Ethics of photography - Abigail Solomon-Godeau, Diane Arbus, Susan Sontag:
"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know" - Diane Arbus
Before we speak about of Diane Arbus, we should understand the inside/out essay written by Abigail Solomon Godeau which describes photographers as being either an insider and outsider. An outsider is described to be a photographer like Diane Arbus which according to Susan Sontag creates unsympathetic, borderline voyeuristic photographs. Looking in from an outside perspective. The insider photographer can be simply understood as the opposite of the the outsider, taking photographs more intimate in nature.
What do I understand about Diane Arbus and her practice in relation to the ethical debate it sparked? This is an oddly difficult question. Whilst I believe in the creative freedom of a photographer, that they should be allowed to take the photos that they want to, many photography critics such as Susan Sontag believe that there is a fine line between what photos should be allowed and what photos are ethically wrong. On the other hand we have more modern contemporary critics which find a balance of ethics concerning Arbus' work, they believe that her photographs were both unsettling and compelling, that they raise "questions about the relationship between photographer, subject and audience".
Susan Sontag believed that by taking taking photographs of "freaks" Diane Arbus is being somewhat voyeuristic or borderline perverse in the case that she enters these peoples lives as a visitor, tip toeing around within their personal lives without seeking to help, only to stare. Sontag goes on to describe the work of the photographer as a "super tourist" which is meant as the idea that we are visiting the "natives" and bringing back the "news of their exotic doings". This raises the question on whether what we are doing is right or not? Is our fascination and our boredom leading us to create unethical photographs? Diane Arbus appeared to believe otherwise, adopting the attitude that all photographs that can be taken should be taken and shared, as displayed by her works displaying "freaks" - people with special needs.
In my practice, there is often little time to think about whether the photo I am taking is ethically okay to take or not, it is not until after when we review our photographs does this moral conundrum come into play. When looking over my discarded photographs, there is a reason in why I decided it was not suited to be posted online, whether the reason being that they came out too intimate or that they just seemed wrong to have up. So by no doubt there is a fine line between what is private and what cannot be shared vs what is just public enough to be shown freely, this is my new belief after studying Diane Arbus and Susan Sontag. We see this all the time, think about every time we post an image onto Instagram or whatever social media used, we are displaying a small portion of our private lives, and we save the photos that appear to make us less attractive for ourselves or for our friends, this is ultimately to create the perfect image of our lives on the internet. This is an example of how we do not show the works that we see is wrong to post, because we believe that people will disapprove of our photographs as Susan Sontag did with Diane Arbus. However, this raises the question on the truth of photography, shouldn't we always tell the truth? So shouldn't photographs always display the truth as well? Well I would argue that we shouldn't always tell the truth when it is harmless however to lie when the truth is sinister or ignored is morally wrong so with photography, we must first understand the topic of our photograph to first create the boundaries, when we can afford to display a place or person as beautiful we must take into account the situation of the place or the person however, ultimately we must always display the truth of the place or person when their situation is not a good one to bring attention. This being said, there will always be exceptions such as taking a picture of a homeless person for monitory gain without their express consent assuming that they are the main subject of the photograph.
Ultimately, there are ways of equivocating the truth even in photography, to stay neutral but sometimes to bring attention to topics that matter to us we must strive to display our truths of our photography.
What do I understand about Diane Arbus and her practice in relation to the ethical debate it sparked? This is an oddly difficult question. Whilst I believe in the creative freedom of a photographer, that they should be allowed to take the photos that they want to, many photography critics such as Susan Sontag believe that there is a fine line between what photos should be allowed and what photos are ethically wrong. On the other hand we have more modern contemporary critics which find a balance of ethics concerning Arbus' work, they believe that her photographs were both unsettling and compelling, that they raise "questions about the relationship between photographer, subject and audience".
Susan Sontag believed that by taking taking photographs of "freaks" Diane Arbus is being somewhat voyeuristic or borderline perverse in the case that she enters these peoples lives as a visitor, tip toeing around within their personal lives without seeking to help, only to stare. Sontag goes on to describe the work of the photographer as a "super tourist" which is meant as the idea that we are visiting the "natives" and bringing back the "news of their exotic doings". This raises the question on whether what we are doing is right or not? Is our fascination and our boredom leading us to create unethical photographs? Diane Arbus appeared to believe otherwise, adopting the attitude that all photographs that can be taken should be taken and shared, as displayed by her works displaying "freaks" - people with special needs.
In my practice, there is often little time to think about whether the photo I am taking is ethically okay to take or not, it is not until after when we review our photographs does this moral conundrum come into play. When looking over my discarded photographs, there is a reason in why I decided it was not suited to be posted online, whether the reason being that they came out too intimate or that they just seemed wrong to have up. So by no doubt there is a fine line between what is private and what cannot be shared vs what is just public enough to be shown freely, this is my new belief after studying Diane Arbus and Susan Sontag. We see this all the time, think about every time we post an image onto Instagram or whatever social media used, we are displaying a small portion of our private lives, and we save the photos that appear to make us less attractive for ourselves or for our friends, this is ultimately to create the perfect image of our lives on the internet. This is an example of how we do not show the works that we see is wrong to post, because we believe that people will disapprove of our photographs as Susan Sontag did with Diane Arbus. However, this raises the question on the truth of photography, shouldn't we always tell the truth? So shouldn't photographs always display the truth as well? Well I would argue that we shouldn't always tell the truth when it is harmless however to lie when the truth is sinister or ignored is morally wrong so with photography, we must first understand the topic of our photograph to first create the boundaries, when we can afford to display a place or person as beautiful we must take into account the situation of the place or the person however, ultimately we must always display the truth of the place or person when their situation is not a good one to bring attention. This being said, there will always be exceptions such as taking a picture of a homeless person for monitory gain without their express consent assuming that they are the main subject of the photograph.
Ultimately, there are ways of equivocating the truth even in photography, to stay neutral but sometimes to bring attention to topics that matter to us we must strive to display our truths of our photography.
Diane Arbus - Documentary made after death
|
This is a documentary made with Diane Arbus' daughter talking about her mothers practice in her life time. It includes a film of Diane Arbus words spoken through a friend of the family.
|