In Discussion: Viewer or Voyeur?

As part of my photography degree we are encourage to engage in discussions on online forums such as morals, sociological and legal issues in photography. This post will discuss the morality and ethics in reportage photography.

I had read an article on The Guardian: 'Viewer or Voyeur? The morality of reportage photography' (Mar 8 2010) [1] looking at the ethics of bearing witness to horrific events and where you drawn the line for what is accepted. In response I do believe that today's society is more desensitized to sensitive material such as Farah Abdl Warsameh's 'Stoned to Death' Associate Press photograph in Somalia (see below)

Image Source http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/mar/08/world-press-photo-sean-ohagan

Dominating newspapers and press organizations are demanding more shocking imagery to show to the world which is pushing the boundaries of what is acceptably seen on the news. Today's generation is growing up in a world where globalization continues to grow and where technology and 'freedom of speech' have allowed reportage photography to be simultaneously sent through the world meaning in turn we are getting used to these 'shocking' images.

Regarding morality and ethics in response to Sean O’Hagans The Guardian post I do not think the photographer had prior communication to the victim or had been granted permission; to raise these concerns is absurd. War photography is gritty, violent and ultimately shocking due to the horrific acts of what humans do to each other; to fully sensor what really is happening is masking the truth and I believe photography is a mode of trying to tell the truth to an extent. To a point the viewer can feel shocked to a ‘kind of impassioned helplessness’ but for Susan Sontag to suggest that ‘we’ do not have the right to view a photograph, only those who can do something to alleviate it undermines the power of the average good-willed citizen; anyone can make a change. In this respect we are viewers.

I agree with this post: http://politicstheoryphotography.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/on-ethics-of-representation-missing.html in response to Sean O’Hagan’s post and enjoy the tone it is written in.

What do you think?

References

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/mar/08/world-press-photo-sean-ohagan [Accessed 19/03/12]

Useful Links

Answers.com - Oxford Companion to the Photograph: Ethics and photography http://www.answers.com/topic/ethics-and-photography
Associated Press http://www.ap.org/

Beauty In Discussion: Katie Price Vs Orlan

In the world of art the concept of beauty has been a popular topic to explore, often being the basis of many creations and ideas. In this discussion I will be comparing the idea of glamour (Katie Price, former glamour model known as Jordan) Vs art (Orlan, a eccentric French artist known for her unusual performance art) and their methods of beauty modifications in relation to conformity.

Katie Price (Glamour) Vs Orlan (Art)

After reading the Guardian's article on Orlan's work (Orlan's art of sex and surgery) and the BBC video interviewing Katie Price (Price: Breast implants 'need age limit'), the discussion on the concept of beauty and using cosmetic surgery as a means to alter a person’s appearance is certainly interesting with varying viewpoints.

Orlan's work can be seen as extremist especially in her unorthodox ways of presenting her ideas through art in particular her performance art. She is renowned for her many cosmetic alterations to her face where she has 'altered her mouth to imitate that of François Boucher's Europa, another changed her forehead to mimic the protruding brow of Leonardo's Mona Lisa, while yet another altered her chin to look like that of Botticelli's Venus.' (The Guardian) The idea of filming herself conscious in the operating theatre is hard to digest particularly as no other artist has done this before. Many people see this as crazy and that she's taken 'art' too far, however this raises questions such as 'what is art?'. Personally I find her work interesting especially her concepts but I am put off by her method of execution as I am not too keen on conceptual performance art as I am not as appreciative of this form. It is rather eccentric and radical.

Still from Orlan, Carnal Art by Stephen Oriach

The fact that Orlan is strong rooted in her feminist beliefs makes her work much more powerful and without this the concept of beauty would be completely changed. Beauty through female eyes are perceived and received differently than the man's. I like how Orlan challenges the idea of 'what is beautiful' and by representing her concepts by physically altering her body, she not only goes to show that the human body is a canvas but makes you think of ideas of conforming to a social norm (the standardized beauty, if there is one?) and whether cosmetic surgery really does make you beautiful.

In relation to glamour (Katie Price) Vs art (Orlan) their concepts and procedure are the same yet the perception is completely different. Stereotypically men would find Katie more appealing after her breast implants etc, as large breasts, blonde hair, small waist etc. is the 'comic-book' image of an ideal desirable woman whereas Orlan has created a protruding brow etc. which isn't seen as beautiful. Perhaps if society was socialized in accepting protruding brows as being desirable more men would find Orlan attractive. This debate returns to the idea of 'Standardized idea of beauty' Vs 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.

In conclusion there isn't any difference between the idea of altering your appearance to 'conform' to a particular ideal of beauty whether it's Katie Price or Orlan doing it, the question that is being asked is 'Conformity to the majority or minority?'

(This discussion has been a response to my Photography degree forum on 'Orlan: Narcissist or Cultural commentator?)

Image Sources:

Katie Price Portrait

Orlan Portrait

Still from Orlan, Carnal Art

Sources:

The Guardian

BBC News Health

Further Reading:

idebate: Cosmetic Surgery