I enjoyed reading your view on the matter! I do believe that intention has so much to do with it and understand that everyone has they're own expression of goodness and morality.
Some questions: Do you think a photographer's intent is enough to count as active involvement? if they take a photo and move on to a different intimate pain? it's like a one hit wonder. And if you as the viewer feel, but don't move on the momentum of those feelings does that actually mean anything more than a fleeting epiphany wrapped in self absorption?
Yes, I think the photographer's intent is enough to count as active involvement. When a photographer is able to move the masses with a single shot then they have achieved their goal and have potentially triggered a few people to take action on an issue. That person may then move on to the next pain, whether it be a picture of a different scene of suffering or it be completely different like trash in a once beautiful lake.
As the viewer I would say it becomes more gray. If you are moved physcologically to a realization then you have actively taken part of the photographer's goal which could have been to instill a sense of feeling for these people. But it can also be seen as "wow that is horrible" (swipe next) which can be taken as just spectating. If the viewer even shares the image with friends by posting it to social media or spreading a link then awareness is being spread. Though not every person who sees it may even care, even that small sprinkle of people who do can reciprocate the action. Generally how news and images are spread.
The news is spectatorship. Most of us are passively witnessing things around the globe. We share it, but what of integrity? Do we actually live what we share or are we sharing to curate an ideal “good” “smart” “generous” us? Sharing is easy.
I still feel as though there should be a more ethical way for photographers to bring important images to life. There should be a give and take between the gaze and the subjects of the photos, especially in the media; a real dialogue before the shutter closes to actually understand what is going on, on the ground level. It would be irresponsible otherwise. It is only then that it is not a spectatorship. What if the "subject" didn't want to be the source of awareness raising or didn't feel that a third party should inject themselves where they did not belong? It is their actual life after all. It also prevents misinformation from circling. Ever tried to help and end up making things worse? Savior complex? Not everyone wants to be saved.
Regardless of intent, it should be acknowledged that when a photographer goes to say, a war zone, there is indeed an unequal power dynamic between the person being photographed and the one doing the gazing. That is important to consider when taking photos. Maybe you’re not a spectator, maybe you’ve unwittingly became the antagonizer. I think it is important to think of these variables before snapping the photo.
You are right on that. So, back to your original question, there is more to photography than spectatorship be it morally just or unjust.
My intention is to start a conversation not to be right. This was interesting for sure!
Whether it is or is not is all relative.