A few years ago while photographing a project during the summer solstice at Stonehenge I climbed onto one of the stones for a better vantage point to better photograph some of the celebrations. This isn’t the first ancient or heritage site I’ve climbed on in my life, but it’s probably the most famous.
England is built on layers of ruins dating back many thousands of years, and my childhood walks in nearby countryside would being me to WWII era turrets, ruined medieval structures, and many other relics – and I didn’t even live in an especially rural area! It’s hard not to trip over ancient artifacts wherever you go, although sometimes it is not particularly obvious. On the banks of the Thames there are often mudlarkers sifting through the constant wash-ups; old bones, pieces of pipes and pottery, and the occasional gold coin.
[Warning: This article contains images that some viewers may find disturbing. Viewer discretion is advised.]
My relationship with certain spaces and objects is based on my experiences and perspectives. I don’t see a clear line between the commonly understood “past” and “present”. Back to the Stonehenge example it is surely incredibly old, but it’s here today, a live space where ritual and other practices take place in the present day – it doesn’t pause or stop, and it won’t even if it were put behind glass in a museum. If it were put behind glass then what would be the point? It may as well be a photograph or a projection.
I understand the perspective that preservation is a more correct path than leaving things to erode without intervention, but I mostly fall to disagreement with it. However, I think that difference of opinion doesn’t equate to disrespect if there isn’t intent to deliberately belittle someone else’s belief. That doesn’t mean someone else won’t feel disrespected just because there was no intent either. Different relationships, conflicting yet coexisting sentiment means that behavior will often cross other peoples boundaries, leaving some feel horrified at the actions of another despite no hostility of intent.
The relationship of people engaging with the stones with great reverence and respect, using them as a religious site, climbing them and performing rituals around them, and the relationship of people who view the stones with great reverence and respect but who would never dream of touching let alone climbing one are so different from one another, yet both are rooted in that reverential and respectful basis.
With this much nuance to approaching the idea of respecting something inanimate, how much more nuance ought to be required for the complexity of decision-making behind respecting living beings, people’s relationships with one another, their behaviors, and everything that contributes towards the way we treat our neighbors, friends, antagonists, everyone we ever come into contact with in our life.
Photography is something of an attempt at preservation, and just as there are differences of opinion about how sacred ancient objects should be treated there are differences of opinion on how photography “ought” to be done, in a respectful way and what actually constitutes that respectful practice.
Context and transparency to frame a body of work is a good place to start. Sharing an image alone may work to amplify a message, but if there’s ambiguity then that amplification becomes distorted through interpretation. Pre-emptively countering alternative perspectives provides structure and foundation to guide your audience, even if they choose to ignore it.
Context especially matters when imagery and meaning cross over cultural expectations, which in photography as a universal visual medium is very common. These photographs made by Mumbai based photographer Suresh Naganathan depict devotees in a trance like state during a religious celebration.
From the perspective of a culture that does not commonly see a state like this outside of drug influence in a nightclub these photographs could be seen as very undignified, far from how they would want to be photographed or seen themselves.
I have photographed similar events in my local Hindu community, but my work is very different, a different perspective which emphasizes different aspects of the proceedings, and I’m aware that my images are shaped by my perception, the moments I raise my camera feel less energetic and expressive then Naganathan’s, or at least energetic and expressive in different ways. A different view of pain and perseverance through it, but neither is “disrespectful” even though they are very different visual interpretations of similar circumstances.
I see the same in my documentation of Tatbir, a Muslim self-flagellation practice. The moments I photograph lean into my perception of dignity, calm amidst chaos, although another photographer with a different perspective may come away with accurate, true to life images that show entirely different moments, of wide eyed, blood soaked intensity, while still maintaining a position of respect. Within the Shia community and greater Islamic community Tatbir is a controversial practice, with some scholars labeling it as haram. So would the truer respect be to not photograph it at all, or to portray it in a negative light in deference to those scholars?
If you accept universal nuance and dignity behind everything, in a kind of radical acceptance, then respect sort of becomes arbitrary. Is it an affront to the efforts of another photographer, working to dignify under-represented or oppressed voices through their photography if I afford that same dignity to the “other side” of the conflict, and vice versa? If what’s being photographed in one culture is seen as irreconcilably undignified in another, how do you navigate presenting and contextualizing the work?
From my sales and following on social media and my blog I know that my audience is mostly English speaking from the UK or USA, which means my documentation of non-familiar cultures and communities even within those countries might be a first time introduction. I’m guided by my philosophies and relationships with those ways of life along with the way I think existing narratives shape perception of them.
However, I don’t think it should be based in too personal an empathy; just because you wouldn’t want to be photographed in a certain way doesn’t mean that it isn’t the ideal way to photograph someone else, but it might take a photographer who feels that way to actually make the image. One person’s dignity might be someone else’s source of ridicule; photographing someone from a classic low-angle “power” stance to present them as regal might be interpreted as haughty and faux superior. Someone crying in a moment of sorrow might make for a powerful metaphor or an intrusion on their pain.
Respectful practice in an attempt to portray someone with dignity can still result in an image onto which dishonor and derision can be projected. Sometimes there’s nothing in the content of a photograph itself worth dwelling on, but connotations can be present outside of the photographer’s intent. This relates to semiotics, as no visual sign has a fixed meaning, everything shifts and contexts change over time.
Where does this leave the vision and intent of the photographer? If the symbols used in their work are not nailed down then what’s the point of trying? If someone photographs and edits even a simple, uncontroversial portrait in a way that they like, to their preference, someone else might not like it, or see it as really unflattering, and to someone else it may be the best image they’ve ever seen.
Think across cultures, at even the most simple of differences; eating with cutlery vs hands, which some may see as undignified. The same with body modifications, even jewelry or tattoos that may be beautiful or culturally significant to some, and strange in appearance, unfathomable to others. Without a real arbiter for who is right or wrong, you have to acknowledge the consequences of documenting the outer world from an inner perspective. Even the most radically accepting and holistically respectful of photographers will still encounter barriers and make decisions in their images that emphasize and amplify their standard: of cleanliness, of peace, of dignity, of respect.
The most carefully crafted, accurate, respectful portrayal in an image is still open to interpretation and projection. Even with context, writing, explanation, interviews, and all the rest. Even the most generous definition of dignity can leave room for an audience to project their own interpretation. There is only so much a photograph or essay can do, the rest is with the audience to unpack, and arrive at their own conclusions.
I once photographed a woman wiping away a tear after singing the national anthem of her country. Out of context is the tear weakness? Pride? Sadness? Joy? And then even when context is readily available, someone may simply project their own opinion anyway. Whether it’s conscious or not our individual relationships invite prejudice into the way we experience visual media and semiotics.
I’ve made enough portraits to know not everyone likes their smile, or their teeth, or their body, or aspects so subtle I would never have noticed without attention being drawn by them when speaking to me about how they would like to be seen. Sometimes I have to compromise, sometimes I’m able to show them a version of themselves they hadn’t seen before. To a third party seeing the image without that context, the process may not be obvious. By projecting their own interpretation they may see something else, some version of the image that neither I nor the person depicted could see, and conjure some idea that could never have been intended.
I understand a dual understanding of respect when it comes to other people, that it can mean treating something with reverence, as greater than you in a hierarchy, but also can mean treating someone as an equal, absent of hierarchy. When I wrote about exploitation in photography. I touched on the idea that if someone’s relationship with photography was that it is something disposable they may not see is as a respectful act, whereas someone who sees photography as an act of preservation, even veneration, finds every press of the shutter to be a respectful decision.
I don’t think there are any universals or one-size-fits-all solutions; photography works on a case-by-case basis. Not everyone who shares an attribute (skin condition, disability, body modification, etc.) wants it portrayed the same way as everyone else who has it. There is no definitive monolithic homogenous way to approach people, even if they fit directly into a stereotype or category you think you recognize. Everyone is different.
I don’t believe there is a visual cue or shorthand that is definitively comprehensive as signifying dignified, or undignified. Maybe within some cultural bubbles, but certainly not a cue that is inherent, and universally applicable across cultures and photographic visual styles. What we have to work with is the intent of the photographer, the situation they find themselves in, the context both of that work and their decisions in presenting that work, and the final piece someone unconnected to the process actually sees.
Even when you have a combination of these factors where every decision was done “correctly” according to a certain group it can still end up incorrect according to another. An ignorant, or biased, or lazy audience will still just project whatever feels right to them onto your perfectly curated and presented efforts. I wrote a bit about this idea previously when discussing images I made of the American Military in D.C.; I think a photograph of the (any) military will likely just contribute to whatever the viewer already felt, if they love the troops they will continue to love, and if they hate the troops they will continue to hate.
However, I don’t believe any of this means the effort is worthless. In exploring these ideas I have been able to explain in depth and justify many of the decisions I make in my photographs. I am able to understand conflicting perspectives and incorporate them rather than dismissing them, as I appreciate that my work ought to coexist with everyone, not a narrow selection of people who get what I’m trying to achieve. Just as I can outline my relationship to an ancient stone, and accept that some still may not like it, and decide whether I want that to shape my further decisions, the same is true for any other approach taken by anyone else, towards any topic. I hope the same will be true for anyone who goes down a path of introspection and appreciation of the complex systems to which they are choosing to contribute their visual record.
P.S. My winter bundle of two zines and an 8×10 RC darkroom print is available for pre-order, priced very reasonably at £20 with free shipping for UK orders (and sadly expensive shipping overseas).
