Featured Post

Pinned Post, A Policy Note:

I have made a decision to keep this blog virus free from this point forward, at least until the smoke clears. This is not a judgement about ...

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Extractive

It is thoroughly chic today to describe photography as extractive which is a newish word for an old idea.

The idea is, basically, that some white man (Steve McCurry) goes to a far off land, and takes some pictures of people. He pays them little or nothing, but is himself handsomely compensated for his pictures. This feels unfair. There is no question here, one of the normal human responses here is "this is unfair" and that ought not to be set aside. It's all social, after all.

Still, let us pick this apart a little. It will closely resemble my discussion of consent, from a few days ago.

Physical objects are possessed, generally, by only one of us. My dog understands that if I have the ball, she does not. She understands that if she has the ball, I do not (this is a very desirable state of affairs, according to my dog.) Dogs, crows, children, understand this concept of having something. It is symmetrical.

Photography, being obnoxious, divides it in two peculiar halves.

If you are walking down the street, and I photograph you, I now have a photograph of you. I possess an object, of sorts. You, however, have not lost anything.

If I took from you a ball, you would rightly demand compensation. This kind of quid pro quo is also something that dogs, crows, and children understand. This is not a cultural construct, although we wrap it in culture. The idea of exchanging a thing of value for another thing of value is a very, very basic idea. It is instinctive, somatic.

In these transactions, the part where you take the ball away, and the part where I no longer have the ball, are inextricably connected. When I pay you for the ball, am I paying you because I now possess a ball? Or, am I paying you because you no longer have the ball? It doesn't matter, because the two cannot be separated.

When I photograph you, however, the two are separated. I gained a photograph, but you did not lose a photograph, or indeed anything else. Is the ethical requirement to pay you rooted in my gain, or in your loss? The question suddenly becomes quite real.

Because we lack the tools to, at a visceral, emotional, level to make sense of this half-transaction, we naturally feel that when something is gained (a photo) something is lost (what?) We feel, in an attenuated way, that the subject of the photo deserves something for their trouble, for their non-existent loss. There is a very real social impression that subjects have rights, and should be compensated, in a sense not on the basis that they have lost but that that photographer has gained.

We should, obviously, respect this to a degree. We are social creatures, after all. Also, though, I think we should recognize the halfway nature of the thing. You, the subject, didn't lose anything.

The photograph has value, at least notionally. In 99.9% of cases, of course, the photo has no value whatever. In these cases, when the tourist takes the snap and hands a dollar to the picturesque brown person, the latter has arguably made out like a bandit having lost nothing, and gained a dollar. In the end the tourist ended up with an object worth nothing whatever. There is no value to be shared here.

Still, Steve McCurry's photos have value. A Marxist would tell you that the value derives from Labor, which would be pretty much all McCurry Inc. Other theories propose that the value derives from the cost of production, again, McCurry Inc. Modern theory has some complex gobble around value just being the product of how bad people want the thing, and there we might have some justification for money being shared around, right?

After all, the picturesque old dude is inherent to the desire for the photo, right? If the value is merely a measure of that desire, I guess the old dude generated a bunch of that value, so deserves a piece of the pie. It makes sense to me.

This, however, teaches firmly that if there is no desire for the photo, the old guy doesn't deserve a cent. If I go to Afghanistan and photograph some picturesque people, and make a book, and sell a few copies, losing several thousand dollars in the process, there is no economic basis for compensating any of the picturesque people.

They didn't lose anything. Let us presume I paid them market rates for modeling, for their time, whatever. No value was created, so there is nothing to share. All that happened was that I acquired some photographs which, presumably, have some personal value. Perhaps I earned a few exposure bucks.

There are no simple answers here, any more than there is a simple answer to the question of consent. We're looking at a situation we lack the fundamental tools to make sense of. We can use our big fat brains to intellectualize some stuff, but whatever the result our emotional, and therefore social, response won't line up. Like consent, it appears to be something that admits no pat answers, and requires us instead to muddle through as best we can.

In closing, though: the use of the word extractive is, to my eye, a deliberate attempt to frame photography as essentially the same thing as mining. If I go to Afghanistan and mine a bunch of diamonds and carry them off, then Afghanistan and her people have lost some diamonds. To frame photography as extraction is to propose, without quite saying it, that when I photograph someone, that someone loses something. This is disingenuous, of course, and part of a larger program to frame photography as Super Dangerous and Problematic.

But, while I think the word itself is ridiculous, the central question remains.

12 comments:

  1. IANAL (look at me being all internet!) but I think you've just wandered into the legal minefield known as "tort". Back out slowly...

    I suspect on this basis a lawyer could be hired to argue that if you go to Afghanistan and photograph some picturesque people, and make a book, and sell a few copies, losing several thousand dollars in the process, then *they* may well owe *you* compensation, for not being picturesque enough. They wouldn't win, of course, but would still pocket your fee... At which point, you probably have a tort case against them!

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I tort my lawyer for failing to extort the Afghans, that is termed a retort.

      Delete
  2. I think Jogn Berger had essays like this in the book “about looking”. You put it well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another interesting discussion.
    You've had a good example of Extraction with your friend Steve, whose pictures you found use of here. How did you handle that? When he posed for you as a hopeless drunk did he enjoy it so it didn't seem necessary to tip him, or was it a bother to put up with you? Was that something you considered, and did you help him out? Then later as a reformed drunk how was the situation different, or not? Interesting to consider the word Extraction here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I gave him a $5 modeling fee for the photo when he was drunk, but only after I'd shot it. We were talking as friends, and I asked permission, knowing I would do something with the picture. The $5 (or whatever it was) was just beer money, given after the fact, unexpected.

      I was behaving, and continue to behave, as if I was in fact taking from him, as if I owed him. The photos exist in this blog, and in a book which only he and I own. I think he treasures the book, because he mentions it every time we meet, and is downcast when he loses his copy (I gave him a new one).

      Do I "owe" him because I *took* his picture a couple times, or because he is someone I care about? Do I give him to book as compensation, or do I give him the book because he is a friend?

      I don't know, offhand. I think the two are not capable of being disentangled. It's just.. the way it is between Steve and I?

      Delete
  4. I work (when I work at all now) with people whose travel and time I pay for as a matter of principle. If not for their willingness to co-operate, I wouldn't have the enjoyment I get from photography. Yet I know fellow-photographers who pride themselves on never paying a modelling fee because they have their own expenses as hobbyists and are so 'popular' that models flock to them just for the glory of a few photos. I could never live with myself if I adopted the same attitude, quite frankly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there's a clear and unambiguous justification for paying people to show up and model. You'd pay them the same whether you took a picture or not, right? (Yes, it would be weird not to.) You're paying them for time and for skilled labor, or whatever.

      Doesn't matter what economic theory you subscribe to, basically any theory agrees that you pay people for work.

      Do they also deserve, let's say, a royalty for pictures sold, though?

      I always assume that the guys who "never pay models" are lying. If the modeling is palpably terrible I may withhold judgement.

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately, at least some of them are not lying. It's a point of honour that they never pay.

      Delete
  5. Lots of people justify stealing software using various arguments. Does each individual "steal" take anything away from the people who made the software? In general, I'd say yes, but others have made the argument that the people doing the stealing would never have bought the package legally anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not THAT Ross CameronOctober 2, 2020 at 9:26 PM

    At the risk of wading into the quagmire with no knowledge of the pitfalls - does the issue of consent only arise when dealing with images of people as subjects and where there will be an economic benefit to the photographer, or is it broader?
    FYI, in Sydney (Australia), one has to gain permission to use imagery of the Sydney Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge For commercial purposes (I’m not sure how well that has been or can enforced since the advent of Instagram, Facebook etc) & presumably pay handsomely for it. I’m assuming the same applies to other buildings elsewhere?
    I’m seeing it in other places. I used to go to music festivals with a waterproof / drop-proof P&S camera, just for fun. These days if I go to an indoor concert the staff are warning everyone to put away their iPhones - I’m guessing they’re protecting the images paid for by the venue or performers.
    Does it extend to landscape / wildlife / architecture / street & other forms of photography?
    I appreciate consent is a tricky one in the modern day of the Internet. I used to do a lot of bushwalking with a group and would ask people before including them in images, and would advise that I wouldn’t publish them on the Net etc (I am concerned about my own privacy, so have to be for their’s too).
    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's stuff about Australia (and specifically, the Sydney Opera house).

      A lot of this stuff is in a gray area. S/he who has the deepest pockets (and the best legal team) rules.

      Delete
    2. Not THAT Ross CameronOctober 4, 2020 at 3:51 AM

      Thanks for that David. Indeed, they who can afford the most justice...
      Appreciate that this refers to the legal jurisdictions of one country. I’m curious about the extent to which Mr Molitor’s line of thinking extends, re the point of two halves of a photograph, and consent.
      If I photograph the dog’s ball instead of taking the ball, or photograph the apple (from the subsequent article), instead of giving/receiving it, does the two halves line of argument still apply, is consent still required (hence my ref to SOH), or not, or something else?
      Not trying to be a facetious twat - just prodding from different perspectives.

      Delete