“To photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as they never see themselves, by having knowledge of them they can never have; it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed.”
Sontag, S. (1979) On Photography, pg 14. Harpenden; Penguin
Figure 1 (Mitchell, J. / Getty Images (2015). Available from: The Guardian)
Jeff Mitchell’s photograph of refugees crossing from Croatia into Slovenia, in 2015 poses several ethical questions around photography’s association with recording and documenting those in vulnerable scenarios, who cannot consent to their likeness being taken for any purpose. The people in the image are for all intents and purposes “… monitored by some all-seeing, unfeeling, inhuman eye.” (Swift, G. 1988)
Working for an agency such as Getty, who are happy to sell photographic images to anyone, means the photographer himself should have considered the fact his image could have multiple meanings and uses, as well as factoring in the statistical likelihood of it being used in a negative connotation that changes the intention he had when he took the photo, being a potential outcome. I would disagree the phenomenon of images ending up out of a photographer’s control is more common in this digital age, as I recall reading about Dorothea Lange’s Migrant Mother being used in a variety of publications and during WW2 in German propaganda.
One of our tutors, mentioned in the forums that Mitchell is a photojournalist of 30 years and thus had likely considered the implications and possible disseminations, but due to working for Getty, this meant that they owned the copyright and he had no control over who they sell it to and the usage. They mentioned that perhaps rather than Mitchell, Getty should be the ones responsible for policing those they sell it to.
This got me thinking – how I read into the article and Mitchell’s comments, and whether my analysis may be down to the way the interview had been written and edited by Beaumont-Thomas and co. I felt Mitchell was solely putting the blame on the clientele buying the image and the internet making such misuse a more common occurence, and not the agencies fault at all. It came across to me at least, that he thought it would be unlikely anyone would dare to change the context of his images, even though the subject matter is a controversial one. It’s possible the interviewer or editor may have been selective in what made the final interview and subsequently I may have read into him wrongly, due to this as much like Getty, Mitchell would have no control over what parts of his interview were omitted and what was extracted.
It’s also worth considering that whilst Getty are arguably responsible, many images are sold via 3rd party PR and Advertising Agencies and it can be difficult to track where an image is used. Looking further into the story I found out that for Mitchell it was his first experience of an image of his being used in a controversial manner as well and I suppose this does explain his unusually brash responses in the article.
When comparing the Mitchell case to other controversial cases in ethics of documentary, the issue is a tame one. At least in comparative to the high-profile cases I can think of, such as the controvery surrounding McCurry’s habitual photoshopping and the controversy and responses to the Pulitzer Prize winning image by Kevin Carter that ultimately led to him taking his own life. One of the tutors mentioned the Ron Haviv controversy, and upon reading up on it (Haviv selling an image from his series Afghanistan: Road to Kabul to Lockheed Martin a bomb maker) I feel this really puts the Mitchell case into perspective of being pretty uncontroversial in terms of ethics being broken. Haviv appears to be remorseless and seems to have no boundaries on to whom he sells his work to and why they wish to use his work. I suppose as in any industry there are always some individuals willing to happily break ethical boundaries for greed.
Balance of power
One of the questions I’ve been musing on this week after reading about Jeff Mitchell’s photographs and about Alan Kurdi’s death, is whether the balance of power is ever inappropriate when it comes to certain images, subjects or the identity of the image maker. O’Hagan in 2010 questions the ethics behind graphic reportage photography in particular referencing to a set of images taken in Somalia that depict an individual being stoned to death, by questioning if those of us who consume such imagery are voyeurs or viewers? The answer is not a simple yes or no one as it depends on the context of where these images are consumed.
For example in Kurdi’s case the image went viral via social media and this subsequently meant it appeared alongside a variety of different opinions and viewpoints. Peter Bouckaert, Emergencies Director at Human Rights Watch commented to Misja Pekel and Maud van de reijt that: “Everybody fights over iconic images. And in the end they perhaps lose their original meaning. It is the same with people running around with Che Guevara T-shirts as a symbol, rather than understanding who Che Guevara was.” (Bouckaert, P. 2016; 20) Bouckaert’s comment gave me a lot to think about, does the exposure to such graphic images on a regular basis mean that we become desensitised to such shock messages? Does the impact become less? Are they even appropriate to publish in the first place? Should the photographer document the image? This is yet another grey area, a lot of photography ethics are, and ultimately I think the context of the scenario matters and the intended audience for the work or image is the most important factor – something Colin Pantell discusses in Rethinking the ethical judgement of photography:
“The role of captioning and juxtaposition also matters, as does the citing of work (Matthew Brady’s pictures of war dead were first shown in galleries rather than news publications), and the use of photographs in publications where ownership and political affiliations may flavor the editorial framing of images. How photography is used as soft power or in propaganda and advertising is also important.”
(Pantell, C. 2019)
Perceptions, Misconceptions and Ownership
So, how far do images shape our perception or misconception of the world around us? A good example of imagery that has shaped our perception and subsquently our misconceptions of the world around us is the Colonial Gaze filter, which is commonly found in magazines such as the National Geographic. So what does it mean to view the world around us with a colonial gaze? Edward Said states In the Shadow of the West that it’s: “The act of representing others almost always involves violence to the subject of representation.” (Said, E. 1982) The colonial gaze allows a sense of fantasies of otherness, the ‘savage’ representation and identification forming stereotypical visual tropes that may not even be accurate about a race or culture, and originated from a past aesthetical choice of staging by a photographer during the colonial times, as a means of enforcing racial or sexual politics of another culture.
Does anyone have exclusive ownership of a certain topic or idea? Might audiences legitimately question why a photographer with a certain background and life experience has chosen to explore a particular subject that seems far removed from their own? As Eileraas discusses in Reframing the Colonial Gaze: Photography, Ownership, and Feminist Resistance the notion of ownership was under scrutiny after the invention of photography as it challenged preconceived ideas of what copyright, creation and ownership entailed in the Western World and on whom the author was. Eileraas mentions that: “…most courts approached the camera as an industrial machine that significantly complicated traditional distinctions between the “subject” and “object” of artistic production.” (Eileraas, K. 2003) Whilst some might disagree I personally think that no-one person can have exclusive ownership of a certain topic or idea, as arguably very little could be photographed or written about today if this held true, and it would also stifle the notion of viewpoints if only one person could discuss or own a particular topic or idea. And if you believe Sontag “Today everything exists to end in a photograph.” (Sontag, S. 1979; 23) then everything will have already been explored and photographed by perhaps not from every angle and viewpoint.
However when it comes to appropriation of another’s work it’s a far more grey area. An article I read this week about ‘remixing’ images states: “…”referencing” becomes less of a homage to the original, a commentary inviting audiences to contemplate politics or ideas that were not as apparent in the original work or a way to reject the cultural norms that produced a certain set of aesthetic values in the original work and instead appears to be an unethical appropriation or theft, then what avenues are available to the creator of the original work to protect their work?” (Jayawardane, M.N. Marinovich, G. 2018) I think this aptly summarises how I feel about the art of appropriation that it’s context is vital to whether it is acceptable or not.
Whilst I think audiences have a right to question why a photographer with a certain background and life experience has chosen to explore a particular subject that seems far removed from their own in their work, it doesn’t always mean it is accurate, as one can never know someone’s full backstory and reasons why they feel compelled to choose a topic.
Responsibilities within my own practice
Figure 2 (Murray, J. (2019). Started User Session_ + Like-A-Bot_. From the series, Unsocial Media_. Available from: Portfolio)
My current specialism revolves around social commentary of the Internet and Social Media, with a long running theme of linking and referencing to Freud’s The Uncanny. Another aspect of my practice has involved exploring cultural references, as well as challenging viewers’ perceptions, how things are not always as they appear, using scale to mislead the viewer. As most of my series thus far has challenged and communicated the notion of the curated self via the usage of idealised perfection through the use of dolls, it means I do not have to be concerned about affecting or portraying an individual in an unfaithful manner as my very subject is a fictional ideal imagined by myself. My considerations are to make viewers question their actions, behaviours and habits on Social Media and to reflect whether or not their actions are appropriate, healthy or detrimental to their own health and wellbeing. I also want viewers to consider whether those they follow are entirely truthful in their lifestyle.
Figure 3 (Murray, J. (2019). Transhumane: The Immortality of Self)
This week has mostly been spent on refining my draft oral presentation, however I did take Figure 3, creating a cinemagraph/animated gif that explores the notion of how you live forever on the internet, achieveing immortality through the traces and tracks you leave behind, the AI becoming your curated self effectively meaning you transcend to a immortal transhumanoid existence.
References
Figures
Figure 1 Mitchell, J. / Getty Images (2015) ‘The Traumatic look on their faces comes from being kettled’ … refugees cross from Croatia into Slovenia in October 2015. [Online] Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jun/22/jeff-mitchells-best-shot-the-column-of-marching-refugees-used-in-ukips-brexit-campaign [Accessed 19/10/2019]
Figure 2 Murray, J. (2019) Started User Session_ + Like-A-Bot_. From the series Unsocial Media_. [Online] Available from: https://jasmphoto.portfoliobox.net/unsocialmedia_ [Accessed 19/10/2019]
Figure 3 Murray, J. (2019) Transhumane: The Immortality of Self
Bibliography
Beaumont-Thomas, B. (2016) The Guardian: Interview: Jeff Mitchell’s best photograph: ‘These people have been betrayed by Ukip’. [Online] Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jun/22/jeff-mitchells-best-shot-the-column-of-marching-refugees-used-in-ukips-brexit-campaign [Accessed 19/10/2019]
Bouckaert, P. Pekel, M. Van de Reijt, M. (2016) Ethical Journalism Network: Ethics in the News: Refugee Images: Ethics in the Picture. [Online] Available from: https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/resources/publications/ethics-in-the-news/refugee-images [Accessed 21/10/2019]
Eileraas, K. (2003). Reframing the Colonial Gaze: Photography, Ownership, and Feminist Resistance. MLN118(4), 807-840. [Online] Available from: doi:10.1353/mln.2003.0074. and http://www.shirleymohr.com/JHU/Sample_Articles_JHUP/MLN_2003_118_4.pdf [Accessed 22/10/2019]
Freud, S. (1919) Uncanny. [Online] Available from: https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/freud1.pdf and http://courses.washington.edu/freudlit/Uncanny.Notes.html [Accessed 19/10/2019]
Jayawardane, M. N. Marinovich, G. (2018) Mail&Guardian: On photographs and the art of ‘remixing’ images. [Online] Available from: https://mg.co.za/article/2018-10-05-00-on-photographs-and-the-art-of-remixing-the-images [Accessed 24/10/2019]
Johns, R. (2017) Photojournalism Ethics: Response from Ron Haviv. [Online] Available from: http://www.robjohns.blog/photojournalism-ethics-ron-haviv/ [Accessed 23/10/2019]
O’Hagan, S. (2010) The Guardian: Viewer or Voyeur? The morality of reportage photography. [Online] Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/mar/08/world-press-photo-sean-ohagan [Accessed 20/10/2019]
Pantall, C. (2019) Medium: Witness: World Press Photo Foundation: Rethinking the ethical judgement of photography [Online] Available from: https://witness.worldpressphoto.org/rethinking-the-ethical-judgement-of-photography-2b7042cbeae3 [Accessed 20/10/2019]
Said, E. (1982) In the Shadow of the West. The Arabs. (film documentary) London: Channel 4.
Sontag, S. (1979) On Photography, pg 14. Harpenden; Penguin.
Sontag, S. (1979) On Photography, pg 23. Harpenden; Penguin.
Swift, G. (1988) Out of this World. Viking Press.
Jasmine Murray Photography 