Brad_ Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Boris, was it you that had the funny story about Jay getting pasted in Knightsbridge? I can't find it... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris_chan1 Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Brad, my post regarding Jay and the Knightsbridge gangstas was deleted. If you google jay and kensington it'll probably throw up his original, and way beyond parody, post regarding life in London's bleakest ghetto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Mike, your remarks are quite ironic following as they do Jonathan's comments which contradicts in advance your main assertion. Truly disappointing for someone who I had previously respected as being above the meager level of people like Brad and "Boris Chan" (cousin to Charlie Karloff no doubt)whose truncated intellectual capacity limits their contributions to a cacaphony of thought-less rote reminiscent of a parrot sideshow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 <<Either that or Florida has become an awful lot more scary since I last visited Disneyland.........>> Disneyland is in California you pathetic ignoramus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 I found the 'Kensington' post, and a few more gems, and if you don't mind, I'll give them the same treatment: "...Watch yourself! I was in London... accosted by miscreants....start trouble with a fella twice their size ....crack their skulls like pigeon eggs!" "I travel... in Europe... carry a camera bag... with a shoulder strap *and* waist-belt .. vest *with zippered pockets* and *under* a windbreaker. ....keep the UV off my arms ....try to not get into thick crowds... walk with a "purposeful stride" ....stern expression on face... both hands free, game for a fight." "...on the street in Kensington, holding an M6... puffing good-sized cigar. Two young men... shaved heads ...assault... took hold of tripod with ballhead... crack open their shiny domes like a raw egg.... guy started cursing ...loudmouth ...epithets... I immediately struck... injured one of them...legalities... you're prey... ended up in hospital.. stay calm.. rational.. follow ...instincts!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris_chan1 Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Kevin, the more the merrier! Jay: "Disneyland is in California you pathetic ignoramus." Jay, I'm happy to bow to your superior knowledge of the world of 8ft glove puppets. I have no doubt you've reverse-engineered Micky, Minnie, and Pluto too....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtdnyc Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Moving past Jay's rhetoric -- obviously intended to rile you guys and, boy, does he ever succeed -- I think he is making a fundamentally valid point. When photographing other people's children, shouldn?t we proceed with due respect for the natural protective instinct that all parents have for their offspring? I remember seeing one of my normally peaceable, liberal friends turn violent when he thought a docile homeless guy was a threat to his young daughter. It was comical at the time, but I understood where he was coming from. What harm is there in seeking implicit permission by exchanging smiles with the parent or guardian before clicking the shutter? Is the image ever worth making the mother feel that her child might be at risk? I am not arguing against the conventions of street photography in general. I have shot my share of camera-shy adults in public places. I have shot reluctant manual laborers and grown men fighting in the street. I have continued to photograph an arrest in progress, even after the police ordered me to stop. But I would never focus on a child without seeking the parent's permission first. Doing so just doesn't seem right to me. I know from experience that furtive or aggressive behavior on the part of the photographer can leave the parent unsure of the photographer?s intention, as it left me unsure in the incident involving my nephew and his big dog, posted above. I don't think a social rule that allows and encourages photographers to behave that way represents a wise societal choice. Candid pictures of children can be true works of art. Look at Eisenstaedt's shots of Parisian children at an outdoor puppet show. Read his books, and you will come away knowing that he got his shots by treating everyone with respect, not by popping up and alarming people. Kevin and Mike, I enjoy your posts and admire your photographs. I'd love to know your opinion on the basic issue, as opposed to your reaction to some of the more inflammatory remarks that have been posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris_chan1 Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Jonathan: "I remember seeing one of my normally peaceable, liberal friends turn violent when he thought a docile homeless guy was a threat to his young daughter. It was comical........" You find it comical seeing a homeless guy get slapped around because one of your friends can't correctly read a situation on the street? Far from parenthood leading to enhanced levels of understanding and empathy, I'm beginning to see a common theme of fatherhood (particularly of daughters) leading to paranoia and violence. When it comes to caring about the safety of children I've also got to wonder about the wisdom of a 7 year old having a 200 pound dog. Why stop there, maybe get him a tiger or an alligator for his eighth birthday? "Eienstaedt.......got his shots by treating everyone with respect, not by popping up and alarming people." I shudder to think what you or Jay would make of Bruce Gilden's (arguably the best US street photographer of recent years) working methods - he's staggeringly confrontational. Having said that I don't think anybody here has advocated that photographers should have the right to be aggressive and alarm people, merely that the act of taking a picture in itself is not inherently some form of violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Jonathan, I don't think anyone on this thread has said that popping up and "alarming people" is how they work. Almost all the comments have mentioned the necessity of somehow indicating to the subjects that you mean them no harm. I would never just jump in front of a kid and thrust my camera in his face like a papparazzo. But as the father of a 3-year old girl, I sure hope my desire to protect her wouldn't cause me to act like a savage just because someone took her picture without my permission. There are enough real threats to her safety without me making up imaginary ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 nothing's happened..;)<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumpster001 Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Boris, i'm surprised, don't know why, to learn that Gilden was confrontational. thanks for that tid bit, Gilden is one of my favs. do you have any good link that has info about the man himself? i'd appreciate it. as for the rest of the thread, i can't even begin to muster the aggression and the hatred in the rhetoric and the penchant for violence, etc.. so barbaric and scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris_chan1 Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Balaji, no I don't have any links regarding Gilden's working method - you could try googling "bruce gilden" and "confrontational". It's kinda hard not to be confrontational working with a 28mm lens and flash in a busy street........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Travis, did you ask his permission? 'Cause he sure looks like he's about to <i>crack your skull like a pigeon egg with his pipe wrench.</i> <p> I think poor Jay's been watching too many Chuck Norris movies on TV... :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Permission? what's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 i'm not into street photography myself, but what I can add is that a photog's right wary widely acorss the globe. In the US you don't have the right to expect "privacy" as you walk in a public space. It isn't so in many other countries so that is something to factor in. Personally I don't find photos of random strangers all that interesting in general, at least not for my personal portfolio, but that might change someday. Regardless, I would have a hard time taking photos of anyone with the purpose of sharing them on the Internet w/o acknowledge the subject's wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Once again I have to thank Kevin for clearly demonstrating publicly how his eagerness to discredit me combines with his ineptness at doing so, resulting in further proof of my assertions and him making a fool of himself for the umpteenth time. Here is the complete text of the "Kensington Incident" which clearly shows what Kevin tried in his pitifully obvious way to conceal from the forum, namely that while I am prepared to act in defense of my family or myself, I have the judgment and self-control of any rational individual: <<Jay . , jan 15, 2002; 11:27 p.m. A couple years ago I was standing in front of a hotel on the street in Kensington, holding an M6 with a 50/2 and puffing on a good-sized cigar. Two young men with shaved heads walked up, one stopped to my left and the other went past me, stopped and turned around. ASsuming this was to be an assault, my left hand went into my coat pocket and took hold of the folded Leitz Table tripod with medium ballhead, I was prepared to crack open at least one of their shiny domes like a raw egg. The guy on my right started cursing me out for smoking the cigar, which is when I realized they were both quite inebrated. At that point I just stood there saying nothing, and eventually the loudmouth ran out of epithets, they both got bored and left. Had I immediately struck and seriously injured one of them, I would have spent the rest of my travel time and budjet on legalities; OTOH had I acted scared (if you run, you're prey) I might have ended up in the hospital. A lot depends on being able to stay calm and rational and follow the right instincts.>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Those who believe they are accurately summarizing Jay's posts with their clever use of multiple ellipses probably also believe that Oliver Stone accurately documented the "conspiracy evidence" in his movie "JFK." Those of us who are Dads (and/or Uncles) are quite likely, depending upon the circumstances, to experience unease/annoyance/concern/fear/anger when strangers take photos of the kids whose well-being we regard as our primary responsibility. We should not, however, respond with unlawful threats or violence. That's first of all wrong, and second, more likely to be counter-productive. And I don't think that's behavior I'd want my kids to emulate either. Having said that, the feelings I've described are genuine. Yes, we know that 99.999999% of the camera-toting public certainly intend no harm. Every once in awhile, though, we find that statistical assurance less comforting than we should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 <<But as the father of a 3-year old girl, I sure hope my desire to protect her wouldn't cause me to act like a savage just because someone took her picture without my permission. There are enough real threats to her safety>> Perhaps that's the difference in our thinking Kevin. I can't see being selective in what types of harm I protect my kids from. Then again we kids were never drvien around in an open car by our father while getting his beer buzz on and my mother billowing secondhand smoke in our faces, so maybe my lack of expertise in social anthropology is partly to blame for being unable to jump the cultural chiasm that seems to separate us on this issue. <<We should not, however, respond with unlawful threats or violence. That's first of all wrong, and second, more likely to be counter-productive. And I don't think that's behavior I'd want my kids to emulate either.>> I agree with everything else you said Michael but this is a little too submissive and passifistic for this old soldier to swallow whole. As such I have the judgment and coolness "under fire" to keep my head in a tense situation as evidenced by the unexpurgated version of the Kensington Incident above. Sometimes the answer is retreat and sometimes the answer is to stand your ground, but the question is always the same: how best not to become a victim. That is what I hope my children will emulate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris_chan1 Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Jay, I'll take your word that in real life you're a model of judgement and self-control, but you sure harbor a lot of sleazy and violent fantasies. I guess we should all be grateful that you can live out your Dirty Harry madness harmlessly online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m__toronto_ Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 jay, i think peoples responses to you would be more positive if you were to be more courteous in your posts. too often you throw out insults and it seems as this is your only weapon. i know it's trolling for attention, but how about you lighten it up a bit and see where it takes you. my mother taught me that if you don't have at least one positive thing to say, you have nothing to say at all. give it a try! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 I would hope the fun (and the manipulation) implied by the elipses would be obvious. The full text is even scarier, though. In Jay's world, an open beer = alcoholism; an occasional cigarette = lung cancer; and a person capturing your childs latent image = pedophilia and murder. Instead of poking fun of people who try their hands at street photography (HCB wannabees!) you should try it yourself; the real world interaction with living, breathing human beings - not your own imagination, in other words - might give you the sense of perspective you so obviously lack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 puffing on cigar<BR> a clear spring in Kensington<BR> crack their shiny domes<BR> www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 basho? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris_chan1 Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Brad that was lovely. However, I have it on good authority that the big guy from Florida is, along with all his other talents, a Haiku master. So watch this space........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtdnyc Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Kevin, thanks for clarifying your position for me. I basically agree with you. However, we do seem to have some admirers of Gilden in this discussion and -- correct me if I'm wrong, which I may very well be -- I believe one of Gilden's techniques is to use flash at close range on unsuspecting subjects. I think that the average pedestrian would be rightly alarmed by such behavior. (If I'm wrong, my apologies to Gilden.) I prefer Eisie's approach as well as his results. Boris, I did not find it comical to see a homeless guy slapped around. What I found comical was my friend's reaction, and I restrained him from slapping anyone. And, on your other point, English mastiffs make great family pets. It's fun to argue, but I'll bet that Jay has never actually taken a pipe wrench to anyone (at least, anyone who didn't deserve it!) and that Kevin would do anything he had to to protect his daughter. When the chips are down, I suspect we're all pretty similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now