In this task, we learned how we as photographers can choose to be outside of the subject's personal life, making us objective or we can choose to be inside their personal life and photograph them in a subjective way.
QUESTIONS
1. How responsible is the photographer for the way in which a subject is represented?
A photographer is only partly responsible as different viewers interpret things differently. However, there are situations where the photographer can be in full control: when the subject is something objective like an object.
2. How much control can the photographer exercise over the way in which the images are understood by viewers?
Through their method of photographing the subject, but still even then, it can be interpreted differently to what the photographer intended as viewers will interpret things differently due to their experience of art.
3. Can photographers fake the truth?
Yes, manipulation can be achieved by Photoshop or different methods of using the camera.
4. When is it not okay to take a photograph?
When consent has been given and when it's at an inappropriate time
5. Should you always seek their permission before taking the photograph?
Yes because it is their right if they want the photograph taken, however it can ruin the authenticity of the photograph. One solution to this, is to ask them after taking the photograph.
6. Does it make a difference whether or not if you have a personal relationship with the person in the photograph?
Yes, the photographs can have an intimate and personal feel to it when the photographer has a relationship with the subject, but if they don't have a personal relationship, the photographs can be more objective and there may be a distance in terms of emotions and understanding the subject on a personal level. However, this connection can be manipulated and faked by the photographer through their methods of photography. 7. Can photographs hurt people?
Yes, if it's showing the truth about something or is a relatable (on an emotional level) to the viewer
8. Is all photography a voyeurism?
Partly. We as photographers can choose to be a voyeur and let the photographs be natural but we can also direct the way in which the photograph should be interpreted and what messages we want to get across.
"Photographers like Diane Arbus is considered a postmodernist photographer as her work is an escape from binary thinking and starts to turn art into a question about not just what the art is and what it means but also the world we live in. Arbus was well known for photographing marginalised people—dwarfs, giants, transgender people, nudists, circus performers. However, photography critic Abigail Sontag divided photographers into two categories: Outside and Inside. Susan Sontag argued that certain forms of photographic depiction were especially complicit with processes of objectification that precluded either empathy or identification [...] Arbus was indicted as a voyeuristic and deeply morbid connoisseur of the horrible." -- Abigail Solomon-Godeau
We tried to understand the meaning the two words by writing the synonyms of the two words. OUTSIDE: INSIDE: - Objective - Subjective - Dispassionate - Personal - Sciencetific - Privileged - External - Immersed - Judgemental - Private - Public - Emphatic - Reserved - VIP - Voyuerisitic - Trust - Alienated - Active
Diane Arbus - A Jewish Giant at Home With His Parents N.Y. 1970
What can we analyse from this photograph? - We can state the obvious which is the height difference between the parents and the son; the parents both seem shocked but we can see that mother is concentrating on her son's face, while the father seems to not want to look at his face. Their body language is natural, making this image a form of voyeurism - The scenery is a small, domestic, middle class, living room. The curtains are shut, this could either mean it's nighttime or they have the curtains shut because they are embarrassed to have a giant as their son - An arm chair is sticking out at the bottom of the foreground, this probably means Arbus took the photo behind the arm chair. She could possibly be at the entrance of the room, if so, this makes her even more of a voyeur but an objective or subjective one is up to interpretation.
Sontag comments on Arbus's photography: "Photographing an appalling underworld (and a horrible, plastic overworld), she has no intention of entering into the horror of those images as experienced by the inhabitants of those worlds. They are to remain exotic, hence "terrific". Her view is always from the outside". From this , we can see that Sontag isn't fond of Arbus's objective way of photographing her subjects; her staying in that outside bubble could possibly make her seem unsympathetic. Sontag could be suggesting that if we are to take such personal pictures of our subject, especially those who aren't understood by society like most of Arbus's subjects, we must understand who they are on a personal level, we must have empathy because the subject are real people and they way the photographs get interpreted by the public can affect their life.