Source Review - Exploring text and sources for research
“Visual ethics is the study of how images and imaging affect the ways we think, feel, behave, and create, use, and interpret meaning, for good or for bad. Visual ethics includes the study of how we create and use images in communicating with others and ourselves. ”
Introduction
Ethics. An ever evolving and progressing area of study that you could dedicate a lifetime researching and still be left with more questions. However, the purpose for this exegesis is focused on visual ethics, what it is, and how it can be used for documentary films, there is a clear distinction made. There is no dedicated code of ethics for documentary films, however there are approaches filmmakers can take to develop customised frameworks for a project-by-project basis.
In this source review we will analyse a variety of texts that explore the connection between visual ethics, documentary, and impact. These sources have been the key to my own research and understanding and underpin my constructionist approach and the toolkit itself.
In VISUAL ETHICS - A Guide for Photographers, Journalists, and Media Makers (Martin, P., Paul Martin Lester, Martin, S. A., & Smith-Rodden, M., 2022) Lester specifically incorporates a chapter on ethics in documentary where he uses case examples on why we as media creators (and humans in general) do not have the capacity to be objective. Yet, he does commonly refer to journalism and photojournalism. However, the examples he uses primarily focus on the manner in which visual media was recorded for the sake of documenting an event and how skewing the media may, in turn, skew the perceived meaning of the media (Paul Martin Lester, Martin and Smith-Rodden, 2022).
Earlier in his chapter on Visual Ethics Analytical Procedures, Lester breaks down the difference between normative and descriptive ethics which he uses to describe decisions and actions later in the source. Descriptive ethics is simply noting or calling out “questionable behaviour” and normative ethics is noting how someone should behave (Paul Martin Lester, Martin and Smith-Rodden, 2022). These two contrasting terms appear in the case examples provided by Lester.
His primary example is a protest he was tasked to photograph for a paper he was interning at as a photojournalist. The protest was minimal and his expectation of the event had already been skewed. He had a decision to make (Paul Martin Lester, Martin and Smith-Rodden, 2022). Either make it seem there were more angry people at this protest OR show the true number and attitude of the protesters. His lived experience may provide the bias that would, in turn, influence his own ethical decision.
The chapter on Visual Ethics Theory in Handbook of Visual Communication Theory, Methods, and Media provides a comprehensive breakdown of how humans process and interpret ethics and how we consume media by utilising traditional ethical thought and philosophical concepts (Newton, 2004). They argue that through the modern age of developing technology and media consumption, visual material hadn’t possessed visual relevancy to ethical scholars until such questions emerged: Does the media-conveyed message mislead or deceive? Does the message bring harm to someone? Does viewing violent imagery make someone more violent? (Newton, 2004).
The author continues on to claim that visual scholars are now querying further into the issue and are attempting to discern the role that visual material plays in “rational and intuitive processing systems” (Newton, 2004).
The author provides a direct (if emotive) definition of visual ethics and goes into detail on how it can be used for good and negative intentions:
Toolkits
One toolkit, in particular, stood out to me in the structure that their information had. The Documentary Organisation of Canada had a plethora of material from which I could draw from and their Making Documentaries with Impact: A toolkit was where I landed. Here, the author creates a cohesive structure of information:
Measuring impact
Resources from other toolkits to frameworks and case studies
research and development for your impact films
Understanding structure and how to lay out my toolkit was going to be a greater challenge, to cohesively compress the information and research into an accessible guide for future filmmakers.
In Making Documentaries with Impact: A Toolkit (De Rosa and Burgess, p.6, n.d.) comments that in order to encourage a change in minds and heart, a story needs to be compelling, and the audience must find it engaging. If audiences are moved by their experience watching the film, they are more likely to engage with the issue (De Rosa and Burgess, p.6, n.d.).
The list of four different forms of impact provided by The Documentary Organization Of Canada are as follows:
Changing minds: What attitudes or beliefs is your film trying to alter, create, or convince?
Changing behaviours: This is more of a call to action to the issue raised in your film encourages action such as buying, boycotting, donating, or volunteering.
Guiding communities: promotes the grassroots approach to community building through the film or incorporating a community in the development of the film.
Changing structures considers the potential for top-down change by looking for laws, political formations and structures that impact the issue.
Similarly in Documentary Australia’s Impact and Evaluation resource, they break down the key attributes that documentary films are most effective with (documentaryaustralia.com.au, 2023):
Raising awareness and educating broad audiences
Elevating marginalised voices and making the political personal
Putting issues on the public agenda
Mobilising movements for social change
The similarities between these resources shows that we are on the right path regarding measuring impact. Now let’s explore the ethical dilemmas and challenges faced by documentary filmmakers.
Ethical Challenges and How to Approach Them
As is mentioned in Ethics In Documentary Filmmaking: An Anthropological Perspective, filmmaking is a powerful tool that not only impacts the audience, but particularly those individuals and communities who are represented visually in the film (Hartzell, 2003).
I will mention here how Maya Newall incorporated a collaborative approach with her participants. On their website The Unquiet Collective, they have a set of principles that is followed as part of each project. This includes all aspects of the production process. As Maya’s film In My Blood It Runs was the direct inspiration for my own film River Town People, I found it appropriate to take a look at how she approaches relationships with her participants and how her films reflect that relationship.
She partners her relationships with her participants with how she conducts her impact campaigns behind the films. Of note, she mentions that the impact of the films should rely on the high quality of the work to be engaging but also possesses integrity (Studio, n.d.).
At this stage, finding a path to incorporate visual ethics and an engaging method of storytelling can still lead to an impactful film. As discussed in earlier, we revisit the moment Lester was a photojournalist student having to decide on how to visually portray a protest; as the truth which showed few people, or to skew the photo to make it seem like there were many people (Paul Martin Lester, Martin and Smith-Rodden, p. 46, 2022).
As it is important to remain objective, Lester argues that this is impossible for humanity as we filter everything through our own experiences. This could also lead to bias and therefore affecting how we approach a scene in a visual manner (Paul Martin Lester, Martin and Smith-Rodden, p. 46, 2022). I do agree with Lester’s explanation of how as humans we cannot be objective. Purely because the discussion of how bias impacts our sense of reality and therefore how we choose to engage with our reality can consequently influence and develop a predetermined state of mind (even if we may not be fully aware of this) and can lead to damaging and hurtful conclusions (Paul Martin Lester, Martin and Smith-Rodden, p. 46, 2022).
Butchart in What can a philosophy and ethics of communication look like in the context of documentary filmmaking? (Butchart, 2013) suggests that the challenges of ethics in documentary is not only raising public awareness, but to also draw the attention to the narrative. This then poses the question of framing and the primary focus on the film. What is the primary focus and how is it being portrayed in the film (Butchart, 2013)?
“…visual images are part of elaborate sign systems used for human expression, perception, and interpretation of the lived-through world.”
Similarly, to Lester and Hartzell, Butchart says that a filmmaker is influenced by their lived experience and therefore film is an expression of their perception of their experience (Butchart, 2013). He goes on to say that this brings into question the truth telling obligation that documentary possesses and therefore, would documentary’s primary function be the production of moralizing issues (Butchart, 2013). This connects back to what Lester says about bias and the overarching issue of personal experience over truth.
In a visual ethical perspective, Butchart claims that documentary relies on demonstrating truth through visuals and the decision by the documentarian on whether or not to disclose certain visuals (Butchart, 2006). This is precisely what I wanted to bring into question. The decisions made to demonstrate truth and narrative in a visual format and if the visuals in question are necessary for the benefit of the narrative and purpose of film (in the context of this exegesis, impact documentaries).
Butchart goes on to say that it is the responsibility of the filmmaker to ensure the participants of the film are fully informed on how they will be represented in the film, to ensure ongoing and willing consent (Butchart, 2006). This harks back to Hartzell’s belief that the filmmaking process remains exploitative however possesses the ability to do good. Her questions connect directly to Butchart’s statements; Does the filmmaker need to have ethical motivations for the project in order for the project itself to be considered ethical (Hartzell, 2003)? If the outcomes of the project are beneficial to the participant’s or issues, does that reflect ethically on the intentions of the filmmaker (Hartzell, 2003)?
So far, we have come to acknowledge that we as humans cannot be entirely objective, that our current manner of engaging with the world and situations is based on our previous experience and interactions, and that we ultimately have the choice in how we want to display reality i.e. a small group of protesters, fighting a noble cause.