bmattock
Veteran
One dictionary describes 'civility' as 'courteous behavior; politeness'. I must say that I am very much in favor of that. The world could do with a good bit more civility, right?
But wait. In my mind, I envision 'civility' as being a bit of a two-way street. Two people disagree, and because they are both exhibiting civility, they both give a little, engage in a little quid pro quo as it were, and come to a conclusion that is mutually acceptable, if not preferable. But that's not really true, is it?
There are two meanings of civility in the dictionary of public opinion. The first meaning is that of the dictionary in the literal sense - being polite. Can I be polite to you and refuse utterly to do anything you ask me to do? Certainly! And of course, when one friend is civil to another, one is considerate of their feelings, their prides and prejudices, their hopes and desires - one marks their words and actions towards that person with care and respect.
The second, and in my opinion, more common meaning, is that of 'do what I want you to do'. In this all-too-commonly accepted meaning, one exhibits 'civility' if they either do or or do not do something in accordance with another's wishes, and against their own.
The impetus to civility is also, I believe, the last bastion for the person who would like it very much if the laws were differently arranged - to suit their particular requirements or desires. "Be civil!" they cry, as if to hektor one into choosing to abandon a winning thoroughbred in favor of their sway-backed nag. Of course, to be fair, those worthies never think that of themselves - their point of view is always 'reasonable' and why not? If their demand is based on 'morals' that they believe everyone else holds as dear as they do, then why not demand that as a standard of behavior? One can ponder the morality of societies that have taken a set of generally-accepted morals as their basis for law and gone to extremes with it and decide for oneself if this is the outcome desired in free societies - this is left as an exercise for the reader.
When applied to photography, it is understood that a very many people do not like to have their photographs taken when they are in public places. They would prefer to be left alone. This is very understandable, and most photographers feel the same way themselves, truth be told.
Since people prefer not to be photographed in public, it is often argued that one is being 'uncivil' if one chooses to take a 'candid' or 'public' photograph of an unwilling or unwitting subject. This is entirely true - if the definition of 'civility' that one is using is the former - politeness, rather than the latter. Photography is impolite, unless solicited. This is because if permission to photograph is sought, then the photograph is solicited. Candid photography cannot be solicited by its very nature. Posed photographs are never candid.
Therefore, if there is to be candid photography, then it must be impolite - lacking in civility. To ask to take a candid photograph is to defeat the purpose.
Having dispensed with the former definition of civility (politeness), let us now deal with the latter (do what I want you to do). This is based on the notion that one has some sort of right not to be bothered - with anything. That one has a distinct and definable right not to be annoyed, perturbed, peeved, put out, vexed, or otherwise offended. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, freedom means that one must be ever more willing to accept offense in silence, to bear rudeness and horrible behavior and so on in great excrutiating amounts - unless and until that behavior infringes on a REAL civil liberty which one possesses, as opposed to a right that is made up as one goes along and placed under the umbrella of 'civility'.
Freedom, it has been noted by many, is messy business. To afford others the liberty that we would desire for ourselves, we must put up with much that we do not agree with. I will not offend these proceedings by elucidating further - I would presume that everyone can imagine some such scenario that offends them to their very core, but which they must tolerate.
The alternative, as noted, is a society which attempts to cater to the desires of its citizens not to be bothered, vexed, etc - and this is impossible to achieve. For my smoking may bother you - so we ban it. And your nose-whistling gets up my sleeve - so we ban that. And of course, every type of photography offends someone - so we get rid of all of that.
Freedom is all very easy when one thinks of the middle ground. Freedom of religion? Well, sure, so long as it is something not messy or smelly or loud, and doesn't involve the sacrifice of goats or the painting of things with blood. But what if it does? Ah, then we have a problem. But tell me - does freedom exist only in the middle of public opinion, and cease to exist out near the fringes? Can that be called freedom?
We likewise say that we have the right to free speech. And one may 'speak' in many ways, yes? Through paintings and books and magazines and posters and flag-burnings and demonstrations and parades and yes - photography. Ah well, one might say; that's all well and good - but these examples are clearly politically oriented - they are intended to demonstrate the concept of freedom of speech. One cannot simply take any random act of photography and defend it as an example of freedom of speech. Or can one?
LIBERY EXISTS AT THE FRINGES - OR ELSE IT DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL.
FREEDOM MUST INCLUDE THE MOST HATED OR THERE IS NO FREEDOM.
FREEDOM IS NOT JUST A GIFT, IT IS AN OBLIGATION
Again - freedom, to be freedom, must exist at the fringes as well as in the middle. One must put up with much to be free - the exercise of the freedoms of others that vex us so; but they must likewise put up with our expressions of freedom. So a small unknown photographer does indeed make a statement about freedom every time they raise their camera to their eye and take a photograph. That they can do so is a clear and unflinching statement that they are free - absolutely - to take that photograph, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
And there's a sticky bit, eh? What are those rights? Well, the basics are clear. One has the right to privacy - but this has been rather strictly defined as being inside one's own dwelling place. One may also enjoy a measure of privacy in public areas where the owners of that property have chosen to establish, by exclusion of photography, a zone of semi-privacy. And Justice Brandeis did say that the most cherished right of all was the "right to be let alone." But he was not speaking of a person being left undisturbed and unfashed in a public setting - how is it that we have come to believe he did?
And so I come to the conclusion of my little screed. I rise on a point of honor to defend the indefensible - rudeness in the cause of candid or 'street' photography. For rudeness it must be, if the opposite of politeness is rudeness. I am a rude boy, for I do not ask for permission to take a photograph in public. I will not engage in polite conversation where the aim of the other party is to encourage me not to take a photograph of whatever I please. I am polite only by convention, in that I will say "please" and "thank you" and I will smile most convincingly when it seems appropriate to do so.
In fact, I must defend rudeness as a necessary aspect of candid photography; and I furthermore define candid photography as a freedom that exists on the fringes of freedom of speech. I conclude, therefore, that it is not morally wrong to participate in candid street photography, despite it being rude, ill-mannered, and altogether lacking in tact.
I would even go to the extreme and defend rudeness in the cause of candid photography as a moral imperative. I aspire to art, I aspire to freedom. As I am not called to the Cloth, there can be no higher calling for me, and as such, I am a hero of liberty every time I point a camera at another in public and tick them right off - though it would tick me off just the same way if t'were done to me instead.
Let a million candid shutters bloom across the landscape. All public eyes - rise and defend Mother Liberty, lest she be further molested by the politeness police.
So Mote It Be.
Peace Out,
Bill Mattocks
