"...there is something predatory in the act of taking a picture. To photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as they never see themselves, by having knowledge of them, they can never have; it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed. Just as the camera is a sublimination of the gun, to photograph someone is a subliminated murder." (Susan Sontag, 1977)
Sontag was known as a literary theorist, a writer and activist who visited Hanoi during the Viet Nam war. Some years later, she wrote on her philosophy of photography and I can imagine her time in Hanoi was of influence on her ideas. I've spent the last few weeks diving into her book, On Photography. To the say the least, her outlook on the mind of a photographer or perhaps humanity in general seems rather dark.
To further discuss the quote above, Sontag was one who introduced this concept of violent picture taking. But interestingly enough I would have to agree to the extent the photographing a human being is to see something, artistically, that they may not see. Each photographer has an eye for something different...and their view on the world is typically from the outside-in. By snapping a picture it's as if they are seeking a way in, searching for a perspective in the shot that no one else may have, and certainly not their subject. It is perhaps their way of searching for an understanding of the world around them.
From reading the same passage, a blogger and Afghanistan aid worker, Harry Rud, once wrote- "To get someone in range and shoot them could be said of using a gun or a camera. There is a violence about taking a photo."
Murder, shooting a gun destroys the person's life. On the other hand, shooting a camera, leaves them to live. Yet, does it not, capture their life, even just for a moment? When I take the picture, am I not, as I explained above, looking to see something they cannot, and will essentially catch them off gaurd only to be seen in the photo? It is a battle of wondering how intrusive the act of photographing really becomes. Even for those subjects who pose, are they not hoping that they will be seen better than how they see themselves? Is it not a hope that the photographer will take from them the very thing they desire, a side of life, in themeselves they do not see but hope for? Perhaps the photographer can take it and make it so.
There is a second idea that may follow Sontag's thoughts. Being a photo-journalist or something of the sort- requires a mind-set of strict observation. In a dangerous situation, in one of distress, the photographer must choose between capturing the hanus action or helping the victim of it. In most cases, in almost all, the photographer will choose to take the picture and the victim is left helpless. To show the world the reality of what is...means, at times, that one must forget for just a moment...justice. Or so it seems.
Can the two go together? Sontag doesn't seem to think so. Bringing awareness is simply that. On one hand, justice is telling the story through the pictures, on the other, it is an observation and the photographer must be outside of it, not feel the emotions as deeply so that they can capture the distress & leave others to fill that void...to aid.
While it is a rather confusing catch-22, I believe, simply put, I don't think it's black and white, somehow, there must be room for both. I believe that the photographer can be the aid worker. It is my personal goal to give others voice, a face, that they may not have otherwise. But it is also my goal to feed their need, to push them forward to a better life. How to do so will depend on the circumstance, nevertheless, I don't know that it has to be a choice b/t one or the other.
