I wrote the following in my deviantArt journal and I am reproducing it here for the record. There are lots of issues I raised that I want to unravel and hope to do so in my next blog posts. For now I am simply recording my anger turned into immense sadness. Such matters do affect me deeply and make me cry. I spent nearly two hours at my therapist's after writing this journal and we worked on how these broader concerns relate to myself - so many intimate memories were suddenly evoked and personal suffering resurfaced which I thought was buried and forgotten. That work is of course highly personal and it cannot be shared in a blog. I am mentioning it here because of the complexity of what is involved. But we did something which marks a new beginning. We worked on choosing something that would represent my inner child out of a number of dolls Leah had in her studio for me to take home and nurture. I have a baby owl now and that is me. I chose it because it was the loveliest of the dolls and because my name is connected with Athena, whose symbol was the owl. My baby owl now lives with me, inside myself and outside. Over the months to come we will develop a new relationship.
This is a long piece of writing with only one photo. It is not the norm for me and I will soon resume posting photos - that is partly what this blog is for, but not exclusively.
I would also like to thank Unbearable Lightness and Solus for leaving very thoughtful comments on my dA journal. UL has also given me much support through personal emails which I truly value. She is like a sister to me. In this instance I feel even closer to her as we both have had the experience of losing to drugs someone we loved. So forgive me for my strong views but heroin to me has been personally devastating.
The context is what turns a creative pursuit into art. I wrote this sentence at the end of my blog yesterday. It is something one always needs to bear in mind.
I received some notifications last night which made me think long and hard about certain events.
I have openly disagreed with a recent DD awarded to a popular photographer here on dA in the category of photojournalism. My disagreement is not to be taken as a personal attack on the photographer, as it has been suggested. I am aware of his skills as one of the best amateur photographers in the dA UK community. I have myself in my portfolio a handful of photographs taken by him , duly acknowledged, which have received much praise for his photographic skills and my performance as a model, a combination which at the time the photos were taken was a successful one.
We all have disagreements at some point in our lives and we may have harsh words with friends, associates and collaborators and sometimes there's no way back, we cannot ever find a way to agree again. But I am definitely not one of those people who starts finding faults with someone's work simply because of hurt feelings. In my work as educator if I have a disagreement with a student I don't fail her/him - and I dont always like my students! I look at what they do and if it does not match certain criteria, I point this out. If the work is faultless, I say so.
I disagreed with the DD, and I am perfectly entitled to do so, politely, and expressing my disagreement through the appropriate channels, which I have done. I found the subject matter of the photograph offensive and the overall treatment of a very serious and highly charged issue such as heroin addiction inappropriate for a number of reasons I regard as valid ones. I took it up with dA and asked them to look into the matter. dA decided that the only action to be taken was adding a mature content tag. That had already been requested before, by someone else, and the request promptly dismissed at the time by whoever assessed the submission on dA's behalf. So it is a small victory for those of us who dissent with the view that such a photograph would put youngsters off drugs that at the very least now such a tag will be in place. I would have also recommended that the photographer should turn off the share buttons, but dA did not think it mattered.
Last night the photographer, Neil H, issued a statement, through a comment that is most disingenuous. Apart from attacking me personally and most flippantly, he still remains unable to give a good reason for making his series of photos showing a heroin addict injecting, a series of which he feels, as he says, very proud. That may be the case but what was the point of taking those photos? His statement is, ostensibly, a response to what I regard as a rather naive comment left by an admirer under one of those photographs, and who, in my view, does not seem to be able to appreciate the devastating impact of such photographs.
Let me clarify that the photographer has blocked me from his gallery and I am unable to respond directly to him, which I would have done if he had not attempted to silence me. I know he reads every line I write and even my blog - or he would have never known of my disagreement to begin with. Therefore I have no option but respond from here, for the very last time, as the matter of the wrong assignation of this DD is now, perforce, closed. Some of us have suffered personal losses through heroin addiction and the spectacle of someone injecting, especially when the portrayal of such a spectacle is not justified by a good cause,reopens old wounds.
I was not fully aware of the existence of this photograph, but I knew of its companions. It was the DD that made me look at the whole series properly. I dont visit this photographer's gallery every five minutes, but I avidly follow the DDs awarded everyday. I remember that one of the other two photographs a while back carried a statement in the comment box which now the photographer has removed, in which he said he was an admirer of Sally Mann's work. Unfortunately, he went on, he did not have children so he looked around for something to photograph in a similar way. So when he met Pete, the heroin addict, through a friend - somewhere else he stated he was the brother of a friend - he decided to take pictures of him shooting up.
He paid for Pete's heroin to be used during the shoot. Pete fully agreed and he now tells us that Pete was very happy for the photos to be uploaded on the internet, although the shoot took place in 2006 and the images were uploaded in 2008 and 2009. The photographer regards this as an example of photojournalism and dA endorses it. In his statement last night he refers to the fact that all permissions are in place, the photographs cannot damage Pete any further because he is alreay known to the police and his family are aware of his condition and Pete is happy to be known as a heroin addict. This may be good enough for dA as it means that Pete will not attempt to sue (as dA goes that's all that matters) but it does not exonerate the photographer from his ethical responsibilities.
This is not photojournalism. Maybe the photographer's childhood dream was to become a photojournalist but to document a heroin addict shooting up for a personal portfolio, allowing prints to be purchased by anyone from a personal website, does not constitute ethical photojournalism. He refers to a very famous photojournalist interviewed on a TV programme - I quote him here in full "He was talking about a situation in Rwanda when he came to a cross roads where bodies had been piled high (now a well known picture). They were the butchered bodies of men women and children (including young babies). The photographer said he was in the process of moving round the pile, his concern was trying to find the best composition when it suddenly struck him how obscene that gesture was. He still came away with an award winning photograph that shocks to the core and opens up peoples minds to man's inhumanity to man when at its basest. I don't wish to suggest my work is on the level of a great photojournalist, as with most people on DA this is merely my hobby but hopefully I captured something of meaning" Of meaning for whom?
Raising awareness of the massacres in Rwanda is one thing, photographing someone like Pete injecting - and paying for the shoot, if not directly supplying the heroin, and the right to upload the images on his personal website, is another. And yes, Pete may be happy for Neil H to take pictures of him shooting up - he is not proud of the photographs but he likes them and is happy for others to see them, says Neil H - but the point is, it would be more beneficial for Pete and more meaningful if those pictures were to be used by a professional organisation in the context of an anti-drug campaign, in the context of initiatives which would make sure that Pete's experience is referred to in order to avoid its occurrence or at least lessen its devastating effects on people's lives.
Right now if Pete is still fighting his addiction he truly does not care. I am not aware of Neil H saying anywhere that he will donate all proceeds from the sale of these prints to charity or that such profits could be used to support Pete's rehab which indeed would have made the whole thing admirable and dramatically changed the context.
Whether you like it or not, even if Pete has given his full consent to be made a spectacle of, he still is a vulnerable adult. He still deserves to be treated with more sensitivity than that demonstrated so far and much greater respect for him as a human being. One day he may be able to kick the habit. Then what? Have these photographs helped him in any way? Like I said at the start, context is what matters. And the context here whether you like it or not, regardless of Neil H's dream of being a photojournalist, remains a sordid one.
These photographs do not alert anyone about anything, they are not linked to an anti-drug campaign, they are simply taken for the photographer to feel he is engaging in meaningful photography. What do people on dA seeing them say? "Oh your lighting is marvellous. Oh poor guy I hope he gets some help. Oh I am so glad it is not me" And the answers? "Oh yes, such a shame, he is getting some help, but you know addiction is so difficult to come off" Platitudes, in other words. I have said elsewhere that the photographer is probably not sensitive enough to be aware of the implications for others of what he does for himself. I don't believe he is an evil person, only that he does not think things through enough and then tries to justify himself, in this case, by saying he is practising photojournalism and trying to make photographs with meaning.
There is another picture in his gallery where we see a young woman labelled 'Self harmer'. She looks barely 16. It is a portrait. She is very beautiful indeed. Yet by branding her 'Self Harmer' he again shows a lack of concern which is remarkable. Does she want to be known as a self harmer? Does he realise what he is doing by labelling her thus? Does she have family and friends that know she is self harming? Don't worry, I am not going to report this deviation. There is no point in doing so, dA could not care any less.
Neil H, you work with children and young people when not taking photos. Are you not aware of the need to regard certain matters as confidential? Of course self harming is a terrible thing. But what good does it do to anyone and this girl in particular, even if she were over 18, to know that she self harms? And when I say anyone, I mean the dA community and internet communities again such as Facebook, Bebo etc.
I am now working with vulnerable people. I am more and more aware of their needs, their rights and the fact they have to be protected. Not judged but helped. In what way, Neil H, do your photographs of these helpless people make a difference to the quality of their lives? A real photojournalist always asks himself/herself such ethical questions. I believe that is the difference between a photojournalist and a paparazzo -yes I know that paparazzi only concern themselves with the rich and famous, but it is the principle of the thing I am looking at. And dont tell me that it is only for professionals, not amateurs, to engage with ethics!
Context. That's all there is to think of.
(Layne Staley, below, is one of the many wonderful people heroin took away from us. He was found in his condominium 14 days after he died of an overdose, his body already decomposing)
This is a long piece of writing with only one photo. It is not the norm for me and I will soon resume posting photos - that is partly what this blog is for, but not exclusively.
I would also like to thank Unbearable Lightness and Solus for leaving very thoughtful comments on my dA journal. UL has also given me much support through personal emails which I truly value. She is like a sister to me. In this instance I feel even closer to her as we both have had the experience of losing to drugs someone we loved. So forgive me for my strong views but heroin to me has been personally devastating.
I received some notifications last night which made me think long and hard about certain events.
I have openly disagreed with a recent DD awarded to a popular photographer here on dA in the category of photojournalism. My disagreement is not to be taken as a personal attack on the photographer, as it has been suggested. I am aware of his skills as one of the best amateur photographers in the dA UK community. I have myself in my portfolio a handful of photographs taken by him , duly acknowledged, which have received much praise for his photographic skills and my performance as a model, a combination which at the time the photos were taken was a successful one.
We all have disagreements at some point in our lives and we may have harsh words with friends, associates and collaborators and sometimes there's no way back, we cannot ever find a way to agree again. But I am definitely not one of those people who starts finding faults with someone's work simply because of hurt feelings. In my work as educator if I have a disagreement with a student I don't fail her/him - and I dont always like my students! I look at what they do and if it does not match certain criteria, I point this out. If the work is faultless, I say so.
I disagreed with the DD, and I am perfectly entitled to do so, politely, and expressing my disagreement through the appropriate channels, which I have done. I found the subject matter of the photograph offensive and the overall treatment of a very serious and highly charged issue such as heroin addiction inappropriate for a number of reasons I regard as valid ones. I took it up with dA and asked them to look into the matter. dA decided that the only action to be taken was adding a mature content tag. That had already been requested before, by someone else, and the request promptly dismissed at the time by whoever assessed the submission on dA's behalf. So it is a small victory for those of us who dissent with the view that such a photograph would put youngsters off drugs that at the very least now such a tag will be in place. I would have also recommended that the photographer should turn off the share buttons, but dA did not think it mattered.
Last night the photographer, Neil H, issued a statement, through a comment that is most disingenuous. Apart from attacking me personally and most flippantly, he still remains unable to give a good reason for making his series of photos showing a heroin addict injecting, a series of which he feels, as he says, very proud. That may be the case but what was the point of taking those photos? His statement is, ostensibly, a response to what I regard as a rather naive comment left by an admirer under one of those photographs, and who, in my view, does not seem to be able to appreciate the devastating impact of such photographs.
Let me clarify that the photographer has blocked me from his gallery and I am unable to respond directly to him, which I would have done if he had not attempted to silence me. I know he reads every line I write and even my blog - or he would have never known of my disagreement to begin with. Therefore I have no option but respond from here, for the very last time, as the matter of the wrong assignation of this DD is now, perforce, closed. Some of us have suffered personal losses through heroin addiction and the spectacle of someone injecting, especially when the portrayal of such a spectacle is not justified by a good cause,reopens old wounds.
I was not fully aware of the existence of this photograph, but I knew of its companions. It was the DD that made me look at the whole series properly. I dont visit this photographer's gallery every five minutes, but I avidly follow the DDs awarded everyday. I remember that one of the other two photographs a while back carried a statement in the comment box which now the photographer has removed, in which he said he was an admirer of Sally Mann's work. Unfortunately, he went on, he did not have children so he looked around for something to photograph in a similar way. So when he met Pete, the heroin addict, through a friend - somewhere else he stated he was the brother of a friend - he decided to take pictures of him shooting up.
He paid for Pete's heroin to be used during the shoot. Pete fully agreed and he now tells us that Pete was very happy for the photos to be uploaded on the internet, although the shoot took place in 2006 and the images were uploaded in 2008 and 2009. The photographer regards this as an example of photojournalism and dA endorses it. In his statement last night he refers to the fact that all permissions are in place, the photographs cannot damage Pete any further because he is alreay known to the police and his family are aware of his condition and Pete is happy to be known as a heroin addict. This may be good enough for dA as it means that Pete will not attempt to sue (as dA goes that's all that matters) but it does not exonerate the photographer from his ethical responsibilities.
This is not photojournalism. Maybe the photographer's childhood dream was to become a photojournalist but to document a heroin addict shooting up for a personal portfolio, allowing prints to be purchased by anyone from a personal website, does not constitute ethical photojournalism. He refers to a very famous photojournalist interviewed on a TV programme - I quote him here in full "He was talking about a situation in Rwanda when he came to a cross roads where bodies had been piled high (now a well known picture). They were the butchered bodies of men women and children (including young babies). The photographer said he was in the process of moving round the pile, his concern was trying to find the best composition when it suddenly struck him how obscene that gesture was. He still came away with an award winning photograph that shocks to the core and opens up peoples minds to man's inhumanity to man when at its basest. I don't wish to suggest my work is on the level of a great photojournalist, as with most people on DA this is merely my hobby but hopefully I captured something of meaning" Of meaning for whom?
Raising awareness of the massacres in Rwanda is one thing, photographing someone like Pete injecting - and paying for the shoot, if not directly supplying the heroin, and the right to upload the images on his personal website, is another. And yes, Pete may be happy for Neil H to take pictures of him shooting up - he is not proud of the photographs but he likes them and is happy for others to see them, says Neil H - but the point is, it would be more beneficial for Pete and more meaningful if those pictures were to be used by a professional organisation in the context of an anti-drug campaign, in the context of initiatives which would make sure that Pete's experience is referred to in order to avoid its occurrence or at least lessen its devastating effects on people's lives.
Right now if Pete is still fighting his addiction he truly does not care. I am not aware of Neil H saying anywhere that he will donate all proceeds from the sale of these prints to charity or that such profits could be used to support Pete's rehab which indeed would have made the whole thing admirable and dramatically changed the context.
Whether you like it or not, even if Pete has given his full consent to be made a spectacle of, he still is a vulnerable adult. He still deserves to be treated with more sensitivity than that demonstrated so far and much greater respect for him as a human being. One day he may be able to kick the habit. Then what? Have these photographs helped him in any way? Like I said at the start, context is what matters. And the context here whether you like it or not, regardless of Neil H's dream of being a photojournalist, remains a sordid one.
These photographs do not alert anyone about anything, they are not linked to an anti-drug campaign, they are simply taken for the photographer to feel he is engaging in meaningful photography. What do people on dA seeing them say? "Oh your lighting is marvellous. Oh poor guy I hope he gets some help. Oh I am so glad it is not me" And the answers? "Oh yes, such a shame, he is getting some help, but you know addiction is so difficult to come off" Platitudes, in other words. I have said elsewhere that the photographer is probably not sensitive enough to be aware of the implications for others of what he does for himself. I don't believe he is an evil person, only that he does not think things through enough and then tries to justify himself, in this case, by saying he is practising photojournalism and trying to make photographs with meaning.
There is another picture in his gallery where we see a young woman labelled 'Self harmer'. She looks barely 16. It is a portrait. She is very beautiful indeed. Yet by branding her 'Self Harmer' he again shows a lack of concern which is remarkable. Does she want to be known as a self harmer? Does he realise what he is doing by labelling her thus? Does she have family and friends that know she is self harming? Don't worry, I am not going to report this deviation. There is no point in doing so, dA could not care any less.
Neil H, you work with children and young people when not taking photos. Are you not aware of the need to regard certain matters as confidential? Of course self harming is a terrible thing. But what good does it do to anyone and this girl in particular, even if she were over 18, to know that she self harms? And when I say anyone, I mean the dA community and internet communities again such as Facebook, Bebo etc.
I am now working with vulnerable people. I am more and more aware of their needs, their rights and the fact they have to be protected. Not judged but helped. In what way, Neil H, do your photographs of these helpless people make a difference to the quality of their lives? A real photojournalist always asks himself/herself such ethical questions. I believe that is the difference between a photojournalist and a paparazzo -yes I know that paparazzi only concern themselves with the rich and famous, but it is the principle of the thing I am looking at. And dont tell me that it is only for professionals, not amateurs, to engage with ethics!
Context. That's all there is to think of.
(Layne Staley, below, is one of the many wonderful people heroin took away from us. He was found in his condominium 14 days after he died of an overdose, his body already decomposing)
This is the comment I left on Alex's DA journal. I am offering it for republication here in support of Alex's concern about the exploitation of those who are unable ethically to make proper judgments on issues of addiction and self harm because of their age or drug addiction:
ReplyDeleteAlex, I have noted this dispute from a unique point of view. First of all, the second anniversary of my nephew's death from a drug overdose is coming up on Oct. 11. I will never fully recover from the great loss that day as I loved him very much and took him in one summer when no one else would have him. Like you, through this experience I know more about addiction than I would have hoped to know. I am under a lot of pressure with other things in my life through September, but I have been taking notes on this DD and will get round to a proper analysis of events when I can do them justice.
Second, I understand what it is like to know a popular person on DD through a more personal relationship than those who only have access to what is public. Knowing more about the person and especially certain circumstances not absolutely apparent to others puts a person in a difficult position. When you want to set things straight for others, you risk damaging yourself. It is a Catch 22, a tough call. And I am all too aware it does not require any sort of "stalking" to stumble upon, here on DA, those with whom you once worked extensively, when they are prominent people.
DA reflects the way the world itself works. It is a huge city, with many neighborhoods, and some of us virtually "live" in this hood. Like the larger world, it has its drama, and that will always be the case. Perhaps it is better it will take me a week or so to assess the ramifications of this DD in lieu of my own personal knowledge and the research I am doing when I have a moment. Nothing gets resolved in a day, if ever, around here, but there is a lot at stake for a huge group of vulnerable people in this issue.
Neil took these? I don't recall ever seeing them. I'm glad of that.
ReplyDeleteI just want to make the implicit connection that I haven't seen you make about the story of the photographer in Rwanda and this case:
Yes, the photographer in Rwanda was repulsed by what he was doing, but felt it was his duty to take the photo. Maybe Neil was repulsed by what he was doing too.
The difference between the two is that the photographer in Rwanda didn't kill any of the people he photographed in that scene. The photographer wasn't complicit in the composition of that photograph - see also: murder.
Neil IS complicit in the composition of the photograph. If Neil is repulsed, Neil has only himself to blame. He is guilty of the crime of supplying drugs to someone, regardless of whether that person would have got it on their own. This is along the lines of the plots of old horror movies like house of wax, where the killer coats his victims in wax, and then displays them. Or the painter who kills victims and then paints with their blood (I think that might be a true one, actually).
Anyway, that aside, this crosses another line between objective photojournalism and gonzo journalism.
Rather than documenting the event objectively, he has made himself a part of the event. He provided the drugs, he arranged for the shoot to occur, he profits from the results (whether monetary or not).
Real photojournalism would be someone objectively photographing Neil as he photographs Pete. And, I suspect, whoever was documenting Neil's activities would be nearly as repulsed as that photojournalist in Rwanda was.
............
On the subject of drugs:
One day, I'll cover this in my own blog, but my position on drugs is pretty stiff. If one expects to be as authentic a version of themselves as possible, then any substance or stimulus that has an effect on behaviour, perception, or the self is a no-go.
I view reliance on drugs (and other things) as a crutch, or an escapist device which allows weak-willed people to avoid being themselves or facing reality which is more damaging than reality could ever be.
Many people disagree with me.
I point those people to stories like this.
Thank you Rab for this comment. It took me some courage to speak out because I knew many people would see this as me persecuting Neil, because of our public fall out. And someone did write on my Facebook page I was a bitch, just as someone felt the need to write I was an online stalker and then go and offer Neil support because "our work should create a stir now and again. Wonderful light by the way". I felt sick in the stomach when I read that.
ReplyDeleteNeil is not a person who ever feels guilty about anything because he always believes it is others who are in the wrong, not him. Bless him. So he will continue to maintain this photoshoot was meaningful photojournalism.
When I saw the images and read about how they were obtained my first thought was what if Pete had died of an overdose that night? Would Neil not have been guilty of manslaughter? I don't even know if Pete is still alive.
Drugs are a terrible thing and heroin is the worst. Yet people can come off heroin, it has been done, it is possible. Addiction is an illness. You do drugs to escape, there really is no other reason. So to come off addiction you need to address your escapism. That's when therapy can help. But who can afford therapy? Class, as usual, can make a difference. Rehab can only be afforded by middle class people...
Thank you, Rab, for so beautifully clarifying the difference between photojournalism and exploitation of and enabling a vulnerable person. I also believe Neil committed a crime in buying heroin, #1, and giving it to another person in trade (for the photograph) #2. In fact, I think it could be construed as dealing drugs, but I don't have a law degree.
ReplyDelete