taking pictures in public -- Texas news story

Regardless of whether he's intelligent or not, and I'd say he'd be better described as crafty than intelligent- the real question is- Is he a benevolent leader? Is he looking out for all the people in the country? My take is he looks out for his cronies and himself to the exclusion of all else. Does what's needed in other areas or talks about it just enough to keep his job.

Kent, I knew all of one Mr. Dan Quayle's words of wisdom. These two distinguished gentlemen attended/graduated from some of the most reputed Universities in the world. I do not see your post as anything personal. I do not want to elaborate to get too off topic. Vivek.

 

"Exceptions conform to the Rule".

Hi M, Too funny! I can't seem to keep my mouth shut lately ;-)

 

I understand where some of you are coming from, but I thought Southlake's demographics might have some relevance here. I don't think it's farfetched to say people in different communities, or with different socioeconomic backgrounds may react differently to similar situations. The man's activities here, whether legitimate or not, probably stood out more here than they would have in a public event in downtown Dallas. I'm white and I probably would not have photographed this event. One negative experience with my camera in an upscale neighborhood was all it took.

 

And I'm sorry to hear about your experiences in Mississippi. I agree that doesn't mean all whites in Mississippi are bad, but I also think it's naive not to be aware that the South has a history of racial intolerance. It's a reputation that region is working to erase, but it doesn't happen overnight. I think we saw with Hurricane Katrina that problems still exist in the South.

Thanks, Jenna. You have a good point, I assure you.

 

yes, south has that reputation but north is not too far off, unfortunately. some northerners like to think they are off and racism does not concern them much any more. heard over and over that people are saying: "oh yeah, that was the south" like we don't have here (i am in the north now, the "safe" side, they told me, but don't feel all that completely safe. :)).

 

i happen to think racism takes a different form, south and north. actually when i come to think about it, people are more open to talk about racism in the south (just my experience) which can be a good thing. any open communication is a good thing.

 

someone above mentioned the word "racist" but i think that's quite a stretch in reference to my comments (and some others i believe). please be assured that i don't think one bit your comments have any elements of this "racist". i did not know your race before you mentioned now. i think i read it well of your initial comment which is more about the financial class, rather than the race (though the word "white" was used but i understand the rich and powerful in this continent is more likely to be white, at moment anyway). it is more about the generalization i was refering to.

 

all said, i hope one day you will still take your camera into the rich white communities to document the people and the events. must be something that is worth documenting. could even be something that is worth documenting for an arrest. :0

oh yeah, jenna, like you, today is my talking heads day. should shut up now.

 

question: do we all feel better now? after the conversation takes curves and turns...?

"And Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

See what I meant? Is that funny or what? Not crafty- ingenius!

a gift for sleight of hand

can you have sleight of mouth?

Paula, Funny you mention transient Texans because that used to be a hot topic in the area. I remember debates with other Texans over who can really classify themselves as a true Texan. Some say it's a birthright, while others designated a certain number of years. That said, for better or worse the influx of new Texans has drastically altered the state socially and politically. I'll admit I kind of felt out-of-place in my home state the last 5 or 10 years.

M: True. I don't think racism is as in your face as it once was. Today it's more systematic. For example a local Living Wage was narrowly defeated here recently. There was a highly financed and very negative advertising campaign against the Living Wage and ultimately the measure narrowly failed. Those that would have been helped the most by this measure were single mothers and minorities. I did not find it ironic that the two wealthiest districts in the city were the ones that overwhelmingly voted no.

 

Documenting wealthy white people? I don't think I will ever get that kind of intimate access! I don't know anybody that is upper middle class or above. I live in an income retsricted apartment complex. A single person can't make over 20K a year and live here.

<i>I don't think racism is as in your face as it once was. Today it's more systematic. For

example a local Living Wage was narrowly defeated here recently. There was a highly

financed and very negative advertising campaign against the Living Wage and ultimately

the measure narrowly failed. Those that would have been helped the most by this measure

were single mothers and minorities. I did not find it ironic that the two wealthiest districts

in the city were the ones that overwhelmingly voted no.</i>

 

<p>Jenna, you imply that opposition to a "living wage", that economically idiotic idea that

has floated around the last few years, implies one is a racist. Given that the

preponderance of evidence is that the "living wage" (along with its plainer forbear the

minimum wage, and rent control) harms the very people it is intended to help, you could

more plausibly maintain that its proponents are the racists and that the rich, presumably

white, opponents you scourge blindly are the heroes.</i>

 

<p>I could explain this but I wonder if your mind would be receptive to it coming from an

economically comfortable white guy like me (obviously, I have no idea what your racial or

etthnic background is, nor do I care.)</p>

 

<p>Why not instead just pick up an introductory college economics text and read up--get

your facts straight and work on your critical-thinking skills. You'll find that some of the

cant you've accepted as gospel is just plain wrong, or at best completely unsupported

by available evidence or by past history. The law of unintended consequences once

again.</p>

 

<p>I realize that we've gone far afield on this thread, but I couldn't let this last bit of

sloppy thinking and uninformed opinion go by unchallenged.</p>

Okay...well, back to the topic at hand...I find this report disturbing, and here's why. Street photography is very important because it reveals things about people and culture that we otherwise might not see, or that we might only view one specific way. This class of photography is unique because it imparts the perspective of the photographer upon the environment which, in turn, meshes with the reality and experience of the viewer, making it truely distinctive. However, because consent is at the heart of this issue, the need to gain permission to photograph someone in a public setting not only detracts from the photographic appeal otherwise inherent in candid, spontaneous picture taking, it can also inhibit the artist within. Generally, and especially in Texas, I think there should be wider provisions for picture taking in the public domain for the purpose of artistic expression, documentation, or culturalizing. That having been said, however, the problem with that for credible photographers is that on-lookers (including the police) can't tell what your motives are when they see you shooting on the street or at a public event. They can't even really tell by examining your film or digital camera. What's art to me as a photographer could represent something completely different to someone else. I don't know what this guy in Texas was really doing, and I don't know specifically what he was collecting these images for. But I do know I don't want the government deciding what is art to me.

<I>But I do know I don't want the government deciding what is art to me.</I><P>

 

So up-skirt shots are OK then?

Brad,

I don't recall saying I thought upskirt shots were okay, and your response seems like a cheap shot. Just to clarify my position, there is a difference between the broadened use of images taken in the public domain for the purpose of culturalizing, documenting, or for artistic expression, and leering up women's skirt. What I said was, unfortunately, when you're shooting in a public place, on-lookers can't tell exactly what your purpose is. Not only is that a handicap to credible photographers, it opens the door for harassment. The police can't tell exactly what your purpose is until after they've arrested you and confiscated your equipment, and even then so. What if I'm working on a project for school, or going through a stage as an artist, and I need certain types of images to explore it? Even if it's body parts, that doesn't necessarily make someone a criminal. So, with the regular issue of consent aside as it exists in Texas, unless you're overtly shooting up someones dress (which any smart pervert probably wouldn't do...but the again, that's an oxymoron to begin with) I think there should be a level of acceptability for public picture taking. And even if I did think upskirt shots were okay...which I don't...I would, nonetheless, agree they have cultural value. They reflect something, whether you agree with the message or not. Charles Manson paints in prison and sells his stuff on the internet. Like it or not, it has cultural value.

Hardly a cheap shot. You said you didn't the government making rules for you. Now, maybe a

few are OK?

I definitely think you missed the point.

It is ok to (government) use this technology in airports?

"So up-skirt shots are OK then?"

 

So what's your position on this Brad?

<I>I definitely think you missed the point.</I><P>

 

No, looking at your 11:57PM post, it seems you missed the whole point of the story and

thread. Your post only keys on <i>consent</i> (conveniently ignoring the part about

making photos of the sexual gratification aspect). This is not about consent. Your blanket

statement about the government not deciding what is art side-steps the issue at hand. It

sounds like you are now saying a few rules are OK after all.<P>

 

Doris: Not OK. At the minimum it's a privacy tort. Seems like individual states/

municipalities should be able to regulate further, if desired.

Although I might not be as eloquent as you are Michael, I hardly think my opinions are sloppy or uninformed. Economics? Yes I took economics at a lowly community college. I've taken Business Law and a few other business courses as well. No I'm not an economist. Nor did I even finish college. Since you are obviously an educated, economically advantaged white male I guess I should bow out. Or bow down?<br><br>

<i>Jenna, you imply that opposition to a "living wage", that economically idiotic idea that has floated around the last few years, implies one is a racist. Given that the preponderance of evidence is that the "living wage" (along with its plainer forbear the minimum wage, and rent control) harms the very people it is intended to help, you could more plausibly maintain that its proponents are the racists and that the rich, presumably white, opponents you scourge blindly are the heroes.</i><br><br>

Michael I'm sure we could both link source after source that would support our respective viewpoints. What can't be argued is that poverty is increasing, homelessness is increasing, more jobs are being outsourced overseas, more Americans are without healthcare insurance, affordable housing is less available, and the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing. Perhaps you believe in trickle down economics, but I don't. Anybody willing and able to work deserves a livable wage and affordable housing. Nothing you say will change my mind. If you think I'm biased against those who are upper middle class, so be it.

"Doris: Not OK. At the minimum it's a privacy tort. Seems like individual states/

municipalities should be able to regulate further, if desired."

 

It's not a straightforward issue though is it? Some of the more crass "butt shots" posted

here are edging dangerously into the same area - who makes the call? You, me, the local

police chief? In my real, non-Doris, life I've found myself in situations where I've been

prepared to exploit the dignity (to an extent that would shock most people here) of people

in order to make strong images.

<i>In my real, non-Doris, life</i><p>

 

Are you certain there is a real, non-Doris life? You mean the Boris life?

What "living wage" means? I suppose the minimum wage is the minimum salary permitted to pay someone for a job?

I always lived in European countries where the minimum wage is enforced by the law, and also rent control (depends on regions). For me is the norm and does not seem to me at all obvious that it does not help society. I think that I know a lot of people that at some point on their lives they were indeed helped by this not to fall below a standard of living.

 

So, this being the experience of my life, it seems very strange to me that you think that the "minimum wage" or "rent control" are bad ideas and you are so arrogantly dismissive about it all.