In the first world
a lot of women try to keep the scars of time away through the use of
cosmetics and or surgery (now even men do) suggesting that they the
wrinkles reveal age and ought to be something to vanish. However
men are more willing to offer their scars as proof of having survived
under duress, it's debatable that it exemplifies their maleness.
How our likeness appears within a picture is at
times a difficult discussion. We all want to put the "best spin" on
what we perceive to be the best "angle". I believe this is a very legitimate
attitude, but it is not always well understood. That is because sometimes
the subject is really mistaken as to what makes him or her "look good".
Again, there is no universal correct response to such an issue either.
No one can assure that presenting ones' scars (or wrinkles) is going
to lead to anyone's approval; the ultimate measure is how does the subject
feel about it all, regardless of the end result.
The struggle seems to be between the photographer
and his creative impulses and that of the person depicted in the image.
In more advanced societies the rights of the person photographed are
protected through the use of "model release" forms which insure that
the person in the image is actually comfortable with the photograph,
before allowing it's publication.
But what happens to all those less protected by
a legal system where there is no recourse? Photographers have traditionally
traveled throughout the world considering it their God given right
to imprint their film with anyone's image regardless of what his or
her opinions about the subject might be. I have myself participated
extensively in this double standard of asking permission when the
circumstance demanded that I do, and neglecting to do the same towards
those who were less understanding about the photographic process.
I am not proud of this lopsided process, but the truth is that this
is what has happened and most probably will continue in the future,
as much as one would like to avoid it.
At stake in this debate is our freedom as photographers
vs. the individual rights of those depicted. Freedom as in creative
expression or documentary responsibility. There are no easy answers.
Imagine a photographer documenting the atrocities perpetrated in a war
zone. I can imagine that asking for permission to make pictures would
be the last thing on his or her mind. Or what about photographing someone
walking on the street. Is that a space that belongs to the public domain?
And therefore asking to make pictures does not make sense, or are there
exceptions to such situations.
For photographers, the argument has been that
"if I asked", the photographic moment (decisive moment ?) would have
been lost by the time I could have received permission. But in all
fairness this argument is not quite as solid as it sounds, because
there is no difference between the "photographic moment" which could
have been lost when it happens in the first world to one in a third
world situation. If photography can still be carried out within the
framework where strict approval is required in the first world, then
one also has to make the effort in situations that might be more relaxed
about such questions. It's about justice, isn't it?
To take a short cut is very tempting for a photographer.
Why ask for permission when it is not strictly required? And the answer
is rather simple. Because when possible the courtesy of "asking rather
than grabbing" is seen over the world as the preferable choice. The
question then becomes, do we need or want to be courteous all the time?
In a perfect world the response is quite obvious. That leaves the other
half of the question unanswered, what about in an imperfect world, what
should it be? I know, "grabbing" is unavoidable in an imperfect world.
For instance in photojournalism, a scenario could be: while I would
ask for permission, my competing colleague already grabbed the image.
Solution? As in all such cases, there are no fast and easy answers.
To establish rules that are universal would be shear folly as the diversity
of how the image making process goes is too diverse to come up with
one dimensional rules.
So let us get back to requesting permission to publish,
which is not always possible, as in good conscience one can say that
sometimes it is impossible to locate the people in an image. Also there
are situations where the simple participation of the person or persons
in a picture is tantamount to an informal "model release". This occurs
as when a friend allows another to make a picture of her or him, or
a relative participates willingly in the ritual of picture taking. One
also has to recognize that many of the issues around "model release"
have less to do with the issue of satisfying the person' s control over
their image, than with shear economic issues of making money out the
sale of a picture.
Most recently with the advances of digital technology
I have been able to show those I photograph the results right away.
My camera even has a small monitor to show the picture as soon as
the shutter is pressed. I show the picture, and my subjects either
like it or not, and we continue with our visual explorations. The
subjects are hesitant when looking at themselves, no one seems to
like how they look (and neither does anyone like how their voice sounds)
and very often they are not quite sure as to how they really feel
about the image. The photographer' s reassurance becomes very important
during those moments of anxiety when a gaze is exchanged, suggesting
the question: " I don't look good in that picture, do I?"
Yes, you look great ! Remember scars are the evidence
of life. There are other scars however that are not external, and
for the thoughtful photographer these can be seized as well. The challenge
is to enter those spaces mostly with permission.
Pedro Meyer's photographs are found in the collections of more than 40 major museums throughout the world. He's also authored several books, including Los Cohetes Duraron Todo el Dia; Tempii di America; and Espejo de Espinas. His column appears each month in Camera Works.