The right to create self expression is more important than the right to privacy or the infringement of particular moral codes (i.e. religious, violence, war, taboo etc.. ) Discuss in terms of two or more visual examples.
What is Art? Is Art another way of defining self expression? These are questions that society has been trying to answer for a very long time. The dictionary definition of art is a product, process or activity that arranges symbolic elements in such a way as to provoke one or more of the senses into an emotional and/or intellectual response. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art - 21/12/2010) This is a definition that I would have to agree with. Unfortunately, there has always been an element of society that is unable to embrace this broad definition, usually through being blinkered by moralistic definition of what is acceptable and what is not.
In photography, there is another factor as well as defining art, which is the element of truth and reality that is involved in a photograph, something that may not be a factor in a painting or a sculpture. A perceived reality that can sway society into not accepting photography as art, but as a depiction of reality, or a misrepresentation of the truth.
While these issues affect all areas of the arts, it is photography that has seemed to inflame opinion more then any other.
The Falling Man
This is The Falling Man, a photograph taken by Richard Drew on 11th September 2001. I am using this photograph as an example of both defining photography as art, and as an example of how society judges works based on ethical and moral values. Critically, it doesn’t use any particular compositional techniques, apart from the use of pattern and line. In fact, at first I found the way the frame is split in half to be quite distracting as it seems to break all the rules on compositional elements. But this picture is not about composition or formal elements. This photograph is about choosing how to die. Once you can understand this, the uneasiness of the divided frame now seems to add to thedisturbing nature of the subject, the light and dark halves representing the starkness of the choice made by the man in the picture; either to jump, or to burn to death.
Drew was doing a fashion shoot on the morning of 911, but when he received word of the disaster, he quickly made his way to Ground Zero in order to document what he realised was quickly becoming an historical event. After the initial plane crashes, fire quickly took hold of the building, and as the smoke became thicker and more toxic it wasn’t long before trapped people began to jump from the building
“ I was standing between a police officer and a woman EMS worker all of a sudden the woman said ‘oh look’ and she pointed, so we looked – all three of us looked up – and people started coming down from the world trade centre. Bodies were falling so I instinctively picked up my camera and started taking pictures. It’s what I do….”
“…you could hear the sound. They would fall to a certain point and then I couldn’t see then any more because my view was obstructed from where I was, but you could hear them hitting the ground, like a sack of cement, a big thud.”…… Richard Drew from “The Falling Man” documentary film by Henry Singer 2006. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXnA9FjvLSU – 23/12/2010)
The outrage began at the time of the event itself, as people in the street protested at the photographing and filming of people jumping:- Bill Feehan, (left) second in command at the fire department, chased a bystander who was panning the jumpers with his video camera, demanding that he turn it off, bellowing, "Don't you have any human decency?" before dying himself when the building came down. (picture from life.com)http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0903-SEP_FALLINGMAN - 23/12/2010
When the falling man was published, the public reaction was to universally condemn the picture as ‘sick’, ‘inhuman’, ‘voyeuristic’ and ‘intrusive’, as the next day millions of people were unable to come to terms with the image. But why should people react in this way?
Legally there was nothing wrong with the photograph, it just seemed that there was a moral backlash against it. The people who saw the picture and complained seemed to have a problem dealing with the issue at hand, i.e. choosing how to die. This public reaction in itself, answers my first question. The picture’s emotional reaction certainly justifies its classification as a work of art, but it was this reaction that caused the picture to be pulled from the media the very next day, but why? This media reaction is one typical of commercial pressure taking precedence over editorial independence or artistic integrity. What this creates is a self-reinforced code of censorship governed by the moral minority in where if there are enough complaints, then the complaints themselves become the news story rather then what the complaints were initially about, which then increases the social reaction and thereby increasing complaints, etc.. It is this that dictates that once one publisher pulled the photo, then all publishers were obliged to follow suit as if governed by some type of commercial conformity.
This is how things would have stayed for The Falling Man were it not for reporter, Tom Junod, who was more intrigued by the reaction of the public then by the image itself:-
‘…The images that lasted are in the most case heroic pictures. There was a spin that came out of our feeling of being so deeply wounded on that day which was that we are Americans, and you may have knocked our buildings down you may have killed 3000 people but the American spirit shall prevail. Where as Richard Drew’s picture, the falling man picture, became for what ever reason, the picture that nobody wanted to look at’ Tom Junaud from “The Falling Man” documentary film by Henry Singer 2006. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXnA9FjvLSU – 23/12/2010)
Junod’s enquiries lead him to a Canadian reporter Peter Cheney, who had been asked by his editor to research into the identity of the Falling Man. This initially led to the family of Norberto Hernadez. The Hernandez family were initially outraged by the invasion of their privacy, but convinced by some members of the extended family that this was the right person, Cheney published his article. (http://journalism.ukings.ca/journalism_3978.html 23/12/2010)
Close relatives would not believe that it was Norberto, mainly due to the fact that he was a devout catholic and would never have jumped. In the end after the Hernandez Family had had time to come to terms with things, Junod contacted them, and for the first time showed them the full sequence of pictures. They were positive… that the picture was not Norberto. Juno did further research, that lead him to the family of Jonathan Briley. The family reaction could not have been more different.
The Briley family were not angry like the Hernandez’s. They were actually relieved that they had discovered the fate of their loved one. They believed that rather then the act of jumping being a sin, that by jumping he had committed an act of faith by consciously putting his life into the hands of God. Although the Brileys were never 100% convinced it was Jonathan, they came to terms that jumping was probably his fate that day. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXnA9FjvLSU – 23/12/2010)
How could these families have had such different reactions?
There is one possible answer, which is that by now it that it was 5 years after 911 when Tom Junod contacted the Briley family. I cannot help remembering looking into the theory of hyperreallity and the writings of Jean Baudrillard. Was the passage of time influential in the changing attitude towards the falling man?
Windswept Jackie by Ron Galella
In comparison with the image off the Falling Man, I have chosen to look at this image in particular, and the work of Ron Galella in general. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Galella, 27/12/2010)Ron Galella has worked as a New York freelance photo-journalist for the last 50 years. He took this picture on the streets of New York in 1971.
(http://www.rongalella.com/index.html 27/12/2010)
Galella began his photographic career as a photographer for the US Air Force during the Korean War. After that he got a degree in Photojournalism from the Art Centre College of Design in Los Angeles. Since then, he’s been snapping away at celebrities ever since. He’s still working today even at the age of 79.
Galella’s philosophy has always been to do whatever it takes to get the picture. He was what we would recognise today as a ‘Paperazzi’ photographer. In his recent biopic documentary by Leon Ghast called ‘Smash His Camera’ (allegedly a quote from Jackie Onassis) footage shows how he would stake out his subject, by following them in his car at speed, and then making holes in one celebrity’s hedge in order to get his shot.
http://nymag.com/news/features/50264/ - 29/12/2010
Famously Galella was taken to court by Jackie Onassis and was ordered to keep a minimum of 30 feet distance from her. Galella’s response was to turn up at Jackie Onassis’s next public appearance with a tape measure, and to get photographed with her while measuring the distance.
(http://openjurist.org/487/f2d/986/galella-v-onassis, 29/12/2010)
He also had an altercation with Marlon Brando who allegedly punched Galella in the face, breaking his Jaw and knocking out 5 teeth. Following this incident Galella famously wore a helmet the next time he tried to get Brando’s picture.
(http://www.time.com/time/photogallery /0,29307,2008078_2171516,00.html, 29/12/2010)
So how does the work of Galella fit within the framework of Art and the subject of morality? Clearly the work of Galella is morally suspicious.
The first question to ask is if it is art? If I apply the same criteria as for the Falling Man, then I simply cannot define this image in the same way. It doesn’t give the same emotional response as the Falling Man does, even though it is technically a better photograph. It doesn’t seem to ask any questions of the viewer, it’s just a picture of a woman. Only the fame of the subject that gives the image any value in my eyes. I can however say that there is an emotive response from the methods of the photographer. This must dictate that even though the work fails the test, the artist passes it, and therefore the work must be art.
In comparing the Falling Man to the work of Galella, there are different issues at work. In writing this piece, I have thought long and hard about what are the general ethics that concern us within the context of these two pieces of work.
First, privacy is the right of an individual to be secluded from the presence or view of others. In taking a picture, the photographer makes a likeness of an identifiable individual. If this image has been taken without permission, then has a person’s privacy been invaded? The law in general states that you have the right to privacy only on private property where you cannot be seen or approached by others. There is no right to privacy in a public place. There is one fundamental exception to privacy where an invasion of privacy can be justified as in the public interest. It is these issues of privacy and public interest that bring the work of photographers like Ron Galella in to question.
Secondly, is it moral? The idea of morality is that of acting within a standard of right or good conduct. This doesn’t just mean respecting privacy as defined within the law, but considering other aspects of how a work may affect others. While the Falling Man did not invade the privacy of the individual subject, the piece did make a significant number of people confront issues against their own personal wishes. Is it moral to shock people in this way?
Finally is it ethically acceptable to take advantage? When all else is taken into account, is it ethical to sell any images that may infringe on other people’s rights or beliefs? Ethics don’t seem to be a problem for Ron Galella, who has made it his life’s work to push the boundaries of privacy and morally acceptable work. The Falling man however is a different proposition. Richard Drew took his picture in order to document the fate of not just one man, but all of the people who decided not to die of suffocation at the top of the World Trade Centre that day.
In the end, can Art take precedence over the moral or ethical rights of the individual? The answer to that question is a matter of justification. The Falling man is justified, and it is now accepted as an iconic image of the 21st century. As for Galella, I think his work will become famous as the first of its kind, and perhaps time will tell on its artistic value in the same way the work of Weegee is revered now. What is interesting is the role of the media in defining the moral values by which the works are judged. It was the media that dictated the fate of the Falling Man based on the feedback of a tiny minority of the millions of people that saw the image the next day. Yet the media actively encourages the work of the paparazzi by buying the pictures.
Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art - definition of art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXnA9FjvLSU Henry Singer’s ‘The Falling Man’ film.
http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0903-SEP_FALLINGMAN Tom Junod’s original article.
http://journalism.ukings.ca/journalism_3978.html Peter Cheney’s original article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Galella, biopic of Ron Galella
http://www.rongalella.com/index.html The web site of Ron Galella
http://openjurist.org/487/f2d/986/galella-v-onassis, US Court of Appeal ruling
http://nymag.com/news/features/50264/ New York Magazine feature on Ron Galella
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2008078_2171516,00.html, Ron Galella wearing a football helmet with Marlon Brando.
