The Other Consequence of Clicks

I scrolled down my facebook feed in disbelief and discomfort as I reluctantly watched the violence unfolding in Dhaka. My homepage was filled with frustration and anger as arson attacks on public transports made headlines, stories of atrocities broadcasted, and the whole country stalled with never ending strikes. Amongst this chaos, I noticed one particular incident that has triggered debates and discussions on moral and ethical boundaries of photography.

Last week, couple of images emerged in social media where a photographer was seen taking photos of patients who were under treatment in the High Dependency Unit at Dhaka Medical College Hospital. Saiful Huq Omi, an internationally renowned freelance photographer famous for his documentary style, was taking portraits as his assistant held a black backdrop behind the victims of petrol bomb attacks. The photos, also published in national Newspapers, received severe public backlash.

The criticism escalated, and even became borderline bullying in few cases, when Omi posted a Facebook status defending himself, mentioning about the presence of other photographers and claiming that he asked for consent before clicking.

The note, (which has been made public - Link), bypasses his intrusion, does not mention the risk factors of entering into a medical unit without protection, and clearly does not address the concerns of the people criticizing it.

Rather it explains how the black background is a part of the photographer’s documentary style of taking portraits and mentions the blurred line of ethical boundary.

What Omi and the other photographers supporting him do not realize is that the criticism is not about his style of work. People understand the professional scope of photojournalism and requirement of visual proof of violence for news. It is mostly about the photographers’ lack of empathy. It did look like the photographer was oblivious to the pain and distress of the patients as he staged a portrait session inside a hospital unit.

The burned victims, as they undergo treatment with fresh wounds and exposed skins, are highly vulnerable to infections. The risk of such infections exacerbates and may even result in death if proper protective measures are not taken around such patients. Thus, the photographer(s) inadvertently risked the patients’ lives with their impunity towards not taking precaution, let alone their unwillingness to ask the permission of the hospital authority.

Now there are some arguments on his behalf, stating -

(a) “The hospital itself has poor hygiene and the presence of the photographer(s) without protection is negligible.”

This kind of logical fallacy just affirms the intrinsic callous gesture. The photographer made a conscious choice about portraying the patients and their suffering and yet, is apathetic about potential health hazards!

(b) “There were other photographers working in the same hospital unit. It is hypocritical to single out Omi because he was the one photographed.”

It is true that Omi is receiving most of the heat as he is the one in the photograph but the argument seems like a kindergarten kid who is justifying his misdeed by telling other children were also involved - but look! Johnny did it too! According to the news (and it is quite obvious too) there were other photographers, with the same intent, inside the same room, all trying to capture the sufferings and severity of the victims and yet none of them took the basic preventive measures. May be it’s time for the photographic community to acknowledge their part of responsibility and to own their collective impact on peoples lives!

(c) “Photographs of burned victims (or other accidents) mostly result from the good intention to “raise awareness” or to serve “public interest”. A lot of iconic photographs lacked the bridge between the photographers and their subjects but made significant impact on a greater population.”

This incident did not happen in a crisis zone and the photographer(s) had the opportunity to shoot later (when the patients recover back to their everyday life) or at least take precautionary steps before shooting. Again, people are disgusted and reacted at this level because the insensitivity was evident.

However, stereotyping the whole photographer community as opportunist vultures is irrational; harassing Omi and sending him hate mail are equally objectionable (some fellow photographers took it as a chance to troll which is disgusting).

Instead of lynching Omi in print, the photography community should take this as an opportunity for self-reflection, a concept that is missing from the many discussions in social media. It is necessary to have a working culture that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of photographers, especially with so many promising minds entering the profession, so that the community can thrive and be truthful to their intention of making an impact in the society.

Finally, on a personal note, as an amateur photographer from Bangladesh, I am ashamed, upset and perhaps partly liable for the fact that a photographer who certainly has the eye for artistic interpretation of pain, can turn a blind one towards the safety and well-being of the same people he photographs.

---
Links

Dhaka Tribune: Freelance photographer asks burn victims to pose for shoot

Dhaka Tribune: Omi claims he did not ask patients pose

Interview by Priyo.com: saiful Huq Omi

Crossing the line: Comments from a fellow photographer (Zaid Islam)

Source: This Facebook post