary and utterly unimportant piece of attention. Kinda biblical "birth right and lentil meal", but more modern and personal.
In the end we are utterly responsible for what we've done.
He goes on to say:
"It would be unthinkable in so-called normal life to go into someone’s home where the family is grieving over the death of a loved one and spend long moments photographing them, it simply wouldn't be done. Those pictures couldn't be made unless I was accepted by the people I'm photographing, it's simply impossible to photograph moments such as those without the complicity of the people I'm photographing. Without the fact that they welcomed me, that they accepted me, that they wanted me to be there. They understand that a stranger who's come there with a camera to show the rest of the world what’s happening to them gives them a voice in the outside world that they otherwise wouldn't have..."
-Grant
Lenses: Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, Nikkor 17-80mm f/3.5-4, Nikkor 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6, Lensbaby 2.0
Accessories: Nikon SB-800, (2X) Old Flash Units, (4X) Poverty Wizards, GF Lightsphere, (3X) Lightstand and umbrella, Sandisk Extreme III 4.0 GB, Sandisk Ultra II 2.0 GB, Transcend 1.0 GB
Recording pain/sorrow as a testament to a personal story = good
?
Word.
On one end of the spectrum lies most of us ... we slow down on the freeway and rubber neck, in anticipation of catching a glimpse of a bloody arm emerging from an accident on the oncoming traffic side. A bit of gory gossip for after dinner conversation. On the other end are journalists, and on the most extreme are war correspondents ...
A bit of my story, I went to cover the war and the war covered me (somewhat ironic); an old story, unless of course you've never heard it. I went there behind the crude but serious belief that you had to be able to look at and report anything. Serious, because I acted on it and went, crude because I didn't know better.
It took the war to teach moi the lesson; it taught that you were as responsible for everything you saw as you were for everything you did. The problem was that you didn't realize that until later after it happened. A lot of what you saw never made it completely in as a conscience thought or memory at all, it just stayed untranslated as some form of energy or dream, stored there in your eyes or somewhere deep in your unconscience. Time and information, rock and roll, ... the information isn't frozen you are.
Unsharp at any Speed
You've traveled on your heart where not many braves dwelled.
I kinda know what you're talking about (being next to Afganistan and on the edge of death, even though not from any man's hands), so I think I understand...
"Being responsible for what you saw..." Very powerfully said!
This is what I've always loved about you and your work, from the first time I saw it or exchanged emails with you . Powerful, straight to the point and brutally honest.
** Feel free to edit my photos if you see room for improvement.**
Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if
no birds sang there except those that sang best.
~Henry Van Dyke