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.
Those are good points, Ashely - but I think there is a difference between being ethical and being moralistic. In the last paragraph I think you are referring to a moral code rather than an ethical one. Ethical standards are not absolute, and you are right, they are often specific to cultures, age, etc - however we do need to have a personal code worked out. This will be a guide so that you know what your intention is with a photograph and the sort of client you will say "no" to, and the context you want your images to circulate in. Most photographers, especially starting out, think they have no power to say no - and this is wrong. If no one stands up for a belief then what? And maybe this ethical code is private - so you do not need to feel like you are scrutinised...does that make sense?
ReplyDeleteSure but wouldnt an ethical code be driven by ones morals and vice versa.? What I also was trying to get at was no one can see themselves 100% objectively to enable oneself with a reliable personal code of conduct.
ReplyDelete