I do own a camera, and I do take photographs with it from time to time. I am, therefore, confronted from time to time with the same ethical problems. I am not photographing the catastrophe in Yemen or anything of that sort, and I do not publish on a global or even national stage so the impacts of my decisions are, for the most part, minuscule.
In addition, yep, I have a fairly firm grasp of the theory.
Make of that what you will.
ETA: But if it were easy, everyone would be doing it. Given the frequency with which, just as a single facet of the issue, we see scandals in photojournalistic contests, awards, and so on, we are left to conclude that either (or both):
- the world of photojournalism is populated largely with sociopaths
- this is actually pretty hard
The first is actually the tack taken all too often. Souvid Datta is just a bad seed, he's just evil. So is Steve McCurry. So is Hossein Fatemi. And Giovanni Troilo. And Paul Hansen. And. And. Golly, this list is getting pretty long. But, since it's "easy" and it's just your character coming through, the only explanation is that these guys are all just Bad People.
Well, I wouldn't malign anybody not a politician that easily, even obliquely, and especially not in public. I'd also draw a distinction between photojournalists whom I believe to be a dying breed, and the paparazzo pack which certainly appears to be a growing one. That the latter may be true is more a reflection of the market, of the people who buy the magazines that indulge in pix of starlets sans pants climbing clumsily out of low vehicles. That those climbers exists is no surprise: money corrupts, as does the quest for it, and when your looks are your only value, you gotta work fast before you lose 'em. So you see, the old Hollywood star system wasn't so bad after all: fresh meat counted, but you'd have been slung out on your ear for getting that sort of news coverage, not that
Photoplay would have used it, but others would. I can imagine Hedda Hopper, Louella Parsons and Walter Winchell all having a synchronised seizure had they had to print such stuff. Of course shit went down, but in private, to surface years and years later in biographies.
Anyway, it's bad policy to take a few rotten apples and characterise an entire family of fruit as spoiled.
Of course, if you want to venture into the world of "art" photography, then you may have a point of sorts; I have no love for sacrilege in a tank of urine, whether or not I believe in a specific religion. Sexual perversions are not my bag either, and depictions of same neither. So really, I have quite an easy time of it in these matters: if it's beautiful, then I shall probably enjoy looking at it, and at the very least, won't feel offended. So yeah, it probably is just "your character coming through".
But if we are to play a version of the blame game, I'd level my shotgun at the Photoshop-mad PR people that have created the situation where actors/actresses are dehumanised and turned to wax. Who remembers any of those cover shots after ten minutes? Who, who has seen them, will ever forget the many (Magnum) Marilyn shots on the set of
The Misfits, or in Avedon's studio at the end of a session when the psychological armour of the acting veil fell down, and she was revealed open, vulnerable and just a woman in distress in a world that was eating her alive?
Some pictures can be tough, cruel even, but they can show beauty at the same time.
Rob