Photographic empathy can exist in two different ways. There is the empathy that exists between the photographer and the photographed, and then there is that which exists (or not) between the viewer and the photograph. Does it necessarily transcend the two?
Having empathy with another person can, to some degree, be measured by the physical closeness achieved (camera to person) and by the look or feel to the photograph/subject matters face, stance or expression for example. Yet empathy isn’t always quite so tangible, a good example of this is the work of Diane Arbus. Much of her work explores people who live on the fringes of society, the people who don’t look or behave as the mainstream do. As a result, more often than not there is a distance (both palpable and actual) between Arbus and her subject. According to Martha Rosler, Arbus’s work allows us to view her work without empathy; “By selecting the right subject, Diane Arbus allows the viewer to stare and to do so without feeling empathy…”1. In contrast, Susan Sontag’s somewhat damning view of Arbus offers a general acceptance of the existence of empathy, albeit unsentimental “Her work shows people who are pathetic, pitiable, as well as repulsive, but it does not arouse any compassionate feelings. For what would be more correctly described as their dissociated point of view, the photographs have been praised for their candor and for an unsentimental empathy with their subjects.”2 So this suggests a ‘type’ of empathy existing between photographer and subject. To muddy the waters further, Abigail Solomon-Godeau “… points out that Sontag found that there were certain approaches to photography , in particular, that objectified people. These approaches prevented the viewer having empathy with the subject and Arbus’s work was typical of this.”3 & 4.
1. 
2.
- Diane Arbus. Child With a Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park, N.Y.C. 1962.
- Diane Arbus. A Family on their Lawn One Sunday in Westchester, New York, 1968.
This is pure supposition, but Arbus suffered from bouts of depression, and this may in some way have attracted her to ‘societies frailties’ (John Szarkowski) and indeed helped her to develop an empathy with many of her subjects (often not visible in the images themselves).
REFERENCES:
1. Bolton. R. (1989) The Contest of Meaning: Critical Histories of Photography, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 0-262-52169-5
2. Sontag. S. (2008) Susan Sontag On Photography, London, Penguin modern classics, page 33.
3. Solomon-Godeau. A. (1994) Essay- Public Information Desire, Disaster, Document (SFMOMA 1994)
4. la Grange. A. (2008) Basic Critical Theory for Photographers. Oxford, Elsevier. page 125. (ISBN: 978-0-240-51652-3)
I see! 