The images used to illustrate this argument show, in the first instance, a young girl who has been shot dead. The true story will be lost as her particulars as a person seem to have disappeared, but the real story that this picture is used to illustrate is when is it right to have hoards of photographers photographing ‘an incident’ for publication in the next day’s papers.
Gareth Dent (OCA’s CEO) Says...
To kick us off I have pasted below an extract from an earlier post in the Coffee Shop:
‘Yiannitsa and others [in the Coffee Shop Forum] have drawn our attention to the fact that what we find shocking reflects what we have in our head as much as what is in front of us. Photography is particularly problematic in this way, but this does not seem to me to be a valid reason to avoid it.’
Now at the risk of compounding the offence I would like to illustrate my point by comparing two images. It is not necessary to click on the links to get the sense so please do not do so if you feel you will be upset by the images.
The first image by Carlos Garcia Rawlins appeared in the Guardian in January, it shows a young woman, Fabienne Cherisma, who has been shot dead in Haiti (It is here - scroll down to see it)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/26/haiti-earthquake-shooting-girl-story
The second image is a different perspective on the same scene. To my knowledge it has not appeared in the UK press. It is a photograph of the first photograph being taken. It is here.
http://prisonphotography.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/photographing-fabienne-part-nine-interview-with-nathan-weber/
The tragedy of a young woman's death is presented to us in the second image as a commodity, like air freighted exotic flowers, to be got to market as quickly as possible to maximise its value.
I have heard, during discussions before, about how incidents have ensued but only when the press or photographers are present. How is it that photographers or film makers are on the spot when an incident kicks off and how is it that photographs are misrepresented when published? I can remember a picture in The Guardian several years ago where it seemed there was a man screaming obscenities at a young woman whist being surrounded by policemen. The inference was that of police brutality but when the picture was published by the paper, the woman in question wrote in and explained that she was not being abused by the man; she was asking if he was okay. The intention of the image was completely distorted by the paper.
I have just been reading random blogs on the OCA website forum and came upon this extract from a fellow student who was using the forum to express her feelings and thoughts about a personal situation and whether to exploit that situation using photography.
“This is mostly not about photography, except a little at the end, but I felt the need to write about it and this is my only space right now.
While travelling into London on the train last week, someone committed suicide by walking in front of my train. I was in the front of the first carriage and heard the impact as the train hit him, and the awful banging and thudding that vibrated up through my feet as his body was tossed around underneath. None of us knew it was a person at the time, although I think it was one of the first thoughts to occur to everyone after we released our collective breath and our hearts had slowed back to normal rhythms.
And the photographic footnote? Well, I could have taken photographs. The thought occurred to me. The police, paramedics and stretcher were all right outside my window, I had my DSLR in my bag, and it would have been easy. But it didn’t feel right and I didn’t do it. (I obviously don’t have the makings of a photojournalist.) And – if I’m going to be brutally honest here – at least a little of my reluctance was that I thought I might be disapproved of by other passengers. I’m not proud of that bit, and it was only part of the mixed emotions I was feeling, but it was a factor.
I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to take photographs in these situations, and I say that having been on the receiving end of it. My parents were both killed in a car crash many years ago, and photographs were taken and published of the badly crushed car that they had travelled in. It must have been a slow news day, as the accident was reported on BBC Radio and it made – with photographs – the front page of some of the tabloids. This didn’t/doesn’t bother me; the photographers were doing their job and, although it brought home to me how violent the accident must have been, it didn’t make things any worse for me. I would not have been happy had the photographs been of their bodies, however. And I certainly didn’t like the reporters turning up on the doorstep, directly intruding into our grief, even though you could say they were only doing their job too.
Is it wrong – or, perhaps more aptly, in bad taste - to photograph these things? After all, these are personal tragedies, not major news. I don’t know: the question’s been debated endlessly and I don’t think I have anything useful to add to it. I only know that when it came to it, and for whatever reasons, I didn’t do it.”
I have been in the situation where I was there as a photographer taking pictures of a works football match. One of the players went to kick the ball and ended up with a badly broken let. I know it is not ethical to photograph someone else's pain but I was being egged on by a fellow employee. I was strong enough not be to goaded by him, but he would not let it go and only by saying quite firmly that I would not take any pictures would he stop. He thought it was quite acceptable to take pictures of someone's distress.
