taking pictures in public -- Texas news story

CD, I'm certain of nothing.

 

I'm not sure what a living/minimum wage has with the thread, but (despite the assertions

of the "economically comfortable white guy") there's plenty of evidence to suggest that

less polarised societies have a great deal going for them.

Do Canadians have to pay a "telly tax" like the Brits?

<I>"Some of the more crass "butt shots" posted here are edging dangerously into the same area - who makes the call?"</I>

<P>

I think it's pretty simple: if a person is comfortable enough walking around in public displaying a part of their body, I should be able to photograph it.

<i>I think it's pretty simple: if a person is comfortable enough

walking around in public displaying a part of their body, I should

be able to photograph it.</i><p>

Maybe they're not completely comfortable, but they'd like to have

options other than being stuck inside their house all day. Yes

you may have the legal right, but doesn't the specific encounter

and your sense of decency and respect and common sense

have something to do with how you actually behave? Hopefully

the enforcement side of the law also takes each specific

situation into careful consideration. Issues like this are complex,

but many find it easier to subscribe or at least purport to

subscribe to an ism that has a clear cut code to follow and

simplifies things unrealistically.

Generally you are right and generally i follow your rule. But general rules like the one you have made are very simplistic. It is not a matter of law, it is a matter to feel correct. Each one of us within our contexts takes a decision in each particular case if he should take the photo or not. For example, in most cases I will not take a photograph of someone crying; or of a couple in an airport kissing goodbuy; or of a young girl returning home at night that I think she will feel threatened; or of a mother breastfeeding in a park (where I live, I have seen it sometimes). It is not a matter of law, it is a matter of politeness (for me).

No.

Ray, Vasilis, It was a hasty comment that I should have clarified. And I completely agree with respecting an individual. If I sense any discomfort or unease, I defer to not taking the shot and may even apologize.

 

My thought stemmed from the idea that if you present yourself to the public in a provocatively dressed manner, then perhaps you shouldn't surprised to receive attention (comments or pictures).

I read the court docket and Judge Roy Bean has been assigned the case with 'Maximum Bob' as an alternate.

My apologies if this thread got sidetracked a bit. I thought my original statement about Southlake might have some relevenace to this thread, then a few of us got sidetracked. I'm going to answer Vasilis and then bow out so the thread stays focused on the main issue.

 

Okay Vasilis. Minimum wage is the lowest wage an employer can legally pay an employee. This is set by the federal government. It's set at $5.15 an hour and was last raised in 1997. Living wages are minimum wages set by state or city governments that are higher than the federal government's minimum wage. I think 17 states and about 90 cities have inacted a living wage. They vary by location (wage, exemptions, etc) and are basically put in place to try and help poorer workers. Rent control? It's kind of a vague phrase. You have section 8 vouchers which poor people use to pay a portion of their rent. There is an 18 month waiting list here for section 8 vouchers. Also some apartments may be income restricted, meaning they cap the amount a person can earn and live there. No vouchers needed here. The rents may not be much cheaper than the average apartment in the city, but the properties are usually nicer and safer than most low income housing. Still, the demand for affordable housing in America far exceeds it's availability. If there were no programs at all (what we have isn't enough) and the market set prices far and above what low income workers could pay, you would see even a greater number of people on the streets.

Jenna -

I'm guilty of driving this thread OT too. I'll try to minimize that. Just don't anyone mention a shrub-like being in D.C.

<i>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><BR><BR>

This is hard for me to do. I once took a pic of an obese woman in a wheel chair because she was so obese while stuffing some morsel of fat into her mouth. I think it exploits her for the benefit of making a point. But sometimes I think the value of the image outweighs the dignity of the subject. It's a photographer's moral dilemma with no stock answer. The dicey thing is if this were a better picture I might be inclined to show it more and to hell with her dignity.<div></div>

Let's try to bring this thread back to its original point:<p>

 

(In Texas) "A person commits an offense if the person: [. . .] photographs [. . .] another: (A) without the other person's consent; and (B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person" <p>

 

"Vogel could face up to two years in jail if convicted of violating state law."<p>

 

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3605090-lg.jpg" height="375" width="500"><p>Two years in jail (after arrest and trial)</center><p>

 

Should I be arrested for this? Tried and jailed? My concerns with this image were and are aesthetic ones. Which is not to say that these concerns are entirely divorced from erotic ones; but arousing or gratifying "the sexual desire of any person" isn't essentially what this picture is about. <p>

 

However, if just after taking it (assuming I was in Texas at the time, which I most assuredly wasn't), the lanky arm of the law had tapped me on the shoulder - "We'd like to ask you a few questions" - I'd have had a hard time explaining all the pictures I'd made in trying to arrive at this one. And why, exactly, should I have to explain it?<p>

 

Exploring and creating with a camera means taking <b>license</b>. Exploring and creating is a <b>right</b> and an obligation that I for one won't give up easily. Especially not for the sake of keeping some purported jerk off the street. After all, in the eyes of some that jerk might be me.

Kent: "sometimes I think the value of the image outweighs the dignity of the subject. It's a

photographer's moral dilemma with no stock answer"

 

Exactly. Unfortunately, imagery tends to get interesting at precisely the point it becomes

uncomfortable. Most genuinely powerful photographs exist in a moral gray zone: Sally

Mann's unambiguously sexual images of her own children; Lise Sarfati's images of naked

Russian teenage boys; Gilles Peress's startlingly confrontational images of the aftermath of

the Rwandan genocide; Antoine D'Agata's images of himself fucking and sucking his way

around the world; Joel-Peter Witkin's images of just about anything (but particularly his

photographs of dead babies). Legislate against imagery (there are plenty of other laws to

deal with assault or harassment) and we can all look forward to a world of vacuous Steve

McCurry style travelogue and Erwittesque pictures of strange dogs.

 

CD: "Should I be arrested for this? Tried and jailed?"

 

Well, I agree it's not much of a picture, but jailing you for it would be going way too far.

Maybe a stern warning would be about right......

Too formal in its attributes and lacking in any real content? You might be right, if that's what you mean. But a formal exercise without reference to anything (social, political, etc) outside itself is exactly what I was trying to do. Maybe it's true that this isn't enough to constitute "compelling" or even "interesting" - but I like the idea of abstracting something out of essentially nothing, without falling over into cliche, or overt social commentary, or some sort of neo-surrealism. Maybe aesthetics alone does not a worthwhile picture make? You may be right. Consider me warned.

"Consider me warned"

 

Consider my comments on your picture (unlike the first part of my post) as anything but

serious........

<i>but I like the idea of abstracting something out of essentially

nothing</i><p>

From what I've seen, quite frankly, it's not working.

Don't like my image, Ray? I'm crestfallen. In any event, your surly comment does you little justice. Perhaps if you put less time into denigrating others work and more effort into improving your own, you'd be in better cheer. Let's leave it at that.

<i>sexual images of her own children. . .naked Russian teenage boys. . .Rwandan genocide. . .images of himself fucking and sucking his way around the world. . .Joel-Peter Witkin. . .</i> [the name itself is enough]<p>

 

This list puts the purported "crime" of this Vogel guy, whoever he is and whatever he might have been doing, in context. It puts my image in context, too, unfortunately - and makes my claim to license sound full of hot air - sanctimonious and pompous. Hence, no doubt, Doris's barbed comment sent my way. <p>

 

Doris's list is obviously a far better illustration of true license than my own image is. In fact, my image doesn't belong in this context at all. I only posted it to illustrate how stupid it is to arrest and pass judgement on someone for taking pictures in public. Only the photographer can know what his intentions were - and in any case that's his business, not ours. <p>

 

<i>we can all look forward to a world of vacuous Steve McCurry style travelogue and Erwittesque pictures of strange dogs.</i><p>

 

Toss in a war photographer or two, and a seeming sea of earnest photo hobbyists making every effort to emulate Klein and Winogrand, and I'd say we have a complete universe.<p>

 

<i>imagery tends to get interesting at precisely the point it becomes uncomfortable.</i><p>

 

Meanwhile, those words sound to me like the key to success - my kind of success - and are a valuable reminder (to me) to stop playing it safe. Arrests in Texas notwithstanding.

the message is clear, stay away from texas.

Wow! After reading this I feel so <i>dangerous</i>. I mean, I could have been <i>arrested...</i>

"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.

 

"sometimes I think the value of the image outweighs the dignity of the subject. It's a photographer's moral dilemma with no stock answer" "

 

Exactly. Unfortunately, imagery tends to get interesting at precisely the point it becomes uncomfortable.

 

Not really a moral dilema at all. You either exploit people or you don't. The majority of photographers like to claim it's "for the story" or "for art". But mostly it's for ego and building (or maintaining) a career.

 

As for some of those mentioned:

 

"Sally Mann's unambiguously sexual images of her own children" their very appeal comes form being ambiguously sexual

 

"Gilles Peress's startlingly confrontational images of the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide" again, there's little "startlingly confrontational" about them - it's their quotidian mundanity that gives them their power (and I couldn't think of a less startlingly confrontational photogorpahy than Gilles - unless it's when he was confronting the National Geo editors about why they dumped him and his story)

 

"Joel-Peter Witkin's images of just about anything" Well, they have legislated against him - he just goes ahead and breaks the law (Mexicos for example) any to do what he wants - straight exploitation to feed his ego.

"You either exploit people or you don't. The majority of photographers like to claim it's

"for the story" or "for art". But mostly it's for ego and building (or maintaining) a career"

 

Of course it's for ego. Show me a photographer without ego and I'll show you some mighty

dull images. Photography is inherently exploitative, the only variable is the degree of

exploitation.

 

"their very appeal comes form being ambiguously sexual"

 

To paraphrase you, they're sexual or they're not. And they most definitely are sexual.

 

"it's their quotidian mundanity that gives them their power"

 

Leaving aside the fact that mundanity is by definition quotidian, there's nothing about

these images (either singly or sequentially) that's mundane.

 

 

"I couldn't think of a less startlingly confrontational photogorpahy than Gilles"

 

Then you can never have seen Gilles working in the field. There are many other

photographers who have reservations about the propensity that Gilles has to get in the

faces of his subjects - personally, I think the end justifies the means. There's also no

shortage of staff at Magnum (past and present) who'll attest to his confrontational nature.

 

"[Witkin] straight exploitation to feed his ego"

 

I'll reiterate that all photographers exploit, including so-called "concerned" photographers.

Some acknowledge this, some don't.

"it's their quotidian mundanity that gives them their power"

 

Leaving aside the fact that mundanity is by definition quotidian, there's nothing about these images (either singly or sequentially) that's mundane.

 

Only if one isn't teribly proficient in English.

 

The power of most of his photogrpahs comes from the sense that what they portray isn't out of the ordinary. They don't go for impact or drama, but rather straightforwardness

 

"I couldn't think of a less startlingly confrontational photogorpahy than Gilles"

 

"Then you can never have seen Gilles working in the field."

 

Many times in Bosnia (I'm in one of his Bosnia books somewhere) and I must say of all the photogoraphers I came across he was one of the least confronational. He may have got close, but he was rarely confrontational. And as close as he got, he was never in the way - which can't be said for many of the other "names" who were around. Peress and Connors were two of the better ones by a long chalk.

"I must say of all the photogoraphers I came across he was one of the least confronational.

He may have got close, but he was rarely confrontational. And as close as he got, he was

never in the way - which can't be said for many of the other "names" who were around.

Peress and Connors were two of the better ones by a long chalk"

 

Connors? The only Connors I know who covered the the former-Yugoslavia is

(Sheffield) Steve Connors, the worlds most amiable, laid-back, and undermotivated

photographer - he'll be delighted that anybody's referring to him as a "name". The closest

he's got to that before is when people have mistaken him for the very similar looking Chris

Morris......

 

Gilles is a wonderful photographer and a wonderful human being, but you're one of the

very few who'd consider him non-confrontational.

<i>Gilles is a wonderful photographer and a wonderful human being, but you're one of the

very few who'd consider him non-confrontational</i>

<p>

Maybe Mark really got to know him (on location) as opposed to meeting him in a foyer in

NYC.