Photo-aversive subjects?

[Evergreen States]

I've lived most of my life in a suburban township in Washington State. People who make a conscious decision to live in tract houses seem to be very territorial with a strong worry over privacy and security. Due to confrontational and paranoid attitudes of the denizens, the lack of social space where people congregate, the overwhelming lack of fellow pedestrians, how far away things are and the plain ugliness of the built environment, it's rather difficult to do street photography here. Still, I manage to get a good shot once in a while. I have pretty strong social anxiety, so any confrontation is unsettling yet I navigate them confidently due to knowing my legal rights, a generally friendly attitude and having an openness to questions people may have. I recently moved to a new neighborhood across town with my partner and have already been accosted by a couple suspicious parents and stopped once by the police. I hope that when the danger of the pandemic subsides I can get to know my neighbors better so they don't have to worry.

I am pretty empathetic to parents worried about the safety of their children, women who live in the face of assault and harassment and people worried about burglars and vandals. I try to avoid replicating behavior that is creepy. There are plenty of times when I don't take a shot due to feeling intrusive, voyeuristic or just plain shy. Admittedly, I am a pretty awkward individual by the way I hold and move my body, the way I speak and not always being able to tell when other people are uncomfortable. Or sometimes I can tell they're uncomfortable but I don't know what to do about it. I'm autistic and there's nothing I can do about that. I make good faith efforts to be kind and considerate and understand where others are coming from but people also just have to deal with me the way I am and deal with the reality that others are going to make art whether they like it or not.

 

[JoeV]

I was going to call BS on one or two respondents to this thread, who seem to think there’s a pandemic of voyeurism running amok in the photographic “community.” You know who you are, I shan’t violate your “privacy” by pointing you out by name.

But then there’s this: yes, there’s a crap-ton of the backs of peoples head, masquerading as “street” photography. I don’t think that’s voyeuristic as much as it’s people who admire the work of the masters and just want to try their hand at it, but don’t have the natural talent and personality to do it well.

You need simultaneously a sensitivity to the human condition, in the sense that telling a story is essential to the genre, while having a thick skin to people’s natural opposition to being made an involuntary actor in some one else’s ad hoc street play.

But as for the accusations of voyeurism? Please! Don’t flatter yourself, nobody really wants to wank off to your image, just get over yourself.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Ok Joe, I'll reel "voyeurism" back in and replace it with surreptitious objectification.
That said, I don't think there is a "pandemic" of surreptitious objectification either. I don't use absolutes or broad sweeping generalizations either, unless there is a reason to do so. Even in the context of "street photography," which is often just "bad photography," there is good and there is the rest.
As for the surreptitious objectification, we can all point out these images when we see them.
When I was the manager of a local photo lab in Philly, I had to call the police several times, regarding the images which were brought for us to develop. One man was a "street photographer" who liked taking photos of girls (minors) on swingsets. After the second report he graduated to using a DV camera and just kept his collection to himself, I suppose. Last time I saw him walking towards me from about a block away, camera in had at waist level, behind three women wearing short skirts on a hot summer day. When I passed them, I told them to turn around and he got yelled at.
I recall getting into arguments with a man from Spain who had a collection of "senoritas" which were largely images of buttocks, legs, cleavage, the occasional near-upskirt shot. I called him out on it and a cabal of older white men came to his aid, stating that "it was his culture" and "he meant no disrespect." I always liked asking him the question "what is this woman's name?" which he could almost never answer.
This is my point; that people should treat others with dignity and maybe even reach out to learn about the person's name, who they are and what their story is, instead of just collecting a nameless shape. Maybe I'm just too "sensitive" in my desire for some human decency.

Phil Forrest

 

[brothernature]

in the context of "street photography," which is often just "bad photography"

Photography in general is often just "bad photography", nothing special about the subset people refer to as "street photography".

The two men you bring up are obvious creeps. They're not even in the realm of photography. I can't imagine people like that walking around with a Leica. Nowadays if someone wanted to do that they can accomplish it in far more secretive ways.

It's a shame that these creepy, awful people, who are very much in the minority, are affecting how people view photographers roaming the street, looking to make sensitive, empathetic documents of people living ordinary lives.

 

[das]

Joe, I hope you are not saying that I referred to "all" street photographers as this or that, because I certainly did not say that if you read my post - so it's not clear about whom you are speaking. My point is about permission to take photos of strangers, which is something different than what you are saying. If you don't think people go around with their digital Leicas and take secret photos of people walking by and then share them on the public internet, you should try checking out a social media platform called "Facebook."

Taking photos of strangers that clearly identify them and then publicly posting them without permission is actually the opposite of sensitivity and empathy.

And totally agree with you, Phil.

 

[brothernature]

Taking photos of strangers that clearly identify them and then publicly posting them without permission is actually the opposite of sensitivity and empathy.

So your objection is with the internet, not with the photographer.

 

[Out to Lunch]

It's a good thing that most countries have laws stipulating what one can photograph in the public domain and under which conditions this content can be published. Let's leave the moral judgments where they belong: in the personal sphere.