Unite for Sight is responding to the tendency of non-profits and NGOs to capitalize on negative images, such as starving children, in order to recruit support for a cause. While the images may compel people to donate large sums of money or get involved in other ways, the counterargument asserts that these visual tools are harmful because they portray people in poverty as helpless and victimized. Rather than empowering the individuals whom the photos intend to help, negative images are further “cultivating a culture of paternalism” between the First and Third Worlds and “rob[bing] people of their dignity,” according to the guide.
As a quick aside, Unite for Sight isn’t the only organization voicing criticism on this topic. A discussion about “poverty porn” aired on NPR a couple years ago, following the release of the hit film Slumdog Millionaire. Here’s the
link to the audio clip if you’re interested.
I wonder how human rights photography fits into the debate on “poverty porn.” Media provides a powerful tool for human rights organizations to raise awareness and hold perpetrators accountable for rights violations. Part of the mission statement from
Human Rights Watch reads, “By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes.” But, in efforts to raise critical awareness of suffering, is human dignity compromised through the use of media? With the concept of human dignity as one of the foundations of the UDHR, the previous question seems paradoxical.
Human Rights Watch recently published a
compilation of photo essays on human rights issues in 2010. In my opinion, the series does a good job of showcasing tasteful photos with captions to provide context, rather than simply relying on the shock factor of a few gruesome images. What kinds of images do you think people find more compelling in terms of evoking sympathy or empathy? Even if a photograph is effective, is it necessarily ethical?
How can human dignity be honored by photographers and journalists? Informed consent is one step, yet it is difficult to imagine that informed consent is always granted, particularly when photographing candid shots of crowds. Perhaps another way is by avoiding facial shots, like the photo at the top of this blog. What do you think are some of the rules that should govern ethical photography of human rights violations? What material, if any, should be off-limits?
I thought this would be an interesting topic to discuss as we begin to design our final documentary projects.
Shannon, this post is fantastic! I love this topic because it is not a topic often discussed. It is so common for us to see photographs of “suffering” or individuals in poverty, and yes although they may be in poverty, it is simply a matter of photographic display, which allows for our feelings or emotions to be touched and for us to assume the thought that they are “suffering.” We never really seem to take into consideration how much of a difference photographic enhancement, and strategic planning for a photograph can change the value and overall meaning of one simply photo. As you said, the consent of the individuals in the photographs should be taken for this is not only an act of common decency, but also a common right as well. It would be very difficult to have consent for group shots but I think that there are certain rules that should be laid down. Perhaps keeping the photograph in its natural form should be one rule. I do not think that a photographer should be able to photo-shop an image beyond minimal touch ups and perhaps this rule would help keep negative/victimizing images to a minimal. Making the photograph more dramatic especially when the photograph is a negative image portraying victimized people should be kept to a minimal. On the other hand, photo-shop to improve empowering images could come in handy. I believe that this part of your post is quite interesting because it seems like there is a thin line of what exactly a photographer should do. This post really got me thinking. I may come back with another comment!
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a really interesting post, and something I had never thought about. Although, I do not totally agree that photographs should not be taken if they make the subject look weak or negative. While I understand and agree that dignity should be upheld, I think that many of the most influential historically influential photographs are those that are graphic or horrifying, such as the "Murder of a Vietcong by Saigon Police Chief" by Eddie Adams. Taken in 1968, this photograph literally catches the action of a prisoner being shot point-blank. While brutal to look at, the photograph is now iconic, and had a great impact on many lives. An even better example is Dorthea Lange's photographs depicting the hardship felt in the Great Depression, such as "Migrant Mother." This one photo created an immense public outcry, which ended in food and supplies being sent to the camps where people lived like the woman in the photo. Yes, the photos are depressing, yes, the photos are somewhat degrading to those in them, but I feel that overall they end up having a huge positive impact on the subject's society. Could it not be considered a "needs-of-the-many-outweighing-the-needs-of-the-few" situation? I do not want to sound as if I am saying people should be shown as despondent and depressing, I just think that sometimes it is needed visually for awareness in society.
ReplyDelete