Entry 4

Craig Hickman was our guest speaker this week in Art 101, and he talked about a wide range of topics including different photographic styles, the ideas behind choosing them, and critique from the art community on those styles. A point of interest was the works of photographers that presented candid or ‘on-the-spot’ photography that was ‘unedited’, such as Diane Arbus’ portraits of strangers on the streets that she found interesting. What made Arbus’ portraits especially interesting was not only the fact that she spontaneously found subjects to photograph, but that these people were funny or amusing people to look at; to put it bluntly, like a mild freak show carefully selected by a good photographer. While the quality of her photography and choice of subjects were no doubt enough to grab the attention of the public, Hickman pointed out an issue surrounding Arbus’ work: Is she exploiting her subjects because some pictures are obviously taken for their humor value, poking fun at the subjects’ odd choice of garb (expression of personality) or physical features?

There is often a fine line between exploitation of photography subjects and art taken for the sake of art. But then again, sometimes the answer lies with just that: Did the artist take the photograph for the sake of art, or with the intention to exploit its subjects? With this interpretation, the answer becomes crystal clear in most cases. Take, for example, E.J. Bellocq. This 'mysterious' photographer’s works were discovered by fellow photographer Lee Friedlander in Bellocq’s desk after his death. They were pictures of prostitutes posing in the nude for him. While Bellocq was a professional photographer, those particular photographs were obviously taken purely for selfish personal pleasur(e/ing), which makes it exploitation. In stark contrast, Diane Arbus did not exploit her subjects if she intended to take the picture purely for its artistic value and appreciation its viewers had for the photograph.
Which brings me to this: Have we become so egotistical as artists that we only take into account whether or not the artist is exploiting the subject, ignoring the subject, viewer, or distributor's intent? What of fact that Friedlander exploited Bellocq by taking his private photographs and showcasing them for his own goals? Personally, I’d be rolling in my grave if I died then some sick guy found my porn stash and displayed it to the world as my personal ‘art’. And I’d be damned if those subjects of Arbus’ photographs were not willingly being photographed. Instead of dealing with complicated labels of ‘exploiting, ‘not exploiting’, ‘exploited’ or ‘not exploited’, I’ve finally reached the conclusion that some things must just be taken with all their facts and interpreted as a whole without labels. Labels in this case will do no good unless you’re a lawyer looking to defend a case, and they take away from the essential point of this debate: artists need to think about exploitation and be aware of the implications their photographs have on both their subjects and their audience.

Artists must be concerned about exploitation not only in the sense of 'taking advantage' or degrading the human worth, but also in the sense of misleading the viewer to believe falsified information. Errol Morris discusses in his article Photography as a Weapon the photoshopped Iranian missiles controversy where an Iranian news company, Sepah, edited a photograph of Iranian test missiles to add in an extra missile. It is already a shame that we are lied to every day by advertisements of models who have been heavily photoshopped; that’s business for you. But editing pictures in the news just for a better story or to lie to the public about incredibly important issues? This trend in photo-editing for the sake of misleading its viewers is a great danger to the credibility and integrity of all formal news sources and while we cannot control what another country does as far as digital editing goes, I at least want a solution to this in the United States. I can imagine putting a sort of fine on heavily misleading newspaper photographs, but then there are too many loopholes: large news companies doing it anyways because they can afford the fine, comedy news being unjustly fined, and more than anything just the very issue of it being a restriction of freedom of expression and art. But as much as I value freedom of expression and art, there has to be a line drawn somewhere when it interferes with the general public’s perception of reality and facts! I can think of a dozen ideas for solving this issue, but none are likely to be a lasting method to fix this problem. As Albert Einstein said, “The world we have is a product of thinking; it cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” Our most ideal path would be to change the ethics and purpose behind photojournalism altogether. Oh, but that's just idealism; Wouldn’t it be swell to be able to simply change others’ perspectives and values to fix all of our problems?

Alas, a more moral and sensitive public doesn’t have to remain a far-fetched fairytale that philosophy majors sit around and fantasize about while sipping lattes. Some people take the initiative to effectively work towards making it a reality through art; Alfredo Jaar (A.J.) is a perfect example. In his Rwanda project, he traveled to Rwanda to take as many photographs as he possibly could to send back to the U.S. and inform us about the horrors being experienced in Rwanda while genocide is taking place. His technique of using zoom-ins of the eyes and face of victims emphasize their humanity and emotionally influence the viewer to be conscientious and help out. An argument against this goes, “Well, isn’t that still a form of manipulation, thus exploitation, even if it is used for good?”

Manipulation has such a bad connotation stuck to it because the knee-jerk reaction is to assume it means a misleading of others in order to achieve an ulterior, selfish motive. Clearly, A.J.’s work fits none of this negative definition of manipulation. That definition is far different from the broad definition that his art may fall under: doing something with the intent of influencing (something or someone) cleverly and skilfully. This means any good communicator, including artist, can be described as a manipulator.

A.J. said of his art, “My imagination starts working based on the real life event [Art21: Protest].” In other words, he keeps his facts straight and doesn’t try to photoshop dynamites and lions into his photos in order to influence the thoughts and feelings of others. A.J. is not only taking steps to make the world a better place, but also to make the world of photojournalism a more honest one in his own way. I admire him because he is an inspiration to any artist aspiring to positively change the attitudes and actions of others around the world, without exploitation, through art.

Works Cited
Art 101 Lecture Series (Winter 2011): Craig Hickman
Photography as a Weapon by Errol Morris
[http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/photography-as-a-weapon/]
Art21: Protest
[http://video.pbs.org/video/1239788836]
Art21: Alfredo Jaar
[http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/jaar/]
Right click on images for sources.