Beginner thinks out loud

[claacct]

Well, of course not, although I'm sure you realize that's a straw-man argument; someone killing you because they don't like the way you look at your girfriend is not a good analogy for someone objecting to their image being used in a way they can't control. One is a civil interaction, the other is, you know, homicide, and both legally and morally there does seem to be a _small_ difference.

Jack

How about not getting married because one might cheat on one's spouse later on... Or not going to the doctor because one might be diagnosed with a fatal illness... Or not posting on internet forums about one's ideas because one might be labeled crazy?

Not taking pictures because one might abuse it in some form later on shows a clear disconnect within one's mind, which according to Roger Hick's diagnoses enters paranoid schizophrenia territory.

 

[JackForster]

How about not getting married because one might cheat on one's spouse later on... Or not going to the doctor because one might be diagnosed with a fatal illness... Or not posting on internet forums about one's ideas because one might be labeled crazy?

Not taking pictures because one might abuse it in some form later on shows a clear disconnect within one's mind, which according to Roger Hick's diagnoses enters paranoid schizophrenia territory.

Hi Claacct,

Again all of the above counterexamples you give are arguments by analogy which don't especially apply to the matter at hand, and which all fail on examination. In the first case some people actually don't get married because they might cheat on their spouse later on (or at least because they don't want to be exposed to the risk.) There are in fact a staggering number of people who don't go to the doctor because they don't want hear bad news, and many people avoid internet forums because they don't want to deal with --well, not necessarily being labeled crazy, but certainly the incivility which the anonymity of the Web makes it all too easy to indulge in.

Claiming that avoiding a situation because of potential adverse consequences is irrational is only a plausible claim if the risk in a particular situation is trivially low or trivially inconsequential. You might make a more plausible argument for the latter (but you haven't.) As to the former, if what one wishes to avoid is the unapproved use and publication --electronically or otherwise --of one's likeness, I think it is overwhelmingly obvious that that risk is _not_ trivially low.

By the way, paranoid schizophrenia is a very specific psychiatric diagnosis characterized by auditory hallucinations, paranoia and delusions, disorganized thinking and inappropriate affect. To use the term casually as an ad hominem characterization of arguments you disagree with trivializes a very devastating illness and also adds much heat but no light to the discussion. I don't think that everyone who does a risk benefit analysis and elects to avoid a potential adverse outcome suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and what's more I don't think you do either.

Jack

 

[Jamie123]

As far as I have read the law as well as much of the discussion of the ethics of photography, there is widespread recognition of the distinction you make --a person is understood to have the right to exert control over the use of their image, except under particular circumstances.

I think my statement got a bit distorted through the many replies. I wasn't talking about the law, copyright or usage of an image. What I said is that I feel even when I do consentual portrait photography it is exploitative to a certain degree because I use them to get the picture I want. That is not to say that I do not care about the people I photograph but most of the time I care more about the picture of them. The whole interaction between me and the person I'm photographing is aimed at getting a good picture and even making the person feel comfortable and safe is only a means to an end.

 

[JackForster]

I think my statement got a bit distorted through the many replies. I wasn't talking about the law, copyright or usage of an image. What I said is that I feel even when I do consentual portrait photography it is exploitative to a certain degree because I use them to get the picture I want. That is not to say that I do not care about the people I photograph but most of the time I care more about the picture of them. The whole interaction between me and the person I'm photographing is aimed at getting a good picture and even making the person feel comfortable and safe is only a means to an end.

Hi Jamie,

I'm not so sure about that. I think for the word "exploit" to keep its teeth we have to think about what it really means --it's not a great formulation but when I hear the word I think of someone taking unfair advantage of someone else. For instance, a factory boss may exploit his honest workmen by paying them a wage too meager for them to live on, simply because he owns all the local means of employment and they have no choice but to accept what he pays. A corporation that makes a five hundred per cent margin on luxury products whose raw materials are gathered by workers risking their lives and making pennies a day for doing so could reasonably be said to be exploiting their workers. Are you exploiting your subjects? Your goal is a good image, sure, and that is your main concern in working with them but that doesn't mean you are taking unfair advantage of them --in fact as far as I can see you go to rather more pains than a lot of people do to make sure you are _not_ taking unfair advantage of them. Relationships can be multi-dimensional, right? Just because they are photographic subjects doesn't drain them of all their other human traits, and just because the primary basis of your relationship is that of artist to model doesn't mean you are exploiting them. The model/artist relationship has the potential to be one of exploitation (even if a person knows they are the subject of a work of art, they may be coerced, for instance) but that doesn't sound like what's happening in your case, no?

Jack

 

[Jamie123]

Hi Jamie,

I'm not so sure about that. I think for the word "exploit" to keep its teeth we have to think about what it really means --it's not a great formulation but when I hear the word I think of someone taking unfair advantage of someone else. For instance, a factory boss may exploit his honest workmen by paying them a wage too meager for them to live on, simply because he owns all the local means of employment and they have no choice but to accept what he pays. A corporation that makes a five hundred per cent margin on luxury products whose raw materials are gathered by workers risking their lives and making pennies a day for doing so could reasonably be said to be exploiting their workers. Are you exploiting your subjects? Your goal is a good image, sure, and that is your main concern in working with them but that doesn't mean you are taking unfair advantage of them --in fact as far as I can see you go to rather more pains than a lot of people do to make sure you are _not_ taking unfair advantage of them. Relationships can be multi-dimensional, right? Just because they are photographic subjects doesn't drain them of all their other human traits, and just because the primary basis of your relationship is that of artist to model doesn't mean you are exploiting them. The model/artist relationship has the potential to be one of exploitation (even if a person knows they are the subject of a work of art, they may be coerced, for instance) but that doesn't sound like what's happening in your case, no?

Jack

Jack, you're right, if the term is understood in a stict sense or maybe even in a Marxist context then it is certainly not quite adequate and I was using it to exaggerate in order to make a point.

But still, even though I might not be taking unfair advantage I'm still taking advantage. Of course the person I'm taking pictures of most often has an interest in getting good pictures so they are taking advantage of me, too, in a way.

I guess it's a bit hard to convey what I mean because I'm really not trying to say that taking pictures of someone is wrong in any kind way, I still feel there's a certain thing that happens with me when I look through a viewfinder. I'm all of a sudden only concerned with the surface of things and I sometimes feel dishonest because I catch myself caring much more about the picture of a human being than that human being itself. My interaction with a person all of a sudden starts to depend on the effect my actions and behaviour have on the picturetaking process.

 

[JackForster]

Jack, you're right, if the term is understood in a stict sense or maybe even in a Marxist context then it is certainly not quite adequate and I was using it to exaggerate in order to make a point.

But still, even though I might not be taking unfair advantage I'm still taking advantage. Of course the person I'm taking pictures of most often has an interest in getting good pictures so they are taking advantage of me, too, in a way.

I guess it's a bit hard to convey what I mean because I'm really not trying to say that taking pictures of someone is wrong in any kind way, I still feel there's a certain thing that happens with me when I look through a viewfinder. I'm all of a sudden only concerned with the surface of things and I sometimes feel dishonest because I catch myself caring much more about the picture of a human being than that human being itself. My interaction with a person all of a sudden starts to depend on the effect my actions and behaviour have on the picturetaking process.

I think you've hit on a very interesting point though. "Exploitation" doesn't capture it exactly but there is certainly a lot in the history of art to support the notion that there is something --I really don't know how to put it either, something uncannily Promethean about making an image, whether it's a painting, sculpture, or photograph. In the history of abstract painting in the 20th century, for instance, there were an awful lot of painters who thought about this problem a lot, and not just those practicing pure abstraction either (and of course there's the whole can of worms about whether such a thing even exists.) You should take a look at the late Picassos, if you haven't --they are a whole mediation on exactly this subject, on the relationsip of the artist to the model, and on who exactly is exploiting whom. For Picasso the question was always an open one, and it was not so much about exploitation per se as it was about the desiring eye, about the desire of the artist to appropriate an image and the image as a manifestation of desire (often erotic desire.) Another fascinating artist to look at in this respect is de Kooning, who wrestled (at least this is what I felt after walking through the huge retrospective that's up right now at MOMA here in New York) both with his own great technical ability and with the powerfully seductive temptation to create beautiful images; he fought very hard against it, really struggled with it. . . so the subject of the painting, for both de Kooning and Picasso, had its own power, the power to evoke a creative effort on the part of the image maker, and the power to dictate formal means as well.

Philip Guston, who is less well known, is another fascinating artist to look at for the tension between the artist's desire to appropriate an image --to take possession of something in the world --and the desire to be liberated from the image, or at least from the representational image. He spend decades making some of the most deliciously gorgeous abstract paintings, with almost Zenlike detachment, and then suddenly in the last ten or so years of his career made paintings that were literally cartoons --huge looming heads, cars filled with menacing hooded figures, paintings of his studio filled with overflowing ashtrays, paint tubes, and half finished paintings. "We try to get away from the (figurative) image, but we can't," he said. "We are image makers and image ridden."

Far from being an odditiy the experience you have when you place a subject in front of your lens is really something quite primordial and interesting and is the subject of much of the greatest art of the last five hundred or so years. In photography it's probably most obviously on display as a subject/subtext in erotic photography, where possession of the image is a stand in for literal physical possession of the model, but I think there's an element of this tension in all photography to some degree.

Jack

 

[Sparrow]

Hi Stewart,

A spirited rejoinder to be sure although as with your comment above I think this is an example of a fallacious argument from analogy.

Firstly, we in fact DO ban people from driving when we have a reasonable suspicion they intend to speed (or otherwise drive unsafely.) The evidence in such a case is that they have done so before. If I have enough moving violations, this is considered sufficient evidence that I may do so (that is, intend to do so, if you will allow the point) and so based on the presumption that what I have done in the past I intend to do in the future, my driving privileges may be revoked.

Secondly I think "drivers may intend to speed so all should be banned" analogizes poorly to "I don't know what use Stewart will make of my image and so prefer to not have my picture taken." In the former case an unreeasonable assumption is being made about all classes of drivers, in the absence of any compelling evidence that the objectionable behavior in question will actually occur. In the second, however, I would argue that a reasonable person would be quite justified in assuming a risk of their image being used in a way they don't approve, or cannot control --as a matter of fact, if you have ever published a street photograph of someone whose consent to use their image you did not secure, you yourself stand as evidence of the argument. The very existence of this forum, to say nothing of Facebook, Picasa, Flickr, Photobucket, Twitter pictures, et cetera and ad nauseam speak to the ubiquity of digital distribution, as well as the reasonableness of assuming that a picture taken of a person today will be on the web tomorrow.

My interest in this question by the way is not as an outside observer nor am I arguing that there is anything _inherently_ immoral or unethical about street photography. I obviously do think, however, that street photography touches on some interesting issues of privacy and rights to the distribution and use of one's image, and I think you would have to agree, if not with some of my position, that at least there is considerable evidence that I'm not exactly a voice crying alone in the wilderness 😉 . You are quite free to practice photography as you see fit, and I am quite free to burn electrons pondering the issues that such practices raise. I am actually rather bemused (and amused) by the strident tone of some of the earlier responses --as if I or anyone else who comments on the ethics of street photography is somehow empowered to endanger the practice!

When I practiced medicine I was very interested in the principle of informed consent. The ideal is a patient who understands completely the risk/benefit ratio in any intervention and consents to that intervention on the basis of a complete understanding of the risks and benefits appertaining thereunto. This is, obviously, an ideal that is for all intents and purposes impossible. A lot of the work I did was in the late stage care of cancer patients and I can guarantee you, not only the patients but also the physicians in many cases were quite in the dark as to what the real risk/benefit ratio of any intervention might be. However, that didn't stop me from doing the work at hand. I did feel, however, that it was my responsiblity to explain as thoroughly as I could what those ratios might be (within my particular domain of practice) and where there were gaps in our understanding, let the patient know. Likewise, I don't think the fact that candid photographs of strangers in public places often are taken without the subject having consented to it means it shouldn't be done. I do think, however, that the practice raises quite interesting ethical questions, and I think considering them has the potential to actually enrich the practice of photography, inasmuch as it recognizes a real human aspect of what we do, and encourages a habit of empathizing with our subjects that makes for better images.

Otherwise you might as well take a picture of a lampost.

Jack

Well, as I understand it the proof of informed consent is to mitigate a criminal change, such as actual bodily harm, illegal wounding or whatever, so as you already conceded that your photographic scenario would be a civil offence I fear your straw-men are better stuffed than mine by a good margin.

 

[JackForster]

Well, as I understand it the proof informed consent is to mitigate a criminal change, such as actual bodily harm, illegal wounding or whatever, so as you already conceded that your photographic scenario would be a civil offence I fear your straw-man is better stuffed than mine by a good margin.

Hi Stewart,

The doctrine of informed consent is intended to establish, if violated, grounds for an accusation of professional negligence. (Fortunately I have never had to find out in person whether such negligence is a criminal or civil offense!) I'm not an attorney but I believe negligence is a civil offense, though it may also lead to criminal indictment (as in the recent case of Michael Jackson's physician being found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, certainly a criminal charge.) The distinction, however, is immaterial to the argument --as we are baiting each other with logical fallacies you have presented now, not a straw man but a red herring 😉. Informed consent arose in the context of our discussion of whether it is reasonable to assume that an image may be distributed in ways over which the subject has no control, and as an illustration of both the difficulties in obtaining truly informed consent as well as whether hypothetically the same principle (that permission should be obtained, and that it should be obtained on the basis of informational symmetry) could be applied to photography, and the relationship between photographer and subject.

Whether the consequences are civil or criminal is not logically pertinent to the original context of the discussion. Howd'ya like them apples?? 😉 .

Jack

 

[Sparrow]

Hi Stewart,

The doctrine of informed consent is intended to establish, if violated, grounds for an accusation of professional negligence. (Fortunately I have never had to find out in person whether such negligence is a criminal or civil offense!) I'm not an attorney but I believe negligence is a civil offense, though it may also lead to criminal indictment (as in the recent case of Michael Jackson's physician being found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, certainly a criminal charge.) The distinction, however, is immaterial to the argument --as we are baiting each other with logical fallacies you have presented now, not a straw man but a red herring 😉. Informed consent arose in the context of our discussion of whether it is reasonable to assume that an image may be distributed in ways over which the subject has no control, and as an illustration of both the difficulties in obtaining truly informed consent as well as whether hypothetically the same principle (that permission should be obtained, and that it should be obtained on the basis of informational symmetry) could be applied to photography, and the relationship between photographer and subject.

Whether the consequences are civil or criminal is not logically pertinent to the original context of the discussion. Howd'ya like them apples?? 😉 .

Jack

... but you are carrying the argument forwards a step, you are saying because the photographer cannot in fact get permission from the subject, then the subject should have a right to privacy in compensation which is not the same thing ... and I don't think that fits with your constitution, and certainly would not with ours

 

[Nomad Z]

Well I think there are a lot of issues potentially at play depending on the situation. First it's possible for a candid photograph of a stranger to be exploitive rather than compassionate --earlier in this post someone mentioned a picture someone had taken of a beggar in India that clearly felt as if the person had been dehumanized by being treated as an exotic ornament to a vacation trip, rather than recognized as a suffering human being.

Who felt it? The beggar, or someone else?

Like I said, who's ethics?

 

[FrankS]

Okay, I skipped over several posts but, there is a difference between the legalities and ethics of just taking a picture of a random person in public, and the ultimate use of the image. In fact there is a difference in the type of use of the image whether it be artistic, journalistic, commercial, or for personal enjoyment/consumption.

BTW, congrats Jack. I can't remember when any other member's first post generated so much quality discussion.

 

[JackForster]

... but you are carrying the argument forwards a step, you are saying because the photographer cannot in fact get permission from the subject, then the subject should have a right to privacy in compensation which is not the same thing ... and I don't think that fits with your constitution, and certainly would not with ours

Hi Stewart and thanks for sticking with it --hmm. I'm not actually trying to say anything in the sense of prescribing what I think is a right or wrong course of action. I'm actually just, as I said in the initial post, thinking out loud about some of the issues street photography raises. I just took a bunch of pictures of strangers without asking their permission today, for instance, so clearly I'm voting with my lens 😉 on what I really think about the issue.

One small point though --I'm not talking about situations where the photographer _can't_ get permission, I'm talking about situations where he/she chooses not to (and there may be compelling reasons not to --one obvious one is that the whole purpose of candid photography is lost once a person ceases to be spontaneous and begins to pose. It doesn't automatically make for a bad picture, of course, but it makes for a different kind of picture --would you agree?)

Jack

 

[Jamie123]

I think you've hit on a very interesting point though. "Exploitation" doesn't capture it exactly but there is certainly a lot in the history of art to support the notion that there is something --I really don't know how to put it either, something uncannily Promethean about making an image, whether it's a painting, sculpture, or photograph. In the history of abstract painting in the 20th century, for instance, there were an awful lot of painters who thought about this problem a lot, and not just those practicing pure abstraction either (and of course there's the whole can of worms about whether such a thing even exists.) You should take a look at the late Picassos, if you haven't --they are a whole mediation on exactly this subject, on the relationsip of the artist to the model, and on who exactly is exploiting whom. For Picasso the question was always an open one, and it was not so much about exploitation per se as it was about the desiring eye, about the desire of the artist to appropriate an image and the image as a manifestation of desire (often erotic desire.) Another fascinating artist to look at in this respect is de Kooning, who wrestled (at least this is what I felt after walking through the huge retrospective that's up right now at MOMA here in New York) both with his own great technical ability and with the powerfully seductive temptation to create beautiful images; he fought very hard against it, really struggled with it. . . so the subject of the painting, for both de Kooning and Picasso, had its own power, the power to evoke a creative effort on the part of the image maker, and the power to dictate formal means as well.

Philip Guston, who is less well known, is another fascinating artist to look at for the tension between the artist's desire to appropriate an image --to take possession of something in the world --and the desire to be liberated from the image, or at least from the representational image. He spend decades making some of the most deliciously gorgeous abstract paintings, with almost Zenlike detachment, and then suddenly in the last ten or so years of his career made paintings that were literally cartoons --huge looming heads, cars filled with menacing hooded figures, paintings of his studio filled with overflowing ashtrays, paint tubes, and half finished paintings. "We try to get away from the (figurative) image, but we can't," he said. "We are image makers and image ridden."

Far from being an odditiy the experience you have when you place a subject in front of your lens is really something quite primordial and interesting and is the subject of much of the greatest art of the last five hundred or so years. In photography it's probably most obviously on display as a subject/subtext in erotic photography, where possession of the image is a stand in for literal physical possession of the model, but I think there's an element of this tension in all photography to some degree.

Jack

Never been a big fan of Guston. Too much pink for my taste 😉. My ex-girlfriend's father who's an art dealer loves him, though.

Of course there's much to be said about the male gaze in the history of art. But without wanting to get too much into art history (of which my knowledge is quite limited) or philosophical aesthetics (which I'm more comfortable with) in this discussion, what I find fascinating is the very real way in which these somewhat theoretical issues manifest themselves when taking pictures. Whenever I photograph models (proper fashion models, not 'sexy amateur' models) and I look through the viewfinder for the first time I need to get used to what I see. This kind of piercing look, the focussed attention directed at me, is something I usually only get from women I'm romantically involved with. It always throws me off for a second as there's definitelly an erotic aspect to it. But then I remember that no one is really looking at me. They are looking at the camera. And what's even more important, I'm not really looking at them either, I'm looking at an image of them. The camera has a point of view that's completely outside of reality me and the person I'm photographing inhabit. This is something I realize when I raise my eye from the viewfinder and look at the person directly. The relation I have with them through the camera is something that doesn't exist without it.
So exploitation might be the wrong word but I very much feel like the appropriation of someone's beauty for my own desire of making a good picture is a somewhat selfish endeavour.

 

[JackForster]

Who felt it? The beggar, or someone else?

Like I said, who's ethics?

The OP was talking about his own reaction to the image.

J.

 

[JackForster]

Okay, I skipped over several posts but, there is a difference between the legalities and ethics of just taking a picture of a random person in public, and the ultimate use of the image. In fact there is a difference in the type of use of the image whether it be artistic, journalistic, commercial, or for personal enjoyment/consumption.

BTW, congrats Jack. I can't remember when any other member's first post generated so much quality discussion.

Hi Frank --first of all thank you very much indeed, and also to everyone who's participated --this has been really delightful. Obviously tremendous passion for the work (and a lot of great work, I've been looking at some of the photos done by folks participating in the discussion.)

If you care to, I'd love to hear a bit more on your views on the ethics of taking a picture vs. its use (I think the legal issues are --well, not uninteresting, necessarily, but rooted in ethical instincts --is that a viable formulation? --that are more meaty and fun to talk about.)

Jack

 

[Nomad Z]

The OP was talking about his own reaction to the image.

Found the post. Yes, it was a third party's reaction. I do wonder what the beggar would have thought. Perhaps she would have approved - she might have seen the photo as a way of publicising poverty in the hope that it might lead to something being done about it. I would say that the photographer's intent (showing an "interesting" beggar, assuming that was indeed the intent) is neither here nor there.

I'm not sure that it's possible to generalise on the ethics of photographing strangers in public - people vary too much for us to really know if A.N.Other stranger is going to be happy, or not, about their picture being taken. Any judgement on whether a photo should be (or should have been) taken is based on the photographer's (or viewer's) own ethics.

One thing I am pretty sure about - you can't ask a stranger if it's okay to take a candid photo of them, and then expect to get one. If candid street photography is what one is about, then you either take your photos, and take your chances regarding whether a given subject might object, or you take no candid photos at all.

 

[JackForster]

Found the post. Yes, it was a third party's reaction. I do wonder what the beggar would have thought. Perhaps she would have approved - she might have seen the photo as a way of publicising poverty in the hope that it might lead to something being done about it. I would say that the photographer's intent (showing an "interesting" beggar, assuming that was indeed the intent) is neither here nor there.

I'm not sure that it's possible to generalise on the ethics of photographing strangers in public - people vary too much for us to really know if A.N.Other stranger is going to be happy, or not, about their picture being taken. Any judgement on whether a photo should be (or should have been) taken is based on the photographer's (or viewer's) own ethics.

One thing I am pretty sure about - you can't ask a stranger if it's okay to take a candid photo of them, and then expect to get one. If candid street photography is what one is about, then you either take your photos, and take your chances regarding whether a given subject might object, or you take no candid photos at all.

On that point I think we can all agree. At some point, if you really want to find out about what street photography is all about you have to cross the boundary between speculation and experience and start racking up images, and looking at them. Not to say talking about it can't be enriching --I think I will remember the notion of taking a photograph as an invitation to dance for a long time: what a wonderfully generous, wonderfully human way to go at it.

Jack

 

[JackForster]

Never been a big fan of Guston. Too much pink for my taste 😉. My ex-girlfriend's father who's an art dealer loves him, though.

Of course there's much to be said about the male gaze in the history of art. But without wanting to get too much into art history (of which my knowledge is quite limited) or philosophical aesthetics (which I'm more comfortable with) in this discussion, what I find fascinating is the very real way in which these somewhat theoretical issues manifest themselves when taking pictures. Whenever I photograph models (proper fashion models, not 'sexy amateur' models) and I look through the viewfinder for the first time I need to get used to what I see. This kind of piercing look, the focussed attention directed at me, is something I usually only get from women I'm romantically involved with. It always throws me off for a second as there's definitelly an erotic aspect to it. But then I remember that no one is really looking at me. They are looking at the camera. And what's even more important, I'm not really looking at them either, I'm looking at an image of them. The camera has a point of view that's completely outside of reality me and the person I'm photographing inhabit. This is something I realize when I raise my eye from the viewfinder and look at the person directly. The relation I have with them through the camera is something that doesn't exist without it.
So exploitation might be the wrong word but I very much feel like the appropriation of someone's beauty for my own desire of making a good picture is a somewhat selfish endeavour.

Too much pink? But it's such a wonderful, nauseating, Pepto-Bismol pink 😉 .

Your post is fascinating. So: she's not really looking at you, she's looking at the camera, and you're not really looking at her, you're looking at her image. You have put it beautifully: "The relation I have with them through the camera is something that doesn't exist without it." Yes! I suppose it is the itch to find out what that is, exactly, that makes one take photographs.

Jack

 

[JackForster]

I guess one more Put Up or Shut Up is in order.

I have no idea why I find this image satisfying. I saw the two men, one moving away from the other, with the wall interposed between them, creating a space isolating each one. I can analyze it but there is something about it I don't understand that makes it interesting to me. In fact I think it's that I don't understand why it's interesting to me that makes it interesting, as nonsensical as it sounds. Whether or not it is a good picture in any objective sense is not relevant (and is not for me to say anyway.) But there is something about it that is interesting, like a splinter under the skin, and I guess that all I can say at this point is that it is that feeling that makes me want to take a picture.

Thank you all. You've been very patient. Ah, some more so than others 😀 but a long winded newcomer is one of the Internet's greatest trials and thanks for your forbearance 😉 .

Jack

PS not that it matters but it was shot with an M6 on Ilford 3200 and you know, I kinda like the grain.

 

[Messsucherkamera]

Street photography is not a crime

Street photography is not a crime

Third, taking people's pictures feels intrusive. I don't like having my picture taken myself, and taking someone's image feels like stealing on a very deep level (maybe it's just that like most people who pride themselves on being very rational I'm also deeply superstitious.) I seem to need to feel that a photograph on the street is philosophically justifiable in some way --aesthetically, journalistically, or what have you --otherwise it's an inexcusable exploitation of another human being on a very serious level; it's an existential exploitation, almost a form of involuntary enslavement.

Finally, it's hard not to feel the weight of the billions of images that are made every day and wonder why one would want to add to them.

Jack

PS Oh, and then there are the thoughts I'm sure many of you have had about whether or not, in being choosy about cameras and lenses, I'm not just indulging in a sort of equipment fetishism that is not only beside the point but actually a distraction from really thinking about the photograph. . . that sort of thing ;-) .

J.

Jack,

I'd like to address numbers three and four as well as your postscript -

3: Being photographed - every day that we draw breath - is now a fact of life in today's world. I find it both ironic and incomprehensible that there are apparently legions of people who voice not one word of objection to the surveillance fetishism of various government agencies and entities, yet take umbrage over the documentary photographer making images on the street. It just doesn't add up.

In the U.S., photographers have the right - not privilege, but right - to make photographs in any public place (and for those who will try to claim the ridiculous - public restrooms, shower rooms, and changing rooms are not included in that right).

Making photographs in public places is not unlawful, unethical, immoral or improper in any manner. Laws vary from nation to nation but one can still make a valid contention that regardless of written laws, documentary photography in the public environment is still not unethical, immoral or improper by any logical or reasonable definition.

The mere act of making photographs of people is not inherently intrusive - the methods employed in making photographs may be intrusive, though. The photographic techniques employed by Bruce Gilden are considered intrusive by many. Gilden does indeed make some unique images - but his methods aren't for everyone nor are they well liked by many of his subjects.

The techniques that Henri Cartier-Bresson employed in his street photography were not intrusive; the vast majority of his subjects never knew that they were being photographed. Many photographers employ HCB's stealth approach today for the simple reason that street photography done in a manner that is discreet and does not disturb the subject is not offensive, disruptive or abrasive. The photographic stalking and badgering techniques of the paparazzi are obnoxious, intrusive and traumatic to the subject - and sometimes worse.

Until photographers come to terms with the fact that photographing strangers in the public environment is not unlawful, unethical, improper or unseemly, they will needlessly suffer from self-inflicted feelings of guilt or discomfort that are not based on any reasonable or objective philosophy.

4: Yes, there are billions of images created every day; so what?

99.5% (or more) of the photographs made every day are devoid of any semblance of artistic relevance, perception, visual impact, aesthetic value or technical merit. The vast majority of photographs made each day are of approximately as much value to the world of photography as a head cheese sandwich is to the culinary world.

Anyone who cares about image making pursues photographic and artistic perfection; they work relentlessly to hone their visual, technical and photographic composition skills, develop their photographic style and produce enduring, meaningful images. They strive to produce the photographic equivalent of a Beethoven symphony - not a vapid, shallow rap "hit."

Regarding your concerns of equipment fetishism - we have to have cameras and lenses to be able to make photographs - period. We don't have to carry six cameras, forty lenses and ten flash units (the "National Geographic Assignment Syndrome") to make photographs.

Too much equipment is usually counterproductive to the photographic process. I have found that the best approach is to tailor the gear you carry for the task at hand.

A couple of camera bodies (one for a backup) a wide angle lens, a normal lens and a short telephoto lens is all a person really needs. This modest amount of gear will cover 90% or more of all the photographic possibilities one might encounter.

Buy the best equipment you can reasonably afford and use it every day that you can - the camera you have with you when a photo presents itself will make a better image than the pie-in-the-sky megadollar camera that you can't (yet) afford.

Live in the now, photograph in the now - and save up for that Hasselblad/Leica/Ebony/whatever. One day it will be yours, especially if you produce outstanding work that sells and is in demand.

JMHO.