antiquark
Derek Ross
"Empathy" a better word?
"Empathy" a better word?
After thinking about it, I don't think the right word is morality. How about empathy, is that a more accurate word? It seems more descriptive to this scenario.
Should photographers have empathy for their subjects? I think they should. Empathy and legality are two completely different things. You can embrace the law, but if you discard empathy, don't expect people to blow kisses in your direction.
"Empathy" a better word?
After thinking about it, I don't think the right word is morality. How about empathy, is that a more accurate word? It seems more descriptive to this scenario.
Should photographers have empathy for their subjects? I think they should. Empathy and legality are two completely different things. You can embrace the law, but if you discard empathy, don't expect people to blow kisses in your direction.
ddimaria
Well-known
The photographer seems to be taking pictures of his friends. Am I missing something? This seems pretty mundane.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Derek,
A superb analysis!
And of course morality is different again from law and empathy.
Cheers,
R.
panda81
Member
A few are of his friends, but there are quite a number of his photos who are completely strangers. In fact, he has shared stories about how he was demanded by his targets not to put up the photos, which he responded by walking away and ignoring them...and proceeded to put them on the web later at home.
Edit: How do you know who I am referring to, anyhow? I didn't send you the link.
Last edited:
oldoc
oldoc
Personally, whether done by a "sick bigot" or someone who is of an intelligence level so low as to not understand a photographer's intent (if, in fact, he knows it himself) railing against those violent people, and healing a major injury are quite different animals. But violence is best avoided, and pre-empting is preferable, in every case I can think of, to suffering from it, regardless of how wrong it is.
Last edited:
panda81
Member
That is a much better word. Thanks Antiquark.
yanidel
Well-known
Your opinion does not count, you are Italian
The whole TV culture there is based on showing beautiful girls. How many Sundays have I spent as a teenager looking at "La Domenica In" .... sigh ...
italy74
Well-known
You were (un)lucky not to notice "Colpo grosso" then...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I could not agree more -- which is why, perhaps, I have never had my camera smashed or been physically assaulted as a result of taking a picture. I have on the other hand taken countless pictures of people in the street for some 43 years, and have only ever encountered seven (or so) objections in that time.
You can avoid violence by being scared of your own shadow -- I use 'you' in the general sense of 'one', of course, not of you personally -- or you can reflect on the real danger of being seriously assaulted.
As I added to my earlier post in an edit, has anyone on this thread ever been seriously assaulted, or had their camera smashed, as a result of taking a picture, or does anyone know personally anyone to whom this has happened; at least, outside a war zone or a riot?
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
newsgrunt
Well-known
I've looked high and lo and over yonder but don't see a link to said photos, where did you find them ? I'd really like to see what this is all about before making an informed comment, if any.
thanks
raid
Dad Photographer
As long as the girls are old enough and not teenagers or children, then I don't see any problems with such photography. The laws of the land keep on being changed to deprive people of any rights to take street photos, so do it while you are allowed to do. In later years, who knows whether such photos will be legally allowed or not.
foggie
the foggiest
Seriously hurt? No. But I've a few times been on the receiving end of acts of battery. The worst of the bunch was when someone hit me with a kubaton. It drew blood and bruised my hand but more agonizingly, the photos were blurry.
Typically when someone engages me, I'm polite and cheery or polite and stern. It happens when someone spouts out false laws ('photographing in public is a felony', 'I can legally confiscate your camera', etc) that I can become flippant and sassy but that's rarity.
I find meeting anger with smiles and good manners diffuses most of my encounters.
PS teehee @ "Roher" typo
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Not I. I've been clobbered pretty good while shooting at CBGB and Danceteria, but only because I was in the way of folks having a good time- looking through the camera instead of at where I was heading. I've had several discussions with people about photographing something of theirs, heated a few times. But nothing has ever come to blows. I worked for a guy for a while who was a bit of a paparazzi type, would dash out of the studio when he heard so and so was going to be on TV to hang out waiting. He was could be pretty obnoxious, and he never got smacked.
oldoc
oldoc
A friend, photographing a guys CAR from behind, got a shoulder dislocation and his camera a free carwash in the Charles River, Boston...
Maybe the tag on his Ferrari was expired...
Maybe the tag on his Ferrari was expired...
kermaier
Well-known
I would submit that there's a profound difference, psychologically, between being seen and being photographed. People do many transient things as a part of their natural behavior that would make them extremely uncomfortable to see in a permanent record. As has been mentioned, this is a matter not so much of morality or legality, but of empathy. I think it's a bit glib to assert that people have only themselves to blame if they don't constrain their human natures to the purely rational.
Finally! Someone who remembers Winogrand's book "Women Are Beautiful".
This was moderately controversial at the time (I think he had trouble getting it published). I'm fairly certain that Winogrand did not set out to do a project on women, but his natural tendencies resulted, over time, in a body of work on the subject. He probably took the vast majority of the picture simply because he found the women beautiful -- whether in the banal, bikini-clad sense or in some deeper, more empathetic sense.Correct. Only the photographer's intent potentially could be unsavory, and that cannot be divined with any certainty from the photographs alone. That having been said, I think it's worth considering that, from the point of view of the subjects of the pictures, the idea of having those photos available on the internet for all humanity to view, with whatever intent, may be somewhat more disturbing than the thought that some individual has, for whatever reason, seen fit to take and keep a snapshot of them.
So, in short, I think the possible "creepiness" of this collection of images lies not in their mere existence, but mostly in what they may represent about the shallowness of the relationship between the photographer, his subjects and (not incidentally) the viewers. This is something that all street and documentary photographers should think about seriously.
As an example, I once took a course in documentary photography where one of the exercises had the instructor randomly pairing up the students and assigning each pair to come to class the following week and display nude photos of each other. The objective was to teach us something about the vulnerability a subject experiences in front of the camera; the sensitivity the photographer should exercise behind the camera; and how empathy between the two results in much stronger images, even when those images are uncensored. (Also, viewing and critiquing such photos in the presence of both the photographer and the subject offered an unusual and valuable perspective on documentary photography.)
::Ari
Last edited:
oldoc
oldoc
Class best avoided by those of us that young ladies "call uncle", IMO...
Uncle
Uncle
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Perhaps, yet labeling images of such behavior 'wrong' is not OK by my book. To take a look at anyone younger than 25's Facebook photo albums is to see how quickly this comfort level is changing- the main reason why I don't accept current students as FB friends.
Finally! Someone who remembers Winogrand's book "Women Are Beautiful".
Exact same subject matter, just better design. And what about Jock Sturgis?
Yet there is plenty of eye contact there, which means that there was some connection- so he isn't (do we know this is a he?- I guess so) just hanging out with a 400mm lens in the bushes and 'stealing' images of women adjusting their knickers.
I know I'd get fired for trying something like that! But that is an exceptional assignment.
kully
Happy Snapper
Were I not single, I am sure this would be a wonderful first "approach" technique.
I think you have an errant 'not' in that sentence Yanick ;-)
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Or "not"
kermaier
Well-known
Actually, the class had a wide age range, from early 20s to early 50s, and the pairings were random so some of them were same-sex. The resulting photos showed just as wide a range of styles, from totally convincing S&M scenarios to Ruth Bernhard-style figure studies, to edgy stuff that looked like hidden-camera candids. There was just one guy in his 30s who bailed out due to religious objections (he said).
::Ari