I feel like viewing photography can be considered spectatorship if it seen by people more removed from the nature of the object being photographed.
War photos ranging from all time periods in history up until the present have one thing in common, intense suffering. When I look at an image of a battlefield from WWII I feel like a spectator since I am so far removed from that time and place. When I look at an image stemming from a war torn country in the Middle East in the present, I still feel like a spectator but also feel something more. I feel that this is happening now and there is possibly something I can do to help. I feel like this is where the line is blurred between just being a spectator and something more .
When the photograph instills a feeling that could lead to a rise to action or a sudden realization, you become more than just a spectator. You become what the photographer may want you to become. An active player, a contributor and someone who could possibly make a difference.
Source:
I believe the intention behind the photographer's decision to take a photo of the homeless or other types of suffering dictates if it is bad practice or not. Of course if it is to mock them or to use them to their claim to fame then it is bad practice (reliant on moral compass). But if the intention is to raise awareness or tell a story then the photographer is an active participant in the possible improvement of those people's lives. If a journalist from a country experiencing turmoil in the form of war, or natural disaster is desperate to get their message across to other countries for aid, then them taking photos to send a message is far from being just a spectator.
To answer the last part, I do not think it is wrong to be privy to those intimate moments. Sharing the knowledge with others and spreading awareness may be part of the photographer's plan all along, so, taking an interest would not be such a bad thing.
I believe that people can be spectators up to a certain point. It is when the photo makes you feel strong emotions that make you act in any way that it becomes more.
Here is an interesting link to read about times photographs have inspired action.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2015/12/31/8-photos-that-inspired-action/
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.