Peeping Tom photography..

<p>Anyone familiar with the photographer Yasmine Chatila? Someone forwarded me this article and I must say, I'm not quite sure what to think of this photographer's work and methods.<br>

<br /> I have a hard enough time explaining how I have a right to shoot whomever is out in public.. but I'm not so sure I can defend this. Shooting someone out in the street is one thing but shooting someone naked in their bathroom 15 floor up, from a rooftop, with a telephoto lens is quite another.<br /> <br /> She's certainly getting ink for her methods - but is this what it takes these days?<br /> <br /> http://tinyurl.com/yfub73v<br /> <br /> Thoughts?</p>

<p>"expectation of privacy" is the guiding rule in "public photography of people". If you leave your blinds up, you expect no privacy....or at least shouldn't expect it. However, having grown up in the New Jersey suburbs where everybody closes their blinds, and also having lived in NYC for a couple of years, where a great deal of people don't close their blinds I came away with this......neighbors in New Jersey suburbs WILL meet each other....neighbors in NYC will probably NEVER meet each other. Which makes blinds a necessity in NJ, and an option in NYC. Meaning, people don't seem to care if others look....but they sure hate being approached about it. Which is the same philosophy as I find shooting street in actual public areas. They love you looking at them, but pull out the camera and they go defensive.</p>

<p>Actually, i found her stuff in Stolen Moments (I googled her name and looked at her own website) to invoke a sort of "tender" emotion....rather than a peeping tom type emotion. I have no problem with her interpretations of quasi private life.</p>

<p>This sounds like it's about your comfort level, Daniel. You're comfortable doing what you do out on the street but you're not comfortable with what someone else is doing . . . namely Yasmine Chatila. Someone else wouldn't be comfortable with what you do out on the street. Likely many of the people you shoot on the street aren't comfortable (or wouldn't be if they knew) with you shooting them. Nevertheless you do it. As does Yasmine Chatila. If she shot you naked while you were in the living room with your blinds up, you'd feel as violated (or not) as many of those you shoot on the street (rightly or wrongly).</p>

<p>Perhaps in a strange sort of way Yasmine is actually showing you something significant. What if it turns out you're no better than she and are also a peeping tom?</p>

<p>"Rights" are precious and can also be used as an excuse. They sometimes hit against ethics. Just because we have a right doesn't mean it needs to be exercised in all situations.</p>

<p>By the way, I do shoot on the street. But I don't consider myself any better than Ms. Chatila or a "peeping tom."</p>

<p>Certainly all of those distinctions are capricious, and driven by the whole spectrum of individual world-(and self-)view. I don't leave the curtains open if I'm going to be less clothed around the house than I would be on the street. But mostly it's so that passers by aren't scarred for life or blinded by my Career IT Guy Pastiness. Anne Rice couldn't describe a whiter torso than I have.<br /><br />But I think there just <em>might</em> be a reasonable expectation of privacy at a window if the only way to get around it is with high-power optics. Probably not a legal difference, but likely a reasonable ethical one.</p>

<p>Seems like she's illegal in NY if she's actually <a href="http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/peeping-tom.aspx">really doing it</a>. I suspect her work is like the "rape" videos the porn guys sell and is staged with full releases if the law comes calling (some folks trying to nail a Texas spammer found that he had all the proper releases for a staged activity where everyone was paid to be in the production). </p>

<p>The too many complications suggest that the DAs know either that there are at least some releases and/or don't want to wrangle with the civil libertarians, or that since the identities are obscured, she's not really invading anyone's privacy.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>the notion that there is private space in community living can be argued both ways. my suburban sensibilities makes me want to lock her up or take pictures of her own intimate moments for the world to glare at. however, she is making a living depicting our community level, taking great care to disguise the faces and locality. i don't think that we should be too harsh. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect her work is like the "rape" videos the porn guys sell and is staged with full releases</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no reason for this to be the case. The people probably aren't identifiable. In porn, there are a lot more requirements because of 2257, and that doesn't apply here from what I know of 2257. </p>

<p>FWIW, I have seen plenty of interesting things through windows in Manhattan including pretty much everything in her photos. I have also seen similar stuff on the street in San Francisco, where I now live. I don't think people who are that public about what they are doing are the type to sue over it. More people probably see it live than in photos.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But I think there just <em>might</em> be a reasonable expectation of privacy at a window if the only way to get around it is with high-power optics</p>

</blockquote>

<p>..and this is where I take issue with this method. I think a lot of people who leave their blinds open do so because they are not on the ground floor or do not have neighbors directly across from them - therefore they would have the reasonable expectation that the most anyone could make out from the street or a building that's not directly across from them would be a blurry shadow figure. Bringing in high-power optics from an adjacent rooftop (whether they be for camera or binoculars) to zoom in on these spaces crosses an ethical line in my opinion. <br /> <br /> Most people leave their blinds open during the day to let in sunlight - do we all lose our right to a reasonable expectation of privacy in doing so? I mean, if you wanted to, you could use polarized filters to cut the glare off windows in daylight to get nice, clear shots of everything that's going on inside people's homes. Would these people be asking for it because they wanted to let some sunlight in?<br /></p>

<p>I have a sense that these photographs are staged. It is said that Robert Doisneau's famous 'Baiser a l'Hotel de Ville' was not the fortuitous shot that it was thought to be but planned and using models. But, if Chatila's picutres are staged, then that poses a whole set of other questions.</p>

<p>I clicked on that link, and all I know is that compared to the photos on that page that surround her shot, her photo looks like high art.</p>

<p>What is astounding, and sad beyond words, is that we are bombarded w/ images of violence, sadism, cruelty, and ignorance at every turn when we turn on a TV, yet some people are upset about images of someone nude or making love.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What is astounding, and sad beyond words, is that we are bombarded w/ images of violence, sadism, cruelty, and ignorance at every turn when we turn on a TV, yet some people are upset about images of someone nude or making love.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, I can very much appreciate work featuring nudity - I never claimed otherwise. It is the <em>method</em> with which these particular photos are captured that I take issue with. Big difference, sir.</p>

<p>Interesting topic for discussion... The fact that Yasmine Chatila tries to disguise her subjects suggest to me she is conscious of the boundaries of privacy and within those boundaries she tries to convey their humanistic moments be they shared or individual. Like anything, intent is an important part of the equation and so I feel it also has it's place here when judging Yasmine's work. I can take a photo of a homeless man, woman and/or child with the intent of exploiting their sorrow for some hidden narcissistic agenda (making others think I am 'aware' of the world and appear to be making a statement of sorts) or I can be genuinely trying to express the sorrows life sometimes bestows on us. To the viewer the image is perceived "as is" but my intent makes all the difference to it's appropriateness. Equally, Chatila's works can be placed under the same scrutiny which brings me back to my original point. Her efforts to disguise her subjects suggests an appropriateness in her work, much the same as say, street photography or documentary work.</p>

<p><strong>Art--</strong></p>

<p>Beautifully stated! It's not about the genre and what we see isn't always the full story of what there is to be seen. You've taken that crucial extra step. Thanks.</p>

<p>I like the photographs, some of those windows alone are amazing. Now, what if it was a male photographer, taking telephoto pics of showering women, etc...would <em>that</em> have changed the context in how the photographs would have been viewed afterwards, be it with artistic intent or not ?</p>

<p><strong>Phylo--</strong></p>

<p>I don't think it's about artistic intent. I think it's about the full package. Art points out that the subjects are to a large extent unrecognizable. That's part of it. It's also about what I see. What I see when I look at pathos-driven images of homeless people is more offensive to me than what I see when I look at these photos.</p>

<p>You bring up a good point. Because of cultural considerations and the difference between the way males and females have been treated and have tended to treat each other historically, I think there likely would be a different reaction from many were it a male photographer shooting females. That would make sense.</p>

<p><em>Further thought on intentions:</em></p>

<p>There's also the case where "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." I don't doubt the good intentions of many people who take pictures of homeless people. I see them stated in many photos right here on PN and I believe the statements. I nevertheless find many of the photographs objectionable and exploitive.</p>

<p>The reverse is true and probably a little more complicated, ethically speaking. One can have malevolent intentions and still produce compelling art, even beautiful things.</p>

<p>Fred,<br>

Following on from your thoughts: some seventeen years ago I travelled to the former Yugoslavia to photograph the refugees from the war in Bosnia. I felt that this was somehow a 'worthy' thing to do. On reflection, it did nothing to alleviate the condition of those people and, in my more honest moments, I have to conclude that it was, for me, just an indulgence. I don't regret the experience because I have learned something from it and I can now photograph the merely beautiful without feeling pangs of conscience about being 'trivial'.<br>

Conversely, and to follow from your second point, Leni Riefenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will' was a monumental piece of cinema, but the consequences of its message were appalling.</p>

 

<p>Phylo, I had the same exact thought... also, from the title of this thread I just assumed the photographer was a guy.</p>

<p>I went to her site and thought some of the pictures were terrific. In terms of photography, what is exploitative about the picture below? If this picture was posted first and then it was mentioned "how it was done" would that change the picture itself? </p>

<p>The photo is fact. And there's something particularly touching about this one:</p>

<p> <B>PHOTO REMOVED. Per the photo.net Terms of Use, DO NOT POST PHOTOS THAT ARE NOT YOURS.</b></p>

<p>my question would be regarding the nude teens... isn't she at risk for some serious legal troubles if any of the "teens" are under 18?</p>

<p >In Australia, deliberately setting out to take clandestine photographs of nude people in their homes violates a number of laws and the photographer could expect to be convicted and then carry a record as a sex offender. I don’t believe ‘but their curtains were open your Honour’ would be considered a reasonable excuse. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >We as photographers have enough trouble with people suspicious of our motives; the last thing we need is for our colleagues to justify the irrational fears in the community. I would hope that the photos were staged (and if so that this fact becomes widely known), otherwise I would hope that she is prosecuted to the full extent that the law allows. </p>