Street photographer or voyeur?

[peterm1]

Whether you consider them voyeurs or not, it is the invasion of personal space and privacy that is the key issue. The people you site may be considered "artistes" or greats, but if they infringed on someone's personal space without consent, their significance in the world of photography is not justification for intrusion. Again, as I said, if someone approaches me with a camera (or no camera) in public and gets too close and I object, I'll let them know about it in clear terms. Consent, please, before approaching and snapping away.

Yes! You should not invade peoples' personal space. It's basic humanity! I agree. To me that is a given. But the number of people who actually do that is miniscule. Bruce Gilden and a few others like him. I saw an article on him (and by extension, those who copy him) headed "Bruce Gilden: Asshole or Genius". In my mind there is no debate. 😕 It is not just him. I object to anyone who objectifies other people or invades their personal space. Which I think is the point of your argument.

 

[boojum]

As I said in my post, if a stranger violates the personal space of another without introduction and snaps pictures without their consent, some examples provided in this thread, I consider that invasion of privacy and objectionable.
I'm not talking about your group activities and whereabouts. I'm talking about being safe on the street and respecting the privacy of others. Some people will take whatever they can get away with, and will be fine with that. I'm not. If you are across a road from someone in a public space and like to capture them going about their business, looking for some "decisive moment" or insightful thing, have at it if it floats your boat. But if you walk up to them unannounced and start shooting, be prepared for an unfriendly and deservedly harsh reaction. And in the current time of unmarked ICE agents hauling people off streets, I would be extra sensitive to space issues and consent.

Well, there's the nubbin of it. What you consider and what is common practice and law. I do not denigrate what you do but also do not want to be bound by it. I believe we agree on more than we disagree and in practice it would play out that way.

The biggest aid I have found is being unobtrusive. Polite goes a long way, too. But that applies everywhere. When I am calm and "shooting past them" rather than "shooting at them" it seems to flow better. Of course, "Hey, let me take you picture" in polite tones opens to door to more personal shots. It is all so fluid. And to make it even worse what works in one place may not work in another. This is why "rules" can be illusory, they change with the venue. If you were shooting "England's loudest band", the band that turns it up to 11, Spinal Tap, you'd shoot it differently than some old folks reading the papers and talking on a sunny day in the park. Or a small shoot I did ten years ago of a drag show here in town. It was all hanging out at the drag show. So I kind of play it by ear. And remember, some folks want their pictures taken. There are two sides to the equation.

 

[ellisson]

Yes! You should not invade peoples' personal space. It's basic humanity! I agree. To me that is a given. But the number of people who actually do that is miniscule. Bruce Gilden and a few others like him. I saw an article on him (and by extension, those who copy him) headed "Bruce Gilden: Asshole or Genius". In my mind there is no debate. 😕 It is not just him. I object to anyone who objectifies other people or invades their personal space. Which I think is the point of your argument.

Yes, basic respect for others. And if someone expresses discomfort or asks that you not photograph them even at a distance, I would respect their wishes. Respect and kindness.

 

[boojum]

Yes! You should not invade peoples' personal space. It's basic humanity! I agree. To me that is a given. But the number of people who actually do that is miniscule. Bruce Gilden and a few others like him. I saw an article on him (and by extension, those who copy him) headed "Bruce Gilden: Asshole or Genius". In my mind there is no debate. 😕 It is not just him. I object to anyone who objectifies other people or invades their personal space. Which I think is the point of your argument.

I just checked Gilden's images, those I could Google. Edgy, jarring. But I grew up in the NY area and hung around after dark. These are the people out on the streets and an amazing tableaux. It brings to mind the, "You only have to watch The Sound of Music once." Same for Doris Day. I understand why some folks would not like Gilden at all. But I also like the edgy movies like Man Bites Dog and Paris is Burning. And Spinal Tap, of course, and Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Is Gilden out of line? Ask his subjects. Our viewing of his work is voluntary not compulsory.

 

[boojum]

I just viewed Gilden's website. These folks are not toothpaste ads or beauty queens. These are the "less-thans" the "out of the ordinaries" and the grotesque. And this raises the question of should we shy away from them? Do they deserve less to be in front of a camera and have them faces and souls memorialized? Are they not part of the human comedy just like the rest of us? I am happy to see that Gilden seeks the folks out and brings them to us. We are all in this together.

 

[boojum]

Whether you consider them voyeurs or not, it is the invasion of personal space and privacy that is the key issue. The people you site may be considered "artistes" or greats, but if they infringed on someone's personal space without consent, their significance in the world of photography is not justification for intrusion. Again, as I said, if someone approaches me with a camera (or no camera) in public and gets too close and I object, I'll let them know about it in clear terms. Consent, please, before approaching and snapping away.

I am just rereading these comments. I grew up near Manhattan and was often in the city. And part of being there was the crowds. The mob in Grand Central at rush hour is like an orderly stampede. And a ride on the subways at rush hour is more than an invasion of personal space and privacy. It is rude, in your face and sometimes comes with BO. Woohoo. So invasion of personal space means different things to different people. You'd better get used to it in NYC, baby, or you will flip out. This cultural experience difference may explain our different take on this. I am more used to it.

 

[ellisson]

If you don't know what invasion of personal space is, there is no point in extending this discussion. I did a large part of my education in New York City and know very well what it's like to be wall to wall with people on subways, on streets in Manhattan, and in concert venues and sports stadiums. So careful with your assumptions. That is not invasion of personal space. But since you persist in relativizing everything, let me make it crystal clear - so clear that maybe even you can understand what is invasion of personal space.

You are walking alone or with family members in an open space with no other people near you for 20 yards or more, and someone approaches you with a camera, coming within 10 feet of you and starts snapping pictures of you or your family members. No talk, no consent. Do you get it yet?

 

[boojum]

If you don't know what invasion of personal space is, there is no point in extending this discussion. I did a large part of my education in New York City and know very well what it's like to be wall to wall with people on subways, on streets in Manhattan, and in concert venues and sports stadiums. So careful with your assumptions. That is not invasion of personal space. But since you persist in relativizing everything, let me make it crystal clear - so clear that maybe even you can understand what is invasion of personal space.

You are walking alone or with family members in an open space with no other people near you for 20 yards or more, and someone approaches you with a camera, coming within 10 feet of you and starts snapping pictures of you or your family members. No talk, no consent. Do you get it yet?

I think that the best we can do is to agree to disagree.

 

[agentlossing]

If you don't know what invasion of personal space is, there is no point in extending this discussion. I did a large part of my education in New York City and know very well what it's like to be wall to wall with people on subways, on streets in Manhattan, and in concert venues and sports stadiums. So careful with your assumptions. That is not invasion of personal space. But since you persist in relativizing everything, let me make it crystal clear - so clear that maybe even you can understand what is invasion of personal space.

You are walking alone or with family members in an open space with no other people near you for 20 yards or more, and someone approaches you with a camera, coming within 10 feet of you and starts snapping pictures of you or your family members. No talk, no consent. Do you get it yet?

People don't share your conception of "personal space" as it's nowhere defined. Also, I'm not aware of any laws surrounding "personal space" in photography. You need to frame this as your personal take on things, rather than as some sort of rule.

The scenario you're positing sounds pretty cut-and-dry as a nuisance, if nothing else, but it's not something that be extrapolated to every other such situation. Nuisance doesn't equal unethical necessarily, or breaking the law. You're describing something very subjective.

 

[Rayt]

I don’t show my street photos to non-photographer friend because some will be offended and other will be uncomfortable. In fact some photographer friends react the same way. I have posted a lot here and none of my photos disrespected the subjects. Most of the photos the people in them were not even the main subjects but just part of the narrative. I just bought Martin Parr’s the Last Resort and my photos are nowhere that ballsy. I would be too timid to do what he did.

 

[Leon C]

People don't share your conception of "personal space" as it's nowhere defined. Also, I'm not aware of any laws surrounding "personal space" in photography. You need to frame this as your personal take on things, rather than as some sort of rule.

The scenario you're positing sounds pretty cut-and-dry as a nuisance, if nothing else, but it's not something that be extrapolated to every other such situation. Nuisance doesn't equal unethical necessarily, or breaking the law. You're describing something very subjective.

Depends where you live, at arms length is considered 'law' where I come from, for personal space, no one gets within that without permission or knowing that person really well, then it is allowed, everyone I know respects that distance, try getting in someones face around here without asking and your gear better be insured, matters not who you think you are!

 

[boojum]

My own experience, and only my own experience, from years of shooting in Canada, the US, Mexico, Hong Kong, PRC, Belgium, The Netherlands, France, the UK and Ireland, has been that I have never had a problem. A camera is not carte blanche for rudeness. Rude is rude, period. And I think this is the problem. Some folks may conceive street shooting as rude. It can be but it is not necessarily so. I cannot speak to why this is their experience or conception. It has never been mine. So rather than trying to formulate didactic rules of what one person seems to perceive as "proper", "permissible" or "law" let's just try to act like grown ups. That's what has worked for me. But I can only speak of my own experience. As always, YMMV.

 

[wlewisiii]

I personally don't like doing "street" photography and even in my urban landscape photography I strive to avoid having _any_ people in them. If I must, then need to be at extreme distance and unidentifiable. I find "street" inherently invasive and difficult to accept as permissible even if I have consent.

 

[boojum]

As an uncle used to say, "We can't all love the same woman." I am curious, maybe nosy and use the camera as an aide memoire. Years, decades later I can look at photos I have taken and remember the moment so clearly and the people and the instance. This is why I say I take them for myself.

When I lived in Mexico "Con permiso?" is pretty much how you do it. "With (your) permission?" It is a Latin politeness. But somehow not always necessary. So there you go on rules and how to's and what is proper. I just go with the flow. So here are two. First is at the best carne asada stand in the world. It is at the tope on Mexico 1 in Mulege, BCS, Mexico. Open at night only. I always swore "four only." Yeah, four only, twice. This guy's carne asada tacos were world class. I have never had better. The second is in the might market in Patzcuaro. Michoacan, Mexico, this time for Al Pastor tacos. Yeah, they were killer tacos, too. And you can tell from the guys in the pic that they were crazy fun. No "Con permiso?". You just have to go with the flow. If they are waving machetes at you, fugedaboudit.

The Loreto, BCS, womens choral group on the way home. They stopped at the tope in Mulege for the best tacos asadas in the world. Really the best tacos asadas. by West Phalia, on Flickr

Don't these guys look like they have the best tacos in town? I thought so, too. And I was right. Killer tacos. by West Phalia, on Flickr​

 

[boojum]

No "Con permiso?" just shot it. No harm, no foul.

Madonna and child by West Phalia, on Flickr​

 

[Rick Waldroup]

I have shot street and documentary photography for many years. Although, I have slowed down a bit on the street photography because of mobility issues as I get older. While I am a huge fan of Gilden's work, I could never shoot like that. It is just not in my nature to be as confrontational as he is sometimes. However, his documentary stuff is outstanding.

I carry business cards with me that states I am a documentary photographer. The cards have my name and email address on them. I have literally given away hundreds of these cards over the years. If I take a photo in public of someone and I see they have seen me do it and they act annoyed or are just puzzled, I walk right up to them smiling, and hand them a card and tell them exactly what I am doing. I always tell them if they want a copy of the photo to email me and I will send them one. Every now and then, people ask that I delete the photos immediately, which I do.

This has worked well for me. The moments where people are genuinely interested in what I am doing (and many are flattered that I find them interesting enough to take their picture), far outweigh those who got upset over me taking a picture of them. Being kind, being cordial, and really being interested in folks goes a long way in life in everything we do.

Here is a recent example that happened less than a week ago. I started a new project where I am documenting all the historic old buildings and homes in my small town. I was standing outside a beautiful home built back in the 1800s, shooting different angles of it. A nice lady came out and asked me what I was doing. I smiled, walked right up to her, handed her a card, and explained my project. We had a nice chat about the history of her house and I showed her some of the photos I had just taken.. Two days later, I received an email from her asking for a copy of the photo. I gladly sent her one by email and she replied, thanking me for the lovely photo of her home.

I know this approach may not work for everyone, but it has worked for me for many years now.

 

[boojum]

I have shot street and documentary photography for many years. Although, I have slowed down a bit on the street photography because of mobility issues as I get older. While I am a huge fan of Gilden's work, I could never shoot like that. It is just not in my nature to be as confrontational as he is sometimes. However, his documentary stuff is outstanding.

I carry business cards with me that states I am a documentary photographer. The cards have my name and email address on them. I have literally given away hundreds of these cards over the years. If I take a photo in public of someone and I see they have seen me do it and they act annoyed or are just puzzled, I walk right up to them smiling, and hand them a card and tell them exactly what I am doing. I always tell them if they want a copy of the photo to email me and I will send them one. Every now and then, people ask that I delete the photos immediately, which I do.

This has worked well for me. The moments where people are genuinely interested in what I am doing (and many are flattered that I find them interesting enough to take their picture), far outweigh those who got upset over me taking a picture of them. Being kind, being cordial, and really being interested in folks goes a long way in life in everything we do.

Here is a recent example that happened less than a week ago. I started a new project where I am documenting all the historic old buildings and homes in my small town. I was standing outside a beautiful home built back in the 1800s, shooting different angles of it. A nice lady came out and asked me what I was doing. I smiled, walked right up to her, handed her a card, and explained my project. We had a nice chat about the history of her house and I showed her some of the photos I had just taken.. Two days later, I received an email from her asking for a copy of the photo. I gladly sent her one by email and she replied, thanking me for the lovely photo of her home.

I know this approach may not work for everyone, but it has worked for me for many years now.

That's it, just be a decent human being. I like Gilden's work a lot, too. But I am content to let him shoot and me look. But just acting like a grown up with manners is the key. I have never been refused or had someone ask me to delete a photo. One fellow I asked thought he would be a smart-ass and sprayed me with water. He was having fun. Sometimes this happens. That was down in Mexico off Guerrero Negro on Scammon's Lagoon. ;o)

Business cards is a great idea, thanks for that. Sounds like you have been around the block a few times.

See! Spraying the boat. ;o) by West Phalia, on Flickr​