Yes, you read this correctly. This entry is about the ethics in photography, not about the much more popular discussion about the aesthetics in photography, which fills thousands of books on fashion, architecture, minerals, flowers, animals, landscapes and … you name it. Sensationalism works in photography. The more spectacular an image, the more likes you’ll get in any media, social or so-called social as well as traditional ones. Sex and crime are popular subjects, better framed as objects, as well. The basic idea of what constitutes unethical imagery or photography is broadly defined by the principle of exclusion, i.e. what is not ethical in photography. Let’s add to this inventory the conditions of production: exploitation of the subjects, be they persons or animals or even authorship like violations of intellectual property rights by AI.
Regulations and legal frameworks clarify many of those issues, enforcement of these rules are yet another element related to the ethics in photography. Global warming and the loss of biodiversity has made us aware that the respect of natural resources is also an aspect in the ethics in photography. Travelling long distances by plane just to get a few shots in the Himalaya region, if there have been thousands of (better?) images produced, printed, distributed before, is not sustainable for our planet as a whole. Invading protected areas, like natural bio-reservoirs, to take a few shots especially of rare plants and flowers maybe nice to look at, but the longer-term consequences add up to a loss of biodiversity for us all, in particular for later generations.
These considerations are different from “aniconism”, because they originate in a humanist foundation of ethics not concerned with any depiction or idolatry of images. The historical roots of any ethics in photography have long shadow into today’s practice of photography as well.
(Image: The framing of ethics of photography with reference to John Cage “Silence“)
