When is it not ok to take a photograph? When it's known not to take pictures in a certain place, for example the red light district in Amsterdam, or when someone or something is in danger and you have the ability to help them. I also think that pictures shouldn't be taken of disadvantaged groups who may feel that they're being made fun of by having their picture taken by a stranger, for example the homeless, unless their permission has been given. Should you always seek the permission of your subjects before taking their photographs? Not always as most put themselves out in the public sphere, where in most countries it isn't illegal to take pictures. However I think if the subject looks distressed, or seem as if they're feeling difficult emotions, or if the image is being taken of a homeless person who doesn't have a private sphere to go to I think that permission should be given. However, this will mean that a true representation of what's going on will be distorted as now the subjects will know that they're being photographed. Does it make a difference whether or not you have a personal relationship with the subject of a photograph? Yes, I think if a photographer has a personal relationship with the subject, the subjects are more willing to allow unethical photos to be taken, I think this might be part of the reason why Diane Arbus had personal relationships with a lot of her subjects. Can photographs hurt people? Yes, I think most photos have the ability to hurt someone in some way, as there are so many different things that can be photographed that might not effect some people but could trigger emotions in others, as it might relate to something hard that they have gone through in their life. As so many people are triggered by such a wide range of things I think most photos do have the ability to hurt people. I think photos that show discrimination that people deal with in their day to day life such as patriarchy, racism and classism have particular power to hurt big groups within society. Is all photography a form of voyeurism (enjoyment in seeing others suffer from pain and distress)? I don't think that all photography is a form of voyeurism as a large majority of photographs don't contain people, as well as this the photographs that do contain people, don't always show their suffering or pain, photography is also largely down to the perspective of the audience, with the large majority probably not enjoying seeing others in pain or distress even if the photograph is of that. How responsible is the photographer for the way in which a subject is represented? The photographer is largely responsible for the way in which a subject is represented as they have the power to make the photo look however they want as they have the camera, they also have the ability to not take the image if they think that the representation of the subject is bad, or hurtful. How much control can the photographer exercise over the ways in which their images are understood by viewers? I don't think a photographer is very able at all to exercise over the ways that their images are understood by viewers, as everyones minds are different and everyone will have different studiums, punctums, denotations and connotations of an image. Can photographs tell the truth? I think its very rare for the photograph to tell the truth as the photographer has the power to manipulate the photo when taking it through choosing subjects, angles, lighting and editing the photo etc. Different audience will also have different truths, for example if the photograph was taken at a black lives matter protest and the photographer photographed the event as peaceful which was the truth for the majority the protests, a minority of people will still try to argue against it and claim that the protest wasn't peaceful.
Diane Arbus
The mum looks intimidated but still loving, as she's making eye contact with her son unlike the father.
Picture on the wall shows Israel, which is where they previously lived, before moving to the bronx.
The curtains are closed, which indicates they don't want people looking in and are ashamed of their son.
The father is looking at the sons shoulder instead of directly into his eyes, this again suggests that he is ashamed.
The fathers expression strongly suggests tension between him and the son, this makes me feel slightly uncomfortable and also sad for the son as his father shouldn't be ashamed of him.
There is cling film on the lamp shade, and the mothers dress is also dirty indicating a poorer family, however the father looks very smart, which for me subconsciously further shows the division between the mother and the son and then the farther.
There is a cover on the chair which further indicates the family might not be that well off.
The son is hunched over and also has a walking stick indicating that his height might causes him pain as he looks too young to be using a walking stick for any other circumstances.
The house looks very old fashioned.
I feel as if i'm also looking down at the people from the 'giants' perspective and the giant looks as if he has power and status over his parents, which is deceiving as this isn't in fact the case.
The 'Giant' in fact earned a living at a freak show and died at the age of 35 due to a cancer which also was the reason for his height, this shows that his height caused him major issues throughout his whole life and many question whether the photo was ethical for Arbus to take, as she didn't do anything to help the 'giant' throughout his life, and many see the photograph as her just mocking him.
3 childish looking girls in a field, that look like they're playing.
their faces aren't visible indicating shame towards them.
Their clothes make them look more childish even though their bodies look like young adults.
The subjects had down syndrome.
The subjects shown had down-syndrome and at the time Arbus took the photo people with this illness were sent to institutions for the mentally ill, or freak shows if they were 'lucky'. Again this image is controversial as Arbus did nothing to help the subjects, and only visited to take photos like the one shown above, people again question if this is ethical, as it again just seems like Arbus is mocking her subjects.
Above are some more photos Arbus took throughout her life before she committed suicide at the age of 48, there is very much a pattern forming of 'outsiders' for the time that Arbus photographed, it is argued whether Arbus photographing these 'outsiders' was seen as being accepting of them or as her mocking them.
Diane Arbus documentary
'Going where I've never been', 'documenting people on the fringes of society and finding the astonishing in the common place'.
Her daughter felt photography was a secret of Arbus, not the process, but something that happened when she was there.
In 1971, Arbus committed suicide, her daughter and Marvine Israel a close friend of Arbus felt that they wanted to make a book of her work.
'The camera is a licence'.
'When you see someone on the street you immediately recognise the flaw'.
'Someone else's tragedy isn't the same as your own'.
'Were nicer to each other than the invention of the camera is'.
'Freaks had a tragic kind of excitement to me... they made me feel a mixture of shame and ore', 'They know something you don't'.
'Drawn to people or subjects that are known, they fascinate me before I've even met them'.
She had a preconceived deference that she wanted from her photographs.
Ears and eyes around weren't used to it.
Her specific subject matters included freaks, homosexuals, cripples, sick people, dying people and dead people, but reacted differently as most people look away when seeing these people, which she didn't which takes 'courage and independence'. She photographed them humanly, seriously and functioning in their lives, which was an extraordinary achievement.
Each photograph was an event. Going there, being there and dialogue.
You were blind the second you took the picture, the camera obscures light and makes you see things you didn't see before taking the image.
Camera is a nuisance, its determined to do one thing and you may want it to do something else.
'There were days I couldn't do it, there were days I could... having done it I could do it a bit more'.
She asked some people for permission, but didn't for some.
Sontag on Arbus
Sontag explains that Arbus had no intention of entering the world of the people she photographed, but explains her as simply looking in from the outside
Arbus was not interested in ethical journalism, she was just interested in subjects that she 'found' without any values attached to them, the subjects normally lived secret lives rather than open ones, and it would never have occurred to her to photograph napalm babies, which were seen as public horrors, but she would photograph the outsiders of society who lived very much in the private sphere.
Arbus states that 'the camera photographs the unknown' and Sontag explains that they're not unknown to everybody, just people like Arbus who came from a middle class background and were 'protected', for example, minority sexual identities were below awareness at the time Arbus was photographing.
Sontag describes Arbus as a super tourist as she just visits her subjects and brings back news of them without intervening what so ever in their lives.
Sontag also recognises that Arbus is always trying to 'fight against boredom' by going on journeys to photograph the outsiders of society, both boredom and fascination are outsider feelings, which Arbus feels while photographing her subjects, showing that she hasn't taken the time to get to know them or try to help them through their experiences.
Donna Ferrato- living with the enemy
Ferrato photographed victims of domestic abuse throughout the 1980s, living with victims and their abusers, staying in women shelters and accompanying police officers involved in domestic conflict. She is now encouraging women to leave abusive relationships, and working on educating society on why men are abusive. She does recognise that some progress has been made in family courts for domestic abuse victims, but says that they shouldn't hold much faith in it still. Ferratos photography shows that photographers can photograph their subjects while helping them, unlike Arbus who was an outsider photographer who just photographed them and then left. Due to this Arbus very much seems like she was mocking her subjects as she never tried to help them.
Abigail Solomon-Godeau criticisms of Arbus
Her achievements are overshadowed by her suicide and by the disturbing-ness of her photographs, she has become kind of a freak herself some say
Sandra Phillips says 'She was a great humanist photographer who was at the forefront of what has become recognised as a new kind of photographic art.'
Kenneth Baker praised her work for compassion and intelligence.
Arthur Lubow says she's 'One of the most powerful American artists of the 20th century'.
Arbus' photos raise questions about the relationship between the photographer, audience and the subjects.
Audience being allowed to look at the unethical images has changed and is being challenged.
John Berger
ways of seeing John Berger text
From John Burgers film and text from his book, it is very clear that words can completely change perspectives on pictures, even if it's just a title above the image. For example a worker working in a sweatshop, with text from the companies advert that she's working for above will likely make the audience feel guilty from buying from the brand, but the image by itself wouldn't make the buyers feel as guilty as there's no contrast shown, and the brand that the persons working for isn't shown. As well as this the last picture that Van Gogh painted just seems like a normal painting of a corn field without text, but with the text that Berger paired it with in his book 'This is the last picture that Van Gogh painted before he killed himself', suddenly makes us see everything in the photo as representing death, and makes it seem like the crows are fleeing the field as a gunshot just went off.
Threshold concept 7 explains that context is everything, and what more could change everyones view of the same image? words, sentences or paragraphs put next to them. Words next to photographs apply context that might not have been there before, as everyones view of the same image could be very different, as you apply your own context to it, which comes from your personal life experiences. However, when words that aren't yours are put next to an image your context of it will undoubtably change. For example, the advert above would not be perceived in the same way without the text next to it, it could be perceived as a farm advert instead of a Veganism advert.
The three dreams, main advertising strategies (Berger)
The three main strategies of advertising as explained by Berger are:
The dream of a far away place (travel).
The dream of later tonight (sex)
The dream of skin (intimacy)
Berger explains that these dreams shown in advertising would make people want to buy the products shown, and therefore fuel capitalism, and this means that photography and photographers are the basis of capitals as without them the photos wouldn't be produced to influence people to buy capitalist products, made through the exploitation of the working class. Without the 'dreams' shown in advertising not as many people would buy the products, as they wouldn't believe that they would give them what they wanted from the products, which are the three dreams. For example, people are more likely to buy a perfume that's advertised like the photo on the left below than the photo on the right below, as it show the dream of sex and intimacy.
The photos above words show synonyms for drinking, and then have pictures of the aftermath of drinking, these two things correlate as normally the words are all said in a jokey way, but the photos show what could really come from drinking.
The photo above is also a contrast, as it's a woman working in a YSL sweatshop, which as we can see from the photo is far from glamorous, but the text shown is the text from the YSL advert making the brand seem glamorous, and put the attention on body types for people to worry about rather then them worrying about how the clothes they're buying were made.
My own photos with words
I used contrasting words to the photos I chose in my photos with words project, as it would make the audience think about the word choice more, even though there is no real reason behind the words with images its just saying the apposite to what is actually happen in the images.
Larry Sultan- pictures from home 1982-1992
Sultans photobook includes family album pictures, Sultans own photos of his parents and some snapshots from old family films. The book also has text throughout it either below, above or next to an image or by itself on its own page, which could change the audiences ideas of the photos in the book. Some argue Sultans images go against the norm of photography as he is photographing his parents which some see as questioning the status of them as he's the one with the camera and therefore more powerful within the situation. Some also say that Sultans work provokes some problems which include wealth, family relationships and ageing as all are very clear throughout all his work.
War primer-Bertolt Brecht
Brecht collected images of the aftermath or events during the second world war from newspapers and magazines and accompanied them with poems that he wrote himself. Brecht book is an angry response to war under capitalism, and his work very much reveals this anger due to the horrific pictures accompanied by angry 'razor Sharpe' poems.
War Primer 2- Adam Broomberg and Oliver Chanarin
War primer 2 is concerned with conflict on both sides of war terror. They collected images from the internet, which they edited in numerous ways, they overlayed these images on top of Brechts images with bits of his chosen images still visible, so that the photos were juxtaposed with each other.
War Primer 3- Lewis Bush
Bush criticised Broomberg and chanarin's work because their students played a major role in the construction of the book, but were not paid or given recognition in the book for their work. Bush was outraged by the unpaid labour involved in the making of the book, so his book focuses on unpaid labour and capitalist societies. He adds new images in the book to bring attention to the issues.