Maybe ethics is one of those fields you either love or you don’t. I happen to love it. Having taught fine arts, maybe I’m just wired to enjoy the subjective and variable. As my other primary hobby (obsession) is photography, it’s probably predictable that I’d find the ethics of photography as fascinating as I do. And beyond my personal fascination with the subject, photographic ethics is as diverse and important a sphere of study as any in academia. The following is a (very) brief overview of ethics in photography. In a suitably liberal arts twist, I will provide no opinion or suggestion regarding what I consider the appropriate, ethical response; leaving that up to you.
Business and advertising photography presents a particularly rich field of ethical conundrum. While all photography has the potential to generate income, advertising and business shooting is virtually always undertaken for financial gain. False advertising laws tend to be unforgiving regarding spoken or written content. If Listerine claims that users of their mouthwash catch half the colds that non-users do (as they did), or the supposed immune system booster Airborne claims to effectively bolster one’s immune system (as they did), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can fine them for it and demand a cessation of those claims (as they did).
However, images represent a much greyer area. We’re probably all familiar with those appetizing pictures of fast food burgers that look virtually nothing like their real life counterpart, but what if Airborne and Listerine were to run an ad with two photos side by side. In the first, a number of dejected, sick-looking people (perhaps in muted colors or black and white) blow their noses, cough and generally mope; beside them the same number of vibrant and vibrantly colored models smile happily, obviously free from illness.
The healthy, happy people beam under Listerine or Airborne’s logo. Although technically unstated, the implication is perfectly clear the half on the left are sick and miserable because they didn’t take the product while the half on the right are cheerful and chipper because they did. Is that any less misleading that a written or spoken claim to the same effect?
What about the photo of a house gracing the cover of a manufactured home company’s sales flier. In addition to the primary structure the house includes a porch, a side wing, a gazebo and whatever else all for the low, low price of blank. Though when one goes to buy that product for that price they find those pictured amenities are optional and extra; including them would cost thousands more. What about shots representative of more far-reaching issues rather than localized possible product manipulation. Fashion and beauty products in particular have been criticized in the past and even recently for a number of questionable trends their ads are potentially setting beyond those involving clothes, make-up or perfume.
–
Hannah Adams is a fine arts teacher who finds time to dabble in freelance writing. She has written about many of the finest photography schools. When she’s not grading papers or writing, Hannah enjoys taking her own pictures and raising her horses.
Leave a Reply