I was recently exploring Henri Cartier-Bresson's work. Again. The French photographer, a co-founder of the Magnum Photo Agency - arguably the pinnacle of photography - is regarded as one of the best photographers of the 20th century. At this point, his influence on photography as an art form is almost cliché but his photographs are undeniably brilliant and anyone with an interest in the medium should look through his archive thoroughly.
If you respect your subject and treat people with dignity and empathy, then taking the picture isn’t a problem
It is also worth mentioning Saul Leiter, Ernst Haas and Bill Brandt, who all equally deserve to be in the same sentence as HCB but are often overlooked in comparison. This list could go on and on, of course.
One commonality all these photographers share is their documentary work in the mid 20th century. Their later work diverged somewhat, but from the 1930s to ‘70s, the bulk of photography they produced covered a similar range of topics and subjects as they worked primarily documenting the world, lives and daily experiences of humanity around the globe.
Documenting our world through photography is largely considered a passive activity. The photographer possesses the ‘neutrality’ of the observer; there to document but not influence. This is seen as the primary aim and purpose of a photographer on assignment. But when you create a photograph, even the language is aggressive - we 'shoot' pictures, we 'take' photos. We ‘capture’ moments for posterity, trapping them in the frame. The semantics of photography are anything but passive.
And so, in an increasingly paranoid and insular society, where almost everyone possesses a camera of some kind (mainly phones) and AI is now able to replicate our likeness with ease, we have become hyper aware of the ethics behind documentary photography. Is it morally justifiable to capture images without the subject knowing, for it to be ‘authentic’, or should a photographer allow the subject the chance to consent to being photographed given the ubiquity and power of technology now?
In my commercial work, I shoot images and films with people who are fully aware of my presence, and as a result I often have to direct the shoot somewhat in order to get the results I need. Does this make what I’m doing less valuable than if I’d candidly shot it? To my employers, certainly not, but when ordinary people view the end result I’m not sure they would know either way.
What I’ve created is a more curated form of story-telling; the images tell the story about the subject, but rather than being the passive observer I have actively engaged with the subject to get the best photographs or footage from the scenario. A form of scripted reality. They could make TV shows out of this idea!
But these shoots are very specific projects and have an end goal. And crucially, I have consent from the subjects to be there. If I was attending a similar scenario uninvited and taking photographs of these moments, it could appear exploitative. The artistic and commercial value of the images would be the same, but the impact on the subjects could be far more damaging than if they were involved in the process.
But when you create a photograph, even the language is aggressive - we 'shoot' pictures, we 'take' photos. We ‘capture’ moments for posterity, trapping them in the frame. The semantics of photography are anything but passive.
Conversely, if these moments occur in a public setting, then there has to be a reasonable expectation that others will observe - whether you want them to or not. The expectation of privacy is very context dependent, and in these scenarios I think it is perfectly acceptable to take pictures of people doing whatever they are doing whether they like it or not. Obviously there is always the option to ask, but if it isn’t necessary then it can be beneficial not to.
There has to be a level of common sense and respect applied to each scenario, taking in the context of the situation and asking yourself the moral question: how would I feel about being photographed in this moment? I think if you respect your subject and treat people with dignity and empathy, then taking the picture isn’t a problem, especially if they don’t notice at all. It probably leads to better photographs as well. Some of the most powerful images created feature people who probably wouldn’t have wanted that image to be made, but it serves an important purpose and a lot of the time we as viewers empathise with the unfortunate events depicted.
Ultimately, I don’t think there is a right or wrong approach. Both methods can create beautiful photography. But I do think there is a strong case for continuing to capture candid photographs in public spaces, as they show our world how it is, without any performance or presentation to the camera. It just needs to be done with humanity and respect for those in the photograph. Portraits, photoshoots and staged imagery have its place and is a form of documenting the world, but in a way that acknowledges the camera.
The crucial thing is that we don’t lose the right to take photographs of the public in public, and that we don’t allow our society to veer too far into insular, puritanical and isolationist attitudes, demanding consent for everything that happens. They tried that in East Germany and it created the most surveilled population in human history.
Comments