Legitimate street photo or 'creepshot'

By the way, unlike you regarding your photo of the two women you photographed and called names, I don't try to be objective in much of my photography. So the human, subjective qualities you've mentioned are, indeed, at play.

If objectively documenting what people are doing--regardless of what their affinities are is such--then we have IMHO crossed a bridge into the land of the insane where the sane person is crazy.

I'm glad your post of 1:58 am contradicts this and at this new hour you seem to realize how even supposedly objectively documenting something may not be all that objective and may, in the extreme, lead to objectification and bigotry, even if unintentional.

 

Objectivity, like bias, is a matter of degree, and can never be achieved in full. Certainly there are more and less objective photographers, and I know that when one refers to an objective photographer they simply mean "as objective as possible," but so-called objectivity doesn't inoculate one from making hurtful, shallow, or dehumanizing photos, which the earlier statement I've just quoted seemed to me to suggest.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Norma Desmond

Well then, by that measure I am a bit more than dated--but I still think of myself as useful and interesting. You may choose to disagree... :cool:

No, I don't disagree and would never suggest 'candid' photographers stop doing what they do just because a (theoretical) majority do otherwise but, …* times change, photography changes

 

 

 

 

*is there ever any point in saying stuff after a 'but'?

i mentioned it before in a wogears' thread that a lot of contemporary (i)photographers* don't get (and never do) 'candid' photography and i also said that it is a bit dated now (50-60 years old, at least) so maybe there is some genuine, justified, suspicion about it. And let's be honest, photography is a pretty creepy pastime :)

*about 10000 times more than traditional photographers

Norman, I agree with you but wonder if you can point to some ways in which you think this is the case. In what ways don't they get it?

 

IMO, a lot centers around misunderstandings of objectivity and subjectivity and false assumptions about achieving either "truth" or authenticity. Even more misunderstanding centers around the association of candid photography with hiding.

Norman, I agree with you but wonder if you can point to some ways in which you think this is the case. In what ways don't they get it?

in my experience the vast majority of contemporary photographers (think China, India, Asia for starters) photograph themselves, their friends, their families. candid photography is something a lot of people don't even think about.

in my experience the vast majority of contemporary photographers (think China, India, Asia for starters) photograph themselves, their friends, their families. candid photography is something a lot of people don't even think about.

Thanks, now I understand what you were getting at. I thought something different.

 

You think of these folks as photographers? I think of them as just people taking pictures, much as I don't think of myself as an interior decorator just because I decorated my own house.

 

I was thinking you meant people who have a more developed sense of photography and who would have thought about and even practiced but still misunderstand candid photography. So I'm glad I asked and thanks for responding.

You think of these folks as photographers? I think of them as just people taking pictures, much as I don't think of myself as an interior decorator just because I decorated my own house.

i too see them as people just taking photos and as i no longer see myself as a photographer but as a 'happy snapper' finally unencumbered by BS (cameras, equipment, processing, lpm, symbols, genres) who for the first time in a long time feels free and creative because of this, i've no reason to suspect millions of other snappers don't feel the same and, yet, whose views are valid.

i too see them as people just taking photos and as i no longer see myself as a photographer but as a 'happy snapper' finally unencumbered by BS (cameras, equipment, processing, lpm, symbols, genres) who for the first time in a long time feels free and creative because of this, i've no reason to suspect millions of other snappers don't feel the same and, yet, whose views are valid.

Definitely their and your views are valid. I thought you were saying they don't have views on candid photography because you said they don't think about it. I was merely asking if you have thoughts about contemporary vs. mid-century candid photography or changing views on such. Sorry for the miscommunication.

"You people should refrain from telling me what to write; how to write it; the meaning and purpose of what I write and how I think." William

 

Theres a thought for the moralists.

 

The moralist of course have the superior morals or say they tell us. Throught history moralists have told us what to do, how to behave, and how we need to follow their superior morals....always with the caveat or else...

 

"I don't think it's possible to fully adopt an HCB style of photographing in today's world. First, because attitudes toward women have changed since his day". Fred.

 

I have my own style but not dissimilar to HCB but without the hop, skip, and jump thing he did;) I never have had any issues but have a secret called "common sense" which seems to be lacking in some folk.

 

"And let's be honest, photography is a pretty creepy pastime". Norman.

 

For you but not for me. If you think its creepy then why do a creepy thing.

Photographing this young lady put a smile on her face and a smile on mine. The dog was not too happy, as can be seen.... he stuck his tongue out.;)

One of the signposts, IMO, of an ethical approach is thinking about your actions and being willing to admit the possibility of mistake whether you ultimately come to the conclusion your actions were in some way objectifying or not.The opposite of that is knee-jerk defensiveness. I respect that you've followed the former rather than latter path.

 

Never been big on juxtaposition-of-human-with-posters-or-billboards street photos. Most seem dependent on "pun" to yield a "message" and come across as self conscious or obvious to me. Neither quality is automatically a deal breaker but both often lead to results that don't challenge or engage me much.

y.

Thanks Fred. But I think Irony and visual jokes or puns has to this day been one of the impulses in street photography, though when done poorly or heavy candidly can approach the cliche. But some of my fave photos include visual puns.

Barry, agree about photographic use of irony often being significant. Puns are usually something else. Broadly speaking, I think puns are shallower and more obvious. They are, for example, often based on the sounds of words, though they can play off strange uses of their meaning. Irony is about deeper meaning more than surface comparison. IMO. Good example of a pun . . . I was in a store recently which was selling a music box that said "Handel with care." On the other hand, Stieglitz's photo, Steerage, is laced with significant ironies.

Henri Cartier Bresson was a street/ documentry/reportage photographer who put Art into his work...his real love was the paint brush and canvas. He was also a intelligent person and very articulate in portraying his thoughts. To put him under the banner of a creep because he photographed on the streets.... only the truly sad would have those thoughts.

 

There were many photographers who walked before him who did similiar photography and it could be easily argued with more natural talent. There are also many photographers since who are equally talented or more so. The street is the street little has changed.

 

To say his type of photography is just old school 50 years in the past is like saying the old masters of Art have no relevant today.The human condition does not change it just repeats itself.

 

Because we can manipulate our photos in Photoshop and express our Art in new ways does not mean its better only a different new way of expressing ourselves..

 

To be free of BS is about being free of prejudice.

I certainly don't view Ian's photo as a "creepshot." It's photographed with the subjects engaged.

 

I have seen a ton of what I usually call "cheapshots." They're usually of disadvantaged/unwell people sprawled out on the sidewalk against a wall and photographed from above looking down, with the photographer taking the cheapshot believing it's gritty "street photography" eye candy and presented under the guise of documenting the city or "raising awareness of the homeless." In reality, they're just cheap shots knowing subjects in disadvantaged situations are not able to get up and confront and/or not having to deal with being chased down the street if the subject were to object.

 

My view is if you're going to take a candid photograph, you need to own and deal with the consequences appropriately if there's an adverse reaction. If someone is not well physically/mentally, that's not a fair trade.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Brad_

Candid | adjective

1. truthful and straightforward; frank.
   "his responses were remarkably candid"
   synonyms: frank, outspoken, forthright, blunt, open, honest, truthful, sincere, direct, plain-spoken, straightforward, ingenuous, bluff; More
   informalupfront, on the level, on the up and up
   "his responses were remarkably candid"
   antonyms: guarded
    
    
   
2. (of a photograph of a person) taken informally, especially without the subject's knowledge.
   synonyms: unposed, informal, uncontrived, impromptu, natural
   "candid shots"
   

So what exactly is the majority of what passes for 'street photography?' Over the years I have heard the term 'candid' belabored to the point that its application is watered down in finite terms--it can express one or both of the definitions given above. My thanks to Allen, who has introduced the term 'moralists' to our little conversation. This is a much more polite term to describe rabid subscribers of both 'poles' of social behavioral belief systems; and to William who succinctly said (to paraphrase) 'stop telling me what to think or say.' I think that this has a deeper ramification--that being once we take our photography away from our personal and private use (and purposes) and put it into the public sphere--it transitions to a form of speech through visual means. In many countries of the world this is another of those 'paper' rights given us to varying degrees.

 

It seems though that almost all are busily redefining what is 'appropriate' and acceptable in this speech--the charge is led by the moralists who take the field of either wishing to preserve the status quo, or seek to change it for their own agendas. The state of photography has been defined by those who have challenged the status quo--but I fear that the agendas of the moralists are casting an insidious twist into the equation of 'artistic expression.' I suppose that this is nothing new, but just taking new forms as we seek to even the social playing field for those who have not historically had such equality. This rears its ugly head in our street photography debate--is it candid in one definition or another--and is it appropriate--as it may be seen as objectifying or mocking some cohort of society.

 

I agree with Brad in that many things are overworked and as I stated in a previous post--the subjects have been thrust into a condition that they would not normally manifest. This differs from our personal right to display ourselves in a controversial or eccentric manner--that is a conscientious choice. Having overseen homeless programs for a region of my state that represented a geography the size of the state of Connecticut--I can tell you that no one makes a goal of being homeless or mentally ill. In all too many cases as Brad points out, pushing such photography into the social sphere without a well defined purpose of helping such people can be little more than 'cheapshots' looking for shock or emotional response. Yet at the end of the day (as is said) it is within the boundaries of free speech to do so. This is a matter of personal ethics and sensitivities whether a photographer chooses to do this or not.

 

This of course leads back to what moralists would tell us to do--not intrude, not offend, not represent, etcetera--for a variety of reasons. The irony is rich here--as such mandates often have the opposite effect on the creation of biases and prejudices. I will still maintain that ALL of it is within the purview of the street photographer--and is only conditioned by the ultimate use of such imagery. And who above and beyond the courts of public opinion (no one wants to see it) or of competent legal jurisdiction (you don't do this or that) can tell me not to? And ultimately, is it not challenging both exactly what has led to the creation of a substantial portion of the world's great art--and the progress of art itself?

If they are 5 years old, someone likely needs to pummel the pee out of whomever is taking those photos.

Moralism.

 

With the nice addition of either advocating violence or simply using violent bluster to sound virile.

 

The only difference between this and what you decry is that when others give opinions about ethics and photography, you label it moralism. When you do it, you don't.

So which part of "....the charge is led by the moralists who take the field of either wishing to preserve the status quo, or seek to change it for their own agendas" was it that you failed to understand represents both sets of social ideologies? You now object to the term moralists. So perhaps we should revert back to 'conservatives versus progressives', or the newly popular 'liberal elites versus flyover country deplorables'? Or any other nomenclature. The issue is that the tails are overtaking the center of the curve by sheer volume of invective--and certainly not by mass of population. Sad that the internet has given every idiot (in the classic Greek meaning) a bully pulpit to bully others.

 

Moralism and morals (let's qualify in the sociological sense of mores and values) maintain order in a society--whether we like that society or not. Have you read Foucault's "Discipline & Punish"? The vast majority of Westernized society seems to agree (at least on a formal level) that physical relations (or the production of fetish objects that represent them) involving small children is not an acceptable behavior. So we come to a choice. The first being that we can make a huge formal production out of the action of certain currently (this may change in the future) behaviors qualified as deviant--impose a sanction--and then hide away the punishment and consequences from the public eye. We can further stigmatize, socially cripple, and marginalize those "deviants" for the remainder of their lives--even after they have supposedly 'paid their debt to society.' Or on the other hand, we can publicly pummel the pee out of them with the proviso the next consequence will be worse. Go forth and sin no more my son. And yes, this sort of thing is what created a 'closeted' society--so there is much more to this than a paragraph or two can cover. But the subject is not that, nor slavery, nor genocide, or anything of that ilk. It is street photography--and above and beyond the OP's original post and question--the impact of various moralistic ideologies, social inclucation to defined 'non-deviant' behaviors, and a healthy dose of new age 'fear of the other' that drives what is appropriate or not.

 

Why don't we all stick with arguing points, instead of dissecting the personalities of those with differing opinions? Argue the point, not what the person believes about that. Discussions are far more interesting that way...:p

 

Moderator Note: Yes, the conversation has reverted beyond the subject of "street photography" and well and truly beyond the OP's original post and question.

 

Now is the time to close the thread.

Edited July 22, 2017 by William Michael