tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Maybe this will be an enlightening discussion given the tangents that have occurred in some threads recently.
When the subject of objectification comes up in relation to photography, very often the topic is about pornography and the objectification of women. The creation of work that is about a woman's body or beauty but which doesn't touch on her personality or other aspects of her life. In other words her existence beyond that which is superficially aesthetically pleasing is of no significance in the work or by extension to those viewing it.
We may argue the extent to which that is true, but the concept is simple enough to grasp.
So what about in other genres. Street photography for instance, are the photographs telling us something about the people, or do they exist in the photograph simply as part of a composition for aesthetic reasons, or do they exist in the photograph simply because the photograph is documenting that people happened to be there when the photo was made. Should this bother anybody?
What if the photograph is not of a group of people. What if it is of a particular person - does that photo tell us anything about them? Or are they simply making a funny face or engaged in some sort of amusing action? Does it matter if we learn anything about them or not?
Of homeless persons - are they a subject of convenience, are they an exploited subject, does the photographer seek to inform his audience of their humanity or their troubles, or does he/she just seek to get a reaction out of his viewers?
When you photograph people, and show those photos, what do you think viewers get out of them? Are the people in the photos incidental, are the people objects of amusement, are the people actually people, and does the photograph tell us anything about them beyond that they occupied space in front of the camera at one point in time?
And does it all matter?
I personally have little interest in photographing people, they appear, when they do in my work, as part of the scenery. They're in the photo because they're there in real life, in the scene. I understand full well that they're people, going places, doing things, maybe they've had a bad day, maybe they're hungry, maybe they just got paid or ate a good lunch. My photos don't communicate this, but that's because that's not what my photos are about. Of course there's nothing stopping viewers from realizing this about the people in the photo, but in my case, it's beside the point I think.
However, I see a lot of work, ostensibly about people that gives me no more insight into the people in the photos than my own work does. Sure I can still presume these people have their own life, but nothing in the photo really says anything about their life outside of happening to have been in front somebody's camera for a split second. Shouldn't this matter when the photo is supposed to be about a human "connection" or stimulate some sort of empathetic reaction?
I wonder, when I see these photos, does the photographer think about this when they press the shutter button? Or are they simply taking more photos which incidentally have a person in them - only the person is front and center in the composition, and supposedly the subject.
I wonder - do you?
When the subject of objectification comes up in relation to photography, very often the topic is about pornography and the objectification of women. The creation of work that is about a woman's body or beauty but which doesn't touch on her personality or other aspects of her life. In other words her existence beyond that which is superficially aesthetically pleasing is of no significance in the work or by extension to those viewing it.
We may argue the extent to which that is true, but the concept is simple enough to grasp.
So what about in other genres. Street photography for instance, are the photographs telling us something about the people, or do they exist in the photograph simply as part of a composition for aesthetic reasons, or do they exist in the photograph simply because the photograph is documenting that people happened to be there when the photo was made. Should this bother anybody?
What if the photograph is not of a group of people. What if it is of a particular person - does that photo tell us anything about them? Or are they simply making a funny face or engaged in some sort of amusing action? Does it matter if we learn anything about them or not?
Of homeless persons - are they a subject of convenience, are they an exploited subject, does the photographer seek to inform his audience of their humanity or their troubles, or does he/she just seek to get a reaction out of his viewers?
When you photograph people, and show those photos, what do you think viewers get out of them? Are the people in the photos incidental, are the people objects of amusement, are the people actually people, and does the photograph tell us anything about them beyond that they occupied space in front of the camera at one point in time?
And does it all matter?
I personally have little interest in photographing people, they appear, when they do in my work, as part of the scenery. They're in the photo because they're there in real life, in the scene. I understand full well that they're people, going places, doing things, maybe they've had a bad day, maybe they're hungry, maybe they just got paid or ate a good lunch. My photos don't communicate this, but that's because that's not what my photos are about. Of course there's nothing stopping viewers from realizing this about the people in the photo, but in my case, it's beside the point I think.
However, I see a lot of work, ostensibly about people that gives me no more insight into the people in the photos than my own work does. Sure I can still presume these people have their own life, but nothing in the photo really says anything about their life outside of happening to have been in front somebody's camera for a split second. Shouldn't this matter when the photo is supposed to be about a human "connection" or stimulate some sort of empathetic reaction?
I wonder, when I see these photos, does the photographer think about this when they press the shutter button? Or are they simply taking more photos which incidentally have a person in them - only the person is front and center in the composition, and supposedly the subject.
I wonder - do you?
Tim Murphy
Well-known
Not me chief
Not me chief
Dear tunalegs,
I shoot stupid mundane things that mean something to me. Like trees and flowers and birds and bears and deer and squirrels. In short, in the overall scheme of things, I take pictures of nothing.
I am not a photographer in the commonly accepted sense of the word. I take pictures in the Greek sense of the word, as in light writing. It, photography, allows me to record a visual record of something that drew my interest enough to record it.
On those rare occasions when I take photograph of a human subject I do it candidly and I never share them anywhere beyond between myself the subject unless permission is given.
In my mind, small and closed and shallow as it is, there is far too much outside of the human experience that needs to be recorded so that is where I direct my modest efforts.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
Not me chief
Dear tunalegs,
I shoot stupid mundane things that mean something to me. Like trees and flowers and birds and bears and deer and squirrels. In short, in the overall scheme of things, I take pictures of nothing.
I am not a photographer in the commonly accepted sense of the word. I take pictures in the Greek sense of the word, as in light writing. It, photography, allows me to record a visual record of something that drew my interest enough to record it.
On those rare occasions when I take photograph of a human subject I do it candidly and I never share them anywhere beyond between myself the subject unless permission is given.
In my mind, small and closed and shallow as it is, there is far too much outside of the human experience that needs to be recorded so that is where I direct my modest efforts.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
Contarama
Well-known
I like portraiture but whenever I get a chance to do it usually I'm thinking about lenses and rendering and such as opposed to trying to say anything about someone. Amateurish I know.
Interesting topic. What do you make of this recent USMC Facebook thing about 'wins'? Whatever happened to gentlemanly conduct, no kiss and tell, and moral turpitude? Talk about dehumanizing juvenile behavior. Not to mention being against the law without a release. Seen one you have seen them all right?
And how about teenyboppers and sl-t pages? Our poor children. So sad.
Interesting topic. What do you make of this recent USMC Facebook thing about 'wins'? Whatever happened to gentlemanly conduct, no kiss and tell, and moral turpitude? Talk about dehumanizing juvenile behavior. Not to mention being against the law without a release. Seen one you have seen them all right?
And how about teenyboppers and sl-t pages? Our poor children. So sad.
Tim Murphy
Well-known
Why mention the M3
Why mention the M3
Dear nasmformyzombie,
I'm curious, what difference does your choice of camera make in process? You made it a point to mention it so I think it's fair to assume that it matters, at least to you? Why not just carry an M16 and some camera?
This is what I don't get about anything here. Somehow, the tool of choice is somehow better, or potentially less offensive if it is on the short list of approved tools for offending people?
JMJ, it's a camera for chrissakes, as such it's no better or worse than a Kodak Instamatic.
Carry on,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
Why mention the M3
Dear nasmformyzombie,
I'm curious, what difference does your choice of camera make in process? You made it a point to mention it so I think it's fair to assume that it matters, at least to you? Why not just carry an M16 and some camera?
This is what I don't get about anything here. Somehow, the tool of choice is somehow better, or potentially less offensive if it is on the short list of approved tools for offending people?
JMJ, it's a camera for chrissakes, as such it's no better or worse than a Kodak Instamatic.
Carry on,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
peterm1
Mentor
I don't think we should get so wrapped up in such philosophical debates. When I shoot images I am shooting for a more or less artistic effect and a good outcome in image terms. If there are people in the shots I will be wanting the resulting image of them to be a good one. While I instinctively respect my subjects I hate becoming engaged in philosophical naval gazing about whether I am dehumanizing them or exploiting them. They are there - I shoot them. That's that. There is nothing dehumanising or exploitative in it. At least not in the way I make images. And its not as if as some primitive cultures thought I am stealing their soul. I should hope we all understand that but these days in the West where to be honest we are somewhat decadent (just look at the armies of "commentators" with Liberal Arts Degrees on panel shows on PBS or ABC or BBC who endlessly critique our culture ) we tend to over think issues and become worried about non issues that would not have bothered the last generation.
I keep telling an old joke on these threads about two photographers walking along the road where they see a hobo sitting on the ground with a begging bowl. One photographer keeps walking while the other stops. A little later when he catches up the first photographer says to the second "what did you give him?" The second photographer answers "F6.6 at 1/250th of a second" That's what photographers do - they make photos.
As long as they engage with the subject as another human and are reasonably respectful of the subject that's all we should ask of them. It's for this reason that if someone does not want me to shoot them I comply. Incidentally I seldom shoot homeless people myself as its not my "thing". I do not particularly like this kind of image except possibly in a reportage context or if the person has an inherently interesting face and I think the resulting image will be interesting. In which case I am simply conveying something about them as members of humanity. Take the following for example which I regard as shot taken to show the people of Bali. One young - one old. Nothing exploitative. Images shot and kept because I decided I liked them. In each case I smiled and nodded my head in appreciation - just a human interaction.
Faces of Bali 4 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Faces of Bali 2 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
I keep telling an old joke on these threads about two photographers walking along the road where they see a hobo sitting on the ground with a begging bowl. One photographer keeps walking while the other stops. A little later when he catches up the first photographer says to the second "what did you give him?" The second photographer answers "F6.6 at 1/250th of a second" That's what photographers do - they make photos.
As long as they engage with the subject as another human and are reasonably respectful of the subject that's all we should ask of them. It's for this reason that if someone does not want me to shoot them I comply. Incidentally I seldom shoot homeless people myself as its not my "thing". I do not particularly like this kind of image except possibly in a reportage context or if the person has an inherently interesting face and I think the resulting image will be interesting. In which case I am simply conveying something about them as members of humanity. Take the following for example which I regard as shot taken to show the people of Bali. One young - one old. Nothing exploitative. Images shot and kept because I decided I liked them. In each case I smiled and nodded my head in appreciation - just a human interaction.
Faces of Bali 4 by Life in Shadows, on FlickrFaces of Bali 2 by Life in Shadows, on FlickrSave
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Photography, whether art or document, is all about communication, so it is important to consider what you are trying to communicate, and to think about how a viewer might take it. Just as it is important to think before you speak. You don't want to just blurt out fart jokes all the time for no reason.
However on one level, I would say, most of the people on this forum, simply being hobbyists don't really need to think too hard about it, as our work will only be seen by a limited audience, and often the work being shared is only being shared to show technique and get feedback on technique. It's more like somebody showing a friend what they've been practicing on piano, than somebody going into a recording studio to make something thousands of people will listen to.
On the other hand, communication being part and parcel of photography, even a hobbyist should consider what they're saying with their photographs.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I find the token offerings about homelessness via mainstream media pathetic and generally espousing faux concern for the group and this really bugs me. War is similar in my opinion ... back in the sixties the media decided people needed to see what was actually happening in Vietnam and we got images like the napalm girl etc and hey presto the US people started to lose there appetite for war when they were allowed to see the harsh reality on their TV screens night after night. Huge protests followed and of course ultimately the US withdrew. The nearest thing we see to actual human suffering in war these days is minimal, nondescript and everything is carefully filtered. Consequently US society seems to have regained it's appetite for conflict and I think this is very deliberate on the government's part.
I see a parallel here ... keep something reasonably well hidden and it appears to be nowhere near the problem it actually is so as far as I'm concerned we need to see more pictures of extreme suffering caused by homelessness on mainstream media before the public are going to say W T F ... why is this happening and what are you lot (the government) going to do about it?
I see a parallel here ... keep something reasonably well hidden and it appears to be nowhere near the problem it actually is so as far as I'm concerned we need to see more pictures of extreme suffering caused by homelessness on mainstream media before the public are going to say W T F ... why is this happening and what are you lot (the government) going to do about it?
peterm1
Mentor
Yes but there are also dangers in that. Don't forget that just as hiding difficult images of suffering can be a deliberate strategy, so can harsh images of suffering be exploited for propaganda to denounce what is being done. And sometimes that denounciation is not for pure motives either.
In war, suffering is sometimes unavoidable, which is why we should not too readily go to war and, when we do make war, it is why it must be conducted morally. But sometimes war cannot be avoided. Photos of people suffering does not necessarily make the war wrong. I find too many people these days respond emotionally without thinking and there are people in society with, I have to say bad motives, who sometimes exploit that emotion for their own ends which may be antithetical to our society. Its one of the ways propaganda is misused to shape opinion - produce an emotion - produce a reaction. And when this shapes government policy resulting in policy based on emotion (as it often is on modern democracies) my experience is that it almost always turns out wrong.
An example of this to my way of thinking was the image of the drowned child refugee on the shore of the Mediterranean. It was used by proponents of unrestricted borders to allow millions of un-screened people (many- some estimates say up to 80% - who were not even remotely refugees) into Europe. With consequences that will be felt for - who knows how long? It was deliberately exploited by a class that to some peoples' way of thinking wants to see the downfall of nations within Europe to be replaced by a single European state. (Something they themselves have announced they are working towards). A little information is sometimes said to be a dangerous thing. A little information exploited for ulterior motives is even more dangerous.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I might argue that photography is always propaganda. It may not be an outright lie, but by its very nature, a photograph at best is a selective telling of the truth. One reason it is important to really think what your images are saying if you put them out there for people to see.
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
Documentation, imitation, voyeurism, That's what gets reward in the Fine Art Phitography world in that ascending order. This is not the future, or the potential for the medium in my opinion. Unique personal vision is where we should be going. Every individual has their own way of seeing the world through photography if they allow it, but most stick with the three approved categories. They will always be with us, but it's up to each of us to break with this cycle if we find it limiting.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Every act is a political act, and every class acts in its own class interest. Take this on board, and you can understand a surprising number of things, including a lot of photography.
Of course a lot of things aren't political acts: they're the equivalent of random noise, undertaken without any real thought because they seemed like a good idea at the time. And some people do not act just in their own narrow class interest. They have higher aspirations, such as a supranational Europe without internal borders, the external borders of which can be expanded as more people cast off their xenophobia and religious prejudice. Take this on board and you can understand most of the things that aren't explained by the previous paragraph.
Cheers,
R.
Of course a lot of things aren't political acts: they're the equivalent of random noise, undertaken without any real thought because they seemed like a good idea at the time. And some people do not act just in their own narrow class interest. They have higher aspirations, such as a supranational Europe without internal borders, the external borders of which can be expanded as more people cast off their xenophobia and religious prejudice. Take this on board and you can understand most of the things that aren't explained by the previous paragraph.
Cheers,
R.
Dogman
Mentor
The question brought up a memory for me.
Many years ago when I worked as a photographer for a newspaper (when newspapers were really paper and actually printed news) our area was hit with a fairly devastating flood. As the photographers were returning from covering the flooding, an assistant managing editor decided it would be "fun" to do a sidebar story on what the photographers were thinking while shooting pictures of the damage, rescues, victims, etc. This didn't work out so well for the editor who assembled the group in her office to interview us. The universal answer was that all of us were thinking the same thoughts. They were about exposure, framing, how many shots were left on the roll, whether we needed a longer or wider lens, how deep could we wade into the water for the shot and all the other mundane things that are required to get the pictures we needed. Sure, we had concerns for those involved but the over riding issues for us were the nuts and bolts of doing our jobs. Needless to say, the editor didn't think that was worthy of a story.
That was then. Today, I seldom photograph people. I'm more interested in human artifacts than in humans themselves...at least as subject matter for my photos. What I see too much of in photos today is ridicule or exploitation disguised as (superficial) concern. This shows up often in so-called street photography with an "in your face" attitude toward subjects. But it exists in subtle ways in documentary and news photography.
But hasn't this has always been an issue with documentary and news photography? I read recently that some of the subjects of Walker Evans' tenant farmer photos later felt they were exploited when Evans and the writer (whom they had befriended) never contacted them again and never sent any of them copies of the photos. I wonder what the subjects of Larry Clark's "Tulsa" thought of him after the book was published to such acclaim? There's always more involved in such projects than just underlying concern for the subjects.
I'm torn between abhorring the inevitable exploitation and understanding the reasoning going on with the photographer at the time of exposure. You can't do a professional's job in a normal workday without some degree of detachment.
Many years ago when I worked as a photographer for a newspaper (when newspapers were really paper and actually printed news) our area was hit with a fairly devastating flood. As the photographers were returning from covering the flooding, an assistant managing editor decided it would be "fun" to do a sidebar story on what the photographers were thinking while shooting pictures of the damage, rescues, victims, etc. This didn't work out so well for the editor who assembled the group in her office to interview us. The universal answer was that all of us were thinking the same thoughts. They were about exposure, framing, how many shots were left on the roll, whether we needed a longer or wider lens, how deep could we wade into the water for the shot and all the other mundane things that are required to get the pictures we needed. Sure, we had concerns for those involved but the over riding issues for us were the nuts and bolts of doing our jobs. Needless to say, the editor didn't think that was worthy of a story.
That was then. Today, I seldom photograph people. I'm more interested in human artifacts than in humans themselves...at least as subject matter for my photos. What I see too much of in photos today is ridicule or exploitation disguised as (superficial) concern. This shows up often in so-called street photography with an "in your face" attitude toward subjects. But it exists in subtle ways in documentary and news photography.
But hasn't this has always been an issue with documentary and news photography? I read recently that some of the subjects of Walker Evans' tenant farmer photos later felt they were exploited when Evans and the writer (whom they had befriended) never contacted them again and never sent any of them copies of the photos. I wonder what the subjects of Larry Clark's "Tulsa" thought of him after the book was published to such acclaim? There's always more involved in such projects than just underlying concern for the subjects.
I'm torn between abhorring the inevitable exploitation and understanding the reasoning going on with the photographer at the time of exposure. You can't do a professional's job in a normal workday without some degree of detachment.
willie_901
Mentor
Well, these three possibilities are not mutually exclusive. I prefer photographs where all three are in play and the balance between them results in an interesting photograph. While lacking in originality I view interesting as a balance between composition and content.[1]
For me, street photography is candid photography for documentary purposes. The place and times are documented. The human condition in the context of the place and time is documented. The goal would be: viewers of different cultures and, or in the future can experience what things were like when the photograph was made. The more interesting the photograph, the more likely the goal will be realized. These things are all linked together.
It is irrelevant whether or not this bothers anyone.
The issue is where does the right to expression end. Where does invasiveness, humiliation and disrespect start.
The legal lines between creative expression and privacy are unambiguous but vary in different legal jurisdictions. There's no point in discussing this.
But photographing within legal boundaries is not the entire story. Different people will have very different boundries. One person's exploitation is another's creative expression.
This photograph photograph "American Legion Convention, Dallas, Texas" is one example. At the time Winogrand's work was curated at the New York Museum of Modern Art. So by any objective measure he was an artist. Of course anyone can say that's not art and he was not an artist. But art curators, book publishers and the continuing interest in his work say otherwise.
Is "American Legion Convention, Dallas, Texas" exploitation? It is not gratuitous photography by someone who just enjoys humiliating their subjects. It was made by an artist. It is curated in art museums and printed in art books. And balancing composition and content is certainly in play. It certainly describes quite a bit about the human condition. It makes most people think and feel something. It is not a pleasant photograph, but the human condition is not always pleasant. Is exploitation something more complex than whether or not the subject matter is unpleasant?
Do you wonder if "American Legion Convention, Dallas, Texas" is an example of "simply taking more photos which incidentally have a person in them".
I don't. I think he was just trying to make an interesting photograph.
I started doing street photography in 1970. I has no idea it was street photography. At that point I had never seen a street photograph. However I had looked at every photograph in Life Magazine for as far back as I could remember.
I have a handful of photographs some people might consider exploitive. The only thing that I can tell you is: when I made those I was not thinking about treating someone unfairly, abusing them or taking advantage of them for my own personal gain. In an instant I envisioned a photograph and I made one.
[1] Google "winogrand monkey problem"
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I photograph people in "street" photography only if I'm finding it interesting. For me. It could be interesting alignment of person, shadow and surroundings. Or it could be interesting something among people.
Do I care what others think about it? At least I don't worry to find what almost all of pictures I choose to share are finding some viewer to understand.
This picture has it, it was resonating with only few viewers and it feels nice to know what where are few who could understand
Do I care what others think about it? At least I don't worry to find what almost all of pictures I choose to share are finding some viewer to understand.
This picture has it, it was resonating with only few viewers and it feels nice to know what where are few who could understand
mdarnton
Well-known
Your questions are good ones that I have also considered. As a result, I decided some time ago only to shoot photos of people known to me, with the specific purpose of showing who they are. No more using of people as props. This means, among other things, no street photos, which I have always felt were just about the most exploitative type of photography around, short of porn.
Regarding news, I also was once a news photographer, and though I hadn't formulated the "no people as props" idea yet, that's how I worked. As a consequence of that, I believe, I never received negative comments about my photos, and the community was sad to see me leave that job. I never felt cheated of my "rights" to photograph for not being able to
use people as objects.
Regarding news, I also was once a news photographer, and though I hadn't formulated the "no people as props" idea yet, that's how I worked. As a consequence of that, I believe, I never received negative comments about my photos, and the community was sad to see me leave that job. I never felt cheated of my "rights" to photograph for not being able to
use people as objects.
cz23
-
That's a mighty nice collection you have on Flickr. Looks like your approach is working very well.
John
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
OK… I'll bite.
Street photography has existed for over a century. The study of all this work shows a little bit of what life was like at that time. I enjoy learning what those photographs offer, no more, no less. Does an August Sander portrait of a baker tell me the intimate details of the baker's life? Does a Helen Levitt photo of kids playing under the spray of fire hydrant on a New York City street tell me all that can be known about the kids' lives? Does Gary Winogrand's photo of a woman laughing in front of a headless male window mannequin tell me much about the woman?
The answer to all of these questions is no. But all the photographs tell me SOMETHING. Photographs like these reveal bits of information about what life was like then, what people cared about, and maybe most importantly, what their lives had in common with mine.
I also think its important that we not judge the importance or usefulness of any one of a photographer's images, but better we look at the whole body of work.
In my view, our common understanding of the world as it is and as it has been, would be far, far diminished if we didn't have the fruits of generations of street photographers' work (in its many forms) to enjoy.
Street photography has existed for over a century. The study of all this work shows a little bit of what life was like at that time. I enjoy learning what those photographs offer, no more, no less. Does an August Sander portrait of a baker tell me the intimate details of the baker's life? Does a Helen Levitt photo of kids playing under the spray of fire hydrant on a New York City street tell me all that can be known about the kids' lives? Does Gary Winogrand's photo of a woman laughing in front of a headless male window mannequin tell me much about the woman?
The answer to all of these questions is no. But all the photographs tell me SOMETHING. Photographs like these reveal bits of information about what life was like then, what people cared about, and maybe most importantly, what their lives had in common with mine.
I also think its important that we not judge the importance or usefulness of any one of a photographer's images, but better we look at the whole body of work.
In my view, our common understanding of the world as it is and as it has been, would be far, far diminished if we didn't have the fruits of generations of street photographers' work (in its many forms) to enjoy.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Jamie,OK… I'll bite.
Street photography has existed for over a century. The study of all this work shows a little bit of what life was like at that time. I enjoy learning what those photographs offer, no more, no less. Does an August Sander portrait of a baker tell me the intimate details of the baker's life? Does a Helen Levitt photo of kids playing under the spray of fire hydrant on a New York City street tell me all that can be known about the kids' lives? Does Gary Winogrand's photo of a woman laughing in front of a headless male window mannequin tell me much about the woman?
The answer to all of these questions is no. But all the photographs tell me SOMETHING. Photographs like these reveal bits of information about what life was like then, what people cared about, and maybe most importantly, what their lives had in common with mine.
I also think its important that we not judge the importance or usefulness of any one of a photographer's images, but better we look at the whole body of work.
In my view, our common understanding of the world as it is and as it has been, would be far, far diminished if we didn't have the fruits of generations of street photographers' work (in its many forms) to enjoy.
Yes, very much so.
Cheers,
R.
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
Reduction of Humanity -- my first thought was you were working on a recipe, and were wondering how long to reduce the sauce after adding the photographers.
Pioneer
Mentor
Photography exists for many reasons. To assume that all photographs with people in them must enlighten us about that person seems a bit simplistic. I have enjoyed photographs with people just because they exhibit a joyful moment, or a sad moment, or a solitary one. In other words, they are only symbolic of our own emotions.
Sometimes photographs of people can be used to document a condition. Lewis Hines did this very successfully. By enjoying his photography I have no clue as to the lives and personality of his young subjects. But it is obvious from their condition and the environment that they are being used (ie: exploited) by a manufacturer or a business. W. Eugene Smiths' photography of Minamata disease is another example. In both cases this photography was very well done, but they were not taken to help us understand a person, but rather to document a condition.
Of course there is also the need for families to document their own existence and the continuing passage of time.
Philosophically there are many reasons for photographing people or groups where objectification is not the purpose, or even part of the conversation between the photographer and us. Not even nude photography is intrinsically objectifying people. People have enjoyed the symmetry and beauty of the human body, male and female, long before photography became part of the equation. The difference of course is that the photograph is far more realistic and may bring out discomfort in some.
Sometimes photographs of people can be used to document a condition. Lewis Hines did this very successfully. By enjoying his photography I have no clue as to the lives and personality of his young subjects. But it is obvious from their condition and the environment that they are being used (ie: exploited) by a manufacturer or a business. W. Eugene Smiths' photography of Minamata disease is another example. In both cases this photography was very well done, but they were not taken to help us understand a person, but rather to document a condition.
Of course there is also the need for families to document their own existence and the continuing passage of time.
Philosophically there are many reasons for photographing people or groups where objectification is not the purpose, or even part of the conversation between the photographer and us. Not even nude photography is intrinsically objectifying people. People have enjoyed the symmetry and beauty of the human body, male and female, long before photography became part of the equation. The difference of course is that the photograph is far more realistic and may bring out discomfort in some.