Jump to content

the end of photographing children??


Recommended Posts

<p>hi guys,<br>

im in the process of writting a paper on the potential end of photographing children in society.<br>

This is fueled by the numerous stories being documented about people being confronted for taking photos of children (sometimes even their own) in public places. This also is complimented by the banning of photography at school plays, at public swimming pools and even as extreme as the situation that i have recently read about where there was a banning of photos being taken of 'new born' children in cots in a maternity ward? This is all married with the alleged instructions by the FBI in the states to all photo labs and pharmacies that print photographs to report any photos of a 'suspicious' nature containing images of children.<br>

What i am looking for is peoples opinions on what society has become and do you agree that there will come a time in the not to distant future that there will be a generation that will never know the embarrassment of their parents pulling out old photos of them naked or partly clothed as a child that most people of my generation have already experienced...</p>

<p>thanks</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I wouldn't make the move from society's increased paranoia about children (and more often it's simply used as an excuse for people to make arbitrary rules and get on their moral high horse . . . in the name of "the children") to the sweeping changes you foresee. While people are advocating for television censorship so they don't have to take responsibility for what their children watch, we're a long way from completely changing the way we each operate on a personal level. Even the parents I know who would be much more uptight with a stranger with a camera coming up to them in a public park than they would have 40 years ago are still taking those cute naked shots of their kids in the bathtub and running around the house. The effects of the idiotic rants of a society made fearful by a provocative corporate-run and self-interested media and religious moralist wing-nuts will tend to ebb and flow. There is as likely to be a backlash to the kinds of post World Trade Center limitations on civil liberties imposed by tyrants who saw an opportunity to seize more power for themselves as there is a continuation of such nonsense. The new American administration is already addressing some of the moral highground given up by the last one, especially related to torture but also to civil liberties. I think there is reason to be a little more in tune and careful when on the street photographing and even a little more circumspect when giving photos to a public processing place where teenagers will be making moral decisions on what transgresses the bounds of decency. But that said, I have felt very little restriction in what and how I photograph. I think we hear stories of anomalies, people getting charged with indecency where the charge turns out to be ludicrous. Those few stories make a big emotional impact. But most people doing nothing wrong are not getting into trouble. Yes, I've been stopped by security guards a few times from photographing in malls (which is their legal right to do). Once I had a mother question me about taking photos in a playground. I was taking photos of my niece and nephew and assured her that everything was fine. She went away assured. Once, a security guard in a public square in San Francisco tried to hassle me about photographing and I went into the main office and reported him. A nice gentleman came out to the guard with me and told the guard to leave me alone. I know others have had much more disturbing experiences, but I still don't think these things will change the face of photography or picture-taking as we know it.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've stopped taking pics of anyone else's kids, just too many concerns. It gets dicey even taking of our own (grand) kids, say at the playground, if there are other kids in the frame. It's harmless for 99% of photographers, but the possible 1% tips the balance. Just like airport security, taking pics in transportation centers, etc, etc, I guess.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It might be an overstatement to call it The End of photographing children, but there are without question strong societal restraints on this activity which will affect people's lives for some time, possibly for a long time. I know a woman who was detained and questioned a couple of years ago for having photographs developed at the local drug store which included shots of her 6 month old child naked in his bathtub. They were perfectly innocent shots of the type millions of parents have taken over the years, yet the prosecutor and police pursued it for months before suddenly dropping the "investigation." The whole episode was very Kafkaesque, and left the parents with a much changed opinion of Law Enforcement.<br>

Recently, I came across some old Hasselblad sales literature from the early eighties that contained a few photographs of nude toddlers frolicking outdoors, among many other subjects. They were quite restrained and tasteful, completely acceptable at the time, but no one would dare use such photographs in advertising today.<br>

Sadly, I think you are correct about the loss of some cherished family memories as a result of this chilling new "morality". I do sense that some people are more reluctant to take such photos of their children then prior generations. And personally, I would never aim a camera at a child in a public place without the parents' explicit permission.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>What a great paper that could be. It is terribly sad that we can't photograph kids, really. I find them so fascinating and amusing. It sends me right back to my childhood, wondering if I was ever that clumsy, awkward... funny!<g> I had an adorable little girl stop to talk with me last night, about my dog. I felt bad because she wanted to talk, but I am also aware that "the nice man with the white dog" could get me a visit from the police too. So I kept moving. It was really unfortunate for both of us, but it is what society has become.</p>

<p>Personally, I cannot fathom why we let sex offenders back out on the streets. Or give them the choice of castration (though I don't know if that prevents their urges) and freedom, or lifetime lock down. That should be part of your project too.</p>

<p>Fred, I can't tell if you're talking about liberals or conservatives. NBC is owned by GE. Fox by Newscorp, CNN by Viacom, Westinghouse owns CBS, Disney owns ABC. Obama has ramped up the war in Afghanistan after Bush started it. The conservatives gave all our money to their corporate cronies, and the liberals are stealing the rest of it for themselves. So who gets left holding the bag? I do, and there's not much in it these days. I'm not buying any of it. It's all designed to take our eye off the ball: doing what's right for the USA.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Politics aside, John, it is a relevant subject among photographers. It is interesting philosophical phenomena that there is a serious worry among the public that some are taking these photos for their jollies or worse. Unfortunately, in general, their concerns do not stretch to the thousands of children who die everyday of abject poverty in terrible agonies</p>

<p>We are a strange species…</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>We have indeed witnessed the demise of the ability to photograph children, no matter how tastefully, without hassle. I've had first-hand experience with this when a nasty piece of work, an investigator for the local DA's office, had me investigated by the state attorney general for taking a picture of my nude and sleeping grandson at a party. The reporting investigator literally lost every friend she had in a large group containing only child protective workers over this. Shows how outrageous her actions were. Worse yet, this person had only two weeks earlier volunteered very intimate details of her private life to me over drinks. <br>

The investigating detectives said you wouldn't believe how large this problem of pedophilia and computerized child porn is. I have to take their word on it as I couldn't (and wouldn't) be able to find such a web site if my life depended on it.<br>

The world of child porn enforcers, and this may be shared with officers who investigate other crimes as well, feel that every human being is eminently corruptible. As if drinking a lot of Coca-Cola as a child could lead to adult alcoholism. It's a grim view of human nature, but it rings true in cases of political and business corruption. I'd be very disturbed if I found this to be true in a person known to me. What about the cops themselves? How many showers must they take before having dinner with their own kids?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I recently had an experience at the local Amtrak station while waiting for a train to Chicago. A couple sat down right next to me with their child in a stroller. It was animated and was smiling at me. I started taking a series of shots to which it responded beautifully.</p>

<p>During the whole time neither parent said anything. About ten minutes latter after I finished shooting, the mother turned to me and said she had seen me taking pictures of her child, and that was not allowed. She had a British accent. I told her we were in a public place in America where there is no expectation of privacy. She didn't take it well. I never raised my voice, but did say she should have said something while I was actually shooting. I probably would have stopped shooting at her request had it been more timely.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Glenn, though you are right about the expectation of privacy, that doesn't mean you couldn't have chosen to ask the parents if they would mind your taking pictures. You absolutely did not have to ask. But that fact also doesn't have to stop you from asking. I'm not necessarily saying one way is right and the other wrong, just pointing out alternatives. And I would imagine each situation is best judged individually. There are times I would ask and times I might not, regardless of what the law states.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Digital means more family photos than ever. Back in the days of film many families only shot a roll or two a year. Every mother I know has a digital camera, and they take dozens of photos a week at a minimum. Search for the terms "soccer mom DSLR" to find millions of posts from self-proclaimed "real photographers" griping about how everyone has a DSLR these days.</p>

<p>Who needs a lab? Photographers make prints; everyone else just wants to look at the pics. Pervs won't go to a lab. They'll just look at them on their computer, cellphone, etc...</p>

<p>The technology is always ahead of the authorities. While the cops are busy harrasing photo enthusiasts and local camera club photowalks, the terrorists and pervs are discreetly snapping away with their cellphones. The cameras are only getting smaller and easier to conceal. Soon there are going to be lot's of people wandering around with concealed video cameras recording everything they encounter. Today people write in their blogs about what they do all day. As soon as it's feasible with small, cheap, video gear just as many folks are going to be doing video blogs like their own reality TV show. </p>

<p>The generations of the future are going to be under constant photo/video surveillance from govt and private cameras. When my kids take my grandkids to the park I'll be able to access camera networks and/or databases, view the photos of them and everyone else playing in the public park, and download high res files for my family photo collection for a small fee (and yes, other people will use this access for nefarious purposes, but the pervs will be the least of our problems). This may sound crazy to us, but the folks who grow up in that world will be used to it. The authorities aren't going to give up photo/video surveillance. Private companies aren't going to give it up either. As it becomes cheaper and more accessable to individuals they'll adopt it too. Big brother is here, and a few billion little brothers are right around the corner.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think if the OP were to actually research the issue instead of believing all of the wildly exaggerated claims bandied about on the internet, he'd find that the death of the photography of children "has been greatly exaggerated."</p>

<p>I think what he is experiencing is the death of non-yellow journalism, quality research and critical thinking.</p>

<p>Just looking at some of the comments shows the irrational nature of the internet discussions on the issue. One person suggests the cops are busy harrassing club photowalks yet pervs and terrorists snap all day long. Mention photography and terrorism and others will scream all day long that terrorists don't use photography. The OP suggests that the FBI is pressuring developers/printers to report anything suspicious involving children. The "authorities" are either paying no attention to terrorism and pervs or they are completely off the chart in their responses to terrorisim or pervs. It can't be both.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"No bans in the part of England I live in. Do you have any examples?"</p>

<p>No bans as far as i know, however, it is is not thought of as cricket to take photos of children without consent.....whether they are the subject of the photo or part of it. </p>

<p>That is the general mood in the UK which has been much hyped by the press.</p>

<p>There was a case a few years ago when a 70 year old was arrested along with his wife for taking photos in Trafalgar Square, London where children were playing in the fountain. His film was confiscated and his house was raided by the police looking for Pornographic material. Sounds like fiction from a Nazi propaganda film but in truth it was the cold reality in a modern Democratic society. </p>

<p>Since then such situations have not existed, as far as i'm aware of, thanks to the efforts of our Photographer MP's. However, is just goes to show you how the freedoms of the many are easily taken away by the press and state in some sort of hysterical malaise.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"No bans in the part of England I live in. Do you have any examples?"</p>

<p>No bans as far as i know, however, it is is not thought of as cricket to take photos of children without consent.....whether they are the subject of the photo or part of it. </p>

<p>That is the general mood in the UK which has been much hyped by the press.</p>

<p>There was a case a few years ago when a 70 year old was arrested along with his wife for taking photos in Trafalgar Square, London where children were playing in the fountain. His film was confiscated and his house was raided by the police looking for Pornographic material. Sounds like fiction from a Nazi propaganda film but in truth it was the cold reality in a modern Democratic society. </p>

<p>Since then such situations have not existed, as far as i'm aware of, thanks to the efforts of our Photographer MP's. However, is just goes to show you how the freedoms of the many are easily taken away by the press and state in some sort of hysterical malaise.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Again, IMO this belongs on Casual Conversations or Off Topic, but I'll point out that photographing children leverages the same issues as photographing adults without their permission (as in victimizing "homeless" on the street).</p>

<p>Anthropologists grew to respect human rights as photographic subjects starting a century ago.. If you have enough curiosity to leave your monoculture you have encountered cultures that have the right <strong>to demand no photographs.</strong> You want politics? Judge Bork, who missed something central to the US Bill of Rights, claimed we have no right to privacy because it isn't "ennumerated". If you think Bork was a victim, there's your philosophy.</p>

<p><strong>A child is not a free-will individual</strong> in law or philosophy, it is attached to ("belongs to") parents... only a fool would photograph without the parent's permission. Not a new idea. What's "new" is the erosion of human values.</p>

<p><strong>Alec Soth</strong> and <strong>Richard Avedon</strong> (for his West project) both actively spotted forlorn roadside and village isolates...<strong>both photographers are/were man enough, human enough, to talk with their subjects, treat them with respect</strong>. Large format work ... not just "capturing." They established a respectful formal relationships with every subject (the tripod mounted camera proved the respect). Early in his career Avedon visited a NY insane asylum (where his sister may have been confined) and photographed sneakily, with a Minox, images that might have been predatory <a href="http://www.modernism101.com/avedon_nothing_personal.php">http://www.modernism101.com/avedon_nothing_personal.php</a>) ...but Avedon actually published ... his proof of the standard, cruel standard conditions. Also reported accurately in Ken Kesey's "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" . Both were instrumental in massive improvements in such facilities in the Sixties/Seventies. Different than just photographing crazies or ridiculing them in print.<br>

<strong>Robin Bowman</strong> traveled the US spotting teens, saying hello, asking to meet their parents...getting formal permission from the adult to photograph the teen and in some instances the teen's room...wonderful work. <strong> She recognized that her subjects and their parents were her equals...therefore had rights (as photographic subjects) beyond hers </strong>.<br>

<a href="http://www.robinbowman.com/">http://www.robinbowman.com/</a><br>

<a href="http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2008/01/26/the_lives_of_others/">http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2008/01/26/the_lives_of_others/</a></p>

<p> Let the parent capture the kid's antics. Have your own kids.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>On assignment several times I've shot unexpected situations involving children where I saw potential for the purposes of the assignment. It's a tricky situation which involves being very upfront and open with parents and other concerned adults. If you don't have business cards, samples of published work, release forms, and other documentation, best to forget about it. But it pays to be prepared because those photos were a valuable part of the projects I was doing.</p>

<p>As a parent and grandparent, I always think how I would feel if a photographer approached me with a similar request. I know I would be very much on my guard. That photographer would have to have his I's dotted and his T's crossed. And I don't think my response would be any different today than it would have been thirty or forty years ago. It's all in how the photographer goes about it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p ><strong>Hello John</strong></p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p ><strong>I would like to point you to one of your favorite sources of information. Take particular note of the words justice and validity.</strong></p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophydom">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophydom</a> </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Just as a footnote the then Mayor of London was going to put little signs up around London banning photography in all public places….</p>

<p > </p>

<p >One can only think of the millions of tourists locked up in the tower of London;)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...