Tumgik
#im having an editing crisis so if this picture changes slightly at some point
Text
My Presentation
My presentation and the main concept of my final major project is looking at the negative effects of a camera, that intrudes privacy and dehumanises people, and how it has changed society.  Photography has always had a lot of ethical gray areas, and Im interested in what makes people react differently to photographs, why some are seen as okay but others aren't. In what situations is a camera appropriate but in others not, and how the use of a camera has affected our generation and its authenticity.
One influence for this topic is my interest in photojournalism, Photojournalism is the practicing of communicating news by photographs, and is always providing reasons for controversy as images are often explicit. I want to look at what distinguishes between an images been ok, and not ok.
These images here are from the same time, September 2015, when the refugee crisis was at the height of every news story and we were inundated with new stories every day. The image on the right was a massive influence on the way that people responded to the crisis, as it was so shocking, and really resonated with people on a personal level. However, there was a large outcry after this image was published as many found it too explicit and tragic to be on our front covers. But it was the truth and it made people change, so why wasnt it ok to be published? It differs greatly to the image on the left, whose colour is edited and which has a dreamy depth of field, the subjects look happy, and its portrayed to look joyful and beautifully photographed - which is a completely fake portrayal of the refugee crisis. It makes me wonder if we only want to see edited versions of lives, because real life images are never accepted graciously.
This image by Stanley Forman is from 1975, but raised the same kind of issues. It was again published on the front cover of a newspaper titled Fire Escape Collapse, and went on to win awards for World Press Photo of the Year and a Pulitzer Prize. However the children were in fact falling to their death and so there was outrage at the image being so highly commended as it was argued by many that it takes away the dignity of ones human death.  Many wrote to the newspaper expressing their feelings yet the editor defended the photographer in a statement that concluded:
“I recognize that printing pictures of corpses raises all sorts of problems about taste and titillation and sensationalism; the fact is, however, that people die. Death happens to be one of life’s main events. And it is irresponsible — and more than that, inaccurate — for newspapers to fail to show it, or to show it only when an astonishing set of photos comes in over the Associated Press wire. Most papers covering fatal automobile accidents will print pictures of mangled cars. But the significance of fatal automobile accidents is not that a great deal of steel is twisted but that people die. Why not show it? That’s what accidents are about. Throughout the Vietnam War, editors were reluctant to print atrocity pictures. Why not print them? That’s what that was about. Murder victims are almost never photographed; they are granted their privacy. But their relatives are relentlessly pictured on their way in and out of hospitals and morgues and funerals.”
in addition to this, the idea of editing what we put into the public eye has swung so far in the opposite direction that these days, outside of the news, almost nothing we see is real.
photographers whose subjects are celebrities, or better known papparazi, have been at the root of many disasters. The word paparazzi derives from the word pappataci, which is italian for small mosquito,suggesting that a paparazzi is an annoying buzzing creature. It then entered the english language and refers to an intrusive photographer.  They are responsible for the most widely seen images we have in contemporary culture, and whilst not ideal, its true that they make thousands of pounds or dollars from a single image. They inhabit a weird form of postmodern journalism thats seen as both despicable and a part of the media we indulge in. They have a history of invading the privacy of celebrities, whether its waiting outside their homes or sneaking into their hotel rooms. Perhaps the most extreme case of paparazzi torment is that surrounding Princess Dianas death. A leading theory suggests that the reason her taxi driver was going so fast was to escape a following photographer. This was a particularly serious case, and although some regulations were changed after this incident, ((including that legally ‘Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.’, )) its still a very big part of todays culture. However, whilst for some its an invasion of privacy, for others its their money maker. Certain celebrities who are famous for they lifestyle, what they wear, who their with, and what their doing, they rely on these images taken to keep their fanbase updated on their movements and therefore cant have much say in stopping it from happening. So its difficult to stop a culture such as this as for some it may be torment, but for others, its their job.
Further on from this, and my last point into exploring the intrusive sides of a camera, is the devices that we use them on. Im not sure if any of you saw this article, where a photographer created a series of photos of people engaging in their phones, but edited them out of the picture to show the true reality of what was happening. This caused a lot of reaction and showed the harsh reality that we forget day to day of how people are so absorbed in their phones that they dont engage with people. The photographer, Eric Pickersgill, created a short video explaining his series, which to conclude is about how we kind of notice, but tend not to act upon these addictions. He also mentions how its easy for him to photograph people on their phones, as they dont notice him.  As a photographer myself I can relate to this, as if photographing people, you know its safe to capture someone who is on their phone, as they wont see you. But it also can make you feel slightly uncomfortable, as I more often than not now, almost feel bad for taking a photo, as I feel like theres a line between just enjoying an experience, and capturing it on your phone. (And i barely even take photographs of anything anymore because i want to enjoy the moment.)  We've seen this before however, at concerts perhaps, where people barely watch or join in with the performances because they are filming it all on their phone. We have come to a day and age where people are so infatuated by their phones that they almost don't even know whats going on around them anymore. Its become part of our culture, to spend any spare time we may have, endlessly scrolling and looking at photos. We are exposed to a greater amount of worldwide information than we ever have been, as we have such great access to photos of people and places from all over the world. This is great, as people are travelling more than ever, and using this source as a way of maintaining contact with people from all over the world, however it can sometimes be a little overwhelming just how much we are exposed to. Its said that the average mobile phone user checks their phone around 200 times a day, and in a  survey of college students 94% said they would feel troubled if they didn't have their phone with them. As a generation we are addicted and we are constantly posting or taking some kind of photo or video. I really want to explore the effects that this has on people, on authenticity, their relationships and their actions, as well as their feelings. My main concentration would be in fact authenticity, as I very much feel like as someone who doesn't really have any specific career path in mind, it can feel quite daunting to watch what everyone else is doing in their lives, and appearing successful on their social media platforms, and to see how authentic people really are these days, and how much is influenced by what they see everyone else doing. I have a theory that if we weren't exposed to as much information as we are, of other peoples lives, and lived in a generation such as our parents, many of us would be doing very different things. I think we would be more concentrated on purely what we like doing, as opposed to what other people like and what we feel we should.  I also think that this mobile technology has really altered our expectations of reality, and Im going to explore the ways in which it has, and what we would potentially be like without these cameras after all.
0 notes