|
ETHICS OF THE STREET PHOTOGRAPHER
(Are there any?)
Ethics are normally thought of as fixed rules, beliefs or customs, applicable to all individuals and covering, at least in general terms, all similar situations. However, except for legal constraints, which are beyond the scope of this article, ethics in surreptitious Street Photography are concepts that are ill-defined and seldom discussed.
We must first establish some working assumptions. While there are many modes of Street Photography the surreptitious image maker by definition does not seek or have the express consent of the subject of the photograph. In fact from the subject's viewpoint, if they were aware that they were being photographed, we can be certain that the vast majority of them would believe that their right to privacy was being invaded.
This issue has import beyond Street Photography as we live in an age and society that monitors, surveils, gathers information and often video tapes its members to an extraordinary extent. Sometimes this intrusion is government sanctioned. However, far more often and intrusively, private and largely unregulated surveillance is conducted by business, industry and others for purposes of loss prevention, security and other reasons. Sometimes, this surveillance ends up capturing unintended images as Madelyne Toogood discovered as she was videotaped beating and slapping her daughter in the back seat of her vehicle in a Kohl's parking lot. Certainly Kohl's did not anticipate taping this type of activity. Apparently, little thought was given to privacy rights when the Kohl's videotape of the incident was turned over to the media.
"Cowboy's Delight", the accompanying image taken at the Okeechobee Florida Labor Day Rodeo, typifies the ethical dilemma faced by the surreptious Street Photographer.
As an aside, even the title of the image, "Cowboy's Delight", has ethical implications. It vaguely suggests some relationship, perhaps sexual, between the subject of the image and one of the cowboys performing in the rodeo. Yet, I obviously know nothing of her relationships or her sexual habits. The title seemed to fit the image and hence, the name. The ethics of such titling itself is questionable.
If the photographer is arguably invading the subject's privacy, then perhaps surreptitious Street Photography is unethical. But what then of the famous historical and modern images taken without the knowledge of the subject? Many examples these photographers and images were discussed in my previous article, THE ETHOS OF THE STREET PHOTOGRAPHER, which is archived on this site. However, the argument that it has been done before is not an ethical justification for its continuation unless we understand the ethical rational of the prior work and that it is legitimate.
In my view the ethics of surreptitious Street Photography requires a balance between the subjects right of privacy, the public's right to a heritage of images that are beautiful and informative and the image maker's right to freedom of expression. Unfortunately, surreptitious Street Photography defies the clear fixed rules and customs that are often the hallmark of ethics in other realms. Therefore, the Street Photographer is on his or her own in fixing ethical standards.
Are there then no ethical standards governing surreptitious Street Photography? I think there are several, and if not, there should be guidelines that generally govern our conduct while plying our work.
In crafting a balance, we should look to the basis of all morality and ethics, the consideration of other's interests as equivalent to our own. The Street Photographer should start with this viewpoint in balancing the often competing concerns associated with her surreptitious image making. This is nothing more or less than a form of ethical self-censorship.
There are photogenic groups whose religious or moral tenants prohibit their photographs from being taken. Old Order Amish hold religious beliefs which preclude their being photographed. So do some Druze sects. For those individuals, and any others whose beliefs prohibit their being photographed or for those that specifically request that they not be photographed, their wishes should be honored. Remember, we are Street Photographers, not reporters on assignment. We would request or demand the same courtesies if we held their views.
Other categories of ethical concern in surreptitious Street Photography involves images that are degrading or insulting and that serve no useful informative or artistic purpose. I attended an arts fair and photographed an exhibitor who thought he was involved in a private moment of pleasure during a major self excavation of his nasal cavity. That image was never printed, because on reflection, I realized its only interest was the degradation of the subject. Likewise, surreptitious imaging of individuals with obvious physical or mental disabilities requires special care in balancing the competing concerns of the privacy of a perhaps especially vulnerable individual or group against the public's interest in the subject. An outright prohibition of photographs of these individuals is a harsh form of self censorship. Some such photography can illuminate otherwise hidden areas of our world. Diane Arbus's photography of mentally ill patients in her groundbreaking work UNTITLED, treats her subjects respectfully but honestly. While potentially offensive to some, in my view, the images balance on an ethical tightrope and on the whole give the public far more than is taken from the subjects. Some of these images can be viewed on the internet at http://masters_of_photography.com/A/arbus/arbus_untitled6_full.html
Self-censorship can be a slippery slope. One can easily hide behind the mantra of ethical behavior to conform and avoid the controversial, interesting or unusual. It can be the justification for a lack of courage or vision. The balance between discretion and self-censorship on the one hand, and aggressive and provocative image gathering on the other, has the potential to distort preconceived ethical boundaries until they are virtually unrecognizable.
I believe that surreptitious Street Photography, in a public forum, is ethical as long as the image maker has thought of, enacts and enforces her own view of the balance between privacy, the right to know and artistic freedom. This photography has a fundamental place in the field of imaging, because it shows individuals as they are and how they act, without the knowing intrusion of a camera. As George Orwell predicted in his groundbreaking book 1984, which was written in 1949; "You ...live..in the assumption that every...movement (you make) is scrutinized". Some of his predictions, unfortunately, have turned out to be accurate. Individuals who enter the public forum (the street) give up a certain expectation of their right to privacy. To ask them permission to take their photograph results in either a refusal, polite or otherwise, or a false image that is merely a pose of reality. It is my view that surreptitious imaging in a public forum, subject to the limitations previously discussed, strikes the appropriate ethical balance between the rights of all involved.
(The author, Michael Dubiner is a professional image maker and lawyer who lives in Wellington, Florida. His articles will appear twice monthly on PixiPort. His work can be seen at PixiPort.com and at his web site, duby.com.)
|
|