Permanence, "Proof," and Ethics in Photography

Many of the photographers discussed in the Dyer article, including Strand, have been fascinated with the connection between the camera and the human eye, and how the camera creates a solidified voyeuristic image that is only fleeting to the naked eye. The camera changes the way we act, because we know that we are not only being intently watched by someone, but also that what we are doing will be recorded permanently. It is as if a person “ducks” from his/her natural expression in response to the shooting “gun” of a camera. This poses a serious problem for photographers wanting to capture images of natural emotions and reactions – but there is also an ethical dilemma in trying to get around this problem, as the individual changes his/her expression for a very personal reason.

Nevertheless, many photographers have tried ways of working around this to achieve more naturalistic pictures. If subjects are unaware or less aware that their pictures are being taken, they will have less time and less desire to change their expressions. However, is this ethical? On the extreme level of the subject being unaware that the picture is being taken, is Strand’s image of the blind beggar ethical? Would she have wanted her picture to be taken, reflecting her in this light? I think that this reaches into a much broader ethical issue in photography – even when subjects are aware that their pictures are being taken, they may not be “okay” with it. How you feel about this issue depends on whether you weigh art or individual wishes for personal depiction higher. People will inevitably be offended by certain pictures of themselves. I don’t feel that is always a bad thing, though – I don’t think there is anything wrong with reflecting people in an unflattering or honest light, especially considering some of the great photography that has been achieved involving corrupt political figures. In cases such as the more innocent blind beggar, I feel that the image is more of a statement about societal labeling and job opportunities for the handicapped, and does not seem to be a negative reflection on this individual. I don’t think that photographers often shoot with the aim of contorting the true nature of people, and I don’t think it is unethical to capture reality, because we engage in it every day.

Considering the movie “Proof” in this context, the issue is reversed and the photographer himself is the blind individual, capturing the overwhelmingly seeing world. The camera serves as the main character’s eye. It “proves” to him – but only through the eye of a seeing individual he must trust – that the contents of the photograph were the actual circumstances where and when the photograph was taken. The seeing photographer does not need this proof of reality for himself/herself, but is proving to the rest of the world what he/she saw. What is more important? Obviously, for the blind photographer, the camera holds such great weight because he did not trust what his mother told him and needed a sense of truth and reality in his adult life – even if this eventually becomes complicated and turns against him due to the nature of people not always being honest. The seeing photographer may use “blind photography” means, but he/she still basically knows what is in the frame by glancing, without having to rely on smell, touch, sound, or other senses. The seeing photographer has that advantage, and the issue of being temporarily “blind” in the photographic process is generally used in order to prevent the subject’s alteration of his/her expression or to experiment with the framing and angling of the camera. The seeing photographer is still more focused on having other people recognize what was there, and the photographer’s way of seeing it, whereas the blind photographer in “Proof” intends for his photography to serve as concrete evidence for himself. However, because he must still go through another individual to “prove” reality, he can only trust in the external viewer and can never actually fully prove what was present if he did not use his other senses to verify it. In the end, the issue of blindness and the camera-as-eye is one that photographers both blind and seeing have attempted to span the spectrum of, and the issue of the camera creating a permanent “proof” of reality remains one that raises issues of distortion and ethics.