Have you ever been called a SICKO doing street photography?

Christine, I'm genuinely curious. How do you know the guy up above is a "druggie?"

Also, if that had happened to be you, how would you feel about a photographer characterizing you in that

manner, in a public forum?

<p>Here is an appropriate link...certain to stir up some (more) emotional responses.<br>

<a href="http://www.petapixel.com/2011/04/18/local-news-piece-paints-boston-street-photographers-as-perverts/">http://www.petapixel.com/2011/04/18/local-news-piece-paints-boston-street-photographers-as-perverts/</a></p>

<p>Christine - to echo Brad's comment but much more vigorously because I take a really really dim view of this sort of self-serving and thoughtless way of 'working' - I have no issue with your right to make your images in a public place. But you have no right to 'assume' the narcotic/intoxication state of someone based on their behaviour. I've worked with people who have mental health and physical disability problems and been present when they were confronted by people like you who assumed wrongly that they were intoxicated (or just 'strange') and treated them in an exceptionally derisory manner.</p>

<p>Want some examples? My young disabled skier, whom I was fitness training for the Special Olympics, adopting his normal, but unusual skiing stance on the piste and who was pointed out to a ski class by an arrogant ski-instructor, who mocked him in earshot of both of us, and had his whole class laughing. Being confronted by me and having his errors pointed out wiped the laughter from the instructor's face pretty rapidly. Or how about the bartender who attempted to throw my multi award-winning photographer (who has serious brain damage) out of a pub because he mistook his unusual behaviour for drunkenness and thought that making fun of him would entertain the other customers. Again, not knowing I was present and being confronted by me, righteously but politely outraged, changed the tone of the situation rapidly.</p>

<p>And I could recount numerous other examples from over 20 years of doing this work. But what I always wonder is - what happens when someone like me is not there to defend the rights of individuals who have problems they have little control over, from someone like you?</p>

<p>So, what evidence do you have for your assertion that the individual you portrayed is a "druggie having a public meltdown"? Did you speak to the man and establish this as a fact?</p>

<p>You describe yourself as adopting a "photojournalistic style" in your work. A basic prerequisite of proper photojournalism is establishing some semblance of the truth of what you're showing. Can you assure me you did that here? Or have you, to use your own words......</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Go photograph flowers and birds and buildings and other things that don't talk back."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> ......just found a human subject that can't talk back? And made an assumption?</p>

<p>John, excellent post. </p>

<p>One further thought, however. Even if Christine had established for herself that this person was a drug addict or just someone on drugs, absent showing something else of significance in the photo, or making this photo part of a series, or accompanying the photo with text, as far as I'm concerned it still comes off as a gawker snap (made worse only by Christine's characterizing this person as a "druggie"). Let's say Christine came back here and said she did, in fact, talk to the person. That would make her a more thorough and engaged photographer but it wouldn't make the photo any more worthwhile to me. </p>

<p>Continuing, let's say a close relative had Alzheimer's and had left the hospital where he resided and was having a "meltdown" on the street. How would each of us feel if we came across a photo of our loved one, absent any greater or more thoughtful context, and then to add insult to injury it was titled "Lunatic Having a Meltdown"?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You describe yourself as adopting a "photojournalistic style" in your work. A basic prerequisite of proper photojournalism is establishing some semblance of the truth of what you're showing. Can you assure me you did that here?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well really, I'm chuckling here at the thought of having to assure you of anything or to defend my photography, my morals or my motives, and I don't think anyone else needs to defend theirs either. How and when did street photography become something that needs to be defended, unlike any other genre of photography? People have been doing this since before I was born...since they made cameras. I don't think I will let the paranoia of our current times stop me from recording and documenting that which is in front of me on a public street. If that had happened in times past and people had your attitude, our historic record would be very different.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fred: Even if Christine had established for herself that this person was a drug addict....<br>

John: So, what evidence do you have for your assertion that the individual you portrayed is a "druggie having a public meltdown"? Did you speak to the man and establish this as a fact?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This person is my neighbor and I know he is a drug addict. Is that good enough for you? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>...or just someone on drugs, absent showing something else of significance in the photo, or making this photo part of a series, or accompanying the photo with text,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=947374">view the series and the text</a> here in my gallery any time you like and see that I called for help for him. And I think I did a damn fine job of commenting on the series of photographs I took that day.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...as far as I'm concerned it still comes off as a gawker snap (made worse only by Christine's characterizing this person as a "druggie")...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just love the way people make snap judgements with no facts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let's say Christine came back here and said she did, in fact, talk to the person. That would make her a more thorough and engaged photographer but it wouldn't make the photo any more worthwhile to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And I don't really care to look at gay men in photos but I certainly don't judge your content or style or consider it not worthwhile doing or viewing. You record an important part of 21st century Americana, as do I.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Continuing, let's say a close relative had Alzheimer's and had left the hospital where he resided and was having a "meltdown" on the street. How would each of us feel if we came across a photo of our loved one, absent any greater or more thoughtful context, and then to add insult to injury it was titled "Lunatic Having a Meltdown"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would honestly not have a problem with it Fred. It's life...the good, the bad, the ugly...it's real and you and I are all part of it. If I or my relatives live our lives in public, I feel we are all fair game for the historic record. I'm not shooting through anyone's bedroom window. I'm shooting on the street.</p>

<p>Maybe I got hooked when I saw the paper the day after my brother drowned. Front page news in my small town. It showed my brother laying on a stretcher with a blanket over him but pulled down from his face and my grandmother, who had bad vision, bending over his body to make an official ID. Her face was just inches away from my brother's face. I was 15 and I was totally floored that someone had gotten that shot. To me it was a piece of family history, and it still is. </p>

<p>I value those shots that have come down to us of the slave with welts on his back, and the and photos of lynchings and water canons and bombed out churches. I absolutely love the photos of Woodstock of mud-plastered, semi nude and nude "druggies" and hippies who were often blissfully unaware that they were being photographed, and would really hate for that all not to be part of our record. I'm glad someone without your delicate sensibilities recorded it.</p>

<p>So like I said before, if it bothers you to take street photos of real stuff happening, don't do it. I'll do it for you. Your grandchildren will thank me for shooting what's really happening.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=20196">John MacPherson</a>, Jul 22, 2011; 06:02 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Christine - ...I take a really really dim view of this sort of self-serving and thoughtless way of 'working' ...But you have no right to 'assume' the narcotic/intoxication state of someone based on their behaviour...people like you who assumed wrongly that they were intoxicated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seems to me John, you have just done what you accused Christine of doing. You assumed (wrongly) that she assumed wrongly...and words like "thoughtless way of working" are very strong attacks upon someone's character....c'mon, insults are not warranted here.</p>

<p>Yes, we have very different opinions, and if you can't handle that then don't participate unless you can do it maturely. As soon as the insults come out, the constructive aspect of these forums stops and the destruction begins.</p>

<p>Christine, I didn't have a problem with the subject matter of your photo. I had a problem with your <em>photo</em> itself. I am not at all uninterested in your subject matter. As a matter of fact, I'm very interested and would like to photograph on the subject of drug addiction at some point. I just don't think you've handled it all that well and I don't care for the way you presented it in this thread. I may have had a different reaction had you linked to your series to begin with, but you didn't. You presented it as a solo photo with an objectionable title. Having viewed the series, it does gain perspective but still doesn't work that well . . . for me. I'm giving my honest opinion of the photos, not you or the situation, and I won't go into a critique here since this is not the place for it. And I don't expect you to agree or care. It's simply a viewer's reaction. Just as people on the street seem to have to live with your taking pictures of them no matter what they're doing and no matter their personal desires, you as a photographer have to live with viewers' reactions to and judgments about what you make public. I happen to love Diane Arbus's stuff but I know many people who find it objectionable. I'm sure she understood those varying reactions. I certainly understand that my own photos are not going to be everyone's cup of tea. Believe me, I'm not really trying to appeal to everyone and know full well that many (though you have not) may judge me for what I do. </p>

<p>As far as our photography being defended, I'm not sure about defense, but I do feel responsible for what I do and what I show. When asked or questioned about my intentions or the results, I never mind responding and talking about why I've done what I've done and why I think it's significant to have done it. That's different than being on the defense. Because of some questioning by others and by my self over the years, I have changed some of my ways of photographing and feel better about it. As a photographer, I don't consider myself free to do whatever I want and I'm OK with others questioning me when they think I've crossed a line or when they think I should at least think about it. As a matter of fact, I've encouraged it with people I care about.</p>

What I found objectionable was the "druggie" caption. Was that characterization really necessary?

Just a little more than a week ago I completed a project where I've spent most of my time for the past year shooting in one

San Francisco neighborhood. While others reach for acceptable descriptors of the neighborhood, such as marginalized and

disenfranchised, I'm happy with "vibrant."

Of the dozens and dozens of subjects I and a photobud have photographed and written about, many are what other people routinely call

"characters," because to them, they appear or act different. Yes, some happen to be homeless, addicts, suffer from mental

illness, dealers, gangsters, prostitutes, etc. But I've never felt the need to associate such characterizations with the portraits I

take. They're simply people who for various reasons have found themselves in very unfortunate circumstances. I simply call

them friends. And as friends would never disrespect them and the trust that has developed. I expect very few people will

really understand that.

<p>Christine and Martin - I suppose I got that one a bit wide of the mark then!</p>

<p>Christine - I dont have any issue with your right to photograph, and my response was prompted by the context-less insertion of an image in a thread that has been in parts about the exploitation of subjects by characterizing them as being something they may not in fact be, making assumptions about the reality of the situation.</p>

<p>I'm heartened to learn that you called 911, and I suppose I could also assume that your accompaniment of the individual through the street may have assisted in keeping him from harming himself until police help arrived. Well done.</p>

<p>Had I seen your portfolio page containing the images before I responded I'd not have made the comment I did. All I saw was your website and went into the Street section and saw no indication of the provenance of the image as being from a series with captions. My mistake.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think I will let the paranoia of our current times stop me from recording and documenting that which is in front of me on a public street. If that had happened in times past and people had your attitude, our historic record would be very different.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Paranoia? I'll chuckle heartily at that (wrong) assumption. "My attitude" - hmm. My attitude is one of upholding the dignity of my fellows, and particularly those who through circumstances not of their making are exploited, so make of that what you will.</p>

<p>My issue is not about your right to photograph, and the inference that I am in some way representative of a sector of society who seeks to curtail your freedoms is nonsense.</p>

<p>My issue is with the need in this work to have a basic respect for people's dignity, and I make no apologies for that. And in offering you my sincere apology for the mistake I made, I'll once again quote Brad whose attitude is I think one we should all aspire to:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They're simply people who for various reasons have found themselves in very unfortunate circumstances. I simply call them friends. And as friends would never disrespect them and the trust that has developed. I expect very few people will really understand that.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>I just don't think you've handled it all that well and I don't care for the way you presented it in this thread. I may have had a different reaction had you linked to your series to begin with, but you didn't. You presented it as a solo photo with an objectionable title.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What can I say? Objectionable is in the eye of the beholder. None the less, you proceeded to make a value judgement on my photography based on a caption which was about as true and descriptive of the situation as can be. He was a druggie. He was having a meltdown. And it certainly fit the topic of being called a "sicko" for doing street photography. I think it fit the topic perfectly and I think you've missed the point.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My attitude is one of upholding the dignity of my fellows, and particularly those who through circumstances not of their making are exploited, so make of that what you will.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you want to do a sensitive portrayal of drug addiction that elevates the dignity of the individual, that's just fine. Will it be street photography? Post it and we'll judge it for you. But in my neighborhood, this is what drug addiction looks like. And if my neighbor had wanted to maintain his dignity, and his privacy, he probably shouldn't have been out in the street howling and weaving in and out of traffic on a drug induced high.</p>

<p>Christine, you're still not quite getting it. I made two independent judgments. 1. One was about your title. I don't like the use of the word "druggie," especially out of context and without explanation or appropriate reason for use. 2. AND I judged your photo to be poor and objectionable, independent of the title.</p>

<p>Though you may have had the best of intentions, I think your photo came across as gawkish and exploitive. It gave me nothing more than a voyeuristic look at someone you, as photographer, were <em>using</em>. (Regardless of whether you felt as if you were or intended to be using him, your photo uses him.) Photos don't always communicate the good intentions of the photographer and they don't always convey what was actually going on at the time. Your photo comes off like rubber-necking at a car crash. </p>

<p>Pictures like this are ALL OVER the internet. They are easy, because the subject immediately provides a kind of pathos that hits some photographers and some viewers with an emotional charge. But unless the photo somehow looks at a well-worn subject with some kind of personal investment (<em>visually apparent</em>) or in some edifying way, it's just another snap of a homeless guy or a drug addict or a prostitute, even with the best of intentions. When you start giving to the photo visually as much as the person having a meltdown is giving emotionally, your photos will achieve more of the depth worthy of this very emotional subject.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Though you may have had the best of intentions, I think your photo came across as gawkish and exploitive. It gave me nothing more than a voyeuristic look at someone you, as photographer, were <em>using</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, now I get it, I was using and exploiting my subject, not recording what was happening in front of my house. And you didn't like my photo. I get it Fred, I get it. Note to self...do not take pictures of druggies having meltdowns in front of your house...do not use the word "druggies" when captioning druggies...and take photos that Fred will like.</p>

<p>OK, I'm being sarcastic, but I do get what you're saying. I just don't have the same viewpoint about it and I think you're over-moralizing about it. I certainly have had quite the voyeuristic look at the world of gay men through your photography. What makes the photography of your world any <em>less</em> voyeuristic than the photography of my world? Because you were engaged with the subject? Because you call it art? Were they paid models, or friends and lovers that you used to get the photography you wanted? Did you post them publicly to engender pathos for gay relationships or just so that people could gawk? Are your motives and modus operandi any different than mine except for the fact that your photography is done behind closed doors? I don't really think so.</p>

<p>Christine - at risk of being seen to 'pick on you', and with the greatest of respect for you, I can't believe you've just said what you've said.</p>

<p>Fred can comment for himself and may do so or may choose to ignore you, but this will be my last post within this thread. But allow me a couple of observations in the spirit of meaningful and hopefully constructive comment before I leave.</p>

<p>I've never visited Fred's site so just did after reading your comment above. The first portfolio I came to is about Plowshare Farm - a rural residential community for people with disabilities. From the comment you offered above I expected some leather-clad gimp-masked experience.</p>

<p>I have to say that with that selective 'viewpoint' you just offered you're coming pretty close to appearing homophobic.</p>

<p>And to add a little further observation on 'viewpoints' and how differing cultures may have differeing points of view and on the basis of which differences can make inferences - on opening the front page of your website the image that immediately caught my eye is the one top right beside your name. I have no idea what you think that gesture means, but in my country and many others I've visited, it is universally accepted as clearly and unambiguously saying:</p>

<p>"F**k Off"</p>

<p>Now, whether that is deliberate and demonstrates your attitude to life in general, to other people, to.....who knows. But it strikes me as an odd gesture to offer prospective customers. Perhaps in your culture, in "your world" as you put it, it has another meaning, but that just went right over my head.</p>

<p>And am I 'guilty' of doing what I just 'accused' you of doing - going to a website and selectively choosing something to take out of context? Absolutely.</p>

<p>You have other images in your portfolio that completely contradict the impression that the specific V finger gesture suggests, but its that image that opens your site, it accompanies your name and its directed at me the viewer.</p>

<p>So I'll take your suggestion and will in fact "f**k off".</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John, I have never heard that the reversed "peace" sign meant anything at all. I just googled it and learned something. Considering my British lineage, it is probably long overdue. For those who are interested...</p>

<p><em>The v sign. </em><br>

<em>The age-old ‘V sign’ comes in two formats: one with the palm faced outwards, and one with the palm inwards. In America the two hand signals mean the same thing – ‘victory’, as popularised by Richard Nixon, or ‘peace and love’, which seemed to become the primary meaning after anti-Vietnam protesters used it during the 60s. </em><br>

<em>However, if the outside of your hand is facing your target, you’re giving somebody a long-established insult in Great Britain and many English-speaking countries such as Australia, Ireland and New Zealand.</em></p>

<p><em>This gesture came about during the many, many wars that have happened between England and France. Before guns, bombs and electricity the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” was the English Long Bow. It was the ultimate trump card in any English King’s army.</em><br /><em>It could kill the enemy 300meters before they were able to fire arrows back at the English. Which was a huge advantage in those days. Obviously the English were winning a lot of battles due to the Bow and their Bowmen, who were trained from a very young age. (To pull the bow back took a huge amount of strength and thus training must be started as soon as possible.) The French HATED the Long Bow Men as they caused so many defeats.</em><br /><em>So when they captured an English Long Bow Man they would cut of his Index and middle finger to prevent him from ever using a bow again.</em><br>

<em>Thus the English started showing the French that they had their fingers and could still kill them. The meaning started as something similar to “F**k you Frenchy I still have my fingers and now im going to kill you.” Then to just “f**k you!</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>I Love culture!</em></p>

Looking again at the photo, I come away not knowing what it (the photo) wants to be.

It doesn't feel like street photography, unless one is in the camp that to be called "street," there merely

needs to be a person and a street in the frame - i.e., anything is street. Of course the genre of street

photography is much more than that. Many who practice it look to connect with something deeper and

evocative that speaks to what sp is about. And then there's the troubling caption, which to me,

immediately takes it out of that genre.

Perhaps it's photojournalism. But I doubt that such a subjective and provocative caption, even if true,

would ever be ascribed to a photo running in a news gathering publication such as a daily paper or

magazine.

I only see a person in what appears to be a sad situation when looking at the photo.

<blockquote>

<p>I have to say that with that selective 'viewpoint' you just offered you're coming pretty close to appearing homophobic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well that's a first for me, being called anything <em>close</em> to homophobic. I think it's acceptable and valid to use the word gay in conversation that refers to photography of gay men without being considered homophobic. It was selective because I was responding to and comparing my photography to Fred's. Nuff said.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now, whether that is deliberate and demonstrates your attitude to life in general, to other people, to.....who knows. But it strikes me as an odd gesture to offer prospective customers. Perhaps in your culture, in "your world" as you put it, it has another meaning, but that just went right over my head.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The "V" sign on my web site is either the victory or the peace sign in America. I have <em>never</em> heard it have the meaning you gave it and don't think anyone in my area would think that either. </p>

<p>See how easy it is to misjudge? This thread began with a woman misjudging Daryl, then wound around to security people misjudging photographers, and cops misjudging someone photographing some smoke in the distance, and me being judged as being homophobic, exploitative and telling my customers to f**K off. If we allow ourselves to be constrained in our photography, and in our lives, by what other people think we'd never get anything done and there would be no art, no history, no invention or creativity for fear that someone will misunderstand. </p>

<p>The whole issue of street photography and what is valid to photograph on a public street has taken on a tone of paranoia and morality that never would have happened in previous generations and it's all based on fear. What if <a href="http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1600&bih=698&q=henri+cartier-bresson+photographs&gbv=2&oq=henri+ca&aq=6&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=1690l3718l0l7859l8l6l0l0l0l0l242l972l0.5.1l6">Bresson</a> had the attitude of many that was voiced here? We'd never have had his great photographs. Was he a sicko? Exploitative? What's the difference between then and now? Fear.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So I'll take your suggestion and will in fact "f**k off".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, go in peace.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The "V" sign on my web site is either the victory or the peace sign in America. I have <em>never</em> heard it have the meaning you gave it and don't think anyone in my area would think that either.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I said I was out of this thread, but I decided it worth pointing you in the right direction so you dont offend too many other people with your gesture.</p>

<p>No it is not what you think at all.</p>

<p>Palm inwards (towards you) back of hand towards subject two fingers up, is grossly offensive.</p>

<p>Palm of hand outwards (towards subject) two fingers up, is the peace sign.</p>

<p>Take a look again at the 'history of photography' you keep falling back on, try perhaps the 60's - the period of peace and love, there's plenty of images there that will show you exactly how people held their hands in the v sign to symbolize peace.</p>

<p>My man Winston Churchill used it to good effect (palm out) in WW2.</p>

<p>Even 'your man' Nixon managed to get it right, palm out, using it at the end of the Vietnam War, and in the famous image of him departing the White House in 1974. And even all the hippies in the Summer of Love despite their addled brains managed to get it right.</p>

<p>Then only person it would appear who is getting it wrong, is you.</p>

<p>So as I FINALLY depart this thread, picture me facing you, smiling, hand up, palm OUT and my two fingers towards you. Peace Christine!<br>

<br /><br /></p>

<p>Umm, are you guys actually offended by Christine's photo of the V sign? I just looked and it seemed incredibly obvious that the reason she did it like that was to show the two tattoos. The site says Christine is in Pennsylvania, and I assure you that in Pennsylvania that's not any sort of offensive gesture. It is certainly unreasonable to expect any given web site owner to know all the offensive gestures from all the countries and avoid using any of them.</p>

<p>In the US, we used rifles, not longbows, to kill Brits in historic times, so we never adopted your see-I-can-sill-kill-you-with-two-fingers thing. An insult is a gesture or utterance with an intent to offend. If I tell you "I could really go for a burger right now," not knowing that you're a vegan who is offended by any mention of eating meat, I haven't just insulted you or done anything rude at all - it was just an innocent remark. This V-sign-that's-offensive is the same thing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What if <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1600&bih=698&q=henri+cartier-bresson+photographs&gbv=2&oq=henri+ca&aq=6&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=1690l3718l0l7859l8l6l0l0l0l0l242l972l0.5.1l6" target="_blank">Bresson</a> had the attitude of many that was voiced here? We'd never have had his great photographs. Was he a sicko? Exploitative? What's the difference between then and now? Fear.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Christine, no, he was not a sicko and he was not exploitive. It had everything to do with the way he photographed and what he produced. I wouldn't focus on the change in times or the level of fear. I'd focus on HIS WORK, his photos.</p>

<p>You asked earlier if the difference was being engaged with the subjects. Yes. But I don't think it has to be about engagement with them literally, or directly. It is about engagement with them photographically. You don't have to talk to them, you don't have to have them look at you, you don't have to have them even know you're there (though those methods employed by some of the good street photographers here seem to get good results). But engagement with them <em>in the photograph</em> is vital. This is done through perspective, focus, composition, timing, lighting and, as has been mentioned, empathy and evocation.</p>

<p>You brought up Bresson. Good example. Look at his photographs. Then you'll see why he wasn't exploitive.</p>