For me it is more about morality than ethics. While the war photog might end up doing good, his intent is what sticks with him and will cause suffering for him. (And i would not want to be the vietnamese girl in the famous picture, altho if it helped end the war i would come to accept it). But that is why i am not rich and do not do a lot of things that this culture finds totally acceptable.
And if you could see my cats' different reactions to a camera! Some seem to adore the focus (😉) while others run for under the couch when i even turn the phone toward them. Having taken a lot of street photos back in nyc but being camera shy myself, i have had to explore this topic a bit!
good points all and worth thinking about. the vietnamese girl was horrified when young to be seen naked and felt violated. as the years went on, tho, she became sadly proud of the role she played. or so i read.
I enjoy and have seen exhibits of each of them. I agree with you more about mapplethorpe. He can turn people into the most beautiful sculptures. Not so sure about Arbus, tho. from what i've read about her, she really spent time with her subjects and won intimacy--sometimes literally. Animals are so much less "glamorous," than, say, the subculture denizens that each of them favored, that the animal portraits can sometimes be strangely more human. Nor are there issues of privacy and exploitation.
Interesting about Arbus. But i guess the underlying question we can't really answer is about intent. Did they as photographers do what they did to "get the shot" or did they really want to reveal a unique being as beautiful in itself? I know mapplethorpe had a strong bond to Patti Smith and spent hours on her album cover portrait to get it "right." It seemed to be out of respect and the drive as an artist. But what about the others he photographed?
And privacy and exploitation in animal photography is an open field for consideration since they can't give "consent" per se!
So back at you (this is interesting. thanks). How much does intent matter? Does it matter, for instance, that a war photographer shoots only for the thrill and "glory," but gets the image that exposes brutality and turns sentiment against violence. And the person who cares desperately about the victims take shots that are boring and uncompelling.
As for privacy and exploration in photographing animals, I don't think of consent or lack there of as an ethical issue, since it is the perception of the "subject" that matters. And I really dont think animals mind ...or understand the camera itself. More of an issue perhaps is exploration like utter fraud Disney committed in herding lemmings off a cliff to create the myth that they commit suicide. https://www.britannica.com/story/do-lemmings-really-commit-mass-suicide
Even in her final years, your cat was still an elegant, lovable little person, and the portrait shows that. about 45 years ago we had a timid cat whom we sarcastically named Thor. He did, however, love to sit for portraits so long as I took them with the 5x7 camera. Approach him, however, with an 35mm, and he'd turn his back and walk away. "I take photography seriously; so must you!"
Yes indeed. I read that too. Thanks for the exchange! 🙏
Very interesting conversation
I will read that later. Thanks!
For me it is more about morality than ethics. While the war photog might end up doing good, his intent is what sticks with him and will cause suffering for him. (And i would not want to be the vietnamese girl in the famous picture, altho if it helped end the war i would come to accept it). But that is why i am not rich and do not do a lot of things that this culture finds totally acceptable.
And if you could see my cats' different reactions to a camera! Some seem to adore the focus (😉) while others run for under the couch when i even turn the phone toward them. Having taken a lot of street photos back in nyc but being camera shy myself, i have had to explore this topic a bit!
good points all and worth thinking about. the vietnamese girl was horrified when young to be seen naked and felt violated. as the years went on, tho, she became sadly proud of the role she played. or so i read.
And these photos also show respect for the one viewed. Arbus and mapplethorpe lacked empathy i thought. They objectified most of their "subjects."
I enjoy and have seen exhibits of each of them. I agree with you more about mapplethorpe. He can turn people into the most beautiful sculptures. Not so sure about Arbus, tho. from what i've read about her, she really spent time with her subjects and won intimacy--sometimes literally. Animals are so much less "glamorous," than, say, the subculture denizens that each of them favored, that the animal portraits can sometimes be strangely more human. Nor are there issues of privacy and exploitation.
Interesting about Arbus. But i guess the underlying question we can't really answer is about intent. Did they as photographers do what they did to "get the shot" or did they really want to reveal a unique being as beautiful in itself? I know mapplethorpe had a strong bond to Patti Smith and spent hours on her album cover portrait to get it "right." It seemed to be out of respect and the drive as an artist. But what about the others he photographed?
And privacy and exploitation in animal photography is an open field for consideration since they can't give "consent" per se!
So back at you (this is interesting. thanks). How much does intent matter? Does it matter, for instance, that a war photographer shoots only for the thrill and "glory," but gets the image that exposes brutality and turns sentiment against violence. And the person who cares desperately about the victims take shots that are boring and uncompelling.
As for privacy and exploration in photographing animals, I don't think of consent or lack there of as an ethical issue, since it is the perception of the "subject" that matters. And I really dont think animals mind ...or understand the camera itself. More of an issue perhaps is exploration like utter fraud Disney committed in herding lemmings off a cliff to create the myth that they commit suicide. https://www.britannica.com/story/do-lemmings-really-commit-mass-suicide
Even in her final years, your cat was still an elegant, lovable little person, and the portrait shows that. about 45 years ago we had a timid cat whom we sarcastically named Thor. He did, however, love to sit for portraits so long as I took them with the 5x7 camera. Approach him, however, with an 35mm, and he'd turn his back and walk away. "I take photography seriously; so must you!"
Love it. I remember Thor.
What a long life for your friend! You must have given her good care and lots of love! The dog looks like he's in pain. I really can't stand that.
I know.
She may have been fading, but there is such a strong presence to her, a regality (if such a word exists), and elegance.
Thanks. She was a good cat.
It is evident from this photo that this cat was loved and understood. You have a wonderful talent.
She was and we gave each other much comfort and pleasure. Thanks, Susie.