Street Photography Under Attack? WBZ-TV Boston's slanted piece

rdeleskie said:
Showing up at the same location, week after week, with your posse of fellow nerd/hobbyist/photographers, blatantly working the crowd, focusing on people's legs or whatever, displays a remarkable lack of basic understanding about the social milieu in which one is working. Stupid, yes. Likely to produce great photographs? Unlikely IMO. Unethical? Come on. Photographing someone dying instead of trying to help them is unethical: these guys are simply annoying. Weird? Well, I thought the newscaster was the real weirdo in the whole thing, so there you go.
Click to expand...

+1 for this whole post.

I think it's pretty black and white - they're breaking the law or not. Who cares if they're in a group or acting like idiots pointing their cameras at people's feet? How do these guys impede the safety or way of life of others? I don't get it.
 
peterm1 said:
While from what I can see these folks are uber creepy. I have to say that I am also put off (to a lesser much extent thankfully) by street photographers like Joel Meyerowitz who can be very very "in your face" (literally so give his occasional predelictionfor shoving his camera into your face within just centimetres when on the trail of a photo.) At least he is not creepy as such - just pushy and a sometimes PITA.
Click to expand...

I've been on the same street as JM when he's photographing and if someone says no, he doesn't take the photo. I've also seen him ask people and have people be genuinely nice back to him. I took a two day class with him in which he photographed for hours with us. He is not a rude pushy guy at all. However, since he did have a 28mm on, he does get close sometimes.
 
i wonder if any of them are members here?

personally, the bigger issue for me would be the shameful conduct of the news team involved in airing this story. scary might even be apropos.

cultivate fear, cultivate fear, cultivate fear...
 
gekopaca said:
The two main questions are :

1) How can you go on Gizmodo.com, a such ridiculous and bad done site?
It's a demagogic and poor edited site, with sensational and superficial (non) information. No interest. Really. No culture. No knowledge of art, artistic practise, and history of art.
The world isn't a reader's digest magazine; it's more subtile and complex.
Click to expand...

It's a blog about electronics mostly, that occasionally dabbles in other stuff. While the post in question is super thin on background, I think you're expecting too much from that site. It's great for what it does best though; gadgets.
 
semilog said:
Je n'aime pas Boston.

Don't like the town, don't like its sports teams, don't like its attitude, don't like its drivers, and now, don't like its news media. I'll take NYC or Philly over Boston any day.
Click to expand...

As someone who regretfully (mostly) lives in Boston, I agree. Boston has some great things going for it, but the one big negative is the people. It just about outweighs all the good points.
 
morgan said:
As someone who regretfully (mostly) lives in Boston, I agree. Boston has some great things going for it, but the one big negative is the people. It just about outweighs all the good points.
Click to expand...

When you don't like the people you're photographing, you're simply wasting your time, because the photos will be crap and the process annoying. This is one of those obvious facts that a lot of 'street photographers' seem to ignore.

You have to have an interest and a liking for the people that you photograph in order to go out and photograph them effectively. You cannot expect for people to empty the streets while you're photographing it.
 
That piece was hugely slanted and intended to inflame emotion. Just look at the hot button words used.

Creep, perv, upskirt,... and the ever useful "women and children."

Pfft... nothing like flaming fear and distrust for one another among the populace to control them.
 
...cultivate fear, cultivate fear, cultivate fear...
Click to expand...

Does the modern media do anything else? It seems as though all they do is go out and cherry pick selected 'facts' that fit into their pre-constructed narratives, with bonus points awarded for low-hanging fruit.
 
Gizmodo is one of my many stops while surfing. Not being from Boston I would not have seen this WBZ-TV Boston piece if they didn't post about it. I find Gizmodo to be an entertaining stepping off point to see what others outside of my sphere are talking about (and even better if I don't agree!)
 
Et tu Boston?


Horrible piece of reporting, but nothing that surprising. May give you a break from worrying that your kids are going to die from a Robotussin OD (it's the new Heroin) that someone will give your kids an apple with a razor in it trick-or-treating (happens all the time) or that your teenager is almost certainly a member of an eyes-wide-shut type s-e-x secret society, something that is becoming as common as debate club used to be, so I hear.:bang:
 
morgan said:
It's a blog about electronics mostly, that occasionally dabbles in other stuff. While the post in question is super thin on background, I think you're expecting too much from that site. It's great for what it does best though; gadgets.
Click to expand...

OK, so let them speak about gadgets, and not about things they don't understand.
My problem in that sort of situation, that is I feel people want to judge about the practises of other persons; and that is really dangerous for freedom and expression.
I understand some people don't understand a project/concept, or don't like an opus. But artistic practises as personal expression practises can't be discussed - or IMHO it's the start of fascism.
In the case above, even if you don't like the work, there's a lot of things to think about - that's why it's interesting.
For example, everybody knows how photographing is an individual practise. Here, we can ask ourself if there's ways to work in group… and we can find here a lot of other examples.
That's why I'm angry about such a website, who have no political engagement, but offers a negative point of view (because of decontextualisation for example) about things they don't understand at all (please excuse my poor english!).
 
Well, frankly , this is the kind of B.S. the media's pushed for years in order to sell a story--that photogs are are likely potential pervs and child molesters. I've felt the backblast from this perception myself.

I can only assume that this was a slow news day, so they found a story and spun it to fit the preconceived perception of photogs. Tom Wolfe pointed out that the media, lacking any imagination, and let's face it, being lazy,will ALWAYS spin a story to fit the conventional wisdom.

As to the photogs: Well, I guess you could say they're obnoxious pervs at first glance, BUT I can see where women's legs flashing across a crosswalk might be a cool shot, and not necessarily pervo. Peter Turnley has a shot like that taken in Paris --who calls him a pervert?

In some ways , the photogs are being criticized for doing something different, unusual , or outside the so-called norm. And this does not go well in America, where despite our purported love of freedom of expression, etc, etc, any behavior outside the "approved" norm makes us nervous.

Let's not forget that a large part of the public has dirty minds (no thanks in large part to media spin--see above). I think of the Wynn Bullock shot of the little girl lying naked in the forest. He said he was shocked at how many people asked him if the girl in the photo was supposed to be raped or murdered--he meant the photo as a symbol of innocence....

And finally, as mentioned above, while people may like street photos, they forget what goes into making them , and that the taking of the photos can be perceived as perverse, intrusive and possibly illegal--for the reasons mentioned above.

All I know is that this story doesn't make it any easier for me, when I'm trying to do street shooting.
 
GSNfan said:
When you don't like the people you're photographing, you're simply wasting your time, because the photos will be crap and the process annoying. This is one of those obvious facts that a lot of 'street photographers' seem to ignore.

You have to have an interest and a liking for the people that you photograph in order to go out and photograph them effectively. You cannot expect for people to empty the streets while you're photographing it.
Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't really speaking about the people from a photographic perspective, more a living here, interacting-with perspective.

But to your point, I agree.
 
morgan said:
Well, I wasn't really speaking about the people from a photographic perspective, more a living here, interacting-with perspective.

But to your point, I agree.
Click to expand...


Could you answer, as an aside, this question? What is up with Bostonians? I've never had more people ignore me, fail to make eye contact, let doors slam in my face and be just plain rude in other ways. Nothing like NYC or Philly, where I think, contrary to popular misconception, people are pretty friendly.
 
semilog said:
Je n'aime pas Boston.

Don't like the town, don't like its sports teams, don't like its attitude, don't like its drivers, and now, don't like its news media. I'll take NYC or Philly over Boston any day.
Click to expand...

I'm an ex New Yorker, and I think you nailed it semilog. Last June I spent a few days in NYC doing...street photography. The natives were friendly, and there were photographers, individuals and small groups - mostly tourists, everywhere.

You can see some of my NYC shots here.

I also note that the NY group (see Photo Clubs in this forum) has group outings for theme or location shots. I wonder if they have had any reactions like the ones depicted in this piece. (Calzone, are you listening?)

Finally, Bill Cunningham, a street photographer featured every week in the NY Times, shoots women almost exclusively. And guess what, he shoots them from every angle to highlight a fashion trend.

Harry
 
haempe said:
For what do artist their art, if not to be discussed...
Click to expand...

Excuse me, it's difficult for me in English :

Discuss yes, if it's: to discuss the outcome of their practice, then I agree.

But to question their practice itself, prohibit it, then I do not agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom