noimmunity
scratch my niche
It doesn't take much attention to notice--in fact, to be forced to notice--the invasion of images into public space and the domination of what used to be called civil society by advertising. If anybody in this era still believes that the relation between image and viewer can be reduced to a question of free choice, it is either because of massive denial or self-interest.
I don't see the point in engaging this as an ethical question, when there are lots of other angles we could take, including economy, politics, and society. But what's so interesting to me is the way in which some people always want to individualize and privatize problems that obviously concern things having to do with public, social space.
Papercut
Well-known
Jon,
No one is trying to say that viewing all images is based on free choice. Only that in the context of these images (and this type of image) that the ethical questions raised by the OP don't really have much to do with the viewer and hence it's not surprising that it wasn't a part of the discussion.
All the issues you raise are valuable and worthwhile for a much broader discussion of the role of images in our societies, but they are beside the topic as raised by the OP because viewing "art" (as opposed to advertising or political advocacy) is a matter of free choice. One generally has to make a conscious effort of one sort of another (most often accompanied by a decision to spend money as well) in order to see art or experience entertainment. (Works of public art are a marginal case, but I don't know of anywhere that is being overrun by public artwork, as opposed to advertising or political imagery.) Your statement about the prevalence of images implies that they are all disseminated in the same way, blurring the distinction between candids of strangers on a website (or in an art book) and unavoidably visible advertisements on billboards, for example.
There's no denial or dangerous self-interest in compartmentalizing discussions for the sake of clarity! I would imagine that a separate thread about advertising images and their massive intrusion into nearly all public spaces would draw lots of attention and discussion on RFF (most likely with many of the same people talking in this thread contributing to it!).
No one is trying to say that viewing all images is based on free choice. Only that in the context of these images (and this type of image) that the ethical questions raised by the OP don't really have much to do with the viewer and hence it's not surprising that it wasn't a part of the discussion.
All the issues you raise are valuable and worthwhile for a much broader discussion of the role of images in our societies, but they are beside the topic as raised by the OP because viewing "art" (as opposed to advertising or political advocacy) is a matter of free choice. One generally has to make a conscious effort of one sort of another (most often accompanied by a decision to spend money as well) in order to see art or experience entertainment. (Works of public art are a marginal case, but I don't know of anywhere that is being overrun by public artwork, as opposed to advertising or political imagery.) Your statement about the prevalence of images implies that they are all disseminated in the same way, blurring the distinction between candids of strangers on a website (or in an art book) and unavoidably visible advertisements on billboards, for example.
There's no denial or dangerous self-interest in compartmentalizing discussions for the sake of clarity! I would imagine that a separate thread about advertising images and their massive intrusion into nearly all public spaces would draw lots of attention and discussion on RFF (most likely with many of the same people talking in this thread contributing to it!).
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
dfoo
Well-known
If the person is in a public place, they have no privacy, period. End of story. If I can see it, if you can see it, then what privacy do they have? How does taking a photo violate that privacy, whereas looking does not?
dfoo
Well-known
Sorry, but I don't think any of these examples are equivalent to the looking at, or taking a picture of people.
NickTrop
Veteran
It's a matter of perspective. I have no problem with this if it's not a picture of my daughter or wife. You photograph whatever is in the environ. These photos are, however, absolutely voyeristic. I find posting these on the net the objectionable part but only marginally so. If a woman wanted to photograph me in a swim suit, I'd be flattered (not that that would happen...) I might not, however, like it as part of her Flickr page. If I caught someone doing this to my daughter we'd have words. I, however, might do this myself if I found someone particularly attractive and thought I could get away with it w/o incident. In fact, I have - though not often, a couple. Double standard? You betchya. Just the way it is.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Hey Kevin,
Photography doesn't make any sense if you exclude the viewer, even if it is the fantasy of the viewer as imagined by the introverted photog or the outraged subject.
What the whole medium does is: 1) open up viewership to viewers who were absent at the moment of the event (and this is outside of any one person's control, even with copyright); 2) extend the duration of a viewing moment; 3) turn the viewing relation into a strictly unilateral affair (the object cannot 'look back').
It occurs to me now as we get into this that a lot of the questionable side of photography occurs in relation to #3. Now add to that the fact that photography always involves a triangle: photographer, subject, and viewer. Triangles plus the ability to exclude is, socially-speaking, a potentially explosive combination.
I'd argue for an ethics of sensitivity to this configuration, and for that reason I'm not in favor of an exclusively juridical/legal solution.
What kinds of social relations do we (I, you, s/he) want?
Jon
Photography doesn't make any sense if you exclude the viewer, even if it is the fantasy of the viewer as imagined by the introverted photog or the outraged subject.
What the whole medium does is: 1) open up viewership to viewers who were absent at the moment of the event (and this is outside of any one person's control, even with copyright); 2) extend the duration of a viewing moment; 3) turn the viewing relation into a strictly unilateral affair (the object cannot 'look back').
It occurs to me now as we get into this that a lot of the questionable side of photography occurs in relation to #3. Now add to that the fact that photography always involves a triangle: photographer, subject, and viewer. Triangles plus the ability to exclude is, socially-speaking, a potentially explosive combination.
I'd argue for an ethics of sensitivity to this configuration, and for that reason I'm not in favor of an exclusively juridical/legal solution.
What kinds of social relations do we (I, you, s/he) want?
Jon
deepwhite
Well-known
taken @ Tokyo airport
Leica I(c) from 1931 (probably)
Leitz Elmar 50/3.5 from 1938 (probably)
Fuji Neopan 1600
aureliaaurita
Well-known
for those who failed to understand what I was attempting to say with some subtlty with regard to 'below the knees' 'looking down from the top'
I quite literally, though it seems sad I have to state it, mean looking up your skirt or down your cleavage.
as I say, it doesn't take an awful lot of intuition.
I quite literally, though it seems sad I have to state it, mean looking up your skirt or down your cleavage.
as I say, it doesn't take an awful lot of intuition.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Having to explain the gag is a PITA. Worse than that, it's sad. You expected better of your audience - and they failed to deliver. I think you had and have a right to expect better of them; hell of us. (Which, in itself, is no fun to say.)
...Mike
Last edited:
Papercut
Well-known
I, for one, am sorry if I gave offense to you, Alice or you, Mike. However, unlike both of you, I do not think that it's self-evident that the post meant only "upskirt" type of shots. That's a very invasive, and illegal, type of photography, which put it outside the boundaries of the discussion up to that point. I'm pretty sure that everyone participating in the discussion would object to upskirt photos, that genre was already excluded from consideration. In other words, the "if you get my drift" innuendo is only obvious or unambiguous if one ignores the context of the entire thread thus far and the literal meaning of the words "anything" and "below the knee".
Rather than do that, I took her statement at face value (i.e., she was objecting to photos within the boundaries of current discussion, legal forms of candids), which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the post.
No offense was intended, but it's not "sad" that an ambiguous (or "subtle") statement (one that changes the terms of the discussion without saying so explicitly) was misinterpreted. In fact, I'd say it's an inevitability...
Rather than do that, I took her statement at face value (i.e., she was objecting to photos within the boundaries of current discussion, legal forms of candids), which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the post.
No offense was intended, but it's not "sad" that an ambiguous (or "subtle") statement (one that changes the terms of the discussion without saying so explicitly) was misinterpreted. In fact, I'd say it's an inevitability...
Last edited:
climbing_vine
Well-known
Very true, and the subject of an excellent essay by Wendell Berry. "Sex, Economy, Freedom, and Community".
And the notion that people have no privacy in public is self-evidently asinine. It's not the same AMOUNT of privacy that you have a right to in your home, but privacy is not binary. If you had no privacy in public, it would be legal for me to walk up to you on the train, open your briefcase, read your papers, and return them to you (and a more important test than legality is that our society would not think it rude).
The fact that we retain the right to be secure in our persons and papers outside of our own home makes it quite clear that there is "privacy" in public, the question up for reasonable debate is "how far does it extend?". Those who want the answer to be otherwise should consider it more carefully (speaking charitably).
It's also quite reasonable to debate what the difference is between fleeting and graven images. They are (again, self-evidently) not the same thing and to pretend otherwise is just silly. The fact that a woman has sex with you and allowed you to stare at her labia from mere inches away does not mean that she has allowed you to tape and broadcast it. So, again, a reasonable position is not: "If I can see it, it's fine to take a picture of it!" The reasonable debate is about where the line is.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Well, an absolute, like "anything", doesn't allow room for intuition, so it's good to have certain things clarified.
Besides, up the skirt is certainly not below the knees.
Cheers!
Last edited:
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Actually, I think it is kind of nice that some people didn't know what the heck you were talking about. Apparently that kind of behavior just didn't occur to them, and that's a good thing.
StreetPhotographer
Newbie
Candid pics of teens
Candid pics of teens
Found on eMule and Ares file sharing services:
Virtual Voyeur, Stealth Pics of Young Girls
Candid pics of teens
Found on eMule and Ares file sharing services:
Virtual Voyeur, Stealth Pics of Young Girls
Paul T.
Veteran
The best approach is always to find an attractive cop, and ask him or her to take their clothes off.
raid
Dad Photographer
How about starting a thread: "Candid Photos of Young Men" ?
I wonder whether such a thread would thrive too?
I wonder whether such a thread would thrive too?
climbing_vine
Well-known
Doubtful. Most of the women left this site long ago.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
On some other site maybe.
