Photography: An Aggressive Sport
A few months ago Rich shot a model (not the one featured below) who seemed unusually apprehensive. He did everything he could to put her at ease, and when she finally relaxed and started to talk it turned out that she was indeed nervous about shooting, not because she was inexperienced or didn’t want to pose nude, but because she was completely fed up with photographers pushing her to reveal her personality in a shoot. Past photographers weren’t just interested in what she wanted to show them, they were interested in what she didn’t. They wanted to capture “the real her.” She felt that this was outside the scope of the shoot, off limits, PRIVATE. Experiences with past photographers had resulted in such psychological pressure to expose herself that she was disillusioned with them and could no longer relax in front of the camera.
As a model I will admit to being able to identify with this. Whereas most photographers assume that their subjects will value the photographic skill and insight into their personality, this is not always the case. Sontag once observed that photographing a person can be seen as an act of violation. “By seeing them as they never see themselves, by having knowledge of them that they can never have, it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed.” And what if that photographic subject didn’t want to be photographed in that way? Consider a paparazzi photographer who spends his life trying to get the picture of the latest celeb. His livelihood depends on him catching a “killer shot” of the celeb in question. The more exposed and off-guard the shot of the subject, the more money he gets. He is actively stalking his prey in the same way that hunters hunt wild animals with their gun.
Think I’m exaggerating? Think that photography is forever a peaceful profession? Think again. You only have to look at the language used in photography to realise that photography is primarily the domain of men, and is consequently aggressive in nature. We talk about “loading” and “aiming” a camera, “shooting” a film (are we talking about cameras or guns here? See the parallel?) We “take” a photograph, “capture” a moment. Again, all hunting terms, all with the emphasis on taking rather than giving.
It has been suggested that photographing a subject unawares is akin to a fundamental violation, in the most violent sense possible. If you photograph someone in a certain way without their permission and when they are emotionally exposing their psyche, then you are capturing a moment where they are at their most vulnerable. This is not a gentle act. Although the photographer may only be seeking an exceptional shot of a person, unless that model has explicitly told you that she is happy for you to find that in her, then it is by default an act of unintentional aggression.
To some photographers, such intrusions are acceptable providing they yield a strong image. Perhaps you photograph a model when she is undressing for a shoot (something which many models really hate, incidentally) or perhaps you photograph her in an outtake when she is feeling sad or pulling a goofy face. It might be an outstanding shot, but do you have the right to use that image? No, don’t quote model releases to me here. I’m not talking about legal issues, I’m talking about ethics. At what point does capturing such an unexpected moment, an unguarded expression, a moment where you discover “the real her” become an overstepping of the boundaries? When does it become a violation of privacy?
In every shoot there is an unspoken contract between photographer and subject. Whether or not you violate that contract in the name of pursuing truth or insight is a subjective judgement and depends on the personal integrity of the individual photographer. If you do not consider it your responsibility to preserve the model’s psychological privacy, if you are only concerned with the final image regardless as to whether or not the subject is emotionally comfortable with you penetrating her psyche in that way, then at what point does the selfish pursuit of a strong shot become offensive? At what point is it a violation of the power that she entrusted to you?
Ask yourself if your work is primarily about you, the photographer, and your relentless hunt for “the one shot” that defines a person? If your photography becomes no more than satisfying your quest for “truth” (whatever that is), or no more than proving to yourself what an outstandingly insightful photographer you are, then I put it to you that you are arguably no better that that paparazzi photographing the celeb, or the hunter with the gun stalking his prey.
My own conclusion is that the ethical photographer will maintain a friendliness, openness and flexibility with the subject. He will not stalk or pursue her, nor will he abuse his power. Rather, he will openly discuss what he is looking for at the start of the shoot, and obtain her approval and consent. He will always respect her boundaries, both physical and psychological. Such a friendly relationship goes a long way towards offsetting the aggressive nature of photography.
Unfortunately this giving rather than taking isn’t always as easy as it sounds. Sometimes your intentions might be entirely honourable and you think that your subject is perfectly happy with the way you work, but you may nevertheless violate invisible psychological boundaries because your subject is too trusting, too naïve, too polite or even because she simply misunderstands what you are looking for. So you might believe that you’re not being aggressive, you might think that your model is perfectly happy with the way you shoot and values your unique skill and insight into “the real her,” but are you absolutely sure?
Images are of Ivory Flame
As a model I will admit to being able to identify with this. Whereas most photographers assume that their subjects will value the photographic skill and insight into their personality, this is not always the case. Sontag once observed that photographing a person can be seen as an act of violation. “By seeing them as they never see themselves, by having knowledge of them that they can never have, it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed.” And what if that photographic subject didn’t want to be photographed in that way? Consider a paparazzi photographer who spends his life trying to get the picture of the latest celeb. His livelihood depends on him catching a “killer shot” of the celeb in question. The more exposed and off-guard the shot of the subject, the more money he gets. He is actively stalking his prey in the same way that hunters hunt wild animals with their gun.
Think I’m exaggerating? Think that photography is forever a peaceful profession? Think again. You only have to look at the language used in photography to realise that photography is primarily the domain of men, and is consequently aggressive in nature. We talk about “loading” and “aiming” a camera, “shooting” a film (are we talking about cameras or guns here? See the parallel?) We “take” a photograph, “capture” a moment. Again, all hunting terms, all with the emphasis on taking rather than giving.
It has been suggested that photographing a subject unawares is akin to a fundamental violation, in the most violent sense possible. If you photograph someone in a certain way without their permission and when they are emotionally exposing their psyche, then you are capturing a moment where they are at their most vulnerable. This is not a gentle act. Although the photographer may only be seeking an exceptional shot of a person, unless that model has explicitly told you that she is happy for you to find that in her, then it is by default an act of unintentional aggression.
To some photographers, such intrusions are acceptable providing they yield a strong image. Perhaps you photograph a model when she is undressing for a shoot (something which many models really hate, incidentally) or perhaps you photograph her in an outtake when she is feeling sad or pulling a goofy face. It might be an outstanding shot, but do you have the right to use that image? No, don’t quote model releases to me here. I’m not talking about legal issues, I’m talking about ethics. At what point does capturing such an unexpected moment, an unguarded expression, a moment where you discover “the real her” become an overstepping of the boundaries? When does it become a violation of privacy?
In every shoot there is an unspoken contract between photographer and subject. Whether or not you violate that contract in the name of pursuing truth or insight is a subjective judgement and depends on the personal integrity of the individual photographer. If you do not consider it your responsibility to preserve the model’s psychological privacy, if you are only concerned with the final image regardless as to whether or not the subject is emotionally comfortable with you penetrating her psyche in that way, then at what point does the selfish pursuit of a strong shot become offensive? At what point is it a violation of the power that she entrusted to you?
Ask yourself if your work is primarily about you, the photographer, and your relentless hunt for “the one shot” that defines a person? If your photography becomes no more than satisfying your quest for “truth” (whatever that is), or no more than proving to yourself what an outstandingly insightful photographer you are, then I put it to you that you are arguably no better that that paparazzi photographing the celeb, or the hunter with the gun stalking his prey.
My own conclusion is that the ethical photographer will maintain a friendliness, openness and flexibility with the subject. He will not stalk or pursue her, nor will he abuse his power. Rather, he will openly discuss what he is looking for at the start of the shoot, and obtain her approval and consent. He will always respect her boundaries, both physical and psychological. Such a friendly relationship goes a long way towards offsetting the aggressive nature of photography.
Unfortunately this giving rather than taking isn’t always as easy as it sounds. Sometimes your intentions might be entirely honourable and you think that your subject is perfectly happy with the way you work, but you may nevertheless violate invisible psychological boundaries because your subject is too trusting, too naïve, too polite or even because she simply misunderstands what you are looking for. So you might believe that you’re not being aggressive, you might think that your model is perfectly happy with the way you shoot and values your unique skill and insight into “the real her,” but are you absolutely sure?
Images are of Ivory Flame
Labels: IvoryFlame, Philosophy
posted by Lin at 7:56 AM
16 Comments:
This is so very well said.
I've observed this behaviour, AND worse, a few times in the flesh already, and it is very discouraging for me as a model, when the photographer's ego comes before his art.
That needed saying.
And I am glad it is on a blog that gets more than four viewers.
But damn, that red hair need to be in color.
A session is like no other collaboration in the world. I view my work as reportage, I try and capture the model as she is a this moment in time. It gives some models a chance to try on different personalities and see what fits. I’ve always found my models relaxed and confident in my ability to communicate with them even if I’m not specific about what I want. If they are uncomfortable with a pose I ask if we can do a polaroid so I can show her what I’m getting and I never do grab shot of her dressing or undressing. In my opinion that would be a breach of confidence and is unacceptable. My models aren’t ask to sign a release until they have a chance to view all the shot that we’ve done. Their input is a valued part of the whole collaborative process that we share and I don’t see anyway else to manage it.
Well Put.
Mr Charles (or BT if you prefer)
Lin, how interesting we are blogging in spirit again...WHAT WE SAW TODAY is trying to define the ideal photographer and model, and you are defining the unethical photographer.
I am disturbed by the rhetoric you analyzed. I have heard it, used it, and never thought of it even though that is my field. Now that you've tossed out the language of the hunt, I see why we get some of the problems that we do.
Photography needs an overhaul of its rhetoric. That's not impossible. It has happened in other professions.
Thank you for a great post!
Again I preface this by saying - I'm not a Nekkid Girl picture taker - I was going to say shooter - but didn't want to be aggressive, but taker is no better right.
If the woman is asked to reveal the "real" her and doesn't want to and feels guilty doing so or it's against her morals/ethics or has bad feelings toward the photographer but cannot communicate that to the photographer. Then in my mind she shouldn't be getting naked in front of a camera.
To me using your example - "Past photographers weren’t just interested in what she wanted to show them, they were interested in what she didn’t. They wanted to capture “the real her.”" - these photographers don't have an agenda and are looking for her to supply the inspiration, the reason to press the button [do you know how hard it is to use words other than your male aggressive ones?] and this to me it shows a lack of "due diligence" on her part before agreeing on the assignment. If she cannot stand up for her own ethics, she shouldn't rely on the photographer to supply them for her, also she should not be naked in front of the photographer when she makes these decisions. If she feels disillusioned and can no longer relax in front of the camera – why is she there - is that the photographers fault - past or present? Now this is assuming that the model feels uncomfortable from the start as yours did and that the photographer didn't change course in the middle of the game [see I tried not to use shoot and came up with game - still male and aggressive.] and is not trying to get her to now do something that is beyond what was previously agreed on.
Yet, as you point out she may be "happy" with the out come. How many times have I read about a session and the resulting image or images and the model says - WOW these are beautiful, you really brought something out of me that I didn't see or feel before or if you hadn't brought me out of my comfort zone or I'm so glad you pushed me beyond what I've done before. Were these women uncomfortable during the taking of the images, were their ethics/morals/boundaries pushed, probably. Was it wrong or unethical of the photographer to do it? If the above responses were given, I'd have to say no. So where do you push and where do you not as a photographer - where do you accept or decline as a model? I assumed you are talking about male photographers in your post. Does this also assume that the female photographer works with different criteria or in a different mode when taking pictures of naked women? As it boils down, it's all about communication and in your models case it's as the Boss Man says to Luke, " what we have here is a failure to communicate."
So since the aggressive nature of the words of photography is all the male genders fault. How should we change it to make it more palatable to the more sensitive and demure female gender? How can we make it so we don't violate them as they stand or lay naked before us? What words will take the aggression out and the compassion and beauty in?
"...emphasis on taking rather than giving." Can the photographer "take" without the model "giving"? If she has images taken in her private moments and doesn't like or want it - why is it not part of her contract. Only posed images allowed. Why doesn't she ask for a changing room or if in the same room or area, is she so absorbed that she doesn't realize a camera is pointed at her? Yet if she agreed just to be photographed and/or is being paid $xxx per hour or day is it not the "right" of the photographers to "take" whatever image, anytime they see a good shot during the agreed session? When your naked in front of a camera - what constitutes a private moment - how is the photographer to know this is a "emotionally exposing their psyche" moment not a "I'm the model click the shutter" moment.
"In every shoot there is an unspoken contract between photographer and subject."...."At what point is it a violation of the power that she entrusted to you?" Why is it unspoken? If she said no crotch shots and he's down between her legs or it's obvious from the angle that's an area to be included - why doesn't she say whoa - is she oblivious to her surroundings, does she not understand what is going on around her? Where is her responsibility? If she cannot say or express what is off limits or private to her then she has "given" away that "entrusted" power he should have never had in the first place.
These all assume a general atmosphere and not any specific session, which could be argued until the cows come home. Also it seems as I re-read this that I kinda bash the model, not intended, but I do feel that she should have the ultimate responsibility to protect her ethics – morals – boundaries not the photographers. Yes…the photographer does have responsibilities toward her and if he takes them seriously the world will spin true and straight.
Well, it's afternoon here in Chi-Town and with the wife being off for Veterans Day, I guess this old veteran will go have lunch with her. To all you other veterans have a Great DAY.
To you Lin – another good thought provoking post – isn’t provoking an aggressive act? :-)
D.L. Wood
Agreed, with two caveats:
1) I do consciously try to capture personality in my nude photography, and have often found that my models cooperate once they see what can result.
2) When photographing in natural light, I'm using the camera aggressively, to push the model in the dynamics of her posing, and in that sense there certainly can be an increase in tension, in the dynamic interaction between us, and many (but not necessarily all) models have responded favorably under those conditions. Some visibly don't, and with those I back off, frequently ending the natural light portion of the session prematurely.
Interesting subject matter. I'm somewhat torn on the topic actually. Aggressive...violent?? I can definitely see your point. I've made the correlations as well between photography and military marksmanship or riflemanship. Its the mechanics that dictate the use of these terms such as "shooting", or "aiming". The techniques to employs these fundamental mechanics are not just similar, they are the same.
The same can be said with "shooting" in basketball. The same fundamentals are involved. But don't let the negative connotations take hold for the use of the word for the same term can be used to reference young flowers or plants.
One thing that is interesting, and as far as I know unique to photography's use of the term, is that in every other use there is an implication that something is being launched. A bullet, a basketball, a germinating seed from the ground. Light comes IN the "barrel" (or lens) to strike a film plane or sensor. Nothing is really being shot out of the camera. Well, I guess an autofocus infrared beam, maybe but that's not what's being described by the term which was in use prior to autofocus.
Well, I am rambling and may be off your true point of treatment of models, which is still an excellent point to make. Maybe its because of my experience as a model that I've developed myself into a photographer who "takes" what is given. I insist on models who collaborate in a project. I present a concept and ask for their impression of it. My direction is actually minimal. I like to capture the moment as it is presented.
I actually agree with most of D.L.'s post, but take exception to:
"If she said no crotch shots and he's down between her legs or it's obvious from the angle that's an area to be included - why doesn't she say whoa - is she oblivious to her surroundings, does she not understand what is going on around her?"
I have taken pictures which the model had stated, before the shoot, she did not want published. They will not be published. In some cases I didn't know at shutter snap that they were showing her crotch (her limit) in others I may crop the offending (although lovely) portion out. In any event I will not violate her trust in what I choose to publish - even though the release does not exclude these shots and I would be legally free to use them. I have an ethical constraint which I agreed to before the shoot.
The key is to agree before the shoot on what the limits are. In my case I would provide the model an "off-limits" changing area to use at her discretion, but state that all other areas were permissible "shooting" areas, sometimes a great shot comes up unplanned and spontaneous.
Great post Lin. I will go over and read Dr. L's post also.
Mmmmm...I don't think you could find a model that would say that I've 'taken' their shot. No, this is not bragging, it's just that the collaboration is where the magic lies for me. I hope my shots show a relaxation and joy that doesn't come off as artificial because that's honestly what I'm after.
Excellent comments folks. Thanks to all.
Mr Wood, you should have been a lawyer!
I do feel that she should have the ultimate responsibility to protect her ethics – morals – boundaries not the photographers.
Yes that would be lovely in an ideal world, but that's not the way it happens in real life. Most of us are simply too polite, to eager to please our "client" who is paying good money to photograph us, that we will put up with certain...erm...character foibles that the photographer displays. We want to get a good recommendation from each photographer, we want to be the best model we can be, and that means we don't object as much as we could, if at all.
I've come across some really pushy photographers in my short time as a model. Even me, a trained lawyer and pretty darn aggressive when I need to be, is simply too polite to tell a photographer he shouldn't snap me when I'm undressing, or I don't like his mannerisms or the way he is shooting. Most photographers will just say "Tough! It's what I've hired you for! From the minute you step in through my door, I can shoot what I want!" In photography the power always lies with the photographer, not the subject. Do you know how difficult it is to argue with a man when you're naked?
Yes…the photographer does have responsibilities toward her and if he takes them seriously the world will spin true and straight.
Isn't idealism grand?
Sorry, Lin, but I disagree so profoundly with what you've said in this post that I didn't feel I could do it justice in a comment. So I've done a post about it on my own blog. Please don't hate me.
Once again you provide some thought provoking material. I agree with some of what you have to say and I disagree with some of it. What is more important to me is that you cause me to take a second look at my own definition of what is ethical in photography.
As you know, I spent many years in journalism searching for what I considered to be the “truth”. In that genre of photography the rules are very different than they are in fine art nude work. I think it is acceptable to capture those moments that might occasionally intrude on an individual’s privacy. I think any good photojournalist would want to reveal the “real” person in his or her photographs. The work can be very invasive but what is important, I think, is its intent. I also think that the best photojournalists are sensitive to the privacy and feelings of the people they photograph. Gene Smith, one of the great photojournalists of the twentieth century, once said that he felt that his first responsibility was to the people he photographed and the second was to the readers. Also, if one is creating a portrait I think it is acceptable get below the surface and to reveal some aspect of that person’s character. When you talk about the paparazzi, that’s a whole different arena. To me they are whores, pure and simple.
Working with a model is an entirely different business. The model is not necessarily being photographed to present some inner truth. More often than not she is being photographed as an object, albeit a beautiful object and one to be treated with respect, but she shouldn’t necessarily be expected to reveal her “soul” to the camera. The photographer and the model should establish some boundaries before going into a shoot and those boundaries should be respected.
Perhaps what is most important in any type of photography is that there is mutual trust and respect between photographer and subject. It’s important, in my opinion, to pursue better and better images, but it is also important to retain our humanity.
I take candid shots when I'm the photographer but do not use them at all for myself, unless I am sure the model is very happy with the shot. I only take them to give the model, for fun. And then I delete them. It is personal.
There may be photos out there that seem to show emotion or aspects of my personality. And maybe sometimes they do. But mostly that's just the photographer making assumptions about me, imagining he or she has captured the "real" Mary. At best you may capture something that represents a quality that many women share.
When I'm in a room with someone holding a camera, I assume that anything I do may be photographed and posted somewhere. I have little control over how I am portrayed. So I don't really try too hard, honestly. I try to find photographers I trust, but I don't trust anyone that much. Even my husband picks headshots I don't like and puts them in his office.
A photo of me is not "me". Even my self-portraits fall short.
Pardon me, but what the heck did all that mean?
I hire models. I have pictures in my head. The models pose so I can try to get the pictures out. What in the world do their inner psyches have to do with me getting the picture I want? I have been privileged to know many models who were wonderful, charming, interesting people, but that has absolutely nothing do do with getting the picture. I'd rather have a dunce who can give me the pose and the expression I want than some supremely interesting tortured soul who fights exposing her innermost self or whatever.
I think that sometimes people put a leetle more thought into stuff than it deserves.
The only explanation I can come up with for what you seem to be describing is that the photographer doesn't have any ideas and wants the model to do their work for them. Why you'd want a model when you haven't any ideas, I don't know. Go to a strip club if you want to look at nekkid girls for no particular reason, would be my advice. It's much cheaper than camera equipment plus you can buy lapdances.
Ha! Thank you Marc. You made me laugh, and brought me back down to earth with a bump. Your perspective will be good for this blog, methinks! That said, the mission of this blog is precisely to “put a leetle more thought into stuff than it deserves” i.e look behind the psychological reasons of why people photograph, so if that sort of thing doesn’t interest you, then I’m afraid that this blog will only ever annoy you (alas I infuriate a lot of people: “it’s my way”)
Handygirl – thank you! Your photographic ethics are precisely how I think too. And you have a good point that “a photo of me is not "me".” Only I find the opposite – photos of me usually are some fundamental aspect of me (which as you say may be common to others too.) Sometimes I didn’t want to show that part of me though, and therein lies the problem.
Joe, as always, you hit the nail on the head. If ever there was a definitive answer to my post – yours is it. Thank you for your insight.
Now…if only I can get Mr Levingston talking to me again…
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home