In week three we were given a task to listen to The Photo Ethics podcast featuring Anthony Luvera talking about “collaborative representation”
The 40 minute podcast hosted by Savannah Dodd was downloaded to my fruit-based device and streamed to the car play stereo on my drive to University, I had tried to listen to it previously, a couple of times whilst lying in bed but both times I nodded off. I was alert and ready to listen to the interesting conversation this morning and heard Anthony Luvera discussing his practice and work.
Luvera is a collaborative, socially engaged photographer who invites people to collaborate in his projects which can entail the subjects taking part in them or being the sole subject of them
He told Dodd and the listeners that some of the work he’s completed such as the “assisted self portraits” (which brings to mind the term “assisted suicide”) for people experiencing homelessness. Later in the podcast he was keen that he does not refer to people experiencing homelessness as “Homeless People” as he feels this is a label for a characteristic when the person may be experiencing it for a short time or a longer time, but will not always be homeless.
Also images of other groups, and it was interesting to hear how much of his practice is collaboration, it sounds as though nothing happens without first collaborating and checking in with his critical friends as he described them.
‘This idea of consent is a dialogue. And just because a participant may say yes, it doesn’t preclude them from having the capacity or right to say no and to withdraw that consent.’ (10.26) This point was made and he talked specifically about a subject who wanted their image removed from an exhibition only to ask for it back on display again once it had been removed. It’s an important point and it’s the same in life in general, just because you consented at the time doesn’t mean that you consent forever. This reminds me of the Tea Consent video that my children showed me as part of discussions regarding their growing up and birds & bees chats.
The conversation around ethics was an interesting one as it sounds, even after his time as a collaborative photographer, as though he doesn’t truly know the right way to collaborate and he freely admits that this changes from job to job. People are different in every walk of life so one must tailor the approach for the particular person being collaborated with.
Money, Money, Money
He talked about payment for the subjects of the photographs and it came about as part of the introduction to the projects that he was starting. He was working for Kodak and had spare disposable cameras and developing vouchers, and decided to empower the people experiencing homelessness to write their own stories using these cameras. The questions he had at an intro meeting included: ‘ Why are you doing this? What’s in it for me? What will I get out of this? Are you making money out of this? How can I make money out of this? What is this for?’ (21.55)
Luvera thinks about payment for the subjects and how some might have their benefits impacted. He tells us a story about inviting one of the the participants to an event where they were paid a speakers fee. This would not be possible without them participating in the first place, but he’s empowering the people he works with to take more than just a photograph from the experience.
One of the other important points is that he mentions setting expectations with the people he’s collaborating with. He does not promise them that the project or their involvement will make any grand changes and thus allows the participants to make fully informed choices.
Going back to a comment I made in the exhibition Soft Power by Su Richardson, regarding my perception that I could not comment on her work and what it means thoroughly because it is not my lived experience. It was interesting to hear that Luvera as part of the “queer” community struggled with a similar question on his ability to collaborate and comment on LGBTQ+ issues because he has no lived experience of the communities involved.
Whilst I appreciate the effort that Luvera has gone to in order to make the subjects of the collaborations feel more involved and more empowered, I don’t feel that this type of collaboration is something that I would participate in as a photographer. As part of my practice I do not usually get involved with photography of large groups of people but I have in the past been at events with varied attendees and taken candid photos as well as arranged group photos. This might be a form of collaboration but it’s not on the same scale as Luvera. If some people do not want their image captured at an event then that’s cool and I respect their wishes.
On The Street
If however, I am in a street photography session, I tend to collaborate even less with the subjects. Mostly I will take photographs of people in public places without permission and in full view. I do not generally hide the fact that I’m taking a photograph unless it looks like a confrontation might be on the cards in which case, I will employ a distraction technique where I come up from the viewfinder looking at something else behind the subject or up in the air.
Some street photographers choose not to take photos of people who are experiencing homelessness or those affected by drugs and alcohol addiction. Other photographers make images of everything and I can see the logic behind both ideas. In the former case, some photographers don’t want to take advantage of someone who may be suffering the hardships of modern society by fixing the misery or dire circumstances on film or sensor. Other photographers who do capture images like this might be totally democratic and choose to take pictures of everyone equally, without any discrimination. It may be that the photos of people in difficult circumstances capture the real life of our society and could effect some social or political change. Does not making images hide the fact that many citizens of our “developed” country are in desperate need of support, a roof over their heads or counselling and rehabilitation. It’s a tricky subject and one that will no doubt be relevant for a long time to come.
I look at images by celebrated photographers like Robert Frank and Vivian Maier who both acted democratically in the area they were at the time and captured all facets of the society, whether rich or poor and sometimes even rich and poor in the same photograph showing the contradictory nature of the human race. Some of these documents created by street photographers including Lee Friedlander, Alex Soth, Helen Levitt and Gary Winogrand are now very important from an historic point of view.
My View
For me personally, I’ll take photographs of situations that are interesting and raise questions for the viewer. If there is a person asleep on the floor of the high street due to alcohol abuse, won’t take a photo just because. However if there was a juxtaposition of the subject being asleep outside a temperance house for instance, (if it was the 1830s) or another interesting contradiction or event then I would capture the image. The same goes for people with disabilities also, I won’t simply take an image of someone with a disability unless there is something in the photo that raises a question or a contradiction, sometimes even humorous circumstances. If I were to choose not to take a photo as the subject suffers from a disability then I would consider it positive discrimination and treating them differently because of a protected characteristic.
Don’t get me wrong, I also ask people if I can take their photo so that I can ask them to repeat something they just did, or if it might make life easier. I’m always polite and will ask them if I can make a portrait of them due to their hair or dress sense looking cool, or even their vibe. Most people are usually friendly and a little confused, and I don’t mind sharing the reasons behind my question, offering to send them pictures too if they want them. Other times people just don’t want a camera shoved in their face and if they say no I will respect it and leave them alone, with a nice thanks anyway to show them that it’s not upset me. I have no problem with this at all.
Is this last couple of paragraphs related to the ethics of collaboration that Luvera touches on in the podcast, yes, undoubtedly. Do I formalise it and make it part of the work? No. I do consider ethics when going around with the camera and have a balance approach which is required to avoid getting a punch on the nose. Some people I go on photo walks with will not take some photos that I would as they do not feel comfortable doing so. If asking the subject for a portrait is met with a “No” you haven’t lost anything, but you’ve gained an experience of interacting with someone new and the more this is done the easier it gets.
Be First to Comment