Is photography a cruel medium?

[wyvern84]

Just something I'm wondering about. Photography can show people or subjects in an unkind or cruel light. It can also be used to exploit people as their image can be taken in an instant which would be impossible through any other medium. Even the language of photography copies the language of the military, you load film into a camera and shoot people. You don't make photographs you take them. Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

[Belmondo]

I've found the best defense from unflattering photographs is to always be behind the camera. Your military metaphors go even further:
Aim a camera.
Bayonet mount.
Charge a battery
Canon Camera (Okay, that doesn't count) :lol:

Fun topic.

[Tom W]

Actually, for some strange reason, in the south, people do refer to "making a picture" as opposed to taking it.

Anyway, those folks with the 1D Mk II are lucky as they can spray and pray just as with an M-16.

[s00pcan]

flash gun.

[12345Michael54321]

Photography can show people or subjects in an unkind or cruel light. It can also be used to exploit peopleVery true. But the written word can be equally cruel, don't you think?

In each case, if one wishes to perpetuate cruelty, he can use his medium to accomplish such an end. If he wishes to further understanding, or promote sympathy, he can do that, too.

Perhaps a more interesting question is when is it appropriate for a photographer to bias his images such that the subject is portrayed in a cruel or unsympathetic light?

Is it ever acceptable? Is there a fundamental principle that art requires a connection between artist and subject, such that an artist who mocks or exploits his subject is in so doing diminishing the inherent quality of his efforts?

Is it fair for an artist to portray as monsterous a subject who is, by the photographer's standards, a monster? What if the subject is a vicious murderer - need he be portrayed as an object of sympathy? Or is it fair to show him as a beast?

If a people live in abject poverty and squalor, is it wrong to show that? What if they live in poverty and squalor, but enjoy a rich and meaningful cultural tradition, complete with deep and sincere spirituality, such that they find joy in their existence through such means? Must "non-exploitive" coverage of such a subject balance both of these aspects, or is it fair for a photographer to focus on a single aspect of this people's life, even though that will inevitably give the viewer of his work a distorted view of reality?

There's no objectively right or wrong answer to such musings. Although I tend to believe that the photographer or writer must invariably filter reality through his own perceptions, and consequently there's nothing inherently wrong about portraying a subject from a limited perspective, even if the result is a portrayal which others would consider exploitive or unfair.

For example, if a photographer takes pictures of a slum - pictures intended to convey the idea of "These are lazy, stupid people. They live in misery, and deserve it, because they're savages," that idea may offend various people - including some of the people he photographed. But if that's how he sees those people, then it is an genuine representation of at least one person's perception of the truth. And it could be argued that to share with the public one's perception of a situation is essentially an act of honesty on the part of the photographer. Not necessarily truthfulness, but certainly honesty. And I don't believe that an honest sharing of perception is an exploitive act, although it may ultimately wind up being used for purposes of exploitation.

I fear I'm rambling. My apologies.

[JohnEBongo]

Wow

[stopbath]

Just like painting, sculpting and other artistic forms, the artist creates a message. This message can be cruel, or it can be uplifting. It can be educational as it can be mindless.

Without a human (or whatever) operating the camera, no images will be created. The operator determines the resulting image.

Photography itself is a passive medium.

[nosquare2003]

Michael, your post is insightful.

Although photo is a kind of medium similar to words, its impact seems to be greater. A photo can touch a heart in seconds. It is very easy to understand compared to words, sculpture, etc. Therefore photos are always exploited for some purposes.

Yes, it is the artist's job to present what he feels -- and there will be no right nor wrong. But there is still a missing link -- between the works and the audience. A porn photo is a porn photo because the audience feels it -- photographer's intention is irrelevant here. Unfortunately, all of these are very subjective and can be biased by some other means. And who is to blame? (Another example -- Every time I see through the viewfinder is only beautiful things. But the audience always feels ugly with results taken by my camera. Who is to blame? :P )

I think that the original thread is not 100% serious, but he has a point.

[stopbath]

Michael, your post is insightful.

Although photo is a kind of medium similar to words, its impact seems to be greater. A photo can touch a heart in seconds. It is very easy to understand compared to words, sculpture, etc. Therefore photos are always exploited for some purposes.

...

Hmmm... I don't think photos have more impact than written words. Rarely if ever have I ever been moved to tears by a photo. I have by written words. Yes, a photo can create emotion faster, but the intensity of that emotion is a mere shadow of that of written words.

[nosquare2003]

Hmmm... I don't think photos have more impact than written words. Rarely if ever have I ever been moved to tears by a photo. I have by written words. Yes, a photo can create emotion faster, but the intensity of that emotion is a mere shadow of that of written words.

For a large crowd, the impact of photo (with some words as background) will have greater effects than words alone. Several photos come to my mind but they involve political issues...

People (here) tend to take video clips, photos, graphics rather than words -- perhaps we are too busy.

(Enough, I've gone too far...)

[John_T]

A photo has instant impact giving your mind, imagination and judgements/prejudices no chance to switch in, so the truth and reality of it can reach you directly. Of course a short time later the mind will click in and try to rearrange reality and truth, but actually too late. You have been touched. This is the value of a photo, and also why some people prefer a bunch of words so their mind can quickly adjust things to suit them better, so as to reduce the impact and not be touched.

I also don't like the word "capture". Things look much better free and wild. Besides you haven't captured anything at all. Perhaps "recorded" is more realistic.

"Man! Did I rec a bunch of good images today!"
"I just recced my car!"
"I'm into imaging!"

[Kabz]

You MEGA a pixel..

all this violence is sickening.
hah.....I make photos....I don't take them.....I am a photo-maker aka photographer.