Assignment #3

This debate centres on the exploitation/abuse of children in commercial and artistic arenas and the blurring of lines between art and pornography. 


Both the work of Bill Henson and that of  the Vogue issue are as socially provocative as each other in their own ways. It is the sort of debate that can polarize a community, and generate such strong emotions and opinion that can be paralleled to the wars fought over "opposing" religious beliefs.  And similar too is that in both cases either side is fundamentally fighting for the same thing, that being an acceptable universal standard that betters mankind. Like most laws or socially enforceable ethos they need to be "written" to deal with the absolute fringe dwellers. but, as I don't consider myself part of that subset/subculture that  a value judgement itself. Who am I or anyone to decide  where that line is drawn? Furthermore this is only the strand of the debate that deals largely with  the audience of the  images and the context in which they are viewed, and the implied direct harm to the children involved that can ensue.  However as David Marr points out research has failed to conclude that viewing of such material leads to paedophilia. It is this aspect of the debate that seems to create the most hysteria and fear amongst the general public, which leads to calls for unrealistic reactionary censorship, that cannot be feasibly enforced, if for nothing else but the many exceptions that would need to be considered.


David Marr's central point returned to one of the need for calm well considered discussion, rather than panic from the public and rhetoric from the governments. As much as I agree with this notion in principle, I cannot see such a  forum being able to formulate a working solution to what is such a dilemma. 


A second aspect of the debate comes down to the rights of the children models being eroded by their innocence being commercialised and or compromised by experiences/exposures that may accelerate their childhood. Together with, (whether such images are used as parody of of culture or not), targeted distribution can influence the peers of these models to conform and fast track their maturity. 


Finally, but by no means exhaustively, there is the controversy that we as a culture are one of an unhealthy youth/beauty worship culture, and continue to push the envelope of what is the accepted bench mark of attractiveness and desirability. Perpetuating  in motion  the unrealistic goals and body images of not only our youth but also of the adult community by in large. Creating a pandemic of sorts in respect to low self esteem and social worth(less-ness) if these unattainable standards are not lived up to.

Assignment #2

The main idea I gleaned from reading the text, was that the debate on ethics in Photojournalism has so many variables that is is not possible to delineate what is ethical and what is not ethical. This applies to  exploitation and/or manipulation of a situation/scene for personal gain or glory

The main problem is that everyone has a different frame of reference and this will ultimately effect ones judgement in terms of what is considered ethical. Basically the line in the sand differs from person to person depending on many factors. These factors may include genetics, up-bringing, life events, life style, subculture and personal current agenda as well as the intended audience.

Even at, what most of a given cross section of society would consider the "lower end" of the ethical spectrum, it could be argued that the photographer took the shot and chose to publish it in all good faith that no line was crossed, especially so if the target audience was similarly pre-disposed. Majority consensus cannot be used as the benchmark, as this is yet another arbitrary viewpoint.

It comes back around to the trinity involved with every photograph (I have forgotten the term) wherein there is the photographer, the subject/story and the viewer;  but this debate has added complication and inherent variables associated with the 4th party being those who critique an image for its ethical worthiness. As clear as day as it may seem to you that a photo has breached and transcended (your levels of) integrity, you cannot make others adopt  your standards and values,  else you may well have your own "puritan" output likewise scrutinised.