Shock-inducing photography: is it ethical?

News pics is what i am getting at... must they be bathing in explicitness or just be content with symbolism? Should we go out and photograph stampedes, killings, lynchings, and all other moments where horror is obvious... or just click a pic that symbolically depicts the horror? For instance, in stead of photographing people falling off railings into a chasm during a stampede in a temple (or some other religious place), is it better to find a dead man's hand jutting out of the ground and holding a rudraksh mala (or a prayer wheel or a cross...)? Is it ok to release a dead Osama's picture? What is your opinion on photographs of a tsunami striking, a war zone, assassination, murder, mayhem, gore...?

Ethical or not, human beings will do ANYTHING if it is possible. That includes going to the moon, or human cloning. Others can argue the moral, ethical and legal points, but it won't stop someone from doing so. It's what history has shown us what people do -- whatever they can.

As for should "shocking" photos be taken, or even seen? That's a dilema for any journalist. If someone is being hurt, do you stop and help them, or keep shooting? Each individual has to decide for themselves.

Then once those photos are made, should the publisher publish them? Maybe they are shocking enough to stop a war, or point out an area to the world that is in dire need of help. That depends on how they are presented and also, who is viewing them.

There isn't a simple answer. If we allow censorship, then some truth might get hidden from us. If we don't show the world their faces, will they know what happened? Is symbolism enough for everyone? Some people need a slap before they grasp the reality.

I guess my point is there is no answer to your questions. We each have to decide what is acceptable to us. We can always chose NOT to look. But, I think it would be wrong to hide the truth for moral, ethical or any other reason you can think of. Photography is about life and death, war and peace, happy and sad. It is EVERYTHING. Even those things that aren't pretty.

Matthew

If I were to classify each response as 'expected' or 'unexpected'... what you say is what any sane and thinking person would say, therefore, it is expected. Liked when you wrote: 'Photography is about life and death, war and peace, happy and sad. It is EVERYTHING. Even those things that aren't pretty.'

However, would governments, people in power, nations, politicians, bureaucrats, the sermon-gushers, the advisors, and their like agree with this pov?

MLKstudios wrote: Ethical or not, human beings will do ANYTHING if it is possible. That includes going to the moon, or human cloning. Others can argue the moral, ethical and legal points, but it won't stop someone from doing so. It's what history has shown us what people do -- whatever they can.

As for should "shocking" photos be taken, or even seen? That's a dilema for any journalist. If someone is being hurt, do you stop and help them, or keep shooting? Each individual has to decide for themselves.

Then once those photos are made, should the publisher publish them? Maybe they are shocking enough to stop a war, or point out an area to the world that is in dire need of help. That depends on how they are presented and also, who is viewing them.

There isn't a simple answer. If we allow censorship, then some truth might get hidden from us. If we don't show the world their faces, will they know what happened? Is symbolism enough for everyone? Some people need a slap before they grasp the reality.

I guess my point is there is no answer to your questions. We each have to decide what is acceptable to us. We can always chose NOT to look. But, I think it would be wrong to hide the truth for moral, ethical or any other reason you can think of. Photography is about life and death, war and peace, happy and sad. It is EVERYTHING. Even those things that aren't pretty.

Matthew

I don't mean to imply people should just give up and not try to do good. That's the part that makes us human beings (or in German, mensch). We should always be striving for what is fair and just.

We have the ability to make art, and help one another as much as we have the ability to kill. It's too bad politics (and religion) sometimes makes those decisions for us. Once we realize our own humanity, it is much easier to find in others, in ALL nations.

Politicians (and some religious leaders) need to discover that for themselves as well.

Matthew

Take the winning shots 2009 in the Dutch " zilverencamera " as an excample. (Strong images!) There was a lot of photographers at work to shoot a royal event, and then comes a crazy man and drives his car right into the crowd, killing eight (including himself). Read more here .

The photographers had their cameras on the ready, they were at work and they - as far as I see it - continued to do their job, even as the world around them was turned upside down and inside out.

Or how about Emilie Hudig , who chose to take photos of her cancer, also a winner in 2009?

American media does edit out gore in photos (excessive blood, etc.) and that can be construed as a type of censorship. I saw much more explicit photos when I lived in Europe. The stairways were steeper too. Just what you are used to, I guess.

There have been more than a few American photographers who've covered their own diseases quite explicitly, photographically, and that seems to have more acceptance over here. I believe they think it leads to a positive end -- i.e. a better understanding of the disease.

I remember the car "attack" on the news here. Do you have any idea of Mr. Tates' motives? They didn't show us the carnage as mentioned above. We only saw a car plowing into a crowd, more or less. Not a lot of details.

I'm sure you noticed my family name is of Dutch origin. More often a first name, not a last name. I lived in Amsterdam for awhile and find the people there to be incredibly civilized, even with the free drug use. Was kind of like our first Woodstock.

Matthew

PS I do think it important that photography is used to show us our world, including the good, the bad, and the ugly. It's not just cute kids and pretty flowers, it's all of life.

MLKstudios wrote: American media does edit out gore in photos (excessive blood, etc.) and that can be construed as a type of censorship. I saw much more explicit photos when I lived in Europe. The stairways were steeper too. Just what you are used to, I guess.

There have been more than a few American photographers who've covered their own diseases quite explicitly, photographically, and that seems to have more acceptance over here. I believe they think it leads to a positive end -- i.e. a better understanding of the disease.

I remember the car "attack" on the news here. Do you have any idea of Mr. Tates' motives? They didn't show us the carnage as mentioned above. We only saw a car plowing into a crowd, more or less.

I'm sure you noticed my family name is of Dutch origin. More often a first name, not a last name. I lieved in Amsterdam for awhile and find the people there to be incredibly civilized, even with the free drug use. Was kind of like our first Woodstock.

Matthew

PS I do think it important that photography is used to show us our world, including the good, the bad, and the ugly. It's not just kids and flowers.

Mr Tate's motives remain uncertain, here is a speculation from the Telegraph .

Yes, perhaps we Europeans tolerate more gore and blood and "reality" both in our media and in our staircases.

And I agree with your PS, where

It's not just kids and flowers.

made me think of Anne Geddes , where I tend to prefer the parodies:

parodies

PS I do think it important that photography is used to show us our world, including the good, the bad, and the ugly. It's not just cute kids and pretty flowers, it's all of life.

The above PS answers the question for me, then we have the choice to look or not, sorry I am not as intellectualy profound as others on here, so its the best I can do on this subject.

Trudehell wrote:

MLKstudios wrote: American media does edit out gore in photos (excessive blood, etc.) and that can be construed as a type of censorship. I saw much more explicit photos when I lived in Europe. The stairways were steeper too. Just what you are used to, I guess.

There have been more than a few American photographers who've covered their own diseases quite explicitly, photographically, and that seems to have more acceptance over here. I believe they think it leads to a positive end -- i.e. a better understanding of the disease.

I remember the car "attack" on the news here. Do you have any idea of Mr. Tates' motives? They didn't show us the carnage as mentioned above. We only saw a car plowing into a crowd, more or less.

I'm sure you noticed my family name is of Dutch origin. More often a first name, not a last name. I lieved in Amsterdam for awhile and find the people there to be incredibly civilized, even with the free drug use. Was kind of like our first Woodstock.

Matthew

PS I do think it important that photography is used to show us our world, including the good, the bad, and the ugly. It's not just kids and flowers.

Mr Tate's motives remain uncertain, here is a speculation from the Telegraph .

Yes, perhaps we Europeans tolerate more gore and blood and "reality" both in our media and in our staircases.

And I agree with your PS, where

It's not just kids and flowers.

made me think of Anne Geddes , where I tend to prefer the parodies:

parodies

What a great parody watched it right through, I actualy remember seeing those photos come out and I hated them !!!!!

It's just so sad what happened to them afterwards. After being exploited in such a cruel manner!

My heart goes out to all of Geddes "models".

Matthew

Well I dont see it as an ethical problem at all. If I came across an event I would capture it without a second thought. Because in my mind what you are capturing is a momment in history or, in the human experience, which as has been stated is both good and bad. If someone asked me I would even shoot a funeral which to many is taboo, but as long as it isnt to the family then it wouldnt be a problem. The US has really pretty much censored the reality of life since the Vietnam War coverage, that is about when Political Correctness started.

Reality is not always pretty. Photographers capture the "world as we know it". Some is the beauty, some is ugly horror. What we choose to display is a balancing act based on our own mores and ethics. Joves mentioned Viet Nam. That was the first time war was brought into our living rooms in "real time". It made some armchair hawks rethink the value of war,
I think those that choose not to display gore and the like are doing so to be sensitive to the victims, but a some point there are cases when the display is aimed at a "higher cause". Many years ago, high school driver ed courses used to show the gore that accompanied tragic automobile wrecks. The purpose was to make young drivers think about what poor decisions can cause. I think others have done the same to further a cause they feel passionate about.
Television brought the Kennedy assassinations right before our eyes. We saw the planes slam into the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Things that are "hidden" from the public are bound to be repeated.

With the explosion of information at our fingertips, the world is shrinking. We'll be desensitized to everything anyways.


Just because you can express the ugly parts of life, doesn't mean you have to though.

Joves wrote: If someone asked me I would even shoot a funeral which to many is taboo, but as long as it isnt to the family then it wouldnt be a problem..

This image from foto.no won a part of a photography contest this spring.

The jury says:
This picture is left in memory. The composition gives both motion and energy, yet is a muted silence in the description of the situation. The photographer manages to say much about the human condition in a picture that is very honest and can be felt both sad and funny, without going into the post-treatment trap.

[/i]

That is a moving image. Our Boston Globe has some of the best photojournalism online. An example:

www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/04/cherno...ter_25th_annive.html

Matthew

Note, the best journalism is not done with long lenses from far away, but short ones close in. It takes us there and wraps that world around us.