Each week bigger and better than the last. With time flying by this week saw the first major peer review of our the draft proposals for the oral presentations. “Only” 8 minutes long. Aside to the presentation the discussion and topics for the week struck out to look at the power and responsibility that the practitioner has which brings to the front the ethics of image creation.
Looking at my own practice in reference to the ethical position I felt that there was limited ethics involved. Based heavily on landscape and seascape unless you look at the image production aspect. This raised comments from others fronting that there could be a lot more to consider. I can agree that there are areas where landscape images can be used for interpretation by third parties, the example presented to me “the ramblers association vs the NFU, something that one shot could provoke a reaction from a contentious issue over access.”, However, my practice has not been placed in the position of an image being requested for reproduction so personally, it is not relevant as a consideration. In the event of such a request then clearly the ethical considerations would have to be evaluated based on the request.
One aspect that I had not perceived to think about that was raised was the impact that photographers can have on the environment. Not being one to damage the environment I have often been dismayed by the damage visiting photographers make in our area. Poppy season the farmer’s fields trampled, Bluebell season woodland area destroyed. This opens a whole new way of experiencing the ethical debate, it’s not about the image and what happens to it. A good example is Fay Goodwin’s approach to landscape photography looking at human interaction and not chasing the picturesque image.
Our first forum discussion regarding the image produced by Jeff Mitchell, depicting refugees, secured for adverting by UKIP in the Brexit referendum. This strong image and discussion based on the Guardians article created very similar avenues of discussion. The photographers’ ambivalence to finding out how his image had been used, or how he was wrong to have passed it up for publication so that UKIP could acquire the rights.
My position stood with the others and could see that he had made the choice to pass it to a large agency for sale so had responsibility. The point that he was a staff photographer and had been sent by the agency was missed by many. I feel that in light of this the position changes dramatically.
Maybe it’s more black and white than many believe, Staff for a large agency – paid, sent places, win awards, make a name or, Worry about ethics and don’t take the shot or publish. If you have the ethics that you need to talk to people, be involved with the people, have a concern for their needs or desires then maybe you would never put yourself in the position to take the picture. To move forward, as a practitioner, you work with people and get involved and create documentary images, they are great and then Getty sees your work, offer you a position would you sell your soul and throw out your responsibility? or does your ethical responsibility dictate what or how you can photograph?
Image production comes with great power as we have seen in examples such as Alan Kurdi, the small child drowned on a beach in Greece. This image used to manipulate the public view of the refugee situation. This power brings responsibility. In considering the responsibility, ethical practices have to be reviewed. Any ethical position needs to be based on all the information available and could have an impact, what is happening, what’s going to happen, What could happen. The ethics of any situation are subjective if no law has been violated.
The peer review of the oral presentation created what I felt was a low point. All the people that had seen the various revision had all been too supportive so criticism was hard however I knew that it needed work. The webinar, the brutality that I had been looking for. Within a short space of time, the low was reversed to a positive. A comment made about the sequence of the presentation I had already been thinking so was not a problem. Needing further criticality was a suggestion by both Paul, the tutor and others. Now a reworked presentation that I am very much happier with.
I have seen the development of myself far greater through the process of each version, than any other part of written work so far and I now feel I could do with another week or two to create the best version. Version? I do not know how many different versions I have made but each one better than the last. Peer review is such a powerful tool. This highlighted in the people I shared with early were not empowered to advise.
Submission in a few days, Fingers crossed.
Set reading resource always brings something new. This week no different. Practices of Looking; an application of visual culture (Spectatorship Power & Knowledge) by Sturken, Marita and Cartwright, Lisa is an introduction to further reading. The first impression of spectatorship would have to be looking. The analysis involved with the looking is compelling to dig further into the psychoanalysis touched upon within the chapter. Utilising the Hitchcock film the rear window, already mentioned in Week Three: Rethinking Photographers, the authors can introduce a new aspect of the meaning of the presentation of the film. The voyeuristic nature of the film highlights the controlling male’s gaze, which I feel Tania Modleski argues successfully is emasculated by his confined state.
0 Comments