Photoethics

Private Space

(If I may cite emilygs...)“As I looked through some of the photo books the first time around, I found some of the pictures strikingly beautiful. Almost immediately however, I felt guilty for thinking so.” I find this reaction very interesting in that is it the observer who questions perception in ethical terms. But is beauty ethical? What is the relation between morality and beauty? What is the role of the observer and his relation to these pictures which could be considered as a piece of art? And what is the process by which we can judge these pictures? Just a short but maybe useful digression...Kant, in his Critique of Judgment, discusses his idea of the “Judgment of Pure taste.” In effect, he distinguishes between a judgment of taste which does not involve interest, which is a pure judgment of taste, from a judgment of taste which involves interest, which therefore isn't a pure judgment. The latter in fact, has to do with the object's actual existence, as he writes “Interest is (...)the liking we connect with (...) an object's existence,” and the liking which is linked to an object's existence leads to a partial judgment. Thus, interest is defined as being related to reality as opposed to the presentation of an object which itself leads to a pure judgment of taste well because it is a presentation where the actual existence of the object is of no importance. What matters, then, is the presentation and the way an object appears in the imagination, and because I value the presentation rather than the existence of the object, my judgment is therefore impartial. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it is quite difficult to focus on the presentation of the object as though its actual existence didn't matter., no? And what is the process by which I can do so? In addition, while observing these pictures, for example, it seems almost impossible to ignore the existence of these people. In any event, if one is to follow Kant's idea of the impartial judgment, thus valuing the presentation rather than the actual existence of the object of art, these people, one cannot be blamed to think that the pictures are beautiful...but what of the photographers? These photo albums, as Dorothea Lange writes, “show you what is happening in selected regions of limited area” and as we can see, show the hardships of living conditions, and are comprised of pictures of little children, adults, farmers etc, but more importantly, the pictures seem to invade the private space of all these people as there are pictures of a room, a bed etc... couldn't that been seen as a kind of voyeurisme that violates private space?