the end of photographing children??

[jtk]

<p>...let me "recalibrate" my "only a fool" comment.</p>

<p>A photographer trailed by kids, beggers. admirers, or simply curious, might find plenty of ethical justification for photographing them (eg an assignment or exhibit about poverty or childhood independence or curiosity that's likely be seen by voters)</p>

<p>That photographer may not be a "fool"...unless he's photographing under the parents noses and hasn't gotten permission, hopefully getting a release. And presumably nobody's fool enough to capitalize on photos of identifiable kids where they or their friends or family might see them without that release. <strong>This is a big current issue around teens and cellphone cameras.</strong> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p ><strong>‘</strong><strong>This is a big current issue around teens and cellphone cameras’</strong></p>

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

<p ><strong> John it is a big issue, hordes of teens taking random photos and vids of anything and everything without written permission and posting them on the internet. Do you think John there should be some sort of permit required to own a cam? Perhaps some rules and regulations regarding there use and maybe a special force to ensure the regulations are adhered to. As far as cellphones a total ban on any form of images on these devices should be considered.</strong></p>

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

<p ><strong>Indeed we might also consider a mass burning of all images taken without permission particulary photos taken by the old masters who have led us down these wicked paths.…. just think,John,no longer will folk have to lay awake at night worrying about whether someone had taken their photo. </strong></p>

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

<p ><strong>It could be a brave new world, John, where folks listen to their betters and behave accordingly……I just can’t figure out who would fill the role of the "betters"…..perhaps those nice Bankers and such like. </strong></p>

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

<p ><strong>;)</strong></p>

[jtk]

<p>Allen, You're anxious, again, about respect for street photography. You shouldn't get so worked up... because "street photography" doesn't exist. </p>

<p>Some of the stuff with that label is great, most is nothing. It's an unfortunate category, but some photographers do need easily acquired labels. </p>

<p>I'm not very well globally-traveled but I can report that the deep-rez Native Americans I know are in some respects very different from me and, regarding their understanding of photography "rights," very much like most of humanity. That is, they can be hostile to outsiders photograph them without explicit permission. When they trust someone they may give permission and become very open, which explains some of the Japanese photography of Navajo.</p>

<p>Allen, I can only guess that you wouldn't give a damn about what those Native Americans would like if you were among them...since you are again upset that I've expressed a view that's outside your comfort zone.</p>

<p>Every culture has laws, built around families (ie parents, inlaws, clans) and THEIR children more than anything else, and that are central to the various values that some photographers embrace. </p>

<p>Photographers are not better as a class than are, say, bureaucrats or beggers...who are themselves quite often photographers. Therefore I don't think they should expect more privileges and excuses than their subjects...especially when children and their parents are at issue.</p>

<p> </p>

[mrraz]

<p>Fred, It is probably the time I grew up, but I've never even considered asking anyone's permission while on the street. I just shoot. I don't feel I'm being rude or unreasonable. I've paid my dues many times over, so I exert all the freedom left to me in public. I photograph anything and everything including children and their parents. I've had a few people over time object to my taking a shot of them, but its usually been too late. I just don't take a second shot. I see photojournalistic and documentary photography much the same as I see nature photography. I'm just shooting different animals.</p>

<p>John, Another thing, I refuse to use is the term Native-American. It was made up by white men in Washington to categorize those tribes who were resident here when the Vikings arrived. They are Lakota, Kiowa, Muscle Shoals, Apache, Navajo, etc. There are no Native Americans. The Western Hemisphere had no people until humans came for a visit and decided to stay. They just arrived sooner then the Europeans.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"I don't feel I'm being rude or unreasonable."</p>

<p>Glenn--</p>

<p>I don't feel you're being rude or unreasonable either. I know when I've wanted to shoot other people's kids, I had no rude or unreasonable intentions. But I also know it's not all about me. I wish times and attitudes weren't what they were. That wish and a buck fifty will get me on the subway. I respect your choice, honestly. But I also respect the woman who spoke up to you. I suppose that sort of tension is going to be present in any civilized society.</p>

[tom_thumbnail]

<p>My parents didn't take nude photos of me or my siblings, and I don't understand why a parent would would take nude shots of their children.</p>

[tallaght_spur]

<p>thanks for the comments so far guys, although some of you are getting somewhat sidetracked... but that may be the result of such a taboo topic.<br>

My main concern and the reasoning behind the research is the growing situation of people being labeled/branded/associated with a certain mind set because they have taken photos of their own children/grand children at bath time, in swimming togs, semi naked running around the back garden or even fully naked... i have been photographed in all of these embarrassing situations, but they were only embarrassing when my mother would show aunties, uncles or even worse potential girlfriend these snaps from the family album. I feel that these photos traditionally have been entirely innocent and still are in the minds of any right thinking member of society... and it is extremely worrying that certain pharmacies and photo labs refuse to print such photos anymore and even worse notify authorities when they encounter these type of images.</p>

[mrraz]

<p>"My parents didn't take nude photos of me or my siblings, and I don't understand why a parent would would take nude shots of their children."</p>

<p>Tom, Every parent of my generation that I know personally had at least one picture of their kids au natural in the bath or playing. People took them because their children were being cute. We've got quite a few of our boys with their little tushies exposed. It was just part of recording their life for the future. There is and was nothing wrong with the practice.</p>

<p>Tallaght, It all comes down to fear. The population to a great extent has been taught through the media, advertising and the law to fear anything they don't or can't understand. They're even instructed as to what to fear and why such as what are to be considered questionable pictures of children. The fearful are easier to control. People have just forgotten how to think for themselves.</p>

<p>I would suggest you purchase a good photo printer, and print all your own work. Then big brother will not be able to make you quite so worried(fearful).</p>

<p> </p>

[tallaght_spur]

<p>Glenn, thats a much wider issue and no doubt one that is open to serious debate. ..<br>

Yet returning to the point about the printing of photos at home, that is what i have always done, yet there is a certain generation of people who still use film cameras and still send their film in to be processed at the local photolab... these people often tend to be of an older generation who take, as was previously stated, 3 or 4 rolls a year and usually at celebratory times. Quite often of their family and grand children. It is disgusting that these type of innocent images that i have previously mentioned are the cause of loving grandparents/parents being '"suspected" by society of being something alot more sinister.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>Fred, It is probably the time I grew up, but I've never even considered asking anyone's permission while on the street. I just shoot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>same here. Not out of a feeling I have right to as such but because there is no reason to, at least not over here. People over here seem, on the whole, less paranoid.<br>

I have no particular interest in children but on occasion do shoot them out there. Never any trouble or any need to ask permission. It's like Ian says, it has all to do with respect and the way you behave out there (fine work btw Ian). In my experience parents react good natured to that.</p>

<p>GB however in recent years has become a chapter on its own in that respect however but I suspect most of that has been fueled by the media.</p>

<p>Tom, ever heard of Sally Mann. She got famous with photographing her children. Over here it's considered quite normal. Most parents over here take their young ones to bath so is it that unnatural to take some photos. I for one can see nothing wrong with that. Although, one has to recognize there are some notable cultural differences to consider.</p>

<p>In regard to the OP's question: paranoia usely outlives itself. Sure there are excesses and the media happily pick up on that but in my experience most people/parents use their intellect and common sense.</p>

[sobeystudio]

<p>I have kids and take every type of picture of them. I go to playgrounds and take pictures. I take pictures of other kids too, sometimes. I will continue to take what pictures I like, and too bad for anybody else. The bottom line is how we conduct ourselves- I usually don't have an SLR- a dead giveaway for the supposed "professional" using it. I also don't approach other kids- if they are in the vicinity of me and a potentially great moment, I take it. As a parent, no I don't really want people taking pics of my kids if I am not there, but sometimes that is life. I'll generally agree to let people take pics of them if ask. Also, don't go into playgrounds or areas with kids by yourself and a camera- its asking for trouble- and I mean a black eye. I don't even like the occasional loner just sitting in the playground- its creepy. </p>

[dave404]

<p>End of Photographing anything is more like it. Bridges, buildings, anything government related. I just had a nasty warning posted on my flickr site about a photo shoot in an abandoned structure a year ago, complete with links to a government regulation web site. The Metadata in your photos leaves a trail and there are people out there googling to find you.</p>

<p>Two years ago I was photographing the facade of a building. The building was made of different colored marble and had both Ionic and Corinthian columns! I bit much perhaps. I got two shots off before being surrounded by two police cruisers. I would like to do some NY skyline shots, especialy with the GW bridge but who knows, I might be arrested.</p>

<p>Free country, maybe if you have news <em>accreditation</em> .</p>

 

[laur1]

<p>Well, this book has some relevant answers:<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Fear-Shouldnt-Ourselves-Greater/dp/B001U0OGAY/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249806497&sr=1-4<br>

Very interesting read.</p>

[yeffe]

<p>"Also, don't go into playgrounds or areas with kids by yourself and a camera- its asking for trouble- and I mean a black eye. I don't even like the occasional loner just sitting in the playground- its creepy."</p>

<p>Creepy it is. One of the benefits of grandparenting is having a good, clean, and sober reason for being in the playground and actively enjoying having the children around. But it is also agreed upon by law enforcement officials that most pedophilia takes place with a trusted family member or close friend. Another instance where perception trumps reality.</p>

[yeffe]

<p>"Sure there are excesses and the media happily pick up on that but in my experience most people/parents use their intellect and common sense."<br>

Though the guys that get caught in those well-publicized decoy cases seem really stupid and bereft of common sense, it would do everyone else well to abandon common sense as well and embrace paranoia. It amounts to a 'chilling effect,' not out-and-out censorship but an understanding that to jail but for the grace of G-d go I. But who's going to be the first to raise his hand to protect 'innocent' photographers? </p>

[jtk]

<p>"... Another thing, I refuse to use is the term Native-American. It was made up by white men in Washington to categorize ..." bla bla bla </p>

<p>That was waaaay off topic, but it requires a response because of its talk-show ignorance.</p>

<p>The Navajo reservation kid I've mentored for half his life is entering Southwest Indian Politechnic College (SIPI) , just down the road from me, in two weeks. I like Indians, so know some of their issues. For example, Native American tribal members are citizens of their own independent nations (eg The Navajo Nation) and simultaneously of the United States ...according to Federal law. Did you know that? Thought not.</p>

<p>They expect to be called "Native Americans" by officials and among strangers (as here) and by people who might be hostile. Among themselves they are "Indians." The kids, as trendy as anybody else, increasingly refer to themselves as "NDN." They do occasionaly their tribal names, but their clan identities are often more important (as when meeting the opposite sex). </p>

<p>Anxious talk-show addicts have ranted about "politically correct" names for other-colored people for decades now, sometimes regarding Native Americans. Custer died for their sins, but he couldn't die enough.</p>

<p>Native Americans use "Indian" informally much more often than their almost-always-mistaken-in-English purported tribal name..."Navajo" a Spanish name, is more properly "Dine'" for example...but the "real" name is harder for English-speakers.</p>

<p> I refer to "Indians" among them, when they know me, but in open forums like this I more often use "Native American," which is precisely what they request in many situations.</p>

<p>This may be interesting. It's not a government, but it's nationally effective : <a href="http://www.ncai.org/?8">http://www.ncai.org/?8</a></p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p >“A photographer trailed by kids, beggers. admirers, or simply curious”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I don’t know any photographers, who are trailed by kids, beggars, or, by admirers. Perhaps you can give a few examples? Generally, as far as I understand, they photograph the world as it is, in their own unique way. That might be children playing, old folk musing, or, buildings and the countryside…… the list is endless as are the photographic opportunities. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Why they should be considered as perverts or terrorists is a sad reflection on society. By far the vast majority of photographers are just ordinary folk like the rest of us enjoying their hobby.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >“I like Indians, so know some of their issues”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >You should like all folk, collectively, we are called humanity. We live on a burning ember hurtling through space…… to escape from its confinement we all really need to pull together. Nationalism, tribalism… just enemies and left to their own devices will pull humanity into a endless grave.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Just a few thoughts</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>So, the philosophical question is do we really care about children....or, just about the possession of a child with our DNA Codex. Or, a child we have adopted which now is a possession and owned by us.<br>

<br>

Ultimately the possession being all important.<br>

<br>

So, as a photographer taking photos of the disposed is okay (big belly child famine victims ) but the owned and possessed is a big no no.<br>

<br>

Troubling thoughts. </p>

 

[tallaght_spur]

<p>another issue that has cropped up within my research is the question as to whether we would have such wonderful photos of random children in the street as we have been graced with by the likes of Cartier Bresson in the future? will there be similar photos documenting every day children from this generation or will a consequence of the growing extreme nature of society be an absence of such wonderful innocent photos? it is an issue that could have serious consequences in retrospect.</p>

[yeffe]

<p>"an absence of such wonderful innocent photos"<br>

Excepting photos of the poor and developing-world people there is no innocence left in our public media. The 'innocence' of the simpler time I grew up in was wallpaper only, covering up all kinds of social ills. In those times, judges often kicked spousal abuse cases out of court, deeming it a private family matter. Pedophilia was more likely to be swept under the rug (often with the excuse that 'putting the child on the stand will damage him further'). The absence of real or troubled or minority figures in mass media ensured that we privileged whites could keep on believing in the goodness and fairness of society because that's the one scene depicted on the wall.</p>

[jtk]

<p>"Nationalism, tribalism… just enemies and left to their own devices will pull humanity into a endless grave.</p>

<p>Just a few thoughts"</p>

<p>Ignorance about basic human values is common among photographers. We often cross boundaries that non-photographers might not cross. We presume that the camera makes us privileged.</p>

<p>Condemnation of tribal identity is unfortunately common in America's larger society...that ignorance has allowed all sorts of atrocities. Our intentional destruction of Vietnamese villages, for example. Indian Schools, for exmple. The word "should" is a dead give away.</p>

<p>Supremicists from right and left are often eager to terminate tribes. It's fun to change other people, right? The goal of America's Indian Schools until quite recently: Kill the kids' language, cut their hair, make em' into standard-issue consumers, kill the tribe and any sense of shared identity. </p>

<p>Whitbread has forgotten the utility and beauty of humanity's tribal potential .</p>

<p>We seem wired for tribal identity, much like pack or herd animals. Tribal people do better than isolates when things get tough (contrary to the rigid religious belief of Ayn Rand types). Families are like mini tribes. A tribal person may not be much concerned with his own existence as an individual...what's important is the tribe (family). Worship of one's own uninvestigated individuality seems more of a problem than human nature. It allowed us to invade Vietnam and Iraq, not to mention what we did to Native America.</p>

<p>"Ownership" of children is better understood as the child's membership in a family, which for protection has always established boundaries. Among Navajo there is great trust among widely extended relations, and well-known unrelated friends, but that there's concern about people whose clan membership or other background can't be established in conversation. My impression is that this particular tribe values humility, perhaps recognizing it especially when an outsider struggles to be humble. </p>

<p>I mentioned Native Americans because I think our relationships with them have demonstrated a failing in our respect for each other. Our larger society has increasingly devolved, with its bits (you and me) increasingly mere consuming units, disconnected from each other. When we attack the preferences of families (tribes) we're being actively self-destructive.</p>

[tallaght_spur]

<p>jeff, the wonderful innocent photos i speak of are with regard to the context of this particular discussion... namely a time unlike today when there was no 'presumed perversion' associated with a man that took photographs of children doing what children do... playing, being mischievous or even just hanging around the streets... as evidenced through some of the photos captured by the likes of Cartier Bresson, Bruce Davidson and even Fergus Bourke. These photographers were and still are wonderful photographers that shot images that i raise the question may not be possible to capture in the future due to the current climate within society around the subject of shooting images of children...</p>

 

[tri-x1]

<p>As a life long photographer (sometimes professional--mostly amateur) and grandfather, I agree totally with John..</p>

 

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1154645">John Kelly</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 05, 2009; 02:02 p.m.</p>

 

<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).<br>

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.<br>

<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.<br>

<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 rel="nofollow" href="http://www.modernism101.com/avedon_nothing_personal.php" target="_blank">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 rel="nofollow" href="http://www.robinbowman.com/" target="_blank">http://www.robinbowman.com/</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2008/01/26/the_lives_of_others/" target="_blank">http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2008/01/26/the_lives_of_others/</a><br>

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

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Allen, You're anxious, again, about respect for street photography. You shouldn't get so worked up... because "<br>

<br>

Not really, John, i don't do the anxious thing; i was just taking your thoughts to their logical conclusion. Methinks you were being a bit shy in expressing them;) However, i agree street photograpy does not exist there's only photography.<br>

<br>

“Ignorance about basic human values is common among photographers. We often cross boundaries that non-photographers might not cross”</p>

<p> Depends on the values, and who has decided what these values are and should be. Most oppressive regimes restrict photography and most other types of media. Do you feel their values should be respected? Perhaps you do. I’m interested in what these basic human values are which allow some to eat and others to starve.</p>

<p>“Condemnation of tribal identity is unfortunately common in America's larger society”<br>

<br>

That’s the gift which tribalism, nationalism ,gives to humanity..... the oppressions of the weaker tribes and their assimilation or annihilation. Eventually it leads to wars among the stronger and as the technology improves the destruction of the planet and humanity. We have walked so close so many times.<br>

<br>

The tooth and the claw still rules and might is always right. </p>

 

[jtk]

<p>Allen, jeez, your sweat is oozing through the Internet. Chill out man, don't have a cow!</p>

<p>Authoritarians live to tell other folks what they "should" do. I'm not knocking authortarians here, just sharing a truth we all know.</p>

<p>Hey, do you tell folks in person what they "should" and "should-not" do ... or do you only do that online? </p>

<p>Tribal identity is not vaguely similar to nationalism.</p>

<p>I doubt you have any familiarity whatsoever with people who have tribal identities. </p>

<p> I imagine you'll respond that black folks have tribes, hispanic folks have tribes...but of course you don't.</p>

<p>The use of "tribalism" is simply an ignorant oppressor's way of demeaning something people are born into, it's not something they "believe in"...tribal identity is organic, it's not an "ism." Tribal "membership" is not the same as "identity," incidentally. The President is a member of the Crow tribe, but because he's an honest man he doesn't pretend to have Crow identity.</p>

<p>Allen, even you must be aware that US-Mexico, US Civil, Spanish-American, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq all involved aggression by societies that lack tribal identities (in the last 3 a non-tribal society attacked tribal, or heavily tribal societies, the first 7 involved societies that had degenerated to the point of tribe-free individual isolation (perfect Ayn Rand storms). </p>