I am interested to hear your thoughts about Poverty P0rn – here are some images from a slideshow the Guardian has today illustrating a sanitation project in Afghanistan. Please let me know which images you think would be described as Poverty P0rn, and which would not.
You can also tell me how you are defining it, if you like. My friend Michael Keizer describes it in terms of a lack of dignity of those in the images, though admits this is a slippery concept. You might like to read through some or all of these resources about the ethical use of these kinds of images.
For what it is worth, I think it is something about exploiting a person in a very vulnerable position to get donors to feel pity and so donate funds for a specific NGO, particularly if that individual is not likely to be helped by any funds raised. I’m not sure whether it is so problematic if the individual has given permission (whatever that means – presumably they can only really be in a position to give permission if they’re already being helped) and am not clear in my own mind whether newspaper images fall into the same category. And I think we’re talking about the very intrusive close-up shots of an individual’s suffering rather than a wide-angle shot which pictures a scene.
