At Prison Photography, a summary of the "Brouhaha in Sweden following Award to Paul Hansen for his Image of Fabienne Cherisma." I was interested that he characterized the types of objections people raised about the image. I was also interested by the second picture at the link, by Nathan Weber, showing "vulture behavior" by photographers.
At Phil Coomes' blog at the BBC, the early comments to a post about a photographer working in Sendai, Jake Price, all focus on the photographic aspects of the pictures, rather than their content. The second commenter expresses a rather extraordinary view: "I'm sorry but I don't think B&W photos should be taken of this catastrophe—whilst it may emphasise the tragedy of the situation I personally think we should avoid the 'artistic' view of this nightmare unfolding before us."
That reminded me of the post "Moral Confusion" from 2006 (the post is a little confusing itself because the first paragraph doesn't link back to this post, to which it refers. Note especially that post's first two comments: "Anonymous" said, in response to Jerry Spagnoli's Daugerreotype of 9/11, "This crosses the line from techno-fetishism into something much worse: taking the trouble to make, and expect to have appreciated, an image of 3,000 people being burned to death just because it uses an 'interesting' process is obscene. Shame." David A. Goldfarb responded with a counterpoint view). That discussion raised the issue of whether a photograph could be unethical simply because of the process used.
(Thanks to Wei Li Hur and Louis Cullagh)
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.