[slidepress gallery=’davidplummer-maisondelachance’]
Hover over the image for navigation and full screen controls
David Plummer
Maison De La Chance
In the village churchyard there grows an old yew,
Every spring it blossoms anew:
Old passports can’t do that, my dear, old passports can’t do that.
The consul banged the table and said,
“If you’ve got no passport you’re officially dead”:
But we are still alive, my dear, but we are still alive.
Stood on a great plain in the falling snow;
Ten thousand soldiers marched to and fro:
Looking for you and me, my dear, looking for you and me.
Extracts from W.H. Auden Poem; ‘Refugee Blues’.
—
La Maison de la Chance, The House of Good Luck, is a nickname given to a women’s refugee shelter in Calais, France. The refuge is a place of safety for trafficked women, vulnerable to sexual exploitation.
The following ID Photos were collected from the refuge between November and December of 2008 having been discarded by their owners before continuing their perilous journey to the U.K & Canada.
When taken, these ID Photos were perhaps unremarkable. Now, given the dangerous journey many trafficked women have undertaken, these photos invite us to meet them, think about them and ourselves whilst facing this issue where women are frequently forced into a situation of extreme dependency.
Related links
Discarded ID photos. The text romanticizes them, I suppose, but neither the photos nor the text tell anything about who they really were. A mother? A widow? A prostitute? A future suicide bomber?
I guess I just can’t figure out how this fits in here. They are discarded photos. Beyond that, I don’t get it.
JIM…
yes, discarded photos..isn’t that Plummer’s point??? discarded women????
do you remember David’s previous pictures???
many things “fit in here”….including you and your comments….
thank you Jim…
cheers, david
David, I did get the symbolism. But with a 1,000 aspiring photographers to publish, why publish discarded photos? I don’t get it.
As a set of supporting images for an in depth article I can easily see these as having a lot of power. especially if the piece were to follow up on some of these women and show us,and tell us, about their journey. Used in this way they would have, i believe, some use. As they are, they are just found photographs displayed above a quite sketchy abstract. Show me a link to the finished article (which I would like to see) otherwise these are just floundering about without any context.
John
JIM…JOHN
i do hope David Plummer jumps in as he did before…his work is totally non-photographic in the traditional sense…do you not remember his dying man???
photography has many purposes..photographers have many motives….this is only one of them….
ok, running…back with you in the morning….
cheers, david
I’d like to know a bit more about the refuge.
If, as we are told the women were all trafficked before they got there (as opposed to being regular refugees/asylum seekers/migrants), then they must have somehow been rescued from that situation…so how come they ended up continuing their journey from there? did they escape? did the traffickers come back for them? (that has recently been happening with trafficked Chinese children at a home near Heathrow airport, London).
And how do we know they have gone to the UK and Canada? How would they get to Canada?
I like the idea of using the passport pictures to give a face to these nameless, luckless women, but need more about the refuge to help me mentally put this into context
I’m haunted now.
I am as “traditional” as Jim and John in my opinion on this series. Sorry for that.
Provocative, but for me empty. Flat. Too many questions, but this bad questions.
Yes there are questions. And a lot of the time that is a good thing. And there are no real answers here either, and that can also be powerful. However, statements such as “When taken, these ID Photos were perhaps unremarkable. Now, given the dangerous journey many trafficked women have undertaken, these photos invite us to meet them, think about them and ourselves whilst facing this issue where women are frequently forced into a situation of extreme dependency.” Does it? Not as it currently stands it doesent, or at least not for me. I think that it could though. I mean, there is definately a story here and the ID cards, which ‘humanise’ these stories have a latent power in them. I just think that as it stands here, that potential is not being fulfilled.
John.
I’m reminded of Dworzak’s essay Taliban. I found that compelling, as I find this piece compelling. As mentioned above, you’re left with ?s… so what I say… anyway I thought that was the point (empty hollow answers). Throw a few more didactic portraits to explain things and the essay will lose what sets it apart.
Interesting essay David.
Thank you.
i love found photos.
http://www.foundphotos.net/
although for me the lack of certainly as to what happened next to these women leaves the kind of ambiguous thoughts in me which make the project difficult to read.. some of the women may have gone to canada or the uk.. some may have ended up with a much happier existence than before, and some of course will be worse off.. but without the knowledge and confidence of their outcome it´s a difficult set to respond to.. some of these women may be misrepresented here.
unlike the walls of photos at auswitz or the khamer rouge documents of the murdered, it´s not so simple and clear cut to conclude the outcome here.. which for me takes away from the credibility of the statements under the slideshow.
i remember teaching photography to groups of asylum seekers back in england a few years ago.. along with a little english :ø)
both women and men.. the deeply hurt and the less so.. who had traveled to england for vastly desperate reasons.
i´m not sure any would have been pleased with the representation here, since even the self portrait project i was working on with them remains unseen – as were their wishes.
:ø)
david
more interesting opening comments… i was very moved by this work… this is a real problem in society… i really feel this was addressed well through these images… amazing essay…. thank you for this…
ALL…
i agree with the criticism many of you have for just flat out needing more information on some of the work published here…
photographers are notoriously bad/famous for just not writing enough about the pictures they submit to publications….editors at every publication from newspapers to major magazines have this lament…often the pictures here come to me with even less information that what i finally publish…it takes so much effort on my part to try and squeeze out even the tiniest drop of info….i swear, pictures with come in with a caption like “Calcutta”…hmmmmmm, what to do?? well, one of the big improvements i want to make here is to have someone, as in any publication, drag this out of the photographers…it honestly takes a lot of time and effort as any editor will tell you…
if you are reading this and you plan to submit work to BURN, we just will not be able to publish your work without at least a modicum of pertinent logical information to go with the pictures…this is very clearly stated in the submission guidelines….it can be an artists statement or an accurate paragraph on the events surrounding the work…
by the way, ironically, the so called art photographers are generally much better at writing and explaining than the journalistic photographers..c’mon you documentary photographers..BASICS PLEASE…just a simple “who, what, where, why and how” will do…
what usually “saves us” here is that the photographer will finally jump in and explain….i know David Plummer is a very concerned and caring photographer….perhaps, in his case, the mystery is where he wants to be and i am sure he does not consider himself a journalist…..but, let’s wait and see….
thanks for your patience…..
cheers, david
mike, the problem for me is that nothing was addressed through the essay. We have the opinion of the person who compiled them, but the photos really say nothing of those depicted.
Hi Folk,
I like this series. For me sometimes simple is best; here we have straight portraits, all probably made in a photo booth. There is no photographer on the other side of the camera; no photographers agenda when the images are made; no sentiment or nostalgia; no sympathetic lighting. These images weren’t made an aesthetic purpose in mind. The camera just is – a dumb recording machine functioning without a motive, and the images are just a record to serve bureaucratic needs. The only thing that unites these images, apart from them all being of women is the process that the women have gone through. They all went into the booth, adjusted the seat, put their money in the slot and stared into the lens. Everything here is mechanical, the photographic process, the trafficking process that reduces these women to nothing more than a commodity – items that are just passed on down the line, and then are forgotten about once the money has changed hands. Theirs is a life with very little, or no humanity in it. I think the method chosen by David conveys some sense of this.
The only detracting factor for me, and I’m in agreement with Ciara on this, is the text. Okay it tells us they are trafficked women who have been to a refuge. But it does provide enough information about the situation. How does the refuge work? Where are they know? Why on onward journey to the UK and Canada? Are they safe now or are they back in the hands of the traffickers? I would like to know more about this.
The use of found photos reminds me of Thomas Dworzak’s Taliban book. I like that too.
Cheers,
Jason.
In general, I adore found photos and I deeply appreciate many conceptual pieces, but as a woman I feel that the use of these images is wrong unless the women gave consent to use these images this way. If I were a trafficked woman and had been through hell and I had at last found refuge in a safe place, and had cast off an image of myself before seeking a new life, the absolute last thing I would want would be for my face to be put up in identification with my former life. If they consented to the use, that is another story, but as I understand what is written, this seems like a violation and a further exploitation, and a taking advantage of the act of individuals (the discarding) who thought they were in a safe place. As a photographer, I think these images tell volumes and have merit, but while these women and their children live, I think this is not your story to tell.
I agree with most of the reactions above — the context of the photos is more interesting than the photos themselves, and without it the photos are nothing. The women in the photos may be deserving of our interest and sympathy, but the photos do not make the case.
ERICA…
interesting point and well taken…doesn’t this lead us into a discussion of any woman, man, or child whose photograph is used in the press without their permission in the context of their current or past circumstances which would depict them in a light which could bring them shame??? most people photographed by photojournalists have no idea that the photographer is shooting for the press, may not even be aware of any photographer, nor the context in which their picture will be used….
let’s see what David Plummer has to say….
cheers,david
ERICA,
I agree.
DAVID,
Doesn’t the copyright belong to the women if they took the images in a photobooth? I feel it’s more a mather of stealing a photo then taking one. But David Plummer will probably clarify.
But we are only given a “pass” in the press if we don’t misrepresent those we photograph. We were there and we know the context of the situation (and hopefully got complete cutline information ;)
These are discarded photos. The only context we have is the context he has given them, and because he knows nothing of these women other then where they were when the photos were taken, speculation about their past or future is just that. I think this is a misuse of the photos. They were discarded and the women may have had very good reasons for discarding them.
Don’t know where the idea came from these were taken in a photo both. Someone was likely behind a camera taking these ID photos.
DAH
yes, I think so, to a point..but the fact that these are ID photos that were taken with the purpose and intent to make the person recognizable, combined with the act of retrieving them from the trash pushes it into another context for me. (It seems) that the women intended for the images to go away, and they were in a refuge, not watching their backs or covering their tracks..and of course, they were already victims. Many people who are unknowingly photographed are not victims, are not so clearly identifiable, and do not have their past so clearly told. Shouldn’t victims of human rights abuses be given extra consideration in these instances? I wonder if Maison de la Chance knows about this use..I can’t see how they would feel it was appropriate. I don’t mean to attack David P, but perhaps this needs to be thought through more if indeed there was no consent to use the images.
mmmm…
discarded
and used again….
do these images pose danger to these women?
where are they now?
makes me feel
empty
sad…
I agree with Erica,
the women need to tell their story,
if they want….
as photographers
we need to be sensitive to that….
and yes, David brings up a good point about photos published without consent,
HOWEVER
the photographer knows in what context they were photographed…
these were ‘found’
the photographer can only guess at their story….
My fear is one of these women being recognized,
which potentially could be dangerous to her….
mmmm…..
**
as well the women are now living in the US and the UK, so I would think that the images are more likely to be seen / someone recognized than if they were starting new lives somewhere else..not that it matters in terms of ethical debate, but perhaps it does matter pragmatically
My original problem still stands, though. Why are “found” photos being published when there are untold hundreds of photographers in the wings who would like to see their “original” work published here? And I would rather see original work.
The more I think about this, the creepier it feels. The discarded photos are barely a year old, and the subjects are presumably living new lives with new identities (they are probably not working in the sex industry). Most of the women in the pictures are Muslims. To be be revealed on the internet as having been a sex worker would be devastating.
Yes, too many questions, but that can be answered, IMO. How did David get into shooting of these pictures, is this about David’s artistry, ie. treatment of information, or mainly to highlight trafficking? Are they in better hands, back to smuggler’s hands? only sex slaves? How do muslim women being trafficked differ in origin, abandonment, trafficking, psychology, behaviour, from Korean women (just to name another traffic ring, there are a lot of undocumented sex workers tied to rings in SF), etc……
At the evry least, provide us with links.
Way, way too incomplete for me, given the gravity of human trafficking. Sorry.
PS: I want to know who “helped” edit this… :-) and also a little bit :-(
.
i do agree with you on that point jim – despite a love found-photos..
the discussion is developing along the lines of photographic ethics much more than trafficking and as such perhaps the photos have failed in their intention?
there is no doubt that the ethics debate is valued and valid, yet it seems to steal away from the central story.. which makes me dubious as to the collections intent – to propose thoughts on the subjects and their predicament or to provoke intellectual arguments on ethics?
there is little talk about the issues intended to be raised by the photos.. which to me says that a better and less controversial way of tackling the story would have been more suitable.. accepting as i do that there is a story which needs to be illustrated.
with other workshops i´ve undertaken with similar groups, the subjects were given their own cameras, their own voices and allowed the courtesy of telling their own story – and choosing or not if they want people to see.
i am interested in seeing the origin of these photos – did the center pass them over with blessing?
.. and if they did – could we hear more about their reasons?
also – i think this and the taliban book could not be more different.. it´s the same technique of using found photos, yet a completely different conclusion which is intended.
the thing with photographing a story like this traditionally is that there may well be people who do not want to be photographed.. for whatever reason that is, we respect it because we do not know the consequences for the subjects if we DO photograph them and display them internationally within a certain context..
i like the idea.. as much as i like found photos.. yet i really don´t like this piece.
:ø/
I can’t help but compare these with the work of Fazal Sheikh, who “is an artist-activist who uses photography to create a sustained portrait of different communities around the world, addressing their beliefs and traditions, as well as their political and economic problems. By establishing a context of respect and understanding, his photographs demand we learn more about the people in them and about the circumstances in which they live.”..”Fazal Sheikh not only makes pictures, he interviews the people he photographs about their lives, transcripts of which appear in his books and exhibitions, to which he adds his own commentary on the people, their country, and the situation in which he finds them.”
This may not be the only way to bring awareness to human rights abuses and/or problems that people are facing, but it certainly is a powerful model.
I agree with Erica, I am not sure that these women want to be seen…
I wish i didn’t have to get working because there is also another great conversation to be made using the work of the photographer Hashem El Madani, a commercial studio photographer from Saida in S. Lebanon as an example..There is a book of his work, Studio Practices, that gathers images from his 50 years as the town’s portrait and studio photographer..I assume these people (most who are now dead) never imagined their images would be used this way, but they have great historical and cultural and social import..” it is an act of infiltration into the dialectic of identity and anonymity, as if anonymity were not the prior state of identity, but rather its destiny.”
“Not surprisingly the vast majority of the archive is comprised of identity photographs – faces by the hundreds of thousands. Faces are undeniably what we see best of anything in the world, yet their fascination lies in their incompleteness – they require a narrative…Yet it is somehow unimaginably important to see these faces..” – Stephen Wright
DAH
doesn’t this lead us into a discussion of any woman, man, or child whose photograph is used in the press without their permission…
——————————————-
Yes, it does, and should in a way, yet I think it could be debated in a “case by case”, according to what could happen to the people in the pictures.
Also, should we debate differently if the picture is bound to be seen “only” by BURN readers, and a few thousand more, or published to be available to millions. Does the net prevent now to relativize the numbers of viewers?
Here, I am not sure. here’s my take until David tells us: I think they escaped or were rescued from smugglers and are given the right to change ideas and seek refuge in other countries, break from the past altogether.
But there are so many “rules” (dress code, behaviour) for muslim women to observe and bow too, in many muslim countries, rules that they are bound to all their lives (no borders, like Bob says!), is there a chance such photo may have that past/bind catch up with them?
PS: Kat, I am sorry. I assumed they were muslims…. Damned, did it again. Audrey, help!!! ;-)
Very difficult very interesting debate…
In France, (if I do not make a mistake) all photographs perhaps attacked in the court, if it carry reached private life, the photographer will be condemned… but we cannot make street photographs as HCB without fearing a lawsuit…
Hervé, I don’t understand what help you need ?
¨is there a chance such photo may have that past/bind catch up with them?¨
that´s exactly my point herve.. burn is here and to stay here and be seen in the millions.. a newspaper might show 1/2 million before it becomes fish n chip paper..
and i add that to my initial point which is that some of these women may be misrepresented.. i don´t know.. some of these women may have already had choices and consent removed from them and to me this selection could add to that.
i say could of course prospectively and look forward to david Ps input..
regardless.. it is great to have another david here.
d
but we cannot make street photographs as HCB without fearing a lawsuit…
—————————–
Not sure if you meant the negative tense, Audrey. I do not think the law in France sides with people whose faces have been taken in public spaces, unless the case can be made it created a prejudice detrimental to the subject. A case was just thrown out last month, where the judge found the photographer was not trespassing the plaintiff’s right to privacy, for simply sitting on a bench, lost in thought.
herve is right – if the context is not derogatory to the subject, in europe at least a public space is a public space..
subsequent use of the photos can cause problems.. if the woman on the bench was used in a homeless campaign for example.
the way i have always understood it, responsible editorial photography causes little problems, while use in advertising or in sensitive areas contextually can become minefields..
d
pertinent
http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/05/alt-weekly-paper-runs-photo-that-got-photographer-arrested.html
I agree with you, Hervé and David b, these last years, trials are in favour of the photographers, but many people have to plead in justice… same for a book..
For here, I read that they leave their pictures, but I do not think that they want to be shown with victim to sexual exploitation !
Meanwhile, while we debate over whether these photos could endanger some of these women, they remain on the Internet. On a website showcasing emerging photographers. None of whom shot these photos.
david B, thank you for a link…
it is interesting philosophically, there is no doubt, yet it is all concerned within the realms of the art-world..
some of the work on burn is intended to inflame, and some of the work here inflames debate unintentionally and i think this falls into the latter category.. it could be the most controversial posting yet..
It’s an ethical issue, and could have real consequences in the real world. It’s not only a philosophical issue.
(in hijack mode, as usual)
Every event i go too here in SF, I see all the press photographers (assuming they are) spending more time asking people their names and what not (releases?), than looking for that special shot/decisive moment. Work.
I try to do that in Asia, so often. I promise myself every morning I will write down names today! And every evening, I realize I forgot again (either the name or to write it down).
Then again, I am not a photographer, I just take photos…
Jim, I agree with you. The publication of these photos could be dangerous for these women. I think someone is being provocative with this set of images, not sure who or why.
As photos there’s nothing to discuss, they are just a set of I.D photos and poor ones at that. I don’t get it either. Is BURN turning into a place to discuss social issues rather than photography ?
i mean to say that the main thread of interest from many of the comments is concerned philosophically with the right and wrong of the photos context and the, (possible), lack of consent.. it is not concerned with the situation nor the lives being illustrated.. which i think is what the piece WANTed to be about..
in fact it could not be more different than david Ps first posting of the dying man, who was consenting and complicit in the photography.. although i am trying to not let my feelings over this post chip away at my positive support of the first one.. i am sure david P, as with most davids around the world, has good intentions.
all i remember from teaching asylum seekers is that a proportion of them did not want to talk about their experiences at all.. and they did not need to, (arguably), in order to move on a form a better future.. and not one of them got behind the idea of presenting an exhibition of their self portraits, as i guess some people do not want to be defined by what wrongs have happened to them in the past.
this piece does ´invite´ us to meet these women, although perhaps some of these women do not want to meet us in the context they are presented here.
whether they are put at risk or not, i agree jim – we could be on shaky ground..
… I feel as if these photos are shown as a way to draw sympathy. Do they want sympathy?
In the attempt to exit their country and to see a new culture, I imagine no sympathy. I imagine drive and determination and excitement of the future life… why would they want sympathy?
Perhaps, I’ve missed the point of this. The importance of picturing people without their explicit consent…sure, but what is the point of these photos?
I think this misrepresents the women pictured. Even if it’s not derogatory, I don’t see the point. To use myself as an example, I have no desire to live in the country in which I have citizenship…so could my photo end up here? Would my passport photo show any essence of my desire to leave? For me…no. How is this different for them?
I truly mean no offense, but I sincerely don’t understand the journalistic or photographic merit of this…
Barrie, agreed, but still it is relevant that as photographers we have a place to discuss ideas as well as imagery. Burn need not be an either / or..In this instance I think it would be enough to write a description of the photos, how, conceptually they came to be grouped together, and for us to discuss the implications of having them seen..I don’t think they actually need to be seen. This is one rare instance where I’d like to see the images themselves pulled, while letting the discussion continue.
*hijack*
herve – i just shoot pictures and forget about asking..
interestingly the majority of times i have been told not to photograph someone it has been while shooting interiors for restaurant reviews.. when Mr. X does NOT want a photo of him having dinner with Miss. Y published in a newspaper that Mrs. Z might read the next day :ø)
*/hijack*
barrie – i think photography and social issues can and need to exist alongside each other, perhaps they are even inseparable?
as such burn is not only a great place to educate and illustrate what good photography is about – it is also a place to open eyes to issues which may inspire action.. or perhaps inspire more inward thoughts regarding ourselves.. some think the post is fine and see no problems, while others do not.
maybe that´s what this post is about.. the debate is about use-of-photos and not about the trafficking at all.. perhaps that was why the post was made, and in fact it IS a post about photography..
it´s not really about social issues yet, after all.
:ø)
dinner time batman.
hotdogs.
d
Hervé, I do not think that with the best of wills, we can have the name of all persons… it is the responsibility of the photographer…
Perhaps that these women gave approvals them, there are not much introduced portraits… If it is the case, all my excuses to David Plummer
best, audrey
briefly though – erica, audrey, jim, christina, barrie.. broadly speaking i am in agreement..
´found photos´ have always held enormous amusement and interest for many of us – but i wonder if this kind of -tough journalistic approach to the use of them is just.. well.. not right?
still awaiting david P of course – and perhaps he is going to blow the doubts out of mind :ø)
d
told beate about this while cooking.. her reaction is *slighty* more disgusted than mine.. and i can see why, unfortunately..
without the desire to intellectualize the artists point, as most of us do since we´re in the ´game´, beate was left shocked, to be frank.. and at a loss..
(i do wish you would scribble your thoughts here BB :ø)
.. it´s brought it home rather bluntly to me ..
of course – as audrey so eloquently states – apologies are due if there has been a misunderstanding over the origin and consent to use the photos in this context.
as i see it though – these women have families, new lives perhaps and old enemies as well..
hmmm..
i´d really love any of the davids on her to chip in now :ø)
David B., yes an interesting case. Just heard the photographer on talk radio in Seattle yesterday. Lots of overreactions from all sides it would seem. Many people are now boycotting REI, or at least saying they are. Currently, this has become a BIG topic of discussion and debate in Seattle, and not just with photographers. The ACLU may get involved. I’m surprised and disappointed at PDN’s take on this actually … the guys are next to an outside window and visible from the sidewalk, there is no policy against photos in REI, and the issue here is more about the reaction and immediate presumption of guilt on the part of the photographer, detention for something which is neither illegal nor against the private property owner’s policy, and broader issues as well in post-911 america … I have been detained in Washington State for taking photos on public property, not private property, on ferry boats … I was polite and I provided ID but I was still detained and questioned, for snapping pictures (because I looked too professional and not like a tourist … damn, i was trying to look like a tourist … i mean ugly hawaiian shirt and all!) and my name sits in a Washington State Patrol database somewhere despite having previously obtained specific permission to take the photos from state dept. of transportation HQ! I was also nearly detained by private security for taking photos from a public sidewalk of reflections in a bank window in downtown Seattle … again, I was polite and talked my way out of it … but really, should I even have to, I mean, as Gilden would say, it’s a camera for christsake, not a gun!
But I am afraid this is a completely different situation than the one here. Personally, I would not feel comfortable, in my gut, with doing this … all logic aside, it just would not feel right … at all, not even close. To me that is the first, and perhaps most important, test. At the same time, I’m not completely clear on all the circumstances of these photos, these women, and how the photos were obtained. I am not judging David Plummer’s use of them, I am only expressing why I would not make this choice given the level of information I have.
David B,
Of course I agree photography and social issues do coexist alongside each other and indeed they are inseparable in some instances. However it seems that recently there have been a few sets of images where most of the critique concentrated not the excellence of the photographs but just the social issues behind them. Good photography can show us beauty as well social injustice.
It doesn’t make you any a less concerned individual if you want to look at well executed beautiful photography once in a while.
in pure risk assessment terms, we use words like ‘remote‘, ‘possible‘, ‘probable’ and ‘certain’ to generally describe an unknown outcome.
in pure risk assessment terms, we use words like ‘immaterial’, ‘material‘, other words i wont’ bore you with all the way up to ‘catastrophic’ to describe an unknown ‘consequence’ of an outcome.
we use these terms to assess whether the ‘risk’ equals the ‘rate of return‘, or the predicted ‘sacrifice’ equals the predicted ‘benefit‘.
i would put the likelihood of one of the images falling in front of the eyes of someone that the victim preferred they didn’t at ‘remote‘, i would put the likelihood of one of the images being ‘discovered’ through links and a couple degrees of separation at ‘possible‘, i would put the consequence of that outcome at ‘catastrophic’ for one of these victims.
i guess for me there are only two questions:
1.) How entitled is the photographer to collect benefits from these image regardless of the consequences?
2.) Regardless of the photographer’s rights or the certainty of a ‘catastrophic’ outcome, if a catastrophic outcome is indeed possible, how do we feel as an audience from promoting them and making them indefinitely available?
That’s just me being c(l)inical.
for me, i’m a voyeur at heart, and one of my top ten favourite images is a ‘found image’ that i return to at least once a month via my favourite’s drop-down:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/superbomba/2586796254/
It just gets me evertime i see it.
But this set of images above makes me feel a bit like a creep, like some kind of dumster-diver, showing my pals something someone didn’t want anyone to see. But that’s just me.
Stupidly agree with everyone who said this is wrong, without having to add anything except caps and an exclamation point: WRONG!
Another thing, regarding david’s last paragraph (now, photos invite us to meet these women…), and givng with Erica said and quoted about anonymous portraits.
Ok, it is hard to meet these women, as women, since we are already “told” they are actually victims. Hope you follow my drift.
This actually tells us they are not found photos at all, they were taken out of a trash bin, maybe by or given to David. They do have a precise, not found origin
Found photos, you know nothing about the people inside, save what you see or think you see in the frame. Here again, we are being told what to look for into them (victims of trafficking, leaving to UK or Canada, discarded their IDs, too much and not enough info at the same time).
Maybe, the idea was to let us decide wich way to go ourselves, and just say the pictures were found in a refuge for trafficked women. For the viewer to on one side ask more about the trafficiking, but also imagine for each woman what happened to her, that we will never know, and this does bring out compassion, thru photographic means.
IMO.
I only have one stupid suggestion: kill this feature, DUH, kill it now! Before any of these women get hurt any more than they already have been hurt, and you’ll never forgive yourself for it!!! Thank you in advance!
barrie – we are on the same page i think.
young tom – more later – cooking..
stoopid one.. absolutely.. absolutely.. if things are as they seem..
:ø/
yep – take it down before a friend or family stumbles upon it..
david P.. where are you in this ?
:ø)
It could take a while before anyone who could kill it will see the response here. And then, they might not kill it.
It was a bad editorial decision, IMHO.
Very bad decision is an understatement. I’m so angry I can hardly type. It’s like publishing photos of the people with new identities that are government witnesses in crime lawsuits. So absolutely unethical it blows my stupid mind!!!
What you say Herve about the possibility of using images to bring out compassion (despite the apparent consequences) is reminding me of the stunt/social experiment in October 2007 by the Costa Rican artist Guillermo ‘Habacuc’ Vargas, and is making me wonder if David P, whose text seems to suggest he created this series for the benefit of understanding and insight. Vargas
“paid some children to chase and catch a stray dog, after which he chained up the poor animal in a gallery, telling the viewing public not to feed or water it”…the outcome of the exhibition was that “the dog slowly starved to death and eventually died in the gallery in view of everyone..
However, it didn’t take too long to discover the exhibition was apparently a hoax, the purpose to expose people as “hypocritical sheep” who are only concerned about a starving dog when it becomes the centre of attention when in a gallery.”
Are these images by chance of women who have nothing to do with trafficking? Is it possible that there is no Maison de la Chance? Is this an exercise to test our humanity?
WRONG!
———–
Damned one-liners again, grrrrr….
For my own, David P., I am not casting any stone at you as a person (just turning them over!), if it needs to be said.
meant to say
What you say Herve about the possibility of using images to bring out compassion (despite the apparent consequences) is reminding me of the stunt/social experiment in October 2007 by the Costa Rican artist Guillermo ‘Habacuc’ Vargas, and is making me wonder if David P, whose text seems to suggest he created this series for the benefit of understanding and insight, has made this series and text available for us as an experiment?
Vargas “paid some children to chase and catch a stray dog, after which he chained up the poor animal in a gallery, telling the viewing public not to feed or water it”…the outcome of the exhibition was that “the dog slowly starved to death and eventually died in the gallery in view of everyone..
However, it didn’t take too long to discover the exhibition was apparently a hoax, the purpose to expose people as “hypocritical sheep” who are only concerned about a starving dog when it becomes the centre of attention when in a gallery.”
Are these images by chance of women who have nothing to do with trafficking? Is it possible that there is no Maison de la Chance? Is this an exercise to test our humanity?
hello. my first, and maybe my last, post on this forum. i`m david b´s girlfriend and normally happy and content with listening to him talk about burn.
but these photos and this story really upset me.
if posting these photos could result danger for these women or maybe death, how can it be defended in any way?
i don`t give a sh** if it leads to an interesting discussion.
(was lovely to see your beach house on skype, david AH. apologize for my first post being an aggressive an angry one)
(and .. yes, i`m on my way david. dinner)
Well, do a search for La Maison de la Chance on google and this thread is at the top of the list. This was either a very bad idea or, if a farce, in very bad taste.
Call him, Beate. I just sent my stupid email to him but he SHOULD pay more attention to you, I’d hope!
Where, Jim? The only thing I see is Maison Chance in Vietnam..very different..
A link to this thread is the first thing that comes up when I do a google search on La Maison de la Chance.
David PLUMMER is the photog associated with the images in question — we’ve got a lot of Davids in the mix here.
Yes, to THIS thread..nothing I can see for La mMison..but of course it could be kept private, to uh, protect the women.
From the intro: “La Maison de la Chance, The House of Good Luck, is a NICKNAME given to a women’s refugee shelter in Calais, France.”
Jim Powers stand down please.
You’ve offered your opinion and it’s not changed since you started licking your chops that you might finally get the riot you always wanted started regarding the promotion decisions. You’re down on so many of the promotions you were bound to be right sooner or later, even a broken watch is right twice a day. Gloating now just doesn’t suit your integrity.
So Jim, please now just let people offer their feelings without you fanning in between each post. It’s simply juvinille.
It’s clear DAH is off-line and you stirring is just going to make it harder for him to respond and harder for him not to be antogonised when he does.
thank you in advance Jim.
Joe, so you think DAH might leave the thread up just to spite me?
Good, grief, man.
ALL –
David AH and I saw the ambiguity surrounding the previous essay by David Plummer while reading the comments. David AH and I have been trying to reach him urgently to offer a better understanding of this essay, but up till now we have not been able to reach him. Until this ambiguity is resolved, we decided to take the essay off line.
There is indeed potentially a real ethical issue here, and potentially a real problem for these women. I hope David Plummer will surface soon so he can offer us more insight.
anton
Thank you, anton.
Hi. Thank you for everyone’s comments regarding Des Portraits la Maison de la Chance.
I can’t apologize for not including more information about this project, because the simplicity of these portraits speaks for themselves. The gaze of these female refugees returns our gaze and checks our pity. As Susan Sontag writes, “In the normal rhetoric of the photographic portrait, facing the camera signifies solemnity, frankness, the disclosure of the substance’s essence”.
Ultimately, these sitters like Ernest Hemingway’s characters may be more likely to survive tough times because they will remain unavailable emotionally and because they have some aspects that may find reinforcement. The most obvious characteristics of this clinical concentration are achieved in their independence of their current environment. The female refugee’s remain static against a background that seems to offer us a psychologically direct approach. Isolated as they are, this has the desired effect of detaching the refugees from their physical environment. In doing so they are liberated from their dire circumstances that would otherwise confine them to pity.
In comparison the so-called traditionalists chooses only to depict the suffering and abject fear of the refugee’s lives. Their work reads like a topographical map of suffering that I doubt could persuade many to arms without a verbal narrative. A method similar to that of Cartier-Bresson’s tradition of photojournalism, the tradition of seizing the ‘decisive moment’, on the streets, on the battlefield-the kind of work that, in uncreative hands, can descend into sentimentality or pathos and therefore falsity. I make no pretence to intimacy, you are clearly an outsider and we never learn much about these people, like driving by a crash on the other side of the road-you have to slow down to look, but when you do slow down, if you do slow down, you may experience things that ultimately have a lot to do with us all. Theses ID photos are touching and their resonance is immeasurably added to by the creases and stamps and punched holes. All that feels like real life – outside of the studio to me- because it usually means that people as well as objects have been touched. By life.
This series raises many ethical problems inherent with photography as a genre. But the way information is organized and presented is influential for the way we perceive and understand the world. Each individual presented here can stand amongst others and yet not loose their sense of dignity. Perhaps some would prefer a truly candid photograph or twisted angry faces instead? That thrives on the sudden and surprising, richness of emotion. The spectacle or worse the cliché?
??? David Plummer..
you are not making sense.
Did you use these images without consent and potentially expose the women to shame or danger to ‘check our pity’?
If you wanted to bring forth our compassion, why not do it in a way that involved the consent of the women?
erica, the essay is gone. That’s the main thing.
ANTON,
can you make a Maison thread without the photos? This one is going to get taken over or the comments re: maison will be lost..
….Theses ID photos are touching and their resonance is immeasurably added to by the creases and stamps and punched holes. All that feels like real life – outside of the studio to me- because it usually means that people as well as objects have been touched. By life….
————————————–
Sorry, David (and Brent too), obviously, this has not at all be our own response to the ID pictures. I actually believe this is the first time every response to one entry has been, to be short, negative. I am disappointed you ignore the important points raised in that thread, and that awaited an answer from you.
erica –
we are almost done doing exactly that….
HERVE,
I expect if we are patient there will another opportunity with a new thread to discuss all this. And hopefully by then David P. will have more to say than he has, which agreeably, is inadequate and off putting.
simultaneous :)) thanks Anton.
If there was some kind of editorial concern about this essay, why was it put up in the first place?
agreeDLY, not BLY..though it seems that agreedly isn’t a word.
ALL –
the relevant comments have been moved back here
Just so everyone is aware, David AH is on the road right now driving, and cannot join this discussion for another couple of hours. He will be here as soon as he can.
anton
i too am at a loss to the meaning of david P’s response. Please clarify David.
I think this discussion is an important one.
John
He will be here as soon as he can.
—————————-
Thanks, Anton, I told the firing squad to take a break, have a bite, and be back in a couple hours! :-)))
A first….an essay work that bothers me profoundly…
all i will say is that I agree entirely with erica. The use of these images requires consent, if not legally (although, since these images were taken in france and are now being used in a context without the consent of people who, at least for were for some period of time, living in France, the criminal laws on ‘ownership’ of one’s photograhic identity is in violation with this series).
That you took someone’s identification cards and use them for disengaged polemnic is, at least for me, the most unenlightened and non-compassionate photogrpahic act i’ve seen in a while. And to get me upset with a body of work that attempts to challenge is pretty difficult.
I would REMOVE the essay until discussion with La Maison have been verified.
I am sorry that I did not see the essay earlier when David and anton wrote me (my school computer could not upload the images), I only saw the text….
the ‘idea’ that perportedly inhabits the idea behind this essay is an important one (owernship of one’s identity and the role/responsibility of BOTH the photographer and the viewer), but they DO NOT apply to this work…the context of which is very different….at least it shows an ignorance of not only the idea of photographing Muslim women and women at risk (can we photograph a woman/man who’se been raped without their consent?), but most importantly, that the consequence to these women’s lives is profound. You HAVE LABELED these women (without their consent) as “trafficked women”….and they have not knowingly offered to you either that description of who they are nor allowed ;you to photograph them/that life. Moreover, you’ve taken possession of discarded identification photographs. The question that you have failed to ask yourself is this: what is the difference between an image (taken or found) and the Use OF THAT IMAGE. Attempting to turn the tables on the viewer and challenge their relationship to imagery, you’ve actually turned the tables on the women. Given the background of what you’re saying, I conclude that these women wanted these images “lost”, and yet you’ve returned them. For example: i find in a neighbbor’s trash bin a video tape, and download it onto the internet, have i violated their privacy?….our ability to photography people is supported by a tacit understanding of trust: that I shall do no harm for those I am photographing, nor invade their PRIVATE life. This is NOT THEIR PUBLIC life/identity…it is their private one….
The gain becomes exploitive, for your work, rather than asking an important, challenging questions, gains it’s own measure from the loss of another (their CHOICE)…USING FOUND photos is not only an important practice, but a legitimate one, but everything about the practice here is, at best, careless, thoughtless and pooly judged, at worst exploitive and solipsistic.
a modicum of thought should reveal that…
the bigger ‘philosophical’ questions can be discussed in work that better manages that equation….
i dont know with whom i feel a greater loss at the moment…..
but these women do not need our artifice….
a shame
bob
david P
at last..
and my friend – waxing lyrical about your own work is one thing.. but another thing is the ethics of what you are doing with this piece… and the ¨cliche¨ of using found photographs to illustrate a point with no consent or, it seems, concern for the actual subjects.
i would suggest you are more caught up in your own perceived philosophical furthering of photography than you are with actually helping the subjects of these photographs – which you neglect to inform us how you came by.
if you refuse to respond regarding consent and regarding the source for the photographs then to me your words are empty and self congratulatory on hitting upon something you think to be ¨new¨, without the slightest of concerns for the subjects of the photographs.. in essence you appear to me as someone more concerned with their own notoriety than with the subjects, which is completely at odds with your text.
it is of course easy to get passionate about found photos – can you not see though that your effort here seems, with the little you have said about the sources of the photos, to be just another WRONG perpetrated against these women who have no doubt fought hard to escape a past neither you nor i have the slightest understanding of?
far from climbing into the life of your subjects, you have used the ´gimic´ of found photo not to further the cause of the women, but rather to further a philosophical discussion about the use of photos in general.
and sontag – how do you think she would view the very public showing of this work? found photos and passport photos are well written about and hardly new ground to tread.
taliban is funny – lets face it.
if 100 people saw this in a gallery then, although still on shaky ground for me, at least the chattering classes could enjoy the ethical debate.. but this place is far from a private gallery.. and these women are far from deceased and, it appears, far from aware of your intrusion and context you would have the world see them within.
regardless of the intentions as you write them above, which to me seem lofty and disconnected from these women, i cannot see this work as anything but selfish, lazy and frankly malevolent.
and you know – passport photographs in general have always been looked at in the way you mention above.. there is no new ground in what you say.
the only new ground is the use of found photos, (gimic?, cliche?), to illustrate something menacing where the unknowing subjects are actually still alive, rather than pasted on the walls of auswitz..
it could be said that it has been a nice try at moving forward the genre.. however on balance i have to say that some things remain obscure and unexplored for good reason.
does this work serve the women s center? do any of the subjects know they are pasted up here? do they know you hold their photos with the intent of displaying their most personal of histories?
i would say that the war photographers and other ´traditionalists´ you seem to dismiss spend a great deal more time considering their craft than you spent collecting together these images.
of course – you can still elicit an apology from me on redressing some of the points regarding the subjects.. whether they are complicit, as with the subjects of traditional documentary, and whether they lend blessing to what you are doing?
i mean – arts and photography aside – what does the center for women think of the display here – have you asked them?
as i say – i am not immune to eating my words if you have answers with moral backbone.
:ø/
bob – posted simultaniously
agreed..
by the way – the verbose and long post above was of course MINE.. beate is far more curt :ø)
to be honest – intellectualizing this work feels dirty.
JUST SO IT’S CLEAR…photographing FOUND photos/portraits/documents is one thing….the work done post-Katrina is important, or work done by lots of photographers (including yours truly and my wife) who ask these questions and photograph found images…the difference is a very important one:
the CONTEXT AND USE of the images. I would EVEN accept this essay had the author done something to remove their PRIVATE identity (bar over the eyes, over process, wash, truncate). The idea of what David is trying to do COULD HAVE been accomplished without violating the rights of these women, nor their inalienable right to privacy (on the street YOU CAN BE PHOTOGRPAHED) but this is different…can i photograph someone in their home, secretly, and use the work?…
the work should come down….and as painful as that feels to me, I fear the legal responsibility of Burn…and now, from a humanist perspective, must go…or change the pictures so their private identity is NOT knowable….
bb
bob – i think this goes beyond their private identity though, and into the realms of trust which a center like this must have within it´s walls.. the center must be complicit in the use of it´s name, i feel, even if the women had been afforded anonymity..
found photos really are not new ground and as mentioned by you and others – they are worthy..
:ø)
david b :))
i agree 100%….this is an issue, for me, of 2 things:
1) women’s trust: that they were protected at La Maison and that their identities would not be exposed but they would be sheltered and housed and protected
2) the human trust: their privacy has been violated because, while i believe that our PUBLIC appearance/life/person is OPEN TO ALL, our private lives/actions/thoughts are not. Found documents are IMPORTANT for historical, philosophical, social, and photographic reasons. Moreover the use of found images is an important one and one that asks important questions. We, as photographers, MUST question the act of photographing and we MUST question our need for the consumption of images/identity. I do not agree with the French idea that a person is the ‘copyright’ holder of their appearance/identity in public. Not at all: that’s a miasma of transformation. What i do, however, agree with, is that I have the right (as a social contract) to keep the public OUT of my home/my private life. this is a violation of that and does not serve an important historical or social function. Again, had he ‘changed’ the faces or made them NOT so apparent, that would be one thing. Or if the women were AWARE of what their id’s were being used for, that would be another. In war/natural catastrophe, we allow (a social agreement predicated on the need to know and discover and learn) for the use of artifacts, even private artifacts, because the holder/owner of those has also a VEST INTEREST in that.
Here the women have not only NO INTEREST in their id photos being used, but in fact, are endanged by the use of them….
i am horrified that the author hasn’t thought of the difference.
bb
I agree with people’s concerns about the ethics of publishing these photos and am pleased they’ve been taken down…it seems the right thing to do. As David B has said, refugees, asylum seekers and others in their situation rarely consent to having their photos taken, since they are by definition underground and may have reasons to be fearful. From my experience, it takes ages to win their trust. And trafficked women – women who have been forced into a country for the express purpose of being sold into the sex trade, raped and abused – are obviously on a completely different level.
There are a couple of other things that bother me though apart from this, and both are really issues of semantics. One is the painting of these women as ‘victims’ by using their images in this way…when to me they are ‘survivors’ – having hopefully escaped their situation and found some level of safety and sanctuary. By labelling them as victims you are making them prisoners of their pasts in the most public way possible.
Secondly though, I am concerned about whether the term ‘trafficked’ was actually used correctly in the introduction. Please forgive me if it was, but from David P’s comment in the thread I couldn’t help but wonder. In his comment he called these women ‘female refugees’. In the interests of journalistic accuracy I think it’s important to note that these two terms mean very different things. I guess a trafficked woman could arguably become a refugee once she has escaped her traffickers and is looking for sanctuary, but she doesn’t start her journey in that way. Equally if La Maison de la Chance is actually a sanctuary for refugees rather than trafficked women I think that should be clear. Apologies if this sounds really pedantic and irrelevant but I personally think all journalists – including photojournalists – have a huge responsibility to be accurate about these things, a responsibility both to their subjects and to the reader/viewer
I JUST read all the response on this page …
to JIM/STOOP: ok, i have put my neck out there and offered my opinion to KILL THIS. I’ve written both David and Anton to consider removing the essay. i will try calling david when i get hom in 45 minutes…….i dont feel good about second guessing anyone, and i feel guilty that i didn’t see the images until 4:00 today, but i do think editorially, this essay needs to come down, at least until either some consentual relationship has been established with La Maison showing knowledge of intent or the faces are changed…then again, it’d be too late already….
outside of france, the essay might have legal legs to stand on…but, as an idea, i think it’s maddly unfortunate….
running (for real)
bob
oh, i just saw the pictures have been removed…i think the right decision….
DAVID P
can you tell us in what capacity you were at the Maison, and if they know of this essay? If you simply took the discarded photos without anyone’s knowledge, I think it is terribly important that you tell the Maison what has happened and that you adjust your thinking about using them in the future elsewhere or on your own site, so that no further damage is done. I can see how you might have briefly thought you had conceived of a poignant photo piece when you came across the ID cards, even believing that it was relevant use of them if it caused others to examine their feelings…but by now, I do hope you see that this would be a naive error in judgement. If you can see that perhaps you can now use this opportunity to make some good of all this..
I had written a long post at the same time the thread was being taken down so it apparently is lost. But basically I agree with Bob Black’s posts above and he said it all better than me anyway. Shocking I know….
Interested to hear more from the photographer and DAH.
ALL –
for reference, the David Plummer essay was pulled offline at 2.19 pm this afternoon.
I have also been in continuous contact with David AH over the phone this entire afternoon. As soon as we both realized our potential error in judgment by having published this essay, we both decided to pull the essay immediately.
After re-checking all, we realized that our potential error in judgement, was a research error on our behalf: information that, stupidly enough, we both simply missed. If we hadn’t missed it, of course we wouldn’t have published this essay…
David AH, David Plummer, and myself, will meticulously go over the essay facts again, and double-check everything so there can be no mistake as to intent, permission, and such.
Personally i think i made a big mistake. I didn’t see the obvious. And I have no explanation other than that i missed it…
And damn i feel really bad now, like i let everyone down.
Now that BURN is getting more and more popular every single day, and more and more essays are being submitted, both David AH and I feel that, if something like this is able to slip past our own checks, we have to employ a full time researcher to manually check all the facts for every essay submitted that is potentially publishable. We really have no other choice i think, to protect us from our own mistakes.
Again, David wants me to emphasize that he is constantly available by phone, even though driving right now and not being able to jump in here rightaway. he will arrive in NYC late tonight, and be back here as soon as he can.
thanks
anton
BURNIANS and CIVILIANS,
BREATH…and listen to your hearts wherever you are…in a MAISON,in a hotel room, in a guest room, in a library…
Voltaire:
“We are all full of weakness and errors, let us mutually pardon each other our follies. It is the first law of nature”
KEEP ROLLING … I want to smell flowers today !!!!!!!
Thank you all for taking the images off BURN. Stupid question, Beate, if you ever dump DUH and I ever dump my loved one, I want to have your baby! :)
Anton/David:
for the record let me say that the two of you did nothing wrong by running the story. You worked under the assumption (as I do, every time i get a photographer to submit an essay or picture to Burn) that the photographer had done the work/thought/consent. this is not the New YOrker and we cannot afford to pay someone to verify/legalize, etc. In the heat of the moment, essays and pictures come up and ideas/information gets missed. We all do this. We all do things that probably warrant a second reflection. Shit, I’m the king of firing-off-at-the-first idea ;))))…..If anything, I feel bad that I didnt look at the pictures soon enough, but, let me say that you and David did NOT let anyone down. I can give the readership a glimmer into the behind-the-scenes bit: it is hectic hectic hectic. The amount of emails and submissions and information flying everywhere. In the time i’ve been involved, it’s made me delerious. Multiply this by the technical work and the amount of time spent + all the other emails both of you must manage + all the obligations David has. I think there isn’t a single reader or contributor who doesnt’ understand that Burn is being running/managed/published/organized by essentially 2 people. Even with all the work I have done in the last couple of weeks, still the brunt of the heavy lifting is done by the 2 of you. There is nothing to be ashamed of and Magazines/Newspapers all the time sometimes make ‘mistakes’ and there is NO full time fact checker/legal counsel/correspondent, etc. The responsibility, we all believe, has been to trust the photographer and the information provided.
Please do NOT beat yourself up. It created an important discussion and I would like to get back to it as well. I personally had the luxury to look at the essay and think about it before writing. Often in the editor-in-chief/publisher’s chair, you dont have that luxury of time/reflection. It happens.
I believe something ALWAYS comes toward good and I hope this has lead to not only awareness but can bring help as well to this story, La Maison and the role that photographers give to CONSIDER their responsibility when photographing people (i think that was DAH’s original intent).
Neither you nor David should be ashamed and YOU 2 DID NOT LET US DOWN. believe me…i tell you that as editor-at-large as well! I should have looked at the work the moment it was published and I failed to do that as well.
BURN is growing and it’s a day-by-day operation and part of being truthful is also accepting things sometimes get off track. David and I once got totally off track, long ago ;)))…and see all the good that came from that!
Get some rest anton….we’re all in this together:
a community for community.
the best: that, i hope, in all this, we think, all of us think, more critically about our relationship to people and our responsibility as well.
Sending you a long-distance hug
running
bob
Disagree, Bob, about “you did nothing wrong by running the story.” The system went extremely wrong. Luckily, the public chimed in and the DUH or company paid attention. Someone could have been killed, that’s how wrong it went. I trust everyone learned a stupid lesson.
I am still unclear regarding the circumstances surrounding these photos, the women in them, the place where the photos were taken, how they were obtained and issues regarding consent. I am even unclear of the definition of the term “trafficked women.” There could be more than one nuance to this. There has been a lot of speculation regarding all of this so I would encourage David Plummer to clearly address the issues raised. Actually, at this point I’d say David Plummer has a responsibility to do so clearly and openly.
Attached is a link to the United Nations Guide to Ethics and Human Rights in Counter-Trafficking. It is a PDF.
http://www.no-trafficking.org/reach_micro/uniap_ethics_guidelines.pdf.
The most relevant bits on photography:
“All photos in this Guide are in compliance with the ethical standards
detailed herein. All photos were taken only after consent was
gained from the subject, with all identifying characteristics of
trafficked persons or possible traffickers concealed.”
This is followed by many pages on what is appropriate and what is not. Without exception, there must be no intervention without full consent and absolutely no coercion. This is not an aesthetic issue or in any way wrapped up in critical theory or any other sort of critique of visual culture. It is a human rights issue.
And of course, I think it would be inappropriate to name the actual facility these photos came from at this point.
Yeah, it’s hard to give a pass on decisions that could actually put real people in danger. Or have legal implications for them.
If Burn intends to publish journalism or this kind of stuff, someone needs to ask the hard questions before these things are published. While I understand the few people actually making the decisions here are overwhelmed trying to keep Burn going and do their own work, this incident should make them step back and consider the possible consequences of trying to do so. Maybe move a little slower. I dunno.
you did nothing wrong by running the story. You worked under the assumption …
—————————————————
Let’s call a cat a cat, Bob. It’s ok, we are all big boys here, DAH and Anton won’t loose one inch of esteem from any of us, who owe them so much, and have our full undying respect. But if Anton took down the pictures, he must have thought it had been wrong to put them up, no? Both of them have been working their butt off for BURN, so if they wrongly ran the story, forgot to think thru the implications, it’s understandable.
DAH will teel us if he assumes anything, too, about ownership of the images, moral ownership if you wish. I could see how someone would think the essay will publicize some wrong done to women. David’s M.O. is the code of honor, and let people introduce their work as they wish. This one essay deserved a bit more scrutiny, but fell thru the net (so, BTW, is la maison de la chance a real NGO outfit in Calais?).
It’s not bound to happen too many times, and gosh, if that is not learning curve right there! Do we need someone to check facts? Only if You, Anton or David have no time for a few explanatory e-mails with the suhtor. David Plummer does not strike me as a vile sneaky person. Really, a few e-mails would have helped you guys make the decision.
Don’t fret, you are all doing such great work, and If you need someone to… :-) “waterboard” an author, I can help….. I mean, you know, e-mail, get info anf double-check, if needed.
It was interesting to hear from David Plummer himself. I’m still none the wiser on his motives for publishing these images. I wish he would talk sense….
Whatever the reasons these photos should not be shown again on BURN. In my opinion respect for human rights should be a fundamental principal of any photographic essay published here.
Really proud of belonging to such concerned readership, frankly. I really thought the essay was going to go the way of “who cares how he got the pix, what more do you need to know? it is an important story on women used and the pictures do just that!”…
My hats off, guys and gals. And David Plummer, join us back, will ya?
Anyone in Berkeley? I am going there now, Salgado is introducing an 8 months exhibit of his work, at the David Brower center, 6-9pm, 2150 Allston way. He better show some releases!!! :-)))))))
Jim, you have had your kicks so let it go. The essay was rightly pulled, but it is not necessary to harp on the point. It was a mistake and everyone is obviously aware of that. This website is not a large agency or corporation. So, it doesn’t have the resources to always prevent something like this occurring. Now that this incident has happened, common sense dictates that hard questions will be asked. Why state the obvious.
Thankyou,
Johan
How can anyone in their right mind (not to mention four in their so-called right minds) not consider the ethics of publishing ID photos dug out of the trash? Of Muslim women no less? And vulnerable Muslim women from a safe house on top of that? Of all the essays submitted to Burn, all of them, THIS was the best that you could come up with? Seriously? ID´s? I thought our essays and photos were being judged against the best of the best. I thought if we weren´t published it was because our work was suitable FOR the trash bin. I never thought our work was being judged against the best OF the trash bin. And to think that the tragic nature of this essay struck a titillating nerve in FOUR grown men. God, i feel dirty. Did you see the eyes on these women? The sadness? Seems they knew there was just no escape for them from exploitation. I would like to think this essay was yanked not because these women were in danger of being exposed but because somebody actually grew a conscience.
And yes, Burnians, i agree with Herve. Well done…your united voice of outrage has been so reassuring..
Because David has said that Burn is not a rehearsal, it’s the real deal.
If you point a loaded gun, you better be damned sure of your target before you pull the trigger.
Kathleen, that was part of my first question. Why was this published on Burn at all. Publish the work of those 1,000 EPF entries. There seems to be a tendency to go for “edgy.”
Johan,
Damn. Jim is right. He´s a news editor. He knows about thinking through this kind of stuff and the consequences of not doing so. This is a first class web publication. We are expected to be first class photographers. We´re put through the mill by Burnians if we slip up to the slightest degree. There is ONE essay published at a time. Only ONE. There are many to choose from but someone makes the choice and does so according to standards of quality and ethical considerations. If there´s no time to do it well then wait until there is time. Or nominate a rotating committee to have a hand in the selection pending DAH´s final approval. I´m sure many would volunteer.
what has kept it going is the soft shoe being done about how such a thing could happen. This is as outrageous to me as the Dem´s saying they had no idea there were no WMD in Iraq when they ok´d the war. It was their job to know. That´s the point.
and now i am done..work and photos to do..
kat
Jim,
I agree with you but am sure most of those EPF essays will be plenty edgy. And edgy´s great for me. But what happened today was a collective management collapse. I can see one person slipping up and losing his head but FOUR? Very strange.
best
kat
Kathleen I agree with you to a point. Standing up and telling what is right was the correct response – he did that very well. But to harp with his presistant recurring comments, it was obvious he was fueling the fire just for personal kicks. Unfortunately, perhaps I was the only who can see through that twisted logic. How can anyone not see that hard questions won’t be rightly asked? Common sense given the circumstances>
Thankyou,
Johan
Johan, I’m not “fueling the fire.” This is important to me. If Burn is going to publish photos and essays that look like journalism, those editing that content need to take the ethical implications VERY seriously. Everyone’s human, of course, but these choices have real world consequences to real world people. It’s not a game. It’s serious business. These photos were up for several hours. They are now cached somewhere on the web, even though they were taken down. You can’t undo that. Every one of these decisions has consequences.
This was not even a close ethical call. They shouldn’t have been published. What happens when the call is a close one?
HEY STOOP::
beate is MINE, and not DUHs..
and yes – shes is a kind apart from many.. and our son is a joy.. but we don´t swing i´m afraid
:ø)
Jim you asked what happens when the call is a close one? Well no doubt you will be there to tell us. Or alternatively the powers to be will decide that it is not suitable for Burn. Which ever way, it is comforting to know that we have you as a ‘safety-net’. I doubt after the release of this essay that anything as morally wrong will be published. Time will tell as it always does.
Now, there is a difference between objecting to an essay that is morally wrong and then rehashing the same points over and over as you did for personal attention. I find it difficult to believe that you can’t see that.
Thankyou,
Johan
David P,
I ‘d be interested to know how you obtained permission to use pictures that you didn’t take yourself .
Did you interview & meet any of the subjects; did you talk to refugees/ trafficked women at all ? How did you research your topic ?
(Judging from your “and we never learn much about these people,” unfortunately it doesn’t really sounds like it ).
It’s a relief to see the “essay” has been finally removed.
i wonder if this thread itself could be allowed to die or be taken down..
it´s purpose has been served.. and i don´t see david P dropping by.
as bob has said – there are some GREAT examples of found photography.. and here is one for you all which i will try to scan later (5am.. must feed child.. must feed child..)
i have a june 19th 1944 copy of life magazine.. the eisenhower cover with capas d-day photos..
there is a piece entitled the diary of a, ¨jap lieutenant¨, which consists of the pre-war personal photos found on the corpse of the dead man by a u.s. soldier.. the photos are published in chronological order and show happiness, piece and the beauty both of the country and the once handsome soldier on whom they were found.. they are tragic in the most profound way..
to me it bought to mind mcullens set-piece photograph with the found photo of an NVA soldiers girlfriend in vietnam..
as bob mentioned earlier – there is a fascinating discussion to be had here.. so.. i will try to scan the photos and post a link if anyone is interested..
otherwise – all that seems left here is to tear each other up.. :ø/
lets please remember that the mind behind the postings here is after getting us to think.. and a quick decision before a long drive is only that and no more..
pea´s, and chips.
and chairs too.
david b n beate.
I agree with David B. Everyone here knows everyone’s opinion. Let it rest and let the powers that be at Burn work it out. Its not the end of the world.
AND OF COURSE..
the found ID and ¨my son holding part of my fathers rib¨, which marc davidson bravely offered us in the ´my daughters question¨, just a post or two ago.
of course i know the life mag piece, the mcullen photo, davidsons diptych and the photos from this thread are very different..
pete – :ø)
David and all,
Without being a pain and trying to put everything in boxes here’s my professional opinion. I’ve been a photojournalist for 6 years now, and even before I’ve gain access to the profession (where I live you have to do a 2 year professional training in a registered media, this registration in done by the media in a credited, legal and independent organisation for the poupose) one of my personal mantras was to inform people portraited, if not in a public event (e.g a political rally), about what i was doing and have their permition to do it and become invisible to them.
I haven0t seen the photos but by the coments I can understand the case. In my opinion collect photos are not photographer neither photojournalist. before bein a photographer/photojournalist everyone is human and should have the values towards others that they claim to themselves. It’s the code of honour DAH so often speacks. Here in Portugal this code of honour exists in a deontological code for journalists and photohournalists, that has value towards the law. That’s why not everyone’s a professional photographer or has a press card. Ot’s like if you were a cirgein and started to operate people without a training under surveillabce. This is a legal issoe, and in some countroes has come to a radical point (e.g France) that Cartier Bresson or Doisneau will be killed before they we’re born.
However, photographer’s (amateurs or professional’s) are not above the law or common sense in the name of photography or art. That’s why each time someone call themself an artist I tend to say that artits are in the circus. Photography is a new language and we all must take care of it. It’s like a baby. Normally people tend to think about what they can get with photography and the question should be what can I give photography. An artist os noy above the law neither.
To photograph there’s a shutter to press. Period. The rest os commonly called apropriation and for me has the value that it has: yje one that people who buy these kinf of art pay for it. We’re dealing with human beings and being human also should sharp or notion of consequences, even more with new technology.
DAG, Anton and all the other’s: this is not your fault and neither you did something wrong. People who submit work for you or any other media that can be viewed,accessed by public in general should care and be sure to have all the rights of showing, puvlishing, sell, expose people and situations they do. Editors don’t ask freelancers if they have the rights of photographs, it’s implicit. You can tell by the lenses used if ine was close or far, if there was a relationshiio built with the subject or not. This to say that all the rights don’t have to be writen, but there must be a look, a relationship, a presence between those who photograph and the subjects.
In sensitive cases all this becomes more important and urgent. That’s why some bofies of work take so long, this relationship and authorisation thkes time. For e.g the work i’ve done about sadomasochism in Portugal toke 9 months to do, 5 without a single photo taken. 5 months to gain the respect and intimacy with the subjevt and so they we’re absolutly sure that my goal was not to prejudice someone’s life in the name of photography or photohoutnalism.
I think that all this can be solved in the future by a statement somewhere visible in Burn that contents ans moral or legal consequences are in behalf of the authors. In this case I don’t even regognixe any authorship given the photos we’re not done by the person that submitted them. But this is my point of view, and i think that pergaps i’n being to old in demanding values from the society wr live in…
Hope none of the reader of this post founds this comment aggresive and excuse my english and type errors, but seriously it makes me sad to see how light photography and photojournalism can be taken. And please don’t call this type of work photojournalim for the sake of the history fone by our abcesters…
Time to learn and move on.
PS – This was my Non Nlack kinf of comment (in ectension) ever :) Sorry anout that
i’m not drunk just sleepy…sorry noy yo read and correct before submit my post.
I’s like also to add that Jim dodn’t pay me to write all this, and that normally I think his opinions are too stricked. On this point, trying not to ramble forever about it, i have to agree with his position, not his words.
I like to think that photography and photojournalism are a noble profession but is due to misunderstoods like this one that our profession is so baf regarded ny many people. Also, for me photography and photojournalim can have several forms of interpretation and a personal view. I’m not preaching the old school of it because times have change…
I also meant to say “PS – This was my Bob Black kind of comment (in ectension) ever :) Sorry anout that”
Ok I’ll go to sleep now, the kwyboard is fuzzy…
All
I feel awful. I feel jointly. The ethical questions and real dangerous for this women was my first thought, but somehow I ignored them as a “virtual” problems, besides I am never sure I undrestood fully english text. I should react as many of you did. I should react quickly. I failed.
The internet makes all of us separate from real problems somehow. In ours warm homes with morning coffe. photograhpy showing as a real and important informations about world. And this is next example that photographer should think about subject first not about own ego and career and photography.
David, Anton, the error is human… Pictures didn’t remain for a long time on-line, there is very little luck that they were seen by the traffickers… in my opinion…
David P, I hope that you will cast these images to the dustbin if you haven’t their authorizations…
Best, audrey
Sofia, Katharina, Jim
So well said by three who have to stand by what they submit to publishers. I was also going to say that it might be a good time for a FAQ covering all kinds of issues relative to submission of work for publishing consideration here at Burn. And i think this is the real crux of why this discssuion is continuing. Because the issues identified by Jim, Kat Sofia (and others?) go beyond THIS essay. It´s no longer about these women or David Plummer. It´s about the next David Plummer and the next explotative essay and educating the photographer as to why this particular project was unacceptable for consideration. Mentoring new photographers is not just about getting some really cool work into the world, it´s getting a professional world class photographer into the world. And to do that, they also need to have a sense of ethics and morals and respect for their subjects: something that Mr. Plummer seems to be confused about and then spread his swine flue to Burn management.
best
Kat
it is true sofia that many now practicing our young profession are simply not educated to do so..
and this morning i woke up to another email from a hopeful who saw my site, and all they are interested in is:
¨could you let me know some basic setting that work really well for you etc… And what lens/flash you would recommend?¨
there has always been an unspoken code of ethics of photojournalism and yet anyone with a camera can start trading as one.. and no one can be fired from being one in these days of freelance – even if they think it is as simple as getting the right lens and camera settings..
in fact it´s even true to say that many i teach miss completely the complexities of working as a PJ, and gloss over issues i thought essential when i began over a decade ago.
i would also like to echo that no one on the editorial team needs to feel shame – david anton and bob are doing a grand job of picture editing this site and learning as they go.. mistakes have to be forgiven and moved on from and i still think the best way for that is to leave this thread, unless there is a more usable topic based around found photos which can provoke debate.
AS AN ASIDE
PDN have produced an excellent and FREE code of ethics book for reference and i wonder if they might be willing to make it available either for download or for publishing on this site? it is comprehensive reading for the historical context and current practice of photography and is there – ready to go..
it would be a good resource to add to burn..
and for DAVID P.. i woke up this morning and you were the first person i thought of outside of my family.. and so i read back your lack of remorse as you posted it yesterday.. and it sits uncomfortably..
on reflection, with the community of opinion now gathered, do you feel reflective at all about the collection of snaps or your intentions?
i´m not loading this question – i think it would be great if you could at the least lend an opinion .. take up the right to reply.. explore this with us to the same degree you clearly explore photographic theory..
viva dissent.
david
http://rising.blackstar.com/photojournalism-technology-and-ethics-whats-right-and-wrong-today
creating a positive..
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/resources/legal-and-copyright-information/e3i6e7defe28b82d056ffc748e26ce8eceb
Where The Hell is Mr Plummer?
We seem to be making a lot of assumptions here and from experience I know that assumption is the mother of error. Without definitive word from the author how can we know? The right thing has been done in killing the story while the author is sought, but all our speculation will remain just that until he clarifies the position.
Maybe its time to leave this until we get word from DAH/ANTON or Mr Plummer.
Anyway, I feel very lucky at the moment to be part of this community. When the chips are down etc…
John
ALL –
i state it again:
There was NO ethical discussion between David and me on this essay, because we assumed that all permissions were in order.
Come on let’s be serious… if David or I would have had any doubts on this, there wouldn’t even have been a discussion at all… we wouldn’t even consider publishing. I would even resent any implication otherwise. If the permissions would prove to be not in order, of course this essay is WAY over the line…
What went horribly wrong, is that we made the mistake of “assuming” permissions were ok, instead of actually checking all permissions ourselves. It didn’t even cross our minds. And yes, it should have. I will not shy away owing up to this…
If all permissions would be in order, i would 100% stand for this essay being published. The images are strong and the story is important to discuss (given the permissions are in order). But right now, until David Plummer comes forward with this information, we will not publish. We have yet to hear from him, but i am sure this will happen soon.
I, and i am sure David AH too, would feel very strongly about an implication that we knew about this on beforehand, or had serious ethical doubts about this essay on beforehand, and then decided to publish the essay anyway…. does anyone actually really think we would do that??? really????
David AH just confirmed he will be up in a couple of hours to join here… i am rushing to the airport now to catch a plane and i won’t be online for 24 hrs. But i will be back as soon as i possibly can.
i hope i have offered some more insight… I am sure David AH will offer much more soonest…
peace
anton
anton and dah.
i agree with a poster above.. it is the photographers job to be educated in what is and is not acceptable.. although i think print magazines normally have a disclaimer for just the reason we could probably use one here :ø9
this place is about exploring ideas – i´m sure that all can see why this work would have been relevant to a place like this – and i can see exactly why this piece would have been chosen .. in fact david mentioned on the first page his intention to provoke discussion on use of photography and more.
my disappointment has to lay with david P.. whos reluctance to engage us is telling i think..
where di the photos come from?
¨well.. i was working as a cleaner in…..¨
i mean – who knows?
safe travels anton. AH _ YOU`RE ON SKYPE:::
:ø)
David Bowen, that was well said. I think you clearly identified the crux of the problem. It is always easy to lay blame here as many have done, but at some point the photographer has to take responsibility for his/her actions. Also, David Plummer’s response was way out there, almost on the verge of nonsense.
Thankyou,
Johan
Anton, you have nothing to blame you, you trust (faire confiance) photographer, and then we do not still know if yes or no David P has the authorizations… I agree with David B and Johan, it’s the responsibility of photographer. Never, I thought it of you nor David…
all the best, audrey
Having followed this “thing” from the beginning I’d like to say:
a) Bravo to Erica for catching this one.
b) Bravo to Anton for his VERY fast reaction.
My view is that there are two quite separate issues here which have been treated as one.
On a philosophical level, we can discuss and debate on our “rights” as photographers versus the rights of the people pictured in our photographs. This discussion though is NOT specific to this essay and we should have this discussion in length in a separate thread. There are too many sub-issues that render this general issue so complex that having this debate focused around this specific essay is just not the way to do it.
On a practical level, yes, it looks like the ball was dropped BUT, we all know that—on its editorial side—Burn is just two people with just a handful of others lending a hand… put this into perspective and compare it to a blunder perpetrated by any corporate giant in the Media and you’ll see that Burn actually responded WAY faster than any of them would.
My two cents…
Hi
regarding my photo essay, Des Portraits de la Maison de la Chance.
These ID photos had been left behind by their previous owners at the refuge, La Maison de la Chance. I have been given full permission to use these ID Photos as I choose by the NGO workers at La Maison de La Chance, who are in direct contact with the refugees depicted in these ID Photos. I have it on good authority that all the women in the photographs were trafficked to Calais and sought refuge in La Maison de la Chance against sexual abuse/rape from people smugglers operating in Calais, France.
The women depicted in these images now reside in the U.K and Canada and though life is still tough for them, they have a much better life-than the hell hole they call the ‘Jungle’ (the forest surrounding Calais)where refugees from Africa and middle east sleep every night.
They were not simply just found in the trash as some people on the forum have seemed to assume!
Yea I saw the images …….
The very idea that PJs or PDN have some sort of monopoly on ethical purity is laughable to say the least…….
Thanks for that post David, some will still not accept your reasoning for presenting the images. So be it,……… I’s apity that the images were not placed within a stronger and more accessible context, the narrative is too thin and they got lost within themselves
There are too many questions left here. You said in your intro they were found in the trash. Are we to understand YOU did not find them in the trash? That the NGO collected them from the trash and gave them to you to publish? For what purpose? I don’t see, given the limited information you included, how publishing them could benefit the NGO or the women. In fact, just the opposite where the women are concerned.
Perhaps both you and the NGO are exploiting these women. Something about this doesn’t ring true. It’s still a little confusing to me how these ID photos ended up in this essay. And why? I can’t even address you, David Plummer, as the photographer, because these are not your photos. As an editor, then, who put them together, doesn’t this bother you a bit ethically?
And, one more time, I thought Burn existed to showcase photographers. There are a lot of photographers who would like to see their original work here. Why showcase an editors edit of ID photos instead?
david P
what was so difficult about that? to me you are still more interested in provoking debate about ethics than these women, if you decided to conceal the very thing which is distracting from the subject of your work for thing long.
whatever your motivations for concealing what people were worried about, i think everyones concern was genuine and highly justified.. so the next question is why conceal until now?
imants –
¨The very idea that PJs or PDN have some sort of monopoly on ethical purity is laughable to say the least…….¨
what? was anyone exerting such a thing? where is your beef?
david pitches himself as a PJ and.. well .. have you read this thread carefully enough to cast aspersions?
very brave of you to pitch in when david finally attempts to end the discourse, as he could have done a great deal earlier had the real issue here been about the women and not his own bag-of-tricks..
the only pity is that david P did not answer his critics and bring the discussion back onto point earlier.. in which case i think many would have viewed the work differently..
Check out the world time differences before you open your mouth, yes I pitch in now because during the day I work and don’t sit on a computer and my response was to your “PDN have produced an excellent and FREE code of ethics book for reference” there is more to the world and ethics than the PDN and others of that ilk
And before someone says, “Plummer gave an explanation, just accept it and move on,” these are the kind of questions editors get paid to ask. It’s why we exist in journalism. Is this appropriate for our publication? What’s the angle? What’s the agenda? Who could be harmed? Who benefits? Does the value to the community justify the cost to the individual if we run this? Is the information true? Does the person who gave me permission to run this story or photo have the right to do so (every parent in a public school in Texas must give explicit permission before you can publish a photo of their child if it was shot on a public school campus, for example. A teacher can’t give you permission to take a photo of the whole class for any reason. Why does that make sense? Because a relocated woman who has escaped abuse might have her and her children’s location revealed if a photo shows up in the newspaper.)
Every time we publish a story or photo, we ask ourselves dozens of questions, ask the photographer questions, the writer questions. The question we ask ourselves is “why run the photo or story,” never “why not?”
If the photos were released, then who released them? The women stood in front of that camera for a specific purpose. An ID photo. Did the NGO have the legal right to release them at all? If so, did they have the legal right to release them for a purpose other than the original one? These are both legal and ethical questions. Did the women envision that their photos would be in an essay on an Internet magazine?
Finally, we’ve found a good use for you Jim! Having your own junk yard dog is good when you have a legitimate cause to sick him on, no matter how rabid or bark-at-everything they can be. ;-)
So thank goodness David and Erica pulled you off your other Bone Jim: DAH’s promotion philosophy! If DB and Erica didn’t bring this to your attention you would still be demanding to see more ‘non-edgy’ stuff as was your only response to this essay before DB and Erica showed you what was really relevant. Funny you didn’t pick that issue up right away, but you slammed hard into the ‘illegal’s and Uganda as not being appropriate for this audience, I wonder sometimes about your agenda Jim.
That being said, i can’t help but noticed you’re creeping up again on your other bone: DAH’s Decisions, suggesting he’s acted irresponsibly as an editor of Burn. Come on Jim, give it a rest already, Say it or Drop it, but stop Circling it. This crusade of yours has got to come to an end sooner or later!
In a nut shell, Jim Powers what do you want Burn to be? We know what you don’t won’t Burn to be: Mostly everything that’s been here so far, but if you were ‘the editor’ what would Burn look like? Speak now or forever hold your peace!
My money is on the fact you want to decide what get promoted and David should just stick to taking the pictures that you’ve clearly said you admire, otherwise you wouldn’t keep mounting this character assassination.
Joe, this isn’t my first thread expressing concern about the ethics of the photos. I’ve been pretty consistent with that. I didn’t just pull that out of the hat. My initial post was that it didn’t belong here at all.
I don’t care what David posts here. But as I’ve said repeatedly in various threads, if you are going to publish stuff that looks like journalism, you should treat it as such. And demand the same level of responsibility.
As for character assassination, it’s hard to say “you screwed up” without saying “you screwed up.”
Jim,
I pretty much agree with all the points in your two posts on the top of this page, but putting aside the legal issues for a second—and assuming a photographer can provide a release signed by the subject featured in his pictures—let me ask you a question about ethics:
When you decide to run a certain picture, can you actually be sure that the person who gave his permission to be photographed understood that his image might end up being in your publication, or—if the stars were to line up—end up on the poster of the next WPP and distributed all over the globe in association with some social, political, environmental or other issue?
I find all the second-guessing of the decisions of the editors not only self-serving but self-righteous. Any photographer or editor that has ever worked for a publication understands that stories run that are second-guessed. As a member of the Burn team, I spoke openly and honestly about my personal reaction to the story. That this has now spiraled into basically a diatribe about questions concerning the Editors, implying that the questions described above are not part-and-parcel of the discussions being done on a daily basis between David, Anton, myself and any of the other people involved in this publication are not only erroneous but arrogant.
It’s one thing to legitimately question the merit of work and to discuss this openly, respectfully and professionally. It is another to basically question the thought-process and judgment of David, Anton and the entire Burn group.
Frankly, it’s the reason why i find it increasingly troubling to engage here. It becomes hand ringing and moral-superiority. David Plummer’s essay was not Journalistic, nor is Burn’s mandate journalistic. In my opinion, the operating principle, idea and execution of the essay was wrong but this work was not published as journalism but as an aeshetic/didactic exercise, a poorly thought out and careless one at that. However, upon reflection and in consultation with a number of people, the editors removed the essay.
The worse part of this diatribe now is that rather than using this as a discussion point to engage photographers about the question of both their responsibility toward subjects and the ‘ethics’ of using documents, as well as what constitutes use of photographs of another, the tone and demeanor of the language has turned into a full-board condemnation, and by impolication a questioning, of David and Anton’s professional care, concern and judgment.
I find that, like all moralizing tomes, awash in empty rhetoric. As if David, willy nilly, publishes work without thought of its relationship to both subject matter and readership and the consequences of that.
As concerned and shocked and disappointed as I was with the use and thoughts that created this essay, I’m even more disappointed by the devolving, moral superioity that now comes descending.
band-wagoning.
bob
Thanks Jim for responding, i don’t take it for granted that you will sooner or later just switch off to my habitual attacks on you. i just find it impossible not to, i’ll chat with my therapist about this, but for now, i’m glad you’re rolling with them.
so Jim, in any sizable book shop there is a rack filled with magazines that are photography centric, not unlike Burn with regards to interest. A perfect example of this over here is the British Journal of Photography which comes out each week and is a relatively expensive on a per cost basis, and still thrives.
each week in the BJP there is an article with a selection of images called the project assistance award. Each week it’s common that some photographer attempts to show images that reveal an ‘injustice’ in the world in hopes that they will receive funding to explore it.
this year Ben Roberts won this prestigious award based on an issue that we’re not certain yet of the extent or the legitimacy, but that’s not the point. The point is to shape a message using photographs (without breaking the law), to explore the craft.
so is the BJP (a photography magazine) actually swerving off into equally questionable ground? Why can’t Burn be evaluated as a photography magazine with interesting messages from photographers? Are you evaluating Burn as if it were the New York Times or the British Journal of photography with regards to content?
I don’t disagree about the content here as I do wonder about the consent (legality), but this logic doesn’t blanket all the other promotions that you say are inappropriate. How do you reconcile those condemnations?
I come late to the discussion, long after the essay had been pulled. All I have to go on is the photographer’s introductory text and the comments that followed. I must say, though, although I’m bringing nothing new to the table, that when I read David Plummer’s introduction to his essay, my heart dropped and chills ran down my spine. You see, I used to work in a refugee center here in Detroit and know the danger our guests would have been in had their “discarded” passports ever been made public. Even long after they’d gone on to their new lives (and new names?), having their birth names and faces published on the internet would put them at great risk of discovery by their former abusers/torturers. Not only that, there would probably be officials/employers/spouses in their present-day lives who would not take kindly to the knowledge that these folks were going by assumed names and/or had pasts different from what they had declared.
I appreciate Anton’s apology and realize it was an innocent mistake. The photographer’s comment, on the other hand, shows a lack of understanding that concerns me greatly. As photographers, we hold tremendous power, especially in the age of the internet, and with that comes tremendous responsibility. Our images can go places we could never imagine. Before publishing them we must consider all possible ramifications of that fact, especially for the persons whose faces and/or names we show. I think this essay has served a very important purpose for us all. I know it has for me.
Patricia
Thodoris, if I’m talking to the photographer who shot the photos, and he shot them in a public place, in full view of everyone around, that’s a completely different issue than this one. Had this been presented to me, I would have refused to publish it. End of story.
Joe, your argument seems to suggest that because there are publications that stray off the path ethically, that somehow justifies the publication of such photos. I don’t care who publishes the photos, if they slide off the edge ethically, they were wrong to do so. I am a severe critic of the kind of journalism I see far too often these days. Money has trumped reason.
Jim,
My question to you was in connection to your “Did the women envision that their photos would be in an essay on an Internet magazine?” comment.
Also, because of the quite general set of ethical guidelines that you presented in your first post on the top of this page I think my question to you was relevant and legitimate.
IF permission to use the photos was granted by the shelter, NGO and the women, I see no ethical issues. From what I remember the essay did not have names or current locations of the women. If the women are OK with their photos being on the internet. That should be enough in this situation.
imants..
actually, i am capable of typing with my mouth closed.
why not read back the full thread and in detail before you, ¨tap the keys¨… you know.. a bit disappointing really.. your extrapolation and conclusion, that is..
the PDN and black star links responded to an inquiry about a code of ethics resource.. and not as you say an exertion that they had the moral monopoly.. boxing in peoples views there?
david P – i wonder if a simple addition of text from ´found photos´ to ´discarded photos supplied by XXX center´, might clear things up?
i stand corrected, it seems, and so apologize.
still a little bemused at the late and irrelevant 1st response though – your first post would have been the beginning of a good chat if peoples right-full concerns had been addressed earlier.
reading back there are plenty of people giving the work the benefit of the doubt and inviting you to jump in and clarify things.. including me.. in fact had this been done earlier i´m almost certain many of the doubtful would have been more interested, and less concerned..
patricia – we share a similar relationship in a sense, and so i was glad to have raised points within the context of having worked with asylum seekers.
obviously there are stories where clarity, forthrightness and detail are far more important than artistic statements and i wonder if this work falls into that area.
certainly found photos and the use of them is common place, interesting and relevant as an approach and an illustrative exercise..
as mentioned above though – if the center has agree specific terms of use for the photos and the subjects know about it and release them for the purpose the ethical debate is cleared up somewhat.. i don´t think that is needed in the case of many found photos on the web, in magazines or used in gallery contexts – this case is quite unique though and as has been constantly bought up – the detail and clarity, for me, has to be there in the text before i can look at the photography in any other way – be it journalistic or artistic in intent.
DAVID P..
of course this is entirely in your hands now, but saying that the NGO is in “direct contact” with the women and some “workers” at the NGO said you could use ids that were “left behind” doesn’t really clarify things..Who in an official capacity at a safe house would grant such open ended use without explicit permissions from the women? Perhaps the women gave their permission? Sure would help clarify things if you could communicate the entire situation.
David I doubt if I really need your advice how to respond nor do I give a rat’s arse about your disappointment…….
that´s wonderful then.. onward
Jim, i hear what you are saying, i don’t agree with the sweep of the scope you’re implying, but i don’t think what you’re saying is not an appealing place to be, just an impossible place to be in that it would put too much of a constraint on information that should be released.
actually if David P isn’t going to share anything more, maybe it is time for the thread to go onward and out..
perhaps you´re right erica.. enough lines have been drawn that things are digressing and becoming lost..
another thought, though – if direct contact with the women is available, it might be interesting to have some text directly from them?
their names may not be possible.. yet something.. about their new life.. the journey.. the past..
seeing the womens faces wants me to know more about them.. a concern brought about by the eyes in the photos could be strengthened greatly by an addition from them directly.
http://mediastorm.org/0024.htm
intended consequences by jonathan torgovnik
ALL…
i am just coming on line since yesterday morning when i published the David Plummer essay…please let me catch up on all of my e-mails concerning this issue from some of you and from David P himself…i will NOT read all of your comments until after i write mine in about an hour because i just want you to have a straight up comment from me…
i will quickly say that I ALONE am fully responsible for the short time these Plummer pictures were up..
after my long drive yesterday, untimely given the issues, and a late night book signing/fiesta did not find me up with the sun this morning….give me a chance please to review all information, facts, etc etc grab a coffee, and i will be back soonest with a proper response…
thank you
cheers, david
PEACE…
dear
BuRNIANS!!!!
lets keep moving forward…..
**
Bob, it’s unfair of you to say that the discussion here is about condemning the “editors”. How can you misrepresent our concerdness, I am mystified. It’s great you want to show your loyalty to Anton and DAH, but no need to do it on our back.
The only scathing indictment came from Kat (Jim is really asking questions), though I find a bit funny that she finds so much suffering in ID photos. (ever looked at ID photos lately, Kat?) She also saw them apparently but did not post her reaction, if i recall. Erica was, I think, the first to question the publishing.
David PLummer, we did not assume, you told us the photos were discarded. That’s less pictural, but still pretty close to trash, in the end, no?
Your new explanation just does not answer much. First, It was not even for the NGO to decide if the pix could be given and published. It would be great of you to tell us if at any point you thought of the ethics in releasing these pictures….. Marcin has a great point, all of us, in our own little computer corner, can do stuff without thinking thru its implications.
PJs the depositary of photography ethics? Come…onnn!!! :-))))
I saw DAH at his book event last night at the powerHouse Arena. He couldn’t stop talking about the issue here and his own regret about how it happened. He said that he published the pictures because he had a strong emotional reaction to them; he found the women such sympathetic figures that he didn’t consider the ramifications and just assumed that all the appropriate permissions had been secured. I’m sure he’ll expand on this soon. He was also grateful to the Burn community for jumping all over this.
In short, there is not a lot to see here — a mistake, shortsightedness revealed and corrected within a few hours, followed by some worthwhile discussion. So here we are.
HELLO ALL….
it is clear to all of us that there are many issues and threads spinning off of the David Plummer essay…in a private e-mail, David has asked that his pictures are not re-published because of what he feels are severe misunderstandings in his intent and what he feels were clear institutional permissions granted….
evidently his responses here to you did not serve him well…i only know what he wrote to me privately
he also requests that this whole thread be deleted as he feels the context for his essay has become so skewed with half truths, misunderstandings, as to be causing him personal damage….
i pulled the pictures, but kept the thread going because i felt it was important to hear your voices….i will read all of your comments, AFTER i publish this and respond if necessary….
again, only i can be responsible for the publication of this essay…
when things go well, i must share the credit with many…when things go bad, i alone must take the blame….
i accept this mantra fully..it is the mantle of responsibility that any editor carries….any complaints and criticism of content and publishing fall on my shoulders…while many help me with BURN, i alone make the editorial decision to hit the publish button on any given single or essay…
i do wish that my most humble apology for an error in judgment is accepted by you….
even if some feel that the institutional permission for these photos was enough, i would rather err on the side of respect for the individual…particularly in the so so sensitive case of sexually exploited women…
hopefully this will lead us to discuss in a general way the rights of journalists and artists to represent individuals…there are many court cases involving these issues….legal judgments have swung wildly one way and then another…but, i am referring only to moral judgments by us, by me….
as many of you have now given support for BURN, i owe you content that is beyond reproach…i broke my own lifetime rules of journalistic credibility by publishing the Plummer essay…..the worst enemy for any of us from both a journalistic and artistic point of view is the ubiquitous “rush to publish” syndrome….this essay simply slipped through the cracks of good judgment on my part…i allowed the emotional power these photographs had on me to overshadow the potential impact these photographs might have had on the lives of the women pictured…while i FELT sincerely for these women, i did not think sufficiently about the negative impact that could arise from publishing….i would sacrifice any picture any time either at the moment of taking or in the moment of publishing if i ever thought the photograph would somehow have a serious negative impact on the subject…when i stared into the eyes of these women shown by David P. all i felt was a deep sadness and sense of tragedy….i did not do what i should have done and totally researched the circumstances of the acquiring of this work….
i promise you this type of mistake on my part will not happen again….
it will mean perhaps less content here less often, but so be it…..
i want to be able to stand by every piece of content on BURN…a tricky balance between being out on the edge and social/personal responsibility…a balance every editor must face….
from now on two things will happen…
first, i will refuse to publish or even consider publication on any material coming from a photographer where the information seems incomplete or is potentially libelous….
second, i will employ a fact checker/researcher which no sane editor would ever be without…
the “biggies” all have a whole research department and they still make mistakes…but, i do not want to make any mistakes…my aesthetic judgment is another thing entirely, but i am talking about serious misinformation , inaccuracies , and potential “damages” to the subjects pictured….
Anton and i talk several times a day by skype , by phone, by e-mail…we both missed this one even after going through the many steps necessary for publication……we both empathized with the women shown and just did not take the next step of thinking about the potential negative impact…but, Anton did not make the mistake…i did….Bob was not involved at all since his main job has been to be seeking new talent and making sure their material comes in…he does not know what will come next…only Anton and i have access to the material ready to go…..
yesterday was a long long day for me as you may imagine ….i drove for 9 hours knowing by phone calls from Anton this was all a mess and not able to do anything about it…the only phone calls i received or text came from Anton….thank you Anton for being the terrific human being that you are and for accepting responsibilities that were not yours…standing by me , but admitting a mistake….a more loyal, hard working, conscientious person can not be found…you are the man!!! when times are tough, you find out who your friends are…and friends do not “cover” for you, but they stand by you…abrazos siempre…
however, can we please now move forward??
we have plenty to be positive about….when i finally arrived in New York about 10pm last night in a dreary drizzle emotionally and physically exhausted, i walked into the Powerhouse Arena to an incredible BURN buzz….i came to sign Living Proof books, but found myself in a constant conversation about BURN with everyone from Chris Morris, Lauren Greenfield, Fred Ritchen etc etc and a whole host of BURN supporters…..a little frightening really…no less than 5 people came to me with the outrageous rumor that i had sold BURN to a big company!!!! what the hell!!! how could THAT have started???? after being totally chagrined at this rumor being told to me first by legend Gerd Ludwig, i realized that even the fact that this crowd would even be discussing BURN has having “value” was in and of itself some kind of strange strange phenomena…
so, let’s please take a deep breath….exhale slowly…relax…..think clearly…speak clearly….write clearly…for as i have responsibility, so do you…we are all in this together….i have many times written that the writers here are the smallest part of my audience…statistically this is true…however, all of you are the ones who are coming through in a significant way to save BURN…humbling to say the least….i will in the next few days tap the shoulders of some of you to take on new responsibilities ….
i will never never be able to thank all of you enough…..i am in OUR new gallery space right this minute….it is currently a big mess since i still have some of my personal effects to move out, but i have so many volunteers who are now ready willing and able to make a BURN gallery, office space, seminar space, a reality..NOW…details on all of this to follow..we must back up your financial support with an immediate plan to get prints up on the wall soonest…otherwise, keeping the space will be to no avail….i want to make sure you get your investment back by selling a print or two for you…
so, let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work..make sense???
hugs, love, peace, cheers…david
DAH / ANTON
From my view apologies are only needed in the case of something intentional, and this clearly was not an intention to harm, but OF COURSE apologies are accepted anyway..I know you well enough to understand that anything less than what it should be from you comes from trying to do too much..your heart is in the right place always.
I sincerely hope no misplaced ill will follows David P. It is a shame though that he has not made greater efforts to be clear on the details, but he knows above all others what his intentions were and if there is a way for him to make this series palatable I am sure he will find it.
I think yes, we can move forward..how about an EPF finalist to put us all in a good mood?
e
david – please tap away.. fact checking.. whatever.
when i nail down my works accountant and get paid.. you know.
please do not take it heavy on yourself – there have been very few crits of the editorial team and i think most understand now that a simple clarification by the author on an essay with this much potential power was what was needed.. things got out of hand.. as they can and do.
again – very few people have had issue with the editorial team.
to be frank i hope the work, when presented in future, will contain more information about the releases.. it can be in a subtle way perhaps – although not neglected as here.. ´found photos´ appear to be just that if they are presented as that, after all. hopefully apologies and a steep learning curve will suffice for those deserving, and apologies to you for the weight..
burn sold to a large company?
funny.. from educational wing to cooperate interest of magnum in one misplaced rumor..
respect.
david
ERICA…
coming right up….double and triple fact checking on all finalists first will create about a two day delay in publishing the finalists….should have the first up by saturday night or sunday…
DAVID BOWEN…
please let me know if you want to edit over the weekend..
cheers, david
if there is the opportunity that would be great..
just left a skype PM message for you to pick up.
d
DAVIDSss Sorry to check in here but I have a quote …what else
and it goes like this:
“What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think. This rule, equally arduous in actual and intellectual life, may serve for the whole distinction between greatness and meanness. It is the harder, because you will always find those who think they know what is your duty better than you know it. It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great person is one who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.”
R.W. Emerson
That’s why WE love BURN…because “The price of greatness is responsibility.”
Check out …
i will in the next few days tap the shoulders of some of you to take on new responsibilities ….
————————————–
Here for you if you wish, David. But only one condition: I refuse to be in the same room as Bob, unless there are 2 bottles of good wine AND a cork opener! I am sure Bob thinks the same….;-)
(still perplexed at the ID pix bit. They were taken pre-trauma, no? I find such images become poignant, and lingering for all they conceal, not show)
Checking in again:
ok…since it looks that it will take me 2 days to go through your posts…my apologies
please proceed AISLE 2 ” ON THE ROLL”
FREE wine and Baklavas!!! we need this after the donation buttom… a joke:))
Checking out (again)
MASS IN B MINOR and whiskey in a shot glass..
g´night all..
gracie.. 4 years.. how could it get better :ø)
DAVID (ah) :))
As i’ve tried to describe this morning (see above) and yesterday (and to anton in private), and as i’ve tried to describe to others, that there is nothing shameful in what happened and that far from letting us down (as a community), Burn has been a beacon and an inspiration. I only wish’d i’d had look first thing in the morning yesterday, but who knows. The point is that we ALL accept the relationship of our community, so that when it goes brilliant, we all celebrate (AND DONATE) and when it gets off track or stumbles, we all help one another to keep it positive and righted and fixed. I mean, this community. As i tried to explain to here a bunch of times, you and anton are heavy lifting and in that moment stuff gets shifted, just a fact of life.
Let us celebrate, and above all that which matters most in any organization and any relationship, loyal and acceptance.
long week, indeed ;))))
hugs
bb
p.s. Herve, since when would i have refuse to be in the same room as you??.:))..though the wine would help ;)))… (ps. note, no more use of that “gray editorial” stuff, im keeping that promise ;)) )…..
Kidding, Bob, as you must know. What I would refuse is to be seated next to you on a 48 hours bus ride from Calcutta to New Delhi. As Sartre used to say: L’ enfer, c’ est Bob Black! :-)))
Thanks DUH, from the bottom of my stupid heart, for the great care you all take. An unintentional stupid mistake was made, and swiftly corrected. This cannot be said about many other places. BURN on!
David, just a few words. You, mi amigo, are a class act. We have all learned from this, and, as always, you are showing us how an editor of integrity responds to such a situation. Am available to fact-check or do anything else I can to help…
By the way, did they say which large corporation was reputed to have bought Burn? Maybe a potential sponsor to approach??!!!
love & peace
Patricia
ALL BURNIANS !! ;)))
just got off the phone with David (ah)! :))…and he wanted me to pass this message on to EVERYBODY! :)))
DAVID WILL BE BACK ON LINE IN 24 HRS! :)))
Everybody, the brilliant thing about Burn is that WE ARE ALL on the ground floor of this together :)))…And David asked me to tell you all to laugh and celebrate. In fact, he was laughing tonight, cause when he tells you we’re all on the ground floor he means it….he forgot to pay the cell phone bill, and all his stuff is in NC and so he doesnt have internet, so he’s stuck, (and laughing) of all places in NYC and no way (laughing again) to leave a post!…He’s really living like he did when a 18 year old poor freshman (his words) and he’s laughing while we’re talking because it’s like out-of-a=movie and he wants everyone to be of good cheer and that he’ll be right back with everyone, once he gets home……but he’s with y’all and, really, we’re really stretching here….and the gallery is clean and ready and BURN is the talk of the town (all over the PowerHouse last night and tonight at exhibition people talking wanting to be a part) and David laughing ’cause a photographer came up to him and said “I hear Burn was bought by…..”…and David’s laughing, cause how does a rumor like this start and if it were true, he’d have paid his cell phone bill and would have internet and he’d be here with ya’ll…:)))))…that’s the beauty of life and why we all must laugh…
burn is BURNING UP Y’ALL! :))))))
and again, david will be back with you in 24….that’s from Him through my typing fingers and listen carefully, if you listen carefully enough, you’ll hear his deep-throat smokey laughter ringing out from beneath a subway overhead in Brooklyn….can you hear it? ;))))
hugs evryone,
david to return ‘SOONEST!”
running
bob
Big smile..
sending david
and all
lots of
love
and
light…
lots of it….
and the drama continues…..
just remember to breathe…..
PANOS is at opening now
good thoughts to you
dear
brothers..
xox
David A.H.
Thanks so much for your long post..it settles much..it´s obvious why this happened and that you moved with empathy and decided to publish. I do think that you and Anton are beyond over-extended because i can´t imagine this happening if that were not the case. Going forward it´s good to know that publishing decisions will be given extra scrutiny. In a way it´s sad though because more and more issues are potentially libelous. But this is a different world than it was 50 years ago and we must protect ourselves and our subjects ans our magazines from harm. I guess. I still think a FAQ qould be a great guide to those wishing to submit work for consideration. It wouldn´t cover everything of course but it could set some basic guidelines and that would answer a lot of questions from the get-go. I don´t have light in my office right now so i can´t write too coherently but wanted to express my thanks for your sincere and heartfelt response.
Herve
I saw the essay, wrote a post, hit submit, got a big white screen, realized the essay had been pulled and went back to work. Thought a lot about the issues, came back after work and addressed them. Punto.
As far as seeing sadness in the eyes of ID pics, um, even DAH saw that, Herve. it wasn´t a great stretch. That was the root of the decision to publish in the first place. Women´s eyes caused a few men to lose their heads. It ain´t the first time such a thing has happened and it certainly won´t be the last.
It´s funny that of all the outraged comments you were most struck by mine. Thanks so much for taking the time to read them. *smile*
best
kat-
I think Kat, that if the pictures, as I recall them, were not all related to the plight of trafficking, with the story David P. introduced them with, we’d be hard pressed to see much poignancy in them.
Then, yes, maybe we’d guess some sadness, why not, that’s OK with me, looking into a camera can bring that out in an ID picture. I have noticed it in people’s ID in Cambodia and Thailand. But for me it would be a big stretch to say I know why they are sad, like it all has to do with being a victim in/from the muslim world .
I am not sure DAH meant the pictures themselves without the story. I’d have to disagree with him if so. It is only as we build a narrative, either David P.’s, or our own, that we imbue these pictures with relevant poignancy.
Photos lie (ie. not objective truth), this is a motto I keep reading from the greatest photographers and writers on photography. Any truth comes out only from the (often) silent dialog engaged between them and the viewer.
Did I write somewhere I did not read your posts?
Herve, you bring up a point that is a constant debate in photography. Photos look like reality. So whatever people see reflected in them is accepted as reality. But they are not reality. They are really carefully constructed conceits. We often see in photos what we want to see.
An ID photo, while designed to be a very accurate representation of a person’s face, is the most destructive of reality in photography. When I go to the drivers license office to renew my DL photo, I’m told to stand rigidly in a specific place, look straight into a lens a few feet away encased in box on top of, basically a computer, and “do not smile.” The object is a likeness easily compared to the person producing the ID on demand.
A person looking at that photo can read nothing about who I really am. They see only a construct. If my eyes communicate anything, they could be communicating anger or frustration that I’ve had to stand in line at the DMV for two hours. Or maybe my favorite pet died. Or my house is going to be foreclosed. Or…
Most photos, especially photos used in journalism, need context. When I choose a fast telephoto shot wide open over a wide angle stopped down to f/16, I’ve distorted reality. The two candidates were not really standing near each other and my telephoto made it seem so…or, the two candidates really were standing near each other in solidarity and my 14mm made them appear far apart.
We are far too likely to read emotions into peoples faces that reflect our own perceptions of reality, rather than reality itself. That’s what troubled Eddie Adams about how the general was perceived in the photo Adams shot of the general executing the captive in the street. The photo by itself did not tell the whole story.
Jim,
I liked your last post, and I’d like to share a couple thoughts of my own on the subject.
One of the things that I find frustrating when talking with PJs (especially young and stubborn ones) about photography, in relation to reality, is that they’ll defend to their last breath (or so they claim) the notion that a picture of theirs that subscribes to the latest guidelines of PJ-ism is by default a “more real” representation of reality than a picture which was “manipulated” in post production.
Somehow it doesn’t register that they alter reality by default—by their choice of focal length, aperture, shutter speed, type of film, ASA, point of view, moment of exposure, what they include or exclude in their frames etc…
To me it all comes down to the individual. One can either TELL up to which point dodging-and-burning, curves, levels, or whatever, are helpful tools that one can employ in order to convey how he perceived “reality” instead of how his equipment recorded it, or not.
I understand that any international corporation needs to set their guidelines to account for the lower denominator, but as a matter of fact we all strive to “enhance” our pictures one way or another. An editor will (usually) not chose the banal and deadpan picture over the one that caries “authorship” and is treating a particular subject “with a twist” now, would he?
In conclusion, I believe that photography neither captures nor represents “reality” by default. It’s up to us to twist and turn our medium in order to convey what reality felt like to us when we thought “this is it” and pressed the shutter release.
KATHLEEN…..JIM
my error in judgment did not come at a time of high stress…i cannot blame this situation from either Anton or i being overextended…we were moved by these sterile but emotional found I.D. photos and were thinking they would have the opposite effect than what they had…also, seeing this work as being somewhere between journalism and art….after all “found photos” play a significant part in photographic books..i.e. Martin Parr, Thomas Dvorzak…..i cannot turn on the tv or look at many magazines without seeing full face photographs and interviews of/with trafficked women…and these venues come under question too…there is a very fine line between the public “right to know” and the potential damage done to a subject by publishing…
Jim, you make a good argument here for reading things into pictures…but, at what point am i allowed to feel emotion from a picture??? do we really have any idea the emotion of the face of Mona Lisa?? what was she thinking? (damn, i wish to hell Leonardo would finish, my back hurts)…reality can be represented but it is still not reality….
i want to put both of you on my ethics committee…three or four who help me to make tough calls before publishing…i know you are unlikely to agree with me aesthetically, but i am just thinking pure ethics and decorum….will either one of you or both work with me on this??? many thanks….
cheers, david
Thodoris, I think photographers must be even more careful than writers with their stories in their journalistic use of photos because photos “look so real.” As a reader, I can imagine that a writer might have sat in his attic room and and made up a good part of what he has written. But, what of the photos illustrating that story? The photographer has to be “there!” He pointed his camera at the scene and the camera recorded what was in front of it!
You and I know that it’s not that simple. That the aperture and shutter speed and lens choice and the decision to shoot in B&W rather than color, and the part of the scene we decided to capture in that rectangle are all influencing the “truth” of the photo. But the average person sitting on their porch, drinking coffee and reading the morning newspaper doesn’t know, or doesn’t think about those kinds of things.
Ours is a responsibility that a lot of photographers these days just don’t seem to understand.
JIM…
i agree in principle with you on responsibility….but, i can imagine we would disagree on the extent and power of the style or visual vehicle…i.e. authorship….subjectivity injects itself into every single picture whether “straight” or “stylized”…since that is the case, i will go with style every time….
cheers, david
I’ve no problem with style. It’s when style overwhelms the journalism that I have a problem.
AKAKY: He’s not selling it!
AKAKY IRL: You know, you really gotta stop doing that. It’s annoying.
AKAKY: Doing what?
AKAKY IRL: Rushing in here all breathless and blurting out whatever is getting your goat this week and expecting me to know what the hell you’re talking about. I dont read minds, bubba.
AKAKY: Oh, sorry. Mr. Harvey, he’s not selling Burn.
AKAKY IRL: Oh…okay, I’ll bite. In ten words or less, what’s that got to do with anything?
AKAKY: I’ve been telling everyone he was!
AKAKY IRL: And why were you telling everyone that, or should I bother to ask?
AKAKY: I read it in the New York Times.
AKAKY IRL: Shouldnt believe everything you read in the papers, dude. They make most of that stuff up just to sell papers. I’m pretty sure that there’s no such person as Paris Hilton and that the Boston Red Sox are the product of some sportswriters’ overheated imagination.
AKAKY: But what am I going to tell everyone now? They all heard this story from me.
AKAKY IRL: Tell them Karl Rove or Dick Cheney deceived you. Five’ll get you ten that’ll work. You get away with most anything these days if you blame it on the Bush Administration.
AKAKY: There’s an idea.
AKAKY IRL: Go for it, guy.
Mona Lisa
—————-
Isn’t that Dali who said that anyone with a camera can nowadays do a Mona Lisa as “good” as Da Vinci? he did not say good, I am sure, but something like that….
One of the ever-lasting mystery of the Mona Lisa (“La Joconde” in France) is how “intent” she (or Da Vinci) seemed, scrutating, looking at us, viewers, for over 5 hundred years. So, maybe, what is she thinking of us?!?!?
The next step would be: will Jim’s grumblibg DMV ID shot look at us intently in 500 years, from his dedicated room in the LOUVRES museum? Now, THAT IS THE QUESTION! :-)))
y
I have nothing new to add here, I just wanted to be the 200th commenter. I am easily amused.
DAH
¨i want to put both of you on my ethics committee¨
I would be honored to contribute to the best of my abilities and i would also be honored to be on the same committee asw Jim..hope he doesn´t hate the idea! Lately i´ve read some really GOOD GOOD stuff from Jim and it´s been stimulating reading to say the least. So Jim, you wanna?
HERVE, JIM,THODORIS
Herve, yes, a fellow Burnian told me the other day that the eyes of individuals in some of these Asian countries express so much of the collective sorrow of their race (and to this person who shall remain nameless, i hope i got that right)…
But hmm..i am reading all these comments and i want everyone to know i agree with so much that´s being said, everything really..but it has me thinking, about my reaction to the ID pics and what i personally see revealed in people through the lens and the truth of photographs (if there is any).
I have discovered over time that i am extremely sensitive to the faces of people. I thought we were all pretty much the same in this respect but i have discovered that some are more than others. Ok, so my theory is that some of us would look at these ID pics, not singularly but collectively and even without the story, be drawn to patterns. And i think conclusions could be made from these patterns. And those conclusions might legitimately be called honest.
I looked at the first photo and my thought was ¨hmm, pink lip gloss¨ Seriously, that was it! The same lip gloss was worn by many of the sitters and that struck me as really strange. I hadn´t yet even read the text! Then from the lips i moved to their eyes and their head scarves. I mean, i´m a girl and head scarves intrigue me. Their effect is feminine, mysterious, elegant as well as associated with a religion that traditionally represses females. All taken, besides the lip gloss and the scarves, what kept repeating to me were ¨sad eyes¨. Not just one or two but 95% of the subjects. I went back again and THEN read the text, thought, ¨ohhhhhhh!!!!¨, That´s why!!¨..i mean, maybe that isn´t why! Maybe they had to sit on a chair with metal springs poking into their butts, or maybe their ID pics were taken after a long and arduous plane trip to Paris. But my personal take was these women were profoundly sad. So i believe, judging from the 9 or 10 photos that there was great sadness in the women at this shelter. And i believe this is a truthful representation.
Now, i would like to ask your opinions, based on the above posts from you all..i totally agree that the photographer by his/her simple act of lens choice, composition, use of flash or not, DOF, etc, etc begins to edit the scene before the shutter is even pressed and every single post processing decision that follows keeps right on distorting truth. However i don´t think photos lie as much as we are thinking. I don´t think the only truth emerges as a silent dialogue between the viewer and the subject. I think sometimes the truth just ¨is¨. It´s incontrovertible. When i look through the lens i often see strong emotion (and no, it´s not ¨get this camera out of my face¨ haha). I am so struck by it that i often put the camera down and ask these total strangers, ¨Are you sad, angry, sick?¨ (depending on what i happened to see in that person´s face). They always, always tell me yes and proceed to explain why. And immediately there is a connection between me and the subject. A bond. I care. I feel their pain. I respect their ordeal. If they are happy or indifferent these emotions are more apparent to the casual view but other emotions are far more delicate and hidden behind a facade of reserve. So what we see through the lens and hence the sensitive viewer can see in the photo IS often the truth. It´s not invented or projected by the viewer! Now, depending on the photographer and his/her intentions and technique the viewer might see things that are NOT there and i´ve talked about this before, coquettry, cynicism, hardness, bitterness, naivete, loss of innocence..many of these illusions can be manipulated by the photographer. But i believe seriously in the potential for truth in photography. I could not possibly take photos of people if i felt otherwise because i would not have faith in my ability to tell this person´s story though my means are limited to tell it at all. if i felt i couldn´t do that, i would have nothing else to say with photography. Continuing would be pointless.
Please forgive the length of this post and i hope i did not misunderstand the issues..
Herve, no you never said you hadn´t read my posts, i was reacting to your statement that my posts were the most scathing and i was actually honored that you had read them so carefully. :))
best to all
Kathleen
.
I, like others here was very uncomfortable with these photos being posted, and hoped that this would not somehow compromise the women depicted.
I did see these remarkably powerful photographs soon after they were posted. I viewed them twice in fact, and was very taken with them, as were the Davids. Now that most of the furor has subsided I hope it is safe to comment.
Straightforward, eyes and shoulders front, look into the camera photographs, wether taken by pro photographers, clerks at passport offices, or automated machines can have extraordinary power and truth imbedded in them. The subject is not reacting to a photographers attempt to pull an expression out of them, they are not required to do anything but present themselves to the machine. They are not trying to engage the viewer. They are left to their own thoughts. What results is not just a map of someones face, but a glimpse of their state of mind, and, maybe even a little piece of their soul.
This is something that was understood well by People like Avedon, who certainly knew how to glamourise people if he chose, but set his tricks aside when doing much of his personal work.
It is perhaps hard for some photographers to accept that an automated portrait vending machine may produce portraits that may sometimes “capture the soul” of a person better than they could. I think it is important to bring these kinds of pictures to any serious discussion on image making just to keep us grounded and thinking about what it is that allows a photograph to communicate, and to remind us to try and not always be so clever.
I wish there were a photographic equivelent to “politics and the English language” by George Orwell
Gordon L.
the eyes of individuals in some of these Asian countries express so much of the collective sorrow of their race
—————————-
Kat, I know you did not say that, but I just cringed at reading that. Why would their race be collectively sorrowful? What an euro-centric reducing of Asian peoples (there are so many, with myriad diverse cultures). Surely, one would not speak of europeans/americans/occidentals as expressing a collective expression in portraits of them, but asians can be lumped together?….
I am not saying we can’t speak of certain traits you can find in many asian cultures (like curtailing one’s emotions in public, this less in China maybe) , but hell if that shows instantly on portraits, and the “devil” is still in the deatils/nuances, as in so many things.
You talked of 2 different contexts. One where yourself goes towards your subject with empathy. It does create a psychological frame in which much could be expressed, and where your own skill at seizing an emotion is paramount. on top, you will be here later to tell us about it as the photographer.
the context with ID picures is that we simply do not know, and we will never know. Yes, it could show sadness, but what is the sadness for, and is it real (lingering)? that is very subjective. It’s hard for me to say, I always smile…. But my Daddy, we always made fun of his ID portraits, he always looked like a psycopath with that “deer in the headlight” look.
i think the most telling thing about passport photos is that people are looking at a machine.. without human interaction to draw an expression or attitude out of them it could be true that people are at their most introverted.. if not vulnerable, at least alone with themselves and the way the look.
people get scared of portraits because there is something final about them, in so far as we percieve them still a little like paintings.. a likeness which will, or may at least, live beyond us and keep on representing us.. it´s nerve-racking for peole because of this i think.
the ambiguity with these photos is that there is no real way of finding out the pensive thoughts of the subjects without hearing from them directly… we can project onto them the imagined horror they could have been through, and use the context of the text to put US in the mind of why they might look so, even if they were not in that head-space themselves..
so long as there is individual consent to use the photographs from the women, it feels comfortable to talk about them as journalistic or artistic illustrations.
Herve
Gosh, you are right..i should clearly stick to a culture i know and that’s not the Asian one. I was thinking and reacting to your comment about Cambodia and Thailand and recalled a recent conversation with someone else and mentioned it conversationally. Hell, i probably didn’t even quote this person well as it was! But since i know this [.] much about the Asian culture i will leave those observations to the experts.
It wasn’t my intention to say that photos capture a culture’s emotional or psychological patterns. Perhaps they do. I never thought about it. Your gave the example of curtailing one’s emotions in public. Photos taken in Costa Rica and earlier on in the US mainly portray unsmiling people. But that doesn’t mean they were/are sad. Anyway, that wasn’t what i meant about the photos in this essay which was a group of Muslim women who looked infinitely sad to me. And heaven knows i still see their faces in my head. I could practically tick them off right here. David AH was so right in his reaction to them. They make an indelible impression. So, ok, clear on that, yes?
Yes, Herve, i hear what you’re saying about ID photos but when you see a group of them together, gathered under virtually identical circumstances and each to a one looks pained, well, you can conclude that either there was some common physical discomfort affecting the group or else there was something else. And to me, and to the two David’s and to Gordon and to who knows how many others who saw the essay before it was pulled felt it was something else.
GORDON
Well said…you, as a portrait photographer are extremely sensitive to the human face and its infinite range of expressions..nice to know you reacted this strongly as well..
take care, both
kat/
Herve
One more thing..i am working like a maniac on a couple of photo projects and so i probably will not be back to respond if you write. Just want you to know it’s not indifference it’s just that i’m working elsewhere.
best
kat~
Kathleen…
My comments were more general and were not focused on this specific essay or in portrait photography per say.
About portraits:
Many people exhibit some of the symptoms of OCD in their everyday behavior… from not stepping on the cracks of the sidewalk to clicking their clicky pens an odd number of times… I, let’s say, need things to fall into “their place” in my frame before I can press the release. Combining this with the “need” to spot meter at least a few times and focus and refocus (my cameras are all manual), and you can imagine that I’m not shooting too many portraits, right…? So, I haven’t being able (yet) to break through my own constrains and go to the place where you are (and pretty much any good portrait photographer is) and be able to SEE the flitting expressions of emotions on people’s faces while holding a camera in their faces, instantly and intuitively assess those expressions and actually, finally capture them.
My main argument here was against the idea of “pure” PJ-ism. The idea that a “straight out of the camera” picture is somehow a more real representation of reality than a picture which was manipulated (within reason) in order to “express” reality according to the person who actually experienced reality, the photographer.
There are too many—both technical and aesthetical—factors into the making of any picture to say that a single one of them makes-or breaks-the whole thing.
In my mind it always comes down to the intentions of the photographer. And the difference between a picture/essay that “works” and one that doesn’t comes down to the successful (or not) implementation of all of those factors.
Photographs should not be considered innocent transcriptions of the real. They should be treated as complex material objects with the ability to create, articulate and sustain meaning. Photography is a signifying system, which imposes order and creates particular sets of meaning. One of the characteristics of photography is that it appears to have a special relationship with reality. We speak of taking photographs rather than making them, because the marks of their construction are not immediately visible; they have the appearance of having come about as a function of the world itself rather than as carefully fabricated cultural objects. Documentation cannot act to reveal inequalities in social life, for there can be no document that is merely a transcription of reality. Rather, as part of a discursive system, it constructs the reality that it purports to reveal. (Liz Wells)
We need to trust, not the mechanical properties of the camera but the personal integrity of the photographer. The reality revealed by the cameras lens should be regarded as being to some extent a product of the personality, sensitivity or creativity of the photographer. The camera cannot provide the objective facts. (Liz Wells)
“Photographs can lie and liars can use photographs” – I can’t remember who said that, but I think it may have been the late great Philip Jones Griffiths.
“We speak of taking photographs rather than making them…..” Some of us make photographs, snap and make them
Gordon
“It is perhaps hard for some photographers to accept that an automated portrait vending machine may produce portraits that may sometimes “capture the soul” of a person better than they could.”
Cannot agree more on this: I strongly believe (and apply to my way of shooting) that every portrait is basically a self-portrait of the photographer or, as Oscar Wilde better wrote: “Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter. The sitter is merely the accident, the occasion. It is not he who is revealed by the painter; it is rather the painter who, on the coloured canvas, reveals himself”. This could seems extremely far from a documentaristic approach but, on the other hand, also a photojournalistic shot is just a subjective view of something happening and, in this case, the crowd of safety cameras in the streets could be considered the equivalent of photobooths. Actually, it seems to me that the authorial approach is valued and pushed for on Burn also for strictly photojournalistic essays.
a group of them together, gathered under virtually identical circumstances
——————————–
But that’s my point, Kat. David P. started a narrative that called for our compassion. And he is the one who put them together, ID pix are not really taken in group (it may be that you think they were taken in the refuge, I think they were taken back home, different countries, years even.
Who knows, since he never explained much as to his process?
We react to the photos because we were told they were trafficked women. Take the same expressions, but no veil, and even a different ethnic background, let’s say caucasian, do you think trafficked. Would you think that no caucasian women can ever have that trafficked, exploited look on their faces?
As another thread showed (black shroude women) and Audrey’s candid comment showed, we do project a lot that comes from us in a photo, much that may not be there. You do it, DAH does it , I do it. And the perception will differ, in the absence of sure facts about the context of the images.
that trafficked, exploited look on their faces?
———————
To be precise: meaning they are not trafficked, but have those expressions.
Abele
“every portrait is a self portrait”
In some sense that is true. I believe we are looking for a piece of our common humanity when we view or make portraits.
Photographers often consciously seek out the same piece in every person they portray. Arbus’ people always look pathetic. Lartiques people all look whimsical. Karshs people always look plastic and bigger than life. Avedons portraits often show a person with a slight sideways unfocused glance, and the look of someone searching the melancholy section of the memory banks. I watched a video of him doing a sitting once. He asked the sitter a question something like “what would you be doing if you knew you only had a few days to live”. Then he photographed the reaction.
Part of making a deliberate portrait is having the skill to allow the expression you want happen, and be ready to capture it when it does. Unless you are working with a trained actor, you cannnot ask someone to “look sad and thoughtful” and get a genuine expression anymore than you can get a genuine smile by asking someone for a “big smile now”.
Gordon L.
Wow, so much good stuff from you guys..and no time..well, anyway, to Herve:
Herve
Yes, of course, it´s possible that in David P´s edit ID photos of smiling women need not apply. I do see your point but my point, and it´s a simple one really, to me: the fact that they were supposedly trafficked had nothing to do with the sadness i saw. I saw it before i read the text. They could all have been shot standing in a line at the bus stop and my reaction would have been the same. They are Muslim women. That was a clear fact. Indisputable. Trafficked? mmm..who can say for sure but David P? Taken in the same place? Well, unless Muslim women all wear the same shade of pink lip gloss as most of these women did, then i would have to say yes, all taken in the same place. In what country? That i couldn´t say. But..but..apart from all the speculation, were they all sad? To me? yes, indisputably. Great discussion, Herve!
bob-black-running
kathie
Any of you knows about the pictures Marc Garanger took during the Algerian war? I can’t seem to find a link of pictures to show you. Marc Granager was a conscript during the war and had to take ID pictures of Algerian men and women, unveiled suspected of various degrees of support to the resistance…
The only thing I can provide is this link: http://www.noorderlicht.com/eng/fest04/princessehof/garanger/index.html
Typo: the name is Marc Garanger
John
Yes, i think he´s the one i´ve been trying to think of. In the not too distant past i saw photos of Muslim women who were forced to take their veils off for ID purposes during wartime (or immediately after?). I´ve been searching through my books to find it but without success..will check this link to see if it´s the same..thanks sooo much!!
best
kathleen
John,
Checked the link, yes, this has to be the same thing i am remembering..i recall the photographer was under orders of the French government and that the country was Algeria. I can stop beating my head against a wall now (and i can also put all my books away), phew, THANK YOU!!
kat
They are Muslim women. That was a clear fact.
——————————————-
yes, they are, that was not really where none of us differred. Anyway, I had to think about you this morning, when I saw this young muslim woman, almost stripped naked, looking into the camera. yet, she seemed to put a good face (if shrouded) to her ordeal. Just bearing testimony…. :-)))
dedicated to you, Kat:
http://www.pbase.com/uc/image/112643672
hahaha, Herv..yes, she was putting a brave face, er, brave eyes on her ordeal..an interesting photo indeed..what was the event? left you a comment over there..
like peace, man ;)
kat~
Kat, I mentionned the evnt in the caption: Bay to breakers. Taking down the pix, it was just a little prank.
Herve..
sorry, didn´t know what Bay to Breakers referred to..not being a left-coaster as it were..i liked it! Your pranks are a welcome diversion..long as you stay your always sweet, lovable self :)
best
kat-
Pingback: david plummer maison de la chance at burn magazine | Outdoor Decor