Jump to content

Ethics of photographing in public places - beaches example


Recommended Posts

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff,<br /> You misunderstood the question. The question was not being asked "will girls object to overweight hairy 50+ year old guys slinking around the beach with telephoto lenses snapping pictures of them. " The question was very clearly asked about the ethics of making such photographs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I understood the question. What I was saying is it shouldn't even rise to the level of an ethical dilemma. We all know what the proper course of action should be in that situation. Regardless of the law or someone's spin on "ethics" you and I and everyone on this forum know that type of behavior is not appreciated by the general public. So what else is there to think about?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<blockquote>

<p>I understood the question. What I was saying is it shouldn't even rise to the level of an ethical dilemma. We all know what the proper course of action should be in that situation. Regardless of the law or someone's spin on "ethics" you and I and everyone on this forum know that type of behavior is not appreciated by the general public. So what else is there to think about?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the whole point was to explore the issue beyond mere public appreciation (aka opinion) to discover if there are underlying ethical principles that can be applied. Turns out there are. </p>

<p>I think the thread shows that we "all" are not in agreement as you claim.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Can you explain what this effect is?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly. The <strong>potential effect</strong> (on the subject photographed) will vary according to the sensitivities of the subject. Someone purposely acting for your camera or acknowledging your intention will likely not be offended by you taking a photo of him or her, unless it shows them in a light they do not agree with (again, the advantage of an immediate perception of the result), therefore the likely reaction of him or her is likely to be complicit with the intention of the photographer.</p>

<p>Some groups of people clearly do not wish to have their photo taken, and these are often known to an informed photographer before he shoots (certain religious or social groups, foreign cultures, etc.). Less easy to discern, however, and this may account for most photographs, are those made "sur le vif" (as in street (including beach) photography", an insertion into an activity of which the photographer may not be part, and so on, or without the prior knowledge of the subject or subjects.</p>

<p>Gauging the potential effect on the subjects you photograph is therefore part and parcel of the activity of the aware and ethical photographer. It is I think quite independent of any legal structures that accepts or bans such photography. Your subject is lending her or his appearance and visual identity to you for the time of the photograph (and longer ofcourse, as the result can be seen and distributed widely without their knowledge) and that "gift" has to be respected. Establishing a link with that person or persons and their approval is part of the latter, although I acknowledge that it may be difficult to achieve in situations that exist only briefly and disallow contact. There you have to apply additional ethical choices on what you may do with the photo.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Arthur,<br>

I don't think that helps me with the idea of what the effect is. You're primarily noting that they may have kinds of objections and reasons for objections, but no effect has been described. </p>

<p>An effect on a person means "a way it changed their life." Are they injured in some way? The course of their life changed? Is being simply annoyed a harm? If there is an effect of any substance, can we extend it to other activities? As I have pointed out as an example, suppose I am annoyed by the music you play next to me on the beach? Am I injured? Do I therefore have some right to demand you not play the music? Is mere annoyance enough to draw an ethical line?</p>

<p>As to the process of photography, I think too much is made of the word <em>taking</em>, as if we have removed something from the subject. I think this idea of taking then get's conflated with a theft, and that becomes the injury we think is being done to the subject. Light is reflecting off subjects and arriving at the photographer's location. It strikes eyes and sensors the same - which are collecting, not taking. </p>

<p>I'm still searching for the principles by which we would advocate a ban on this practice. I haven't seen anything yet.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just came over a related piece of news:<br>

<a href="http://www.pdnonline.com/news/Judge-Dismisses-Priv-8708.shtml">Judge Dismisses Privacy Lawsuit Against "Voyeur" Artist Arne Svenson</a></p>

<p>And since I posted this, here is an older article that is again relevant to the topic:<br>

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/arts/design/12photos.html?_r=0">An Ogling Subversive With a Homemade Camera</a><br>

Some more information on that ogling subversive can be found <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miroslav_Tich%C3%BD">here</a>.</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>m, I think you are quite aware of the effects an unwanted photograph of, say, yourself, might have on your well-being, especially if you have absolutely no control over how it is used in future and it is used in a manner that you don't agree with. It is for that reason that an evaluation by the photographer of such potential effects of his image is morally and ethically important and why contact with the subject photographed is important whenever that is possible.</p>

<p>I am amazed that you and some others do not seem to grasp that simple fact.</p>

<p>The personal reasons why someone may not appreciate having his or her photograph taken, that is, the effects of the photograph on them, are numerous, but that alone does not absolve the photographer from assessing the potential effect of his photograph.<br /> .</p>

<p>Loud music may be bothersome to you, just as the idiot who insists on chatting loudly with his wife or friend or other over his portable phone next to you in a fine restaurant, where most would rather not listen to him, but have the normal pleasure of enjoying their perhaps pricey meal in company of their friends.</p>

<p>Those examples may be annoying but are of relatively short duration and do not normally carry the consequences of a photograph the life of which can go on much longer than a temporary annoyance. You can choose to walk away from a loud person in some situations, or request their reduction of it, if that temporary annoyance is too much.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>m, I think you are quite aware of the effects an unwanted photograph of, say, yourself, might have on your well-being, especially if you have absolutely no control over how it is used in future and it is used in a manner that you don't agree with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Two points in rebuttal. First, aside from annoyance, no I am not aware of these effects on myself. An effect so minor as annoyance really can't be the basis for a general prohibition. As referenced previously, our very comprehensive tort system doesn't recognize mere annoyance as a harm in law. Now ok, if this is all you meant by effect, so be it. In that case, I can hardly support the POV of those who insist permission is needed. That kind of minor effect just doesn't rise to importance on balance with the goals of free expression for all (e.g. the photographer). Anyone suffering annoyance can argue for prohibitions? Life is one gigantic annoyance. </p>

<p>Secondly, you are once again referring to secondary processes of <em>future use</em> after the photograph was taken. My question pertained to the mere making of the photograph and not its subsequent use. These subsequent uses, like publishing, are an entirely new act. I'd like to first understand the issues surrounding the making of the photograph and how that effects (harms, changes) the subject.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Those examples may be annoying but are of relatively short duration and do not normally carry the consequences of a photograph the life of which can go on much longer than a temporary annoyance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you are reinforcing my point about annoyance. But, here again, you allude to an effect that hasn't been described. For example - Depression is an effect. Pain is an effect. Delusions are an effect. Fear is an effect. What effects are you attaching to the subject of these photographs?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I think the whole point was to explore the issue beyond mere public appreciation (aka <strong>opinion</strong>) to discover if there are underlying ethical principles that can be applied. Turns out there are.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Young ladies not wanting old creeps with telephotos taking pictures of them in bikinis is not an "opinion." It is a fact. A fact you should respect. And they only thing that should be applied is common sense. Don't engage in this type of behavior... It gives all photographers a bad name.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the thread shows that we "all" are not in agreement as you claim.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whether you admit it or not you know how a grown man with self respect is supposed to behave and it does not involve stalking random coeds in bikinis with telephoto lenses.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To M STephens<br>

What deluded planet are you living on? Its perverse to condone the kind of behaviour that is giving photographers world wide a bad reputation, if what you say is correct and this is all perfectly legal and above board, not to mention ethically and philosophical agreeable, why is this thread now 6 pages long, why are there only two of you in support of the right to capture the image of a private individual who just happens to be walking on a public beach and plaster their image, without their knowledge of consent all over the internet, without giving them the chance to either condone or condemn.<br>

Lets not kid ourselves here, the images are predominately of young scantily clad women captured by middle aged men, enough said!<br>

And like i stated previously, i am not averse to working with beautiful young models and capturing fine art or nude or glamour images, the difference is personal approval of the photographer from the model.<br>

In this instance i am glad i live in the heavily policed UK, where any attempt to capture these types of images would be dealt with swiftly and harshly and no doubt result in charge that would make it very difficult to work in the future.<br>

The industry and the internet policing itself just does not work!<br>

Last week alone 30 of my images stolen and posted on web sites all over the globe as other peoples work, if these trolls and hackers are happy to pass off copyrighted work as their own, then stalking CO-ED's on a beach holds no fears for them, as long as site like this allow their images to be hosted.<br>

MAC</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Depression is an effect. Pain is an effect. Delusions are an effect. Fear is an effect.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Voilà. You have answered in part your own question. These are some of the effects that an unwanted picture-making can cause, whether it is at the point of exposure or down the road.</p>

<p>By insisting on ONLY the moment of exposure you are missing the point of boththe value and the potential harm to individuals of photography. The photo lives on long after the initial capture. It can be a source of pleasure, of information, of social commentary, of business, and of harm. By not admitting to those effects and results you are avoiding the real questions.</p>

<p>And that is your choice, of course.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>In this instance i am glad i live in the heavily policed UK, where any attempt to capture these types of images would be dealt with swiftly and harshly and no doubt result in charge that would make it very difficult to work in the future.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Yes! We need a police state here! That's what we're missing. The NSA has all the data, you can round the perps up before they even do anything! Too bad the Soviet Union lost.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>MAC, thank's for your lucidity on this subject. The reaction of Jeff regarding a "police state" and "too bad that the Soviet Union lost" are what you can expect for that, as well as M. Stephen's apparent disregard of the rights of his subjects. My own feeling is this OP has probably run its course and that the important points have already been made, whichever side you are on.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Young ladies not wanting old creeps with telephotos taking pictures of them in bikinis is not an "opinion." It is a fact. A fact you should respect. And they only thing that should be applied is common sense. Don't engage in this type of behavior... It gives all photographers a bad name.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are just opinions you hold, and examples of your preferences and personal bias. They are fine for you to hold, but they don't address the question of ethics that was raised. The relevance of some young ladies not wanting their photos taken is just anecdotal, here. Your assertion that some activity gives all photographers a bad name is unfounded and patently false. Many photographers today have a good name in spite of many bad actions by others. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Whether you admit it or not you know how a grown man with self respect is supposed to behave and it does not involve stalking random coeds in bikinis with telephoto lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Stalking" and "coeds" are new terms you are now introducing as a straw argument to make it sound more sinister. I don't know that either of those terms apply to the more general nature of this discussion of the ethics of taken photographs without permission. </p>

<p>And no, "common sense" is not the only method that ought be applied. If common sense were all anyone needed to understand the world, there'd be no need of religion, science or philosophy. </p>

<p>I think I understand clearly that you have no interest in the discussion as proposed about ethics. That's fine, with me. I'll move on to more interesting posts by others. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Voilà. You have answered in part your own question. These are some of the effects that an unwanted picture-making can cause, whether it is at the point of exposure or down the road.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I am happy I could finally put some shape to all these claims of effects on the subject! So, you are suggesting that subjects are suffering <em>pain, delusions, depression and fear</em> by the act of someone making a photograph of them unapproved. And that having suffered these real effects is the underlying basis for creating an ethical standard in which permission must always be obtained ahead of time if at all possible. </p>

<p>But now we have your exception: <em>"In very spontaneous cases, where the action cannot be repeated and everything happens very quickly and sometimes the persons photographed are no longer available to consult with, the keeping or trashing of the image rests mainly on the photographers's moral evaluation of the content and whether it might be considered offensive or damaging by the subject."</em> We have to assume the pain and depression is the same here as in the first case. But now, we're accepting certain harms out of nothing more than convenience and expediency. That's pretty wishy-washy for a moral standard. How about - "Adultery is a sin, unless the adulterating couple happened to be assigned to the same sleeping quarters in a camp?"</p>

<p>I'm appreciative that you have committed to what you believe is the harm to these subjects. At least we now have one point of solid reference. I however think this claim holds no water. If your harms are true and valid for making a photograph, I see no reason my simulated claims of harms from having music played into my ear that I don't like is any different. Or the harm I suffer from having to view an ugly person walking down the street, or the harm I suffer by having to walk past a protest or demonstration with vulgar signs. After all, the cause of those harms is another person's action. If we allow such annoyances and perceived injuries based on nothing more than our preferences to exist, all freedom, all self-expression will be extinguished in short order. Everyone will find such harms in the actions of others. Why not then accept the harm claimed by someone for photographing their house?</p>

<p>I think your preference as a photographer is perfectly valid. I will shoot this, not shoot that. I will do this procedure, not that. That sort of individual style and preference makes the world go 'round. But to establish those style markers and biases as moral standards for the public is a very bad idea if we care about freedom. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>To M STephens<br /> What deluded planet are you living on? Its perverse to condone the kind of behaviour that is giving photographers world wide a bad reputation, if what you say is correct and this is all perfectly legal and above board, not to mention ethically and philosophical agreeable, why is this thread now 6 pages long, why are there only two of you in support of the right to capture the image of a private individual who just happens to be walking on a public beach and plaster their image, without their knowledge of consent all over the internet, without giving them the chance to either condone or condemn.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Colin,<br>

I'm sorry to have to point out that you aren't stating my position correctly. First, this notion that all photographers have a bad name is simply untrue. It's a wild claim being made to attempt support for a certain position here. Secondly, if you had read anything I wrote at all here, "plastering their image all over the Internet" is NOT an act I have discussed at all. In fact, I have consistently said my interest was the making of the photograph, not the secondary use, which is another topic. Third, being a minority is no proof of being wrong about anything. Fourth, it is 6 pages long because many of the posts - like yours - are straw man posts filled with misunderstanding about the question that was asked, what that question means, and how to answer that question.</p>

<p>I am not going to rephrase the question again just for you. I've done it already plenty of times. I will however say that if you go back and read through more carefully, you will have a better chance of understanding the issues.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lets not kid ourselves here, the images are predominately of young scantily clad women captured by middle aged men, enough said!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No, that's not enough said. Not by a long shot. Let me provide the reason. In your own words you said you had no problem making nude photographs with permission. Did you know that even when such girls (or women) give permission, some of them are unwittingly practicing self-destructive behavior? Did you know that debasing one's own self image is a common practice for many people? And that by people taking those nude photographs, they are therefore a contributor to said self-destructive behavior? So, if it is harm you are seeking to prevent, I suggest getting very deep into the psychology to understand whether or not the above is "enough said." I don't think it is by a long shot. That's why ethics is more involved than simply an application of common sense. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>then stalking CO-ED's on a beach holds</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please identify where anyone in this thread condoned "stalking Coeds on a beach."</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>...as well as M. Stephen's apparent disregard of the rights of his subjects.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur,<br>

I don't believe people have every right they can dream of in their imagination - if that's what you mean by <em>apparent disregard. </em>I think imagining you have a right not to be photographed in public, or drawn, or immortalized in prose or poetry is dangerous. Where would you imagine such rights end? How far are you willing to extend this kind of right? I can't think of any precedent for this kind of a right.</p>

<p>I think a better approach to this is the idea of choice. Photographers have choices about what they think is an appropriate subject, and appropriate technique and appropriate circumstance and purpose for what they are doing. And people in public have choices. Choices about their behavior, their clothing, the places they go. Each ought have the maximum amount of choice without causing harm. There's no doubt that some behaviors of some photographers will be in bad taste, just like some actions of some doctors are in bad taste. But so are some actions of beach goers in bad taste. We don't want to begin making bad taste a sin.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>m, I think simple courtesy, respect and understanding the subject is what is important in good photography, whatever the project happens to be in the mind of the photographer (most of us who are serious photographers do have approaches and projects under way), not some insistence on rights (your contribution to this thread, not mine). That has always been the relationship of most artists with their subjects or models.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To be honest here, for me, it's sometimes no more than a matter of whether I think the photo is good or not. A good photo of a man scantily clad at the beach (yes, men are also sex objects) seems of more value to me than a bad photo of a man scantily clad at the beach. A good photo of a homeless person seems significant to me. A bad one often seems exploitive or just not worthwhile. There are always good and bad photos of all subjects. With certain subjects that are more charged than others (because of controversy, minority status, past or present oppression) feathers will get ruffled more easily and that makes sense to me. I know I'm exploiting the men I photograph (with permission) to a certain extent. I know I'm objectifying them at some level. I hope any parent who posts pics of their kids as art realizes they are exploiting their kids. That's not a bad thing. It's just how it is. The charged energy I feel when I use a person to make a photo goes into my work. I get confused, photographically and ethically, and I like it that way. I can be hypocritical, and I also like it that way . . . contradictions make for inspiration.</p>

<p>As I said, I'm not pure and don't really want to be, especially since I believe I can't ever be, as a mere mortal human being. I go to the beach and see hot guys with ripped abs and nice biceps and I look, not for meaningful encounters but with prurient desires. I can live with that. I like living with that. I'm a physical and sexual being in addition to other things. I acknowledge that. I've chosen not to photograph these hunks for the most part because, tempting as their writhe bodies may be, they often make for generic-looking or boring photos which I can see in an Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue and don't need to make for myself. Occasionally, I am moved to make a photo of a scantily clad man in public and my own way of dealing with it is that if I think I came up with a good photo, I'll keep it. If I think it's just a typical, boring beefcake snap, I won't, or at least I won't share it with anyone.</p>

<p>The best I can do is be honest with myself and others about who I am and what I'm doing. Masquerading simple horniness as art or as important photography would be, for me, disingenuous. But using sexual and even lustful drive as energy to create a complex or thoughtful photo or one that has some significance or texture or layering beyond being late-night masturbation material seems OK and even desirable to me.</p>

<p>I like a challenge, whether ethical or photographic. I also think ethics are rarely black and white and I have yet to meet anyone who is absolutely consistent in their ethics. Maybe I don't get out enough.</p>

<p>_____________________________________</p>

<p>One example of harm being done in the shooting of a photograph without consent would have been prior to the lifting of the ban on gays in the military. An active duty soldier on vacation in the Castro might want to go to a bar. Were someone to take a picture of him or her on the way into or out of a gay bar, that could cause quite harmful fear and anxiety, because of the potential of losing one's job and pension if discovered. If a photographer knew the person was gay, it would be, IMO, unethical to take a picture of them in that situation. If a photographer didn't know the person was gay, which would most often be the case, it probably wouldn't be unethical but it would just be a damn shame. When I point my camera at a stranger, which I do at times, I'm well aware there could be facts I don't know that could cause people a whole lot of trauma and regret. I'm not obsessed with that possibility, but I am aware that every action I take has consequences, sometimes unknown to me at the time. I kid myself if I think some of those consequences can't be dire. Since I'm invested in others' well being, as I exist as a social being as well as an individual, there are times I am willing to consider that my own freedom means exercising restraint in order to ensure the well being of others. But I make those decisions for the most part and don't expect a government or forum thread to do that for me.</p>

<p>Ethics can also be used as a smokescreen to hide behind in order not to take responsibility for one's own actions. It does not work for me to think that the community has decided this or that is ethical and that's all I need to know. For me, that's just a baseline or starting point. I'm the one who has to live with myself and my choices and decisions.</p>

<p>_____________________________________</p>

<p>J.D.'s photo is so good because it's textured, multi-layered and visually shows, at least as I see it, that the photographer is self aware, the photographer participating as the man portrayed in the photo is and not seeming to be in denial about it. Thinking about the photographer and his role here and all the people portrayed in the photo reminds of billiard balls scattering and bouncing off each other while some can remain stationary and unaffected on a green felt table top. Self awareness is attractive. Cluelessness is usually not.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Arthur, rather than the more or less optional questions of "courtesy, respect and understanding," I see the OP as a question of fairness. If there were a trial where only one side got to present evidence, while the other (the person(s) in the photograph) was unable to speak or argue its case, or if there were a debate where only one side got to show its stuff and the other (the person(s) in the photograph) had to just be there, mute; or in any case where one side gets to show and tell and talk and talk and talk, where the other side is gagged and has no ability to respond ... that's not fair.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, it's done, all the time, in all places and in all times because, obviously, it's a lot easier to prevail or be "right" if there is no option for rebuttal of or by that which is being dealt with or manipulated to whatever end is being pursued. Wanting to get your way is natural. Fairness is not.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I see some pictures posted here and there everywhere on the web, and do wonder if the photographer that took those photographs has a moral compass. How would they like it if a photographer took photos of their daughter or wife without their consent?<br>

How does a site like this deal with photos like this that could be viewed as unethical even if legal?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>As a recent member, this may be Hanz's only original post to date. While I would like to see him embark more in the discussion, I think his post is a good one. As for his last question I don't think that a site with this large number of members and its membership qualifications can do much more than to ban inappropriate communication (certain hate inspired texts,etc.). The question of Hanz about an unknown person photographing your children or partner (wife, etc.) is a good one. Young children is especially relevant as an example and a case where I attempt to obtain the permission of the parent or guardian before making an image. </p>

<p>This suggests to me that a certain respect for the subject is always important (which Julie describes as fairness. Whatever term you wish to use, it comes down to the same thing, a concern, rather than a disregard, for the subject of your photographs). I also agree that freedom is important, as Fred mentions, but freedom in a society also has its responsibilities to others. One cannot mandate ethical behaviour. Perhaps all that we can do is to incite thoughtful action and a sense of responsibility as photographers. That doesn't often place a straightjacket on artistic freedom, although in some rare cases it might do so. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>m, I think simple courtesy, respect and understanding the subject is what is important in good photography, whatever the project happens to be in the mind of the photographer (most of us who are serious photographers do have approaches and projects under way), not some insistence on rights (your contribution to this thread, not mine). That has always been the relationship of most artists with their subjects or models.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no reason to assume that making a photograph w/o permission is discourteous and disrespectful any more than just observing with your eyes would be. Although you have claimed various harms, you haven't explained how they occur, or provided any precedence for recognition of this kind of harm. On the other side of the ledger, we have mountains of great photography by renown artists shot in this surreptitious style, and we have in the US even recent court rulings supporting it. </p>

<p>Your preference then is the basis of a personal style and bias, not the basis of an ethical standard for prohibition, as the OP inquired about. </p>

<p>Julie,<br>

Your trial analogy breaks down for lack of an established or recognized tort. We don't hold trials (yet) for negotiating personal preferences or mere annoyance mitigation. There's no there there. </p>

<p>I have no problem recognizing that when asked, most people would say they don't want their picture taken by strangers. And maybe that statistic is that is driving the idea here for some people? Popularity alone, is no means of establishing or recognizing ethics. If it was, racial segregation as one example would be a virtue, and it is surely not. </p>

<p>I think a very appropriate comparison here can be made by looking at two public phenomena: smoking and cell phone use. Ethics (and laws) about smoking changed when real harm was established and associated with the practice of smoking in public. With cell phones, the majority is annoyed by public cell phone (similar to surreptitious photography) but there has been no association of a recognized harm, and thus we maintain the status quo for fear of unnecessarily reducing freedom. Too bad for the smokers who suffered a loss of freedom - they were injuring people. Photographers? No.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think the most interesting philosophical/photographic consideration in this thread is about the difference between using a camera and using one's eyes. William W addressed this early in the thread. The reason I use a camera is because there is such a substantial difference between that and just using my eyes. Framing through a lens isolates, exaggerates, modifies, and distinguishes, among other things. Putting a camera in front of my face establishes a very different kind of relationship with those around me, not always but most of the time. I want it that way. The potential involved in using a camera is preserving something or memorializing something, stilling a fleeting moment, and taking something out of context. I am not in favor of restrictions on photographing in public or restrictions on photographing people without their consent. I think that would be draconian and too restrictive of my freedom. I want to be in charge of my behavior towards fellow human beings until and unless i do something that gets me sued or criminally charged. Again, thanks to William W, who clearly addressed some really important frameworks for establishing a difference between photos and the real-time events they depict and between looking at others with one's eyes and looking at others through the lens of a camera. While I wouldn't restrict the latter activity except in private spaces, I won't ignore the substantial differences in terms of others' different comfort levels with the two as well as the difference in perceived potentials of the two, which affects how we view people with cameras vs. how we view people with eyes.</p>

<p>Where the OP fails, IMO, is not in the assertion that a camera in hand makes a substantial difference to public relationships. The OP fails on two counts. It buys into a paternalistic approach to women, which potentially harms women as much as any camera might. And it assumes that unwanted attention is automatically morally wrong, which it's not. It's part of living in a social community. I reject the photos in question on the basis of their relevance to me, my taste, and the interest they hold for me. I think they're cheap and exploitive and juvenile but I'd fall short of saying they are unethical or immoral. They should be legally permitted and PN should not restrict their being shown in one's portfolio. As I said, we are all free to comment honestly about our feelings about them. That's the ethically sound reaction. Restricting their being shown would be the unethical action here.</p>

<p>Something else photographic and philosophical that comes into play here is body of work. When pretty much one's entire body of work or a substantial portion of it is built around such blatantly prurient grabs that have no other redeeming aesthetic or social value, that reflects differently than a few such photos in a body of work more broadly conceived and thoughtfully and artistically executed.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
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...