Blog Response #19

Is there anything that....
1) should not be photographed? Why? 
Photography can sometimes be profound and evoke feelings of discomfort.  Some artists choose these subjects hoping for a strong emotional reaction.  However, I feel that there is a line that should not be crossed, though the line may be hazy and unclear at times.  In the past some have criticized and fought against photographers, claiming that they were exploiting their subjects, however some of those very photographers were responsible for sharing new information/issues with the world.  I'm not sure if there is a definite "this" or "that" to what should and should not be shot, but more a question of what sort of approach will one take? and how will that allow the subject to be something that is okay to be photographed?

2) cannot be photographed? Why?
I think that given the inspiration and effort, almost anything can be photographed.  Emotions and thoughts can be conveyed through photography in many different ways.  Perhaps the only limitation may be what cannot be physically reached or achieved.  Abstract thoughts cannot literally be photographed, however those ideas can be conveyed through a photograph. 

3) you do not want to photograph? Why?
I can't think of any subject that i would not be willing to photograph.  Though my opinion may change should i be faced with something absurd, at this point, i feel as though whatever i photograph should be considered art.  I would not feel uncomfortable with profound subjects because i would approach them as art, which i believe, puts any subject on a completely different playing field.  The social and worldly context remains, most likely that is the reason that it is being used for art, however the approach/artist views it as a work in progress.