Is Ethics in Photography code for a new censorship? I ask this today on the morning of a symposium by the same name hosted at the Max Mueller Bhavan in Delhi. A few days ago my friend Satyasri Ukil ran into trouble for uploading the classic and widely circulated Vietnam War image of a young girl fleeing naked after a naplam attack on her village by US forces. At the time of its original publication, this image, by Nick Ut, fueled the worldwide anti-war movement by its sheer emotional power. Today, reproduction of the image raises flags, unbelievably, from anti-pedophile activists who see it only as an image of a naked pubescent girl. Recently, in India, the horrifying photograph of two you Dalit girls hung from a tree after they had been gang-raped created conflicting reactions: outrage over the event, and also frantic calls that the photograph be removed from reproduction out of respect for the girls and their families. Yet doesnt this image have the same social-transformative power as the later? Does respect for families and victims trump the need to shock a society into awareness? Where does a photographers duty lie? In the US, under the administration of George Bush, photographs of the flag-drapped coffins of soldiers returning for burial after being killed in Iraq were officially banned, and the reason given was a similar respect for the feelings of military families...though in fact there is little evidence military families were ever consulted. The real, propagandistic reason was to deny the American people from seeing the true cost of the war. Once upon a time photographers such as Bruce Davidson and Weegee were applauded for their candid photographs that exposed the grit and reality of class difference in New York City. But are such candids possible anymore in an age where courts rule more and more often in favour of the rights of the photographed not to be photographed? Robert Doisneaus iconic image The Kiss was in fact a reenactment of a kiss the couple had made just moments previously, but that the photographer had missed. Jean and Denise Lavergne erroneously believed themselves to be the couple in The Kiss, and when Robert and Annette Doisneau (his older daughter and also his assistant at the time) met them for lunch in the 1980s he did not want to shatter their dream so he said nothing. This resulted in them taking him to court for taking their picture without their knowledge, because under French law an individual owns the rights to their own likeness. The court action forced Doisneau to reveal that he posed the shot using Françoise Delbart and Jacques Carteaud, lovers whom he had just seen kissing, but had not photographed initially because of his natural reserve; he approached them and asked if they would repeat the kiss. He won the court case against the Lavergnes. Doisneau said in 1992, I would never have dared to photograph people like that. Lovers kissing in the street, those couples are rarely legitimate. (from Wiki) But since Doisneaus time, candid street photography in France as well as other European countries has nearly disappeared due to an avalanche of laws designed to protect the photographed and recognize the right of people to control their own image. Where does this leave the photographer, who for decades has felt it his duty to probe and expose society as it really is, not as it wishes to be seen? Are we headed for a further devolving into meaningless selfies, and happy, society-approved portraits? Ethics is a major concern in every profession, be it business or law or medicine. But should such codes of conduct be formulated, and eventually enshrined in legalities, for professions that have traditionally thrived in an unhampered pursuit of depicting the world as they see it?
Posted on: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 02:58:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015