A "civil contract" in photography

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/ar...html?th&emc=th

The author of that article talks about a "civil contract" in
photography.

What is he talking about?

If you understand it the way I think he means, as exemplified in the
works he mentions, do you violate it?

If not, why not?

Would you violate the "civil contract" under the right conditions?
What are those conditions?

--
Frank ess

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:40:04 -0700, "Frank ess"
wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/ar...html?th&emc=th

The author of that article talks about a "civil contract" in
photography.

What is he talking about?

This writer, on the same subject, explains it a little better:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...pe=2&tid=11563
The writer identifies the civil contract as "a particular set of
relations between individuals to the power that governs them, and, at
the same time, a form of relations among equal individuals that
constrains this power."

If you read the part of the article you cited dealing with Marc
Garanger photographing Algerian women with the above explanation in
mind, you should be able to understand the term better. The Algerian
women were forced to have their faces photographed by an agent of the
government in violation of their civil contract.

If you understand it the way I think he means, as exemplified in the
works he mentions, do you violate it?

It really wouldn't come up for me. I have no power to exert over
anyone.

It's essential to understand that a violation of the civil contract is
not a violation in any other way. If you photograph the mayor's wife
drunk and squatting to pee in a city park, and send that photograph to
the newspaper, you may be violating a civil contract (relations among
equal individuals) but you are not committing a legal violation. The
word "contract" in this context is not the same as a legal contract,
and the word "violation" is not used in the legal sense.

If not, why not?

Would you violate the "civil contract" under the right conditions?
What are those conditions?

That question contains a conflict. If the conditions are "right",
then there is no civil contract. If I feel that the publication of
the photograph of the mayor's wife is the right thing to do, then I
have no civil contract issue to deal with. The civil contract is an
issue of morality.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2009-06-04 13:40:04 -0700, "Frank ess" said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/ar...html?th&emc=th

The author of that article talks about a "civil contract" in photography.

What is he talking about?

Censorship of the unpleasant.


If you understand it the way I think he means, as exemplified in the
works he mentions, do you violate it?

Not yet,

If not, why not?

No opportunity.

Would you violate the "civil contract" under the right conditions? What
are those conditions?

Yes, if the opportunity arose, and if the publication was more
important than public sensibilities and any reputation I thought I
might have.

The withdrawal, or non-publication of photographs under the guise of
"civil contract" is nothing but censorship.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:32:38 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"Frank ess" wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/ar...html?th&emc=th

The author of that article talks about a "civil contract" in
photography.

What is he talking about?

If you understand it the way I think he means, as exemplified in the
works he mentions, do you violate it?

If not, why not?

Would you violate the "civil contract" under the right conditions?
What are those conditions?

That is an interesting article, I'll grant... but
probably only for those who already understand the
subject. The point of view taken and the examples given
are all good choices and informative, but I didn't think
the text of the article glued them together well.

Hey, Floyd! We agree on something. That was my exact reaction on
reading the article. The writer jumped all over the place.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:01:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2009-06-04 13:40:04 -0700, "Frank ess" said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/ar...html?th&emc=th

The author of that article talks about a "civil contract" in photography.

What is he talking about?

Censorship of the unpleasant.


If you understand it the way I think he means, as exemplified in the
works he mentions, do you violate it?

Not yet,

If not, why not?

No opportunity.

Would you violate the "civil contract" under the right conditions? What
are those conditions?

Yes, if the opportunity arose, and if the publication was more
important than public sensibilities and any reputation I thought I
might have.

The withdrawal, or non-publication of photographs under the guise of
"civil contract" is nothing but censorship.

Isn't it the other way around? The civil contract is the ability to
take and share photographs that detail the unpleasant. So the
censorship of these photographs is a violation of the civil contract.

The civil contract is a good thing. The violation of the civil
contract is a bad thing.

At least that's the way that I read it in
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...pe=2&tid=11563
which does - in my opinion - a better job of explaining the issue than
the original cite.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:
works he mentions, do you violate it?

It really wouldn't come up for me. I have no power to
exert over anyone.

Then you don't take photgraphs???

Would you violate the "civil contract" under the right
conditions?
What are those conditions?

That question contains a conflict. If the conditions
are "right", then there is no civil contract. If I feel
that the publication of the photograph of the mayor's
wife is the right thing to do, then I have no civil
contract issue to deal with. The civil contract is an
issue of morality.

You didn't understand the article.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-06-04 13:40:04 -0700, "Frank ess" said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/ar...html?th&emc=th
The author of that article talks about a "civil
contract" in photography.
What is he talking about?

Censorship of the unpleasant.

Not necessarily though.

Read Susan Sontag.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 2009-06-04 17:10:45 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:01:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2009-06-04 13:40:04 -0700, "Frank ess" said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/ar...html?th&emc=th

The author of that article talks about a "civil contract" in photography.

What is he talking about?

Censorship of the unpleasant.


If you understand it the way I think he means, as exemplified in the
works he mentions, do you violate it?

Not yet,

If not, why not?

No opportunity.

Would you violate the "civil contract" under the right conditions? What
are those conditions?

Yes, if the opportunity arose, and if the publication was more
important than public sensibilities and any reputation I thought I
might have.

The withdrawal, or non-publication of photographs under the guise of
"civil contract" is nothing but censorship.

Isn't it the other way around? The civil contract is the ability to
take and share photographs that detail the unpleasant. So the
censorship of these photographs is a violation of the civil contract.

The civil contract is a good thing. The violation of the civil
contract is a bad thing.

At least that's the way that I read it in
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...pe=2&tid=11563
which does - in my opinion - a better job of explaining the issue than
the original cite.

Agreed. That makes far more sense than the article in the OP.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2009-06-04 17:12:04 -0700, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-06-04 13:40:04 -0700, "Frank ess" said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/ar...html?th&emc=th
The author of that article talks about a "civil
contract" in photography.
What is he talking about?

Censorship of the unpleasant.

Not necessarily though.

Read Susan Sontag.

I haven't read Sontag, so I cannot comment.

Time to expand my library.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:11:03 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
works he mentions, do you violate it?

It really wouldn't come up for me. I have no power to
exert over anyone.

Then you don't take photgraphs???

I'd settle for the power to get a more interesting mandate for the SI
than "Filters".

Would you violate the "civil contract" under the right
conditions?
What are those conditions?

That question contains a conflict. If the conditions
are "right", then there is no civil contract. If I feel
that the publication of the photograph of the mayor's
wife is the right thing to do, then I have no civil
contract issue to deal with. The civil contract is an
issue of morality.

You didn't understand the article.

That could very well be possible.

However, as I understand the civil contract, it is the ability to take
and share photographs of unpleasant things without feeling or being
morally abhorrent. Using that understanding, if I don't feel that the
photograph of the mayor's wife portrays a significantly unpleasant
event, then I have no civil contract issue to deal with.

I'm sure you have what you consider to be a better understanding of
the article.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida