Street photography or voyeurism?

Just curious to understand where's the line between capturing

interesting object on the street and voyeurism. Do you approcah your

object once you captured their image? Do you just believe it is your

prerogative if you are in public places?

 

Just wondering.

Not sure of any line, but definately there's an element of voyeurism. Yes its my perogative. Sometimes approach an object, usually not. Often the object is moving anyways. I have no simple answer as to when or not to. If I really think someone is going to object or they've actually indicated they don't want to be photographed, I will usually honor that but then, for me, its a balancing test of many factors. I suppose it has more to do of how you identify with personal space. If you believe or are in a frame of mind that "we are all here in public sharing space and time, and I'm going to capture the wonder of it all" then I suppose you won't think of it as being voyeuristic. But if you feel like you are capturing people's private moments even stealing them, like we all must at sometimes, then you are a voyeur at that moment. Do you have a problem accepting that you may be a voyeur?

 

Just wondering.

In criminal voyeurism cases it is usually a mtter of one capturing an image of another for sexual gratfication without the consent of the other when the other is in a place where there is a reasaonable expectation of privacy (i.e a bathroom vs. outdoors in a public park). Texas has a different and ridiculous law about improper photography.

As I recall, the Texas law in question says that you can't take photos for sexual gratification in a public place- which seems like a pretty good dividing line in response to your question.

 

There was a news article some time back where they'd arrested a guy here in the Dallas area- made for a lot of discussion here on photo.net. The upshot of it was that the DA saw the photos the guy had been taking and said there was no case to be had.

"Criminal Voyeur case..." YIKES! Ok, not a voyeur, have never been, I was confused...etc blah..

 

But does voyeurism always denote sex? I thought just watching people was a form of it as well.

Does one need a camera to be voyeuristic? I think not. People look and observe other people all time. I don't understand why SP gets such a bad rap. Maybe if they are using a 300mm perhaps...

Too late, Barry. You are already in the database...

Well, I wasn't very clear about the definition of voyeurism that I meant.

dictionary.com define voyeurism as:

voyﾷeur (voi-yûr)

n.

1. A person who derives sexual gratification from observing the naked bodies or sexual acts of others, especially from a secret vantage point.

2. An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects.

 

If I took say 20 pictures of someone with interesting feature while following him/her to get that perfect lighting, will that be classified as definition number 2?

I think that "criminal voyeurism" is one of those things that is hard to define. Some call one thing art, while others call it crap (in some cases, literally).

 

I have seen the portfolio of on PNer that I think crosses that line between street photography and creepy voyeurism. I forget the guy's name (even if I didn't I wouldn't post it), but his photos show very poor technique and consist mainly of good looking women's bodies. No heads, just bodies. No value really, other than to ogle.

voy�eur<p. Pronunciation Key<p> (voi-y�r)<p>

n.<p>

 

1. A person who derives sexual gratification from observing the naked bodies or sexual acts of others, especially from a secret vantage point.<p>

2. An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects.<p>

 

Pick the one that best discribes your proclivity.

If you look at it from the street photography standpoint, it may be hard to find a dividing line. So look at it from the other end. When I was living in CO, they had a guy get into the "pit" in a pit toilet, covered with trashbags, so he could video women using the restroom. With people doing stuff like that, there's not much question.

<i>...they had a guy get into the "pit" in a pit toilet, covered with trashbags...</i>

<br><br>

Sounds like modern art to me--please tell us he didn't have an NEA grant.

Voyeurism is only in your mind. If you feel yourself guilty for what you do, that's it, otherwise it's not. To me, hip shots give a sense of voyeurism, and hence I don't usually practice them. It is easier to compose from the eye anyway.

<p><img src="http://www.boblycat.org/albums/Random-street/subway1.jpg">

>>>"criminal voyeurism" is one of those things that is hard to define.<<<

 

It is very easy to define. It has been defined repeatedly. I just gave the definition that most states use if they have a criminal vouyerism statute. Filming people undressing in a changing room, using ther bathroom, or having relations in a bedroom without consent and for the desire of the picture taker or others is what these statutes are designed for.

 

There can be some debate as to when someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a particular setting but most cases are clear cut.

 

If you shoot a picture of someone on the street, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, it may or may not be impolite. It may or may not be for sexual gratification. Indeed the same picture may be for some and not others. Its difficult, however, to make the case that capturing private acts on film, where privacy from such events is expected such as a changing room, is art. Even if it were, the First Amendment doesn't give one the right to free speech by uttering it in someone's house, nor does it permit secret photography of someone in an intimate moment in their house either.

 

As to street shooting, it is generally more a question of courtesy. Some who photograph others on the street, might not like it if someone were taking the same type of shots of them. Some scenerios seem fit for photography that captures people, others don't. An image with a lone figure walking on the beach is more asthetically interesting that just another beach picture. This thread seems to ask about shooting people in particular though. One runs a a pretty high risk of being obnoxious if they tend to shoot "people picures" of strangers out in public without some aditional purpose.

Alexander Pope, who was admittedly a pretty odd sort of cove, famously wrote that "The proper study of Mankind is Man". I'd say that street photography falls under that heading, sort of nature study in the beast's natural habitat....<div></div>

Everyone looks, whether they have a camera or not. Street photographers just choose to go one step further. Most people are curious about others to one degree or another.

"i am a photographer. im a voyeur. im an observer. some the things i see are hard to look at, some are not... but i have to look at them. thats what i do. thats who i am."

mary ellen mark

There is room for much thought in photography, but often it happens after the

fact. You cannot do good street photography if you are constantly checking

with an internal censor. You have to shoot first and ask questions later. (I

often shoot with the camera away from my eye specifically to make accidents

happen--unexpected framings and odd compositions I wouldn't consciously

choose through the rangefinder.) But then you look at the negatives and

decide what to print, or print something and decide whether to show it. I once

took a picture of a girl half-asleep on the subway, very close, and it came out

beautifully, in the technical sense. But she looked drugged, stupid, ugly--a

stereotype of the ghetto person wasting her life. It's a cliche that the camera

doesn't lie, but there was nothing true about the picture. I didn't know

anything about this girl. The voyeurism, or exploitation, or injustice--whatever

you want to call it--would have been in showing such an image, not in taking

it. "It is not that which goes into a man that defiles him, but that which comes

out of him."

<a href="http://www.spirer.com/fragments/">Here</a>, you decide.

Sorry for the lame presentation on that, I was trying some new software for slide shows. I think you have to hit the play button.

Cool shots. Which adobe gallery version is that? 2? I used the latest one that came out, seemed a bit cooler. you could drag the thumbs around on the monitor and keep them to one side as faves.

It's not Adobe, it was something I found on the web.

Does it offer any control of timing, from slide to slide ?

 

Some very good ones, by the way.

<i>Does it offer any control of timing, from slide to slide ?</i><p>

 

It might, if you can get the source for the swf file. But I don't see anything in the files I can look at that lets time be a variable parameter.

Jeff, it's adobe flash gallery 1, just used made this <a href=" http://www.ericmilner.com/photos/pn020506/">here</a> to show you.