Ethics of photographing in public places - beaches example

laur1 · August 11, 2013

@m:

The explosion of public photography with cell phones and such make it all the more timely.

</blockquote>

Other developments where this discussion would be relevant are security cameras and Google Glass. @William:

These observations form part of the reasons why I suggested that any discussion be predicted upon discussion of the ethics of making any record, without consent.

</blockquote>

I agree. Now let's see if we can settle this question.

More importantly your question and my answer to it have nothing to do with what I have chosen to contribute on this thread.

</blockquote>

OK, there was a misunderstanding, but we can reset the discussion to the point that you mentioned and that I quoted earlier - the ethics of making a recording without consent. We are trying to decide if simply taking a record can be determined to be good or bad. My position (and I believe that is m's as well, unless I misunderstood his statements) is that you cannot make an ethical judgement about mere recording - you need to consider use or the possibility of use (what I called publishing).

I gave a framework

</blockquote>

You just made a claim that recording is something that we can pass an ethical judgement on. That claim has not been validated yet.

I did think that this fundamental question was what the OP was asking.

</blockquote>

I don't think we should be concerned at this point with the intent of the OP. The person that wrote it joined this forum just to express disapproval with the work of a forum member and to get some other members incensed against him. They had no interest in a discussion of ethics. @Arthur:

That is the time zero case, only. Only. And the only thing that is not real or phantomic is the assumption that the future use of the recorded image carries no possible harm for the subject.

</blockquote>

Yes, but you see, now you are talking about use. The recording only happens at that time zero. If you want to restrict recording because of use, you are not making an ethical judgement, but simply a practical one of protecting the subject from potential future harm incurred from that recording - you are discussing a matter of security, not of ethics.

The society, via its legal system, judges that the photographer has invaded the rights of the subject. A breech of ethics occurred.

</blockquote>

That does not follow - law and ethics are two distinct fields. Here is a relevant quote from wikipedia:

According to Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder of the <a title="Foundation for Critical Thinking" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Critical_Thinking">Foundation for Critical Thinking</a>, "most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs and the law", and don't treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.

</blockquote>

PS: If we ever manage to get beyond this step about the ethics of recording, perhaps we can get to the more complex and interesting part of discussing the ethics of publishing.

aplumpton · August 11, 2013

Ethics relate not just to the moment of capture but to the behaviour of the photographer as a consequence of that capture.

Ethics is generally defined as moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

Ethics applies absolutely to what the photographer does in regard to his human subject. This is true whether you accept one or the other schools of ethics. They each pretty much relate to the same moral responsibility a person has in his actions as I have been trying to indicate. From the Oxford dictionary:

"Schools of ethics in Western philosophy can be divided, very roughly, into three sorts. The first, drawing on the work of Aristotle, holds that the virtues (such as justice, charity, and generosity) are dispositions to act in ways that benefit both the person possessing them and that person’s society. The second, defended particularly by Kant, makes the concept of duty central to morality: humans are bound, from a knowledge of their duty as rational beings, to obey the categorical imperative to respect other rational beings. Thirdly, utilitarianism asserts that the guiding principle of conduct should be the greatest happiness or benefit of the greatest number."

You may be speaking of the question of law, but I prefer to relate this subject to one of ethics, of one of moral principles, as the OP addressed.

charleswood · August 12, 2013

The thing is, it's bad etiquette to not get permission of the women photographed at the beach in their bathing suits and I would feel like a perv where I to make a hobby out of that. How someone else deals with that etiquette issue isn't my concern, whether they are a professional, get releases, don't, I don't know, I don't particularly care or care about ethics used to excuse bad etiquette. Except:

When I walk through a local park on my way to a nature area, I pass soccer games, softball games, and a few times parents have introduced themselves to ask me if I'm taking pictures of their kids. I'm not, I don't, but the long lens isn't casual, I understand their concerns, and I explain that I'm passing through and not there to take such pictures. Walking along a busy public street to the entrance to the nature area, at times someone driving by yells something like "perv", probably because of the long lens and the behavior of some with their long lenses on at the beach.

laur1 · August 12, 2013

Ethics is generally defined as moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

</blockquote>

Ethics is the philosophy of morality. It is not just a collection of moral principles. What you stated is somewhat similar to saying that thinking is defined as ideas that govern one's conversation. As for the other observations, it appears that you are getting confused - for example, you brought up the law, not me.

aplumpton · August 12, 2013

Hello Laurentiu,

I mentioned the law in a particular case where a photographer was found guilty in court for using an image of a person that had not consented to being photographed or to having the image used without her approval. But I had no intention of mixing law and ethics, the dichotomy of which you mentioned in your next to last post.

As for the definition, it is one of two given in the Oxford dictionary, which is normally fairly reliable. That ethics is also more than simply moral principles is not denied.

laur1 · August 13, 2013

As for the definition, it is one of two given in the Oxford dictionary, which is normally fairly reliable.

</blockquote>

I am going by the <a href="http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ethics">second Oxford definition</a>:

[usually treated as singular] the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles:

</blockquote>

It is this meaning that is used on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics">Wikipedia</a> as well, which I had just quoted earlier:

Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of <a title="Philosophy" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy">philosophy</a> that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong <a title="Action (philosophy)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(philosophy)">conduct</a>.

</blockquote>

I guess what confuses me about these threads is that this part of the forum is called "philosophy of photography". However, on closer look, a better description of the content is: "photography related opinions and anecdotes".

I guess this is because many posters work with the <a href="http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/philosophy?q=philosophy">second definition of philosophy from Oxford</a>:

a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour

</blockquote>

This actually sounds more formal than it is. The Oxford example provides a much better context:

don’t expect anything and you won’t be disappointed, that’s my philosophy

</blockquote>

A fitting advice too.

cyanatic · August 13, 2013

colin mclatchie: Lets not get embroiled in the ethical or philosophical debate here, the only real question is the legality of whats being done in the name of ART. I question the legality of posting an image of anyone in a public place on the internet without their express written consent, whilst it may be legal in certain countries to physically take the image in the first place, the ownership of the copyright and the intellectual property right remains with the model, unless a model release has been signed.

</blockquote>

Having read through pages of ethical and philosophical viewpoints on this topic, I heartily agree with the notion of not getting embroiled in it (although I would like to briefly address the ethical aspect).

A number of people have already corrected some of the initial (and inaccurate) summaries of certain European laws regarding candid public photography. Here in the US, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia">Nussenzweig v DiCorcia</a> affirmed what had already been common practice for decades, namely that “a photographer could display, publish, and sell street photography without the consent of the subjects of those photographs.” As for the copyright and “intellectual property” rights of candid public photographs, they belong to the photographer (and such rights do not extend solely to candid public photographs, but that is another discussion).

The displaying or publishing of a candid public photograph only runs afoul of the law in the US when it involves a commercial purpose (“this person LOVES Crest toothpaste!), defamation (“a heroin addict walking down the street”), misrepresentation (“an Obama supporter on Main St.”), etc.

We can “question” the legality of this to our heart’s content, but it does not alter the law, nor the rights which accrue to photographers in the United States.

But, for argument’s sake, let’s say that candid public photography had always been illegal without written consent. The ramification is that a vast body of highly respected work would have never come into existence. From Brassai, Bresson and Evans, through Brandt, Lange, Lee, Callahan, Levitt, Frank, Klein, Faurer, Maier, to Winogrand, Erwitt, Parr, Davidson, et al. Arguably one of the most dynamic and engaging photographic genres would be *poof!* …gone. A vast record of humanity, good, bad, or embarrassing, would be excised.

Let me be clear on one thing. I do not mention the art of the previously listed photographers (and, yes, it is “art”) as a means of justifying candid photography. Personally, I do not think it needs justification. I mention it by way of pointing out the consequence of taking prohibitive wishful thinking to an extreme.

If you want the William Kleins and the Vivian Maiers, then you must be willing to accept those hypothetical “creepy old guys” on the beach with their telephoto lenses. The First Amendment does not apply only to the talented, the famous, the popular, or the pure of intent.

The “ethics” of candid photography is something altogether different. (Although a commonly agreed upon societal shunning of candid photography on ethical, rather than legal, grounds would result in the same scenario as mentioned above.) As we probably all know, what is legal may not always seem ethical. To be honest (and as one who frequently engages in candid public photography), I do not spend a whole lot of time wondering or philosophizing about the ethics of what I do. Why? Because I find it to be a waste of my time and my energy, precious commodities best spent elsewhere. I don’t care if someone thinks it is unethical, nor do I care if someone sneers at me for daring to think of it as art. The nature of my work does not cause me to lose sleep at night.

Lastly, I’m glad to see Fred G back in here! Bravo to pointing out that we are all sexual beings, subject to occasional prurient interests (if I’m paraphrasing poorly, please forgive me). And bravo also for this:

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.

</blockquote>

Julie H · August 13, 2013

Steve Gubin wrote: " I do not spend a whole lot of time wondering or philosophizing about the ethics of what I do."

*sigh*

Yes you do. I have reason to believe that you're a decent person. That all of us fail to one degree or another to always follow the Golden Rule ("do unto others ...") doesn't mean we don't think about it and regret it when we fail.

Let's see if I can split this hair ...

I love the work of Winogrand and Paul Graham even though both fail my own feelings about "ethical" street shooting. I love the poetry of Wallace Stevens even though he was a total racist. I am in awe of Newton even though he as an a**hole and an alchemist. And on and on ... This doesn't mean that I think it's okay to be a racist or an a**hole.

In addition, I don't think anybody has said that street photography is bad per se. Martin Parr's book, The Last Resort, is pure beach photography, but I don't find anything unethical about it. He was shooting "his" people, he was shooting the beach culture, not doing drive-by trophy hunting. Likewise, Helen Levitt, Roy DeCarava -- shooting their own neighborhoods -- or shooters in this forum who shoot their own "peeps"; where the people they shoot know they won't be exploited.

laur1 · August 13, 2013

The OP tried (and largely succeeded in) generating an emotional reaction with the beach scenario. But there are many other interesting aspects to the ability of photographing people in public places. Here's a story that has been developing locally over the past few weeks:

<a href="http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/07/31/police-threatened-to-arrest-me-for-taking-their-photo-last-night">Police Threatened to Arrest Me for Taking Their Photo Last Night</a>

<a href="http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/08/09/deputies-need-better-training-on-first-amendment-rights">Deputies Need Better Training on First Amendment Rights</a>

Norma Desmond · August 13, 2013

Julie, good points and interesting thoughts about shooting one's own "peeps." Wish I was more fluent, but can you or anyone here think of some photographers who successfully did the opposite, who shot a community as an "outsider" and got a compelling outside perspective? I imagine there are some and it would be interesting to consider their work as well. I think you are right, Julie, about distinguishing various kinds of street shooting from drive-by trophy hunting, and I imagine there could be a case where someone could figure out a way of doing even that successfully and creatively as well.

cyanatic · August 13, 2013

Julie H: "Yes you do. I have reason to believe that you're a decent person. That all of us fail to one degree or another to always follow the Golden Rule ("do unto others ...") doesn't mean we don't think about it and regret it when we fail. Let's see if I can split this hair ... I love the work of Winogrand and Paul Graham even though both fail my own feelings about "ethical" street shooting. I love the poetry of Wallace Stevens even though he was a total racist. I am in awe of Newton even though he as an a**hole and an alchemist. And on and on ... This doesn't mean that I think it's okay to be a racist or an a**hole."

</blockquote>

Thank you, Julie, for saying that you think me to be a decent person. Seriously, I appreciate it. I probably did make my statement in a way that sounds a bit callous. I should have explained that the reason I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the ethics of taking candid photographs is because I do not feel that I am doing anything unethical. So what is there to think about? In addition to what I might call "anonymous street work", I also do some documentary work, particularly with various nationalities of Chicago's Balkan community. I will sometimes start out with a few intentional portraits, but the bulk of the photographs I take in a documentary session remain candids. But whether on a street, or in a documentary setting, I do this (candids) because, corny as it sounds, I have a passion for it. And it started with the viewing of such photographs, long before I ever picked up a camera with the intent of making my own photographs. The more I looked, the more I felt as if I were witnessing frozen moments from strange but compelling novels or short stories. But they were more than that to me. They were the visual distillation of moods and atmosphere and surreal moments that were woven in between the words of the best novels and short stories. And sometimes, just sometimes, I feel as if I approach that in some of my own work.

It's not about trophy hunting, or being cool, or being afraid, or capturing someone in an embarassing moment, or hunting, or aggression, or seeing people as prey, or any of the other ridiculous psycho-babble predatory-like stereotypes that some people seem hell bent on ascribing to street photographers.

Maybe some of this explains why ethics do not really enter my mind in regard to the taking of candid photographs. Not justify, rationalize, or excuse. The hell with that. Explain. And maybe that just makes me that much more truly selfish and callous. Because if someone is hurt or offended by a photo I have taken, they don't give a rat's ass about novels, atmosphere, surreal moments, or passion. So, in the end, maybe I really am unethical and, worse than that, too self-absorbed and insensitive to even really look at it. Or not. Who knows?

[OT: I have only read Wallace Stevens poetry, nothing biographical. He was a racist? How sad and disappointing to find that out. I only recall one biographical nugget told to us by a professor in college. Stevens was in his study, and his daughter, perhaps about 5 at the time, came up to talk to him, or hug him. He turned on her and, quite sternly, said something to the effect of "don't ever disturb me when I'm composing!" Apocryphal? I wonder if you like Delmore Schwartz as well. Something in his approach or style reminds me a bit of Stevens. I love the work of both.]

Fred G: "...who shot a community as an "outsider" and got a compelling outside perspective?"

</blockquote>

Yasuhiro Ishimoto's photographs of late 50's Chicago come to mind. Russell Lee's work for the FSA. William Klein's take on Rome. That's all I can come up with off the top of my head.

Norma Desmond · August 14, 2013

Steve, many thanks. I will look into those guys.

Norma Desmond · August 14, 2013

Oh, by the way, I'm also aware that exploitation and questions of ethics are not limited to street or candid work. I've thought about exploitation relative to my own subjects, whose permission I have (or the permission of their guardians). Like Steve, I try not to let it hamper or stifle my work. It can actually add some texture to my work, at times by visually/conceptually trying to recognize and address the exploitive aspects of photographing people. It may, in part, be why I lean toward explorations of artificiality.

There's a sense in which "exploit" means to use to maximum benefit. Then there's the sense in which it means to use selfishly. There's a lot of overlap there and a fine line. I try not to kid myself into thinking my motives are always as pure as the driven snow, so while exploiting in the former sense, I'm likely exploiting at least a little in the latter sense. I've been living with these sorts of tensions and imperfections for close to 60 years. I'm kinda used to it. Photographing, for me, can put it all to good use, and is a good way for me not to dwell on figuring it all out in the abstract.

Julie H · August 14, 2013

Steve wrote: "... the visual distillation of moods and atmosphere and surreal moments ... " Oh, oh, oh, I am totally seduced ...

.. but first, we must take our spoonful of cod liver oil on the OT. I give a longish quote from James Agee who is describing, in Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, the day that he and Walker Evans arrived in Georgia to document in pictures and print, the families of poor white sharecroppers. What Agee describes is what I often feel about "unethical" shooting. First, they are at the train station, addressing one of the (male) sharecroppers who came to pick them up:

.

"you did the talking, and the loudest laughing at your own hyperboles, stripping to the roots of the lips your shattered teeth, and your vermilion gums; and watching me with fear from behind the glittering of laughter in your eyes, a fear that was saying, ‘o lord god please for once, just for once, don’t let this man laugh at me up his sleeve, or do me any meanness or harm’ (I think you never got over this) ... "

</blockquote>

Next, when they arrive at the shack in which the sharecroppers live:

.

"... the Woods and the Gudgers, all … stand there on the porch as you were in the average sorrow of your working dirt, and get your pictures made; and to you [here Agee is addressing Mrs. Ricketts] it was as if you and your children and your husband and these others were stood there naked in front of the cold absorption of the camera in all your shame and pitiableness to be pried into and laughed at; and your eyes were wild with fury and shame and fear, and the tendons of your little neck were tight the whole time, and one hand continually twitched and tore in the rotted folds of your skirt …"

" ... and your two daughters, standing there in the crowding porch, yielding and leaning their heads profound against the pulling and entanglements, each let down their black hair in haste and combed and rearranged it (but Walker made a picture of this; you didn’t know; you thought he was still testing around; there you all are … )"

"... all this while it was you I was particularly watching, Mrs. Ricketts; you can have no idea with what care for you, what need to let you know, oh, not to fear us, not to fear; not to hate us, that we are your friends, that however it must seem it is all right, it is truly and all the way all right: so, continually, I was watching for your eyes, and whenever they turned upon me, trying through my own and through a friendly and tender smiling (which sickens me to disgust to think of) to store into your eyes some knowledge of this, some warmth, some reassurance, that might at least a little relax you, that might conceivably bring you to warmth, to any ease or hope of smiling; but your eyes upon me, time after time, held nothing but the same terror …"

</blockquote>

Abigail Solomon-Godeau writes, in her book Photography at the Dock:

.

"This structural congruence of point of view (the eye of the photographer, the eye of the camera, and the spectator's eye) confers on the photograph a quality of pure, but delusory presentness. A photograph, as Victor Burgin once remarked, is an offer that cannot be refused."

"Such analyses of the apparatus bring us a good deal closer to understanding why the use of the camera has historically engendered a vocabulary of mastery, possession, appropriation, and aggression; to shoot a picture, to take a picture, to aim the camera, and so forth.

"If we accept the formulation that there are ideological effects inherent in the apparatus, and that these effects devolve on relations of mastery, scopic command, and the confirmation of subject positions, the notion of a political documentary practice premised on subject matter alone is rendered even further problematic."

</blockquote>

<hr />

But, but, but ... now to the good stuff. Steve's "distillations" ...

I just happened to have been looking at a book of early (1976) color explorations by Syl Labrot (called Pleasure Beach, believe it or not. LOL), in which, after abandoning commercial photography for his artistic photography, he notes the following:

.

"The documentary appearance of the photograph was really a bland mask for its own, separate reality. Anything is possible within the seeming objectivity of photography. ... Photography had become a game for my imagination. Images accumulated at a great rate: places and times came to be the pictures of them. ... I began moving in an image drama that I was providing for myself -- a duel realism to the ordinary, daily one, travelling in the same direction, parallel at times, but not the same. Realism, in my film world came to mean realized."

</blockquote>

From that, I have been thinking about how much I have made a nest, hive, (cloud palace?) for myself out of the weave, the layers of my own accumulated work -- and projecting my imaginings onto Steve's words, I wonder if it therefore can seem almost nutty to ask about the "ethics" of such an imaginary place.

[Steve, we better not get into poetry -- this post could go on for pages ... (I love poetry, I love poetry, I love poetry ... )]

cyanatic · August 14, 2013

Good stuff, Julie. Thanks. Now, given all that you wrote and quoted, and made me think about, a simple "good stuff" seems inadequate.

I must add "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" to my reading. For all the times I have seen it mentioned and read about it, I have not looked at it firsthand. Very, very powerful quotes by Agee. And, to me, much more eye-opening and thought provoking than some of the simplistic moralizing I have come across.

"...a bland mask for its own, separate reality. Anything is possible....within the seeming objectivity. ...moving in an image drama that I was providing for myself..."

Yes! Yes! Oh yes! Exactly. It hits upon why both a book I am working on, and one of my portfolio folders her one PN, is entitled "Chicago: Illusions of the Literal". Nothing original in the notion that a photograph is its own reality, or that a particular photograph (and which does not just have to be a candid street photograph, of course) may give the appearance of a certain reality, or resonate with a certain tone or atmosphere, that did not, in fact, exist in the time and place when the photograph was taken. Not a willful false presentation or misrepresentation, but a capturing, in that nano-second, of a separate reality, an alternate universe. "Illusions of the literal" does borrow and take off from something Winogrand once said (Winogrand, by the way, is actually not one of my favorite photographers...just for the record). And now I cannot find the damn quote! Well, regardless, I don't claim any brilliant insight, and don't want anyone thinking that I do. We have discussed the reality of a photograph in these pages before. And, if I recall from one discussion, I even posited that a photograph CAN be an objective representation of the thing photographed. A position significantly different from what I am saying here.

One last thing for anyone who might be interested and then I will stop talking about ME, ME, ME .... I swear. Ironically, almost one year ago, a PN discussion inspired me to write about exploitation and street photography on my blog: <a href="http://stevegubin.com/blog/2012/8/candid-photography-violation-and-selfishness">http://stevegubin.com/blog/2012/8/candid-photography-violation-and-selfishness</a>

Back to ethics. As I said earlier, all of these high falutin' notions of alternate realities, and novels, and imaginary places -- they are true and real for me, but they are NOT for the subject being photographed. To me, that's where the selfishness and the unethical behavior comes in. I can see a subject as a noble participant, a mutual participant, in some surrealistic drama, but they don't know that, see that, or feel that. Or probably would not if they saw the photograph taken of them. I have no answer, response, or justification for that. But I am aware of it. I don't think that my feelings about photographs as their own reality trump any feelings that a subject might have in regard to violation or exploitation. I am not more noble or lofty than they are.

I also want to look up Syl Labrot. You have given me some reading and viewing material, Julie! And this is not the place for it, but I would be interested in hearing about which poets and poetry you enjoy. In my early twenties I "discovered" poetry was totally lost and immersed in the world of the English Romantics for a while, before I moved on to more recent poets.

[Hmmm...did you recently edit and add the Solomon-Godeau quote? I don't recall seeing it initially. No, never mind, I did see it. It has some echoes of what Sontag wrote.]

Julie H · August 14, 2013

Steve wrote: " ... I would be interested in hearing about which poets and poetry you enjoy." No. [firmly] No. Noooooooooooo ..... ! [already looking longingly at shelves of books that could be delved into; poets that could be re-read, considered again ... other work that could be ignored, procrastination that could be even more magnificently embodied ... ] Do. Not. Tempt. Me. Please?

I would definitely recommend Agee. Less so Labrot -- he's of historical interest as a color pioneer, but with the quote given, you've pretty much got the best he had to say ...

Having read your linked blog post, I am now annoyed with you, Steve. If you already *knew* that, then what are we arguing about? Oh, wait. In this forum, we like to argue. Carry on ...

I would say, though, that I (too) get tired of Sontag and of all the other writers out there who are not photographers who write as if they are. This includes Barthes (whose writings on everything other than photography, I almost always love and agree with).

If I'm on the street and someone is shooting, (and we're of about equal social status, race, ethnicity, age and gender ... ) what I want is just a minimum of consent. A sort-of analogy is when I'm in the grocery store checkout line and I have a full cart and someone shows up behind me with two items, I will always let them go in front IF, IF, IF they at least wait for me to give some kind of consent, either with body movement (making space), with eye contact and a smile or (obviously) if I say, "Go ahead." What pisses me off is the jerk who just butts in front of me. I don't need a five page legal contract, just a teeny-tiny bit of body language.

On Winogrand, whom Steve doesn't really like ... he's an interesting case. A guilty pleasure for me. See if this makes sense. To me, he's like reading Joyce's Leopold Bloom but visually. As if the movie <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_John_Malkovich">Being John Malkovich</a> had been Being Garry Winogrand as Leopold Bloom. Winogrand seems to me, in his disorganized flood of pictures and in what's been written about him, to have been 1) a thoroughly unpretentious, un-camouflaged, "raw", straight-ahead kind of guy. He either can't or won't contrive, or decorate or elaborate. Even though somebody else curated all of his pre-mortem books, they're still kind of ... a mess, even as the individual photos are fascinating. I like the real-ness of the incoherence, if that makes sense.

[In my previous post, I typed "duel" instead of "dual" (SIC from Labrot's text, as my excuse). Which reminds me of a book title I've seen: A Freudian Slip is When You Say One Thing but Mean Your Mother]

Julie H · August 15, 2013

Way, way OT, but one last comment on "dual" (and "duel" ...) and Steve's " a separate reality, an alternate universe."

Movement is reality

ergo

still photographs aren't reality

but

trains speeding in the same direction on parallel tracks are immobile (still) to each other

ergo

still is not necessarily "still"

ergo ...

[i once had a Dalmation named "Ergo."]

cyanatic · August 15, 2013

Hmmm...interesting thoughts Julie. (Your posts are always a nice mixture of humor, thought provoking items, and, to me, sometimes an introductiong to writers/thinkers/concepts with which I am not familiar...)

All matter has movement. Some discernible to the human eye (macro and microscopic level), some not (atomic and sub-atomic level). Not that I necessarily buy into the notion that "reality" (whatever that is) requires movement.

"Being Garry Winogrand as Leopold Bloom" - Wow. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one. How does Molly or Stephen Dedalus fit into that? Does Catherine Keener or John Cusack figure into it? More importantly, what is James Joyce's role in such a movie/concept? Don't answer, I'm confused enough as it is. Perhaps it was his zoo photographs, but I also see Winogrand connected in some way to Albee's "The Zoo Story". Being Garry Winogrand as Jerry maybe? (I can see someone saying..."what the hell are they talking about and what does this have to do with creepy beach photographs?". I love chaos. Which segues into Garry Winogrand as Heath Ledger's Joker in "Dark Knight"? Somebody stop me...please.)

Yes, I think I do grasp your appreciation of the un-realness of the incoherence of Winogrand.

I would like to get back to the OP for a moment. "Ethics of photographing in public places". Let's turn it around a bit. I walk into a gallery, or thumb through a photography book, and I see a photo of myself, or perhaps my daughter, on a street corner, or at the beach. How would that make me feel? A lot would depend on the nature of the photograph and what I was seen doing. If it was an artistic photograph in a book or gallery, I would have no legal recourse. If it showed myself or my daughter and it was billed as a photo documentary of "Heroin Addicts of Chicago"...that would be a different story.

But, for argument's sake, let's just say that it was an artistic presentation, with no issues of defamation or misrepresentation, but the photo was unflattering and made me, or my daughter, look stupid, or confused, or whatever. Let's say that it gave me discomfort. Does my discomfort make the photographer's action unethical? If my daughter (who is a minor) received unwanted attention from classmates (or if someone posted a copy of the image on their FB page saying, "check out this cutie..."), does that make the photographer's action of taking and publishing a photograph without my prior consent unethical?

I think it comes down to how one defines ethical behavior. Using Julie's Golden Rule (I suspect it did not originate with her...), a photographer's behavior is unethical if they cause discomfort for someone when they would not like it if that person caused discomfort for them. Simple. But then we get into the maddening territory of more complex hypotheticals. A man is photographed beating a dog with a switch. The photo is published and he ends up being prosecuted for cruelty to animals. Most people would not care if he feels discomfort over being photographed without consent because he was engaged in objectionable, unethical, behavior. Do we write down the rules and the exceptions to when a candid public photograph is, and is not, ethical? Of course not.

And there can be instances where someone can potentially be defamed simply by interpretation. Some weeks ago, during a celebratory parade for the Stanley Cup champion Chicago Blackhawks, I took a large number of photographs. I photographed players as well as people in the crowd. Some were consensual street portraits (permission requested in advance), some were candid street shots. One of the latter candids was of a man walking down the sidewalk wearing a porkpie hat. My eye was drawn to him because he wore the hat at a jaunty angle and he looked like he had just stepped out of the 1950's. He also happened to be black.

In the photo, there are a number of other pedestrians. On either side of the man are 20-something white men. Each of them appears to be glancing sideways at the man in the hat. I don't presume to know why. It was not like he was that unusual looking. He just happened to be wearing a cool hat (I have a couple of my own porkpie hats from my blues harmonica playing days and still wear them on occasion. I like the style, sue me.). In viewing the photo, more than one person told me (all of them white) that the photo showed that racism still exists. They interpreted the glances of the young men as being wary or concerned over the presence of this black man walking down the street. (!?) So, in their eyes, I made a photograph that "exposed" those two young white men as racists. Someone else (white) asked me why I "singled out a black man?" Other people have told me that they think the man in the hat looks cool and that the two guys glancing at him may have simply done that for the same reason that I took the picture. He looked like a cool character, as if he had just stepped out of the Checkerboard Lounge after having played a set with Muddy Waters.

So. The photo has alternate realities (interpretations) and it may be unethical because it potentially casts some of the subjects as racists, or is unethical because one of the subjects was singled out for fashion reasons (or racial reasons according to one person's interpretation), or is just flat out unethical because I didn't ask permission from a single person who appears in the photograph. Or it's not unethical at all because I "exposed" the existence of latent racism. Am I unethical, racist, or a social crusader? I choose "none of the above".

Norma Desmond · August 15, 2013

"Am I unethical, racist, or a social crusader?"

I want to mainly address "social crusader." I say, to some extent, we all are. Photographers take pictures and post them. They are clearly sharing them socially, so that answers the first part of the phrase. "Crusader"? In a sense, yes. In taking pictures, we are framing something we find significant, unless it's a completely random shot. In deliberately framing something, we are, in fact, taking a stand and making a commitment. It may not be the one each viewer supposes it to be, as in the case of your photo. But still, we do take a stand and that's a little bit of a crusade. I learn as much from hearing comments on my photos as viewers suppose they learn about me, my subjects, or the reality of what was taking place when the photo was shot.

Photographers aren't the only ones. I'm a firm believer in all our actions being social crusades of sorts. We act in public and we affect the public when we do, whether with a small ripple or giant tidal wave. Keeping that in mind probably affects ethics in many ways. Achieving a balance, sometimes this way and sometimes that, between our individuality and our many undeniable social components is a tricky matter and it's often where the toughest ethical questions arise.

As to the rest of your question, when I wonder if I'm unethical or a racist, I remind myself that I've been gay for as long as I can remember and still harbor, for some known and some unknown reasons, some degree of homophobia that I'd be a fool to deny. Most gay people I know say the same. Internalized homophobia is an interesting study. If I'm homophobic, then chances are there's some racism in me as well. It's my awareness of it and what I do with all that that's important. I like to think of myself as a basically ethical person who has made some missteps and, so, has been unethical at times. Show me someone who hasn't.

charleswood · August 15, 2013

Arthur - Ethics relate not just to the moment of capture but to the behaviour of the photographer as a consequence of that capture.

Steve - Am I unethical, racist, or a social crusader? I choose "none of the above".

</blockquote>

In the capture - none of the above. In the use - I don't see that any of your use of your photograph is unethical, racist, or crusading, so none of the above.

As to legalities - would this famous photograph be illegal today? <a href="http://www.onthisdeity.com/31st-january-1968-%E2%80%93-the-tet-offensive/">http://www.onthisdeity.com/31st-january-1968-%E2%80%93-the-tet-offensive/</a>

The point I'm attempting to make is that legality, ethics, may not matter and there must be better examples of unethical captures [for argument's sake let's just say there were ethical and legal issues involved in that Tet offensive photograph] that had impact for the good anyway. Partly the photographer must be thinking of self, that he/she wants to be the one to get that particular picture and getting it by pushing limits or blowing out limits altogether though at the same time in pursuit of significance in the shot.

I looked for and can't find the photograph of Judy Garland I saw at the Annenberg space for photography. The photographer elicited tears from Judy Garland, got her vulnerability to show by asking her a question, something that hit her it seemed to me by the photographer's description. He got to her pain not with permission, but with prodding, and then displayed her pain which contrasted with most shots of her which generally I would just call staged iconic image shots. Maybe his trying taught the viewer something, but perhaps it wasn't all that great for Judy Garland. I think at the time his picture taught the public something about Judy that they suspected and knew all along, sadly.

On Discovery, videographers were repeating an experiment with a baboon: the alpha male baboon will enforce rules about sharing food. He enforces it by giving an un-sharing baboon a good thrashing. So the stage was set, the zookeepers participating in baiting a poor female baboon with a choice serendipitous morsel, placed where she at least had the chance of getting it unobserved by any other baboon. Or so she hoped. Had she been spotted by the alpha male eating that delicacy all by herself without telling any other baboon about it, she would have been soundly beaten by the alpha male. The zookeepers, the videographers were disappointed that in fact no other baboon saw the female keep the treat to herself, disappointed that they couldn't film her getting punished. (They probably didn't know how to tattle tale in baboonese.) I was relieved. The female baboon broke the ethics of the baboon community and got to scarf down something rare and fine, took her chances, knew the rules. What she didn't know was that some humans were setting her up. The humans were breaking an ethical rule, do no harm, looking for some video that would be rare and fine, for no good purpose other than ratings.

So maybe the more interesting question would be, what would you do to get that rare and fine shot, and what would justify your taking that morsel despite ethics or legality?

I don't take all that many pictures so, ah, I guess I don't have to answer my own question?

Norma Desmond · August 16, 2013

"He got to her pain not with permission, but with prodding, and then displayed her pain which contrasted with most shots of her which generally I would just call staged iconic image shots. Maybe his trying taught the viewer something, but perhaps it wasn't all that great for Judy Garland. I think at the time his picture taught the public something about Judy that they suspected and knew all along, sadly."

Charles, what you're saying is important, especially when you ask what we might do to get a shot, despite our ethics and the legality of it.

First, my take on Judy.

She was doing it, getting to her pain, herself, all along. No photographer could do more than she was to reveal herself and put all she had out there. Could there be any doubt this woman knew from pain and a lot of other things, just by listening to her sing a song (rather, perform a song), even if there were never a picture made of her? The voice, the ability to emote. It is there. The good and present and willing photographer, IMO, could only try to match her with his own medium, using her as muse or subject. Any good photographer would consider him or herself fortunate to have the opportunity to photograph her, because of what she was already able to show herself.

An approach I adopt with many of my portrait subjects is to try to and hope to match in photographic expressiveness the best of their own unique expressiveness as people. If I want to draw something emotionally strong out of them, I consider it only fair to accompany them by drawing something emotionally strong (photographically speaking) out of myself. It's not to do something TO them, but to do something WITH them. When I can do that genuinely, no question of ethics is likely to get in my way.

A few people I've worked with have agreed with me that we don't necessarily feel good or better during or after a shoot. I sense that's not as much an ethical issue as an artistic one.

charleswood · August 16, 2013

On Judy, "...because of what she was already able to show herself". The photograph of her, it was presented by the photographer's narrative as Judy not interpreting or performing, but through the photographer's sensitivity/(manipulativeness??) to all that performing of hers: he got her to spontaneously show something she didn't necessarily know she was going to show and, well, Okay, she showed it, she gave it to him. Point taken. "No photographer could do more than she was to reveal herself and put all she had out there." Good point, and a broader context from which I can better understand that creative event between the photographer and his/her subject.

Actually, to get some of my coyote photographs I trespass, subject to fine or imprisonment or both! And I've at times pushed them into a performance. Also, I unleash my dog (illegal) to chase a rabbit (unethical) to get a photograph of the chase. I have to think though that boundaries do get pushed in all our photography at one time or another.

Norma Desmond · August 16, 2013

Good stuff, Charles.

The irony of great performances (no matter how staged and how rehearsed) is that they are so amazing because they are also so much NOT performances. They have to come from somewhere in the actor's or singer's soul. The reality and the artificiality work hand in hand toward something beyond either.

On ethics, there might be more to uncover if we look for unethical behavior in husbands, bosses, doctors, directors, and producers rather than in photographers, whether they flattered her or got to her.

Julie H · August 16, 2013

Perception (>> assignment) of causation leads to moral judgment (see Charles Wood's examples, above). But, as cognitive science has shown, it also works in reverse: moral assessments lead to assignment of causation (see Steve Gubin's example: "Am I a racist?" will determine assignment of causation).

Ethics is, to nobody's surprise, a complicated furball. Using simple "absence of malice" as one's guiding rule both sets the bar way too low and further, doesn't even solve many of the issues. Here are some examples for you to ponder, all from Leo Katz's book, Bad Acts and Guilty Minds (1987):

.

"Henri plans a trek through the desert. Alphonse, intending to kill Henri, puts poison into his canteen. Gaston also intends to kill Henri but has no idea what Alponse has been up to. He punctures Henri's canteen, and Henri dies of thirst. Who has caused Henri's death? Was it Alphonse? How could that be, since Henri never swallowed the poison. Was it Gaston? How could it be, since he only deprived Henri of some poisoned water that would have killed him more swiftly even than thirst. Was it neither then? But if neither had done anything, Henri would still be alive. So who killed Henri?"

"The inhabitants of an African village called on a witch doctor to help them find out why so many children born in recent months had died soon after birth. The witch doctor decided to organize a trial by ordeal to discover whether there were any witches in the village who might be responsible. Sixteen people voluntarily submitted to the test. The trial was a mild one as ordeals went. All that the participants were required to do was to drink a certain magic potion called muabvi. Muabvi, it was believed, would kill any witch who drank it but would not harm the innocent. The witch doctor prepared the muabvi and handed it out to the sixteen participants. Four of the sixteen died, several others became violently ill. A government analyst later examined the substance and found it was not poisonous; the substance was given to guinea pigs and none showed any harmful effects. The pathologist who examined the deceased found no cause of death and no trace of poison in the bodies. The closest that anyone came to an explanation was to conjecture that while muabvi normally was not harmful to human beings, it might prove fatal if associated with large amounts of adrenalin: a person frightened by the ordeal, and excreting a large dose of adrenalin, might thus end up "poisoning himself." Had the witch doctor murdered anyone?"

</blockquote>

.

[Photographs are visual muabvi >>> we are witch doctors? LOL ] Here's an attempt at a legal definition for assignment of causal responsibility:

.

"If one attempts wholly to eliminate in thought the alleged author [of the act] ... from the sum of the events in question and it then appears that nevertheless the sequence of intermediate causes remains the same, it is clear that the act and its consequence cannot be referred to him ... but if it appears that, once the person in question is eliminated in thought from the scene, the consequences cannot come about, or that they can come about only in a completely different way, then one is fully justified in attributing the consequences to him and explaining it as the effect of his activity."

</blockquote>

.

But that doesn't work as we'll see, below. (and no, the kingdom is not lost for want of a nail, in spite of what George Herbert wrote).

.

"The owner of a sporting goods store negligently sells a gun to a boy of thirteen. On his way home the boy drops the gun on his foot and injures his toe. His parents bring suit against the seller. Did the seller's negligence cause the injury?"

</blockquote>

.

Even more applicable to photography is this case (substitute "negligent photographer" for "negligent driver") Steve is going to like this one. Still from Kotz's book:

.

"If the theories are defective, it is because they are striving to attain an unattainable goal. The goal has never been expressly articulated; if it had been, its impossibility would have been recognized earlier.

"Let me articulate that goal through an example. A certain town experiences 90 highway deaths every year, all of them involving a negligent driver. The statistics of comparable towns with few negligent drivers allow us to deduce that without negligent drivers there would only have been 70 accidents. The goal of a legal theory of causation is to hold negligent drivers liable for only 20 of the 90 deaths, since that is the number of deaths negligent driving added to the accident toll. How do we distinguish the 70 accidents for which we won't hold anyone liable from the 20 for which we will hold negligent drivers liable? Doesn't the "but for" test accomplish that? Isn't it enough to ask of every accident whether it would have happened if the driver had been careful? No, it isn't. Almost every one of the accidents wouldn't have happened if the driver hadn't been at the precise spot at which he was at the moment the accident occurred. In almost every one of the accidents, the driver wouldn't have been at that spot at that moment if he hadn't been negligent. The "but for" test would have us hold nearly all 90 drivers liable; so it won't do. What will?

"Why would 70 accidents happen in a town of careful drivers? Because accidents are a fact of life."

</blockquote>

.

Nevertheless, I maintain, and will always maintain, that *trying* to drive carefully is a good idea. [Gee, I really went out on a limb with that one ... ]

charleswood · August 16, 2013

Gaston got to Henri first.

A negligent sale of a gun: wouldn't that act have its own punishment, unaffected by whether or not negligence, or what particular negligence, of the purchaser?

Tony Robbins responsible for the burned feet of his coal walkers?

Regarding the driving example, 90 deaths were all caused by negligent drivers as stated by Kotz. Therefore, all the 'accidents' were caused by driver negligence. All 90 drivers were responsible for deaths because they were negligent drivers and as expected, a study of another town shows that with fewer negligent drivers there are fewer deaths caused by negligent driving. The 'but for' test holds. (70 accidents happened in another town for reasons Kotz doesn't give.)

It would be easier to get a hawk with prey picture if the hawk was baited, throw a rock to get a 'bird on takeoff' picture, tempt a baboon with a morsel to get a picture of a baboon fight, etc. I'm not the only one who thinks about these things in regards to their photography. It is easier to get a hawk picture at a zoo. As an aside, the only time I've been threatened is when I was close to a hummingbird nest taking a picture. I told the guy to go ahead and hit me, I needed the money.

Burning Monk photo: <a href="http://www.travelblog.org/Photos/3306829">http://www.travelblog.org/Photos/3306829</a>

There was some talk about journalists being invited to the photo session by an intended suicider and whether they should or shouldn't have gone.

Sign In

Ethics of photographing in public places - beaches example

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in