Photographing people in compromised conditions

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Things viewable by someone else are not private and photography doesn't change it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fundamentally wrong in both a legal (I make my living in the UK privacy law space) and moral sense - let me catch you peering uninvited through my bedroom window some time, even if the curtains are open, and I'll demonstrate exactly how legitimate my expectations of privacy are, and how robustly I'll defend them...</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>I once photographed a wino slumped on a park-bench, bottle still clutched in hand, but barely conscious</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And it's exactly this objectification of the vulnerable and the disadvantaged, at a stroke robbing them of any last vestige of dignity, privacy* and humanity, that makes me puke about this kind of photography.</p>

<p>Glad you came to the realisation that this was victimisation, Chris - just a shame that there are still many on here that just don't get that...</p>

<p>* Yes privacy: even outside, in public, you have rights in this regard - in most civilised countries, anyway. </p>

<p> That's how and why the UK Information Commissioner, following a finding by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (which finding was also adopted by most other European counties), forced the mighty Google to "pixelate" the faces of everybody Google photographed in the UK while amassing its Street View imagery.</p>

<p>http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/2012/06/do-googles-streetview-images-constitute-unfair-and-excessive-processing-does-a-swiss-courts-conclusions-translate-into.html</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Federal Supreme Court found that Google does indeed process personal data with regard to images in its online Street View service <em><strong>and that the publication of inadequately blurred images can violate a person’s right to his or her own image and privacy</strong></em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This applies in spirit to street photography too. At least in civilised countries...</p>

<p><strong>So if you're going to insist on photographing some poor, benighted, broken soul in this sort of condition, FFS at least do him the decency <em>of asking first</em>.</strong></p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>It's not as clear-cut in the US:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photoattorney.com/reasonable-expectation-of-privacy-issues-for-photographers/">http://www.photoattorney.com/reasonable-expectation-of-privacy-issues-for-photographers/</a></p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Threats of physical violence from behind the safety of a computer keyboard carry little weight and don't inspire confidence in simultaneous claims of what's fundamentally wrong in a legal or moral sense.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Photographing people without their permission is a muddy area both legally and morally. Most photographers that I know who engage in it each have their own personal limits and taboos. I'm not interested in engaging in a morals debate as it has been done to death over the years here and on other photography discussion boards. I am surprised, however, at the lenient views taken by some US courts in recent rulings. As in many other areas of life, what is legally permissible is not always in accordance with some people's notions of what is morally and ethically correct. A <a href="http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Judge-upholds-artists-right-to-photograph-unsuspecting-neighbours/30191">case in point </a>is New York photographer Arne Svenson who used a telephoto to capture the activities of the residents of a high rise across from his own apartment. Much of it was done through partially open curtains. One of the residents sued, but the courts did not find in their favor. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>New York’s Supreme Court decided last week that the photographer Arne Svenson was within his rights to display and advertise a series of photographs he took of his neighbours without their permission. In May, a local couple sued Svenson for violating their privacy after recognizing their young children in two of the images. The judge Eileen Rakower dismissed Martha and Matthew Foster’s suit on 1 August, writing that the family’s right to privacy “yields to an artist’s protections under the First Amendment in the circumstances presented here”.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even as someone who engages in taking candid photographs, I find Svenson's practice distasteful, but there may be those who find some of my work to be distasteful. So be it. In <a href="http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Judge-upholds-artists-right-to-photograph-unsuspecting-neighbours/30191">another article about Svenson</a>, the photographer likened what he did to the work of bird photographers. [“<em>I am not unlike the birder, quietly waiting for hours, watching for the flutter of a hand or the movement of a curtain as an indication that there is life within</em>.”] I find that to be an absurd comparison. I have far more respect for someone who simply says, "This is what I do" and leaves it at that. If one feels the need to defend, rationalize, or apologize for their work, they may well be working in the wrong genre. </p>

 

[DickArnold]

<p>I found both threads absorbing except for the one line put downs in this thread. Other than that this is the kind of thread that I think is better in photonet than any other site that I visit. Dani, I think this exemplifies the type of question that provokes thoughtful and enlightening discussion. I agree with Fred G. I have done a few pictures of homeless. Not a lot. These have been with the cooperation of the subjects. We made friends at least for the time we were with each other. I never have posted any of those pictures anywhere. I treasure one I took in Paris with a very happy inebriate who had just received enough money to replace his current supply. We sat on the curb together enjoying each others company despite language differences while he polished off his current bottle of cheap red wine. But I alone treasure it because I liked him and he liked me. Now I know that buying him more wine does nothing to help him but sometimes all any of us have is the moment we live in. Our little encounter reminded me that "there but for the grace of God go I." I just think I have been lucky and he wasn't. I framed his picture to remind me where I could have easily been. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, I take Svenson's comparison to bird photography to be in terms of methodology (at least going by the words you quoted) and not necessarily to be any sort of moral comparison, defense, or rationalization. Perhaps more context for the quote would give us a sense of things.</p>

<p>In principle, however, I agree with you that being honest about what I do, certainly to myself, often serves me well. Sometimes, I can't be honest at the time and will only gain some perspective after the fact or with a bit of distance.</p>

<p>I find the voyeuristic aspect of what Svenson did interesting and compelling enough and my moral sensibilities aren't offended by it. Having lived in and now often visiting NYC, I'm pretty well aware of the amount of windows facing mine in any given location and wouldn't be surprised to find another pair of eyes on what I'm doing if my curtains are left open enough to make that a possibility, and especially if I had expansive windows with no coverings at all, which is the case with a bunch of Svenson's photos.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Steve, any judge can also write an equally thoughtful opinion to the contrary while complying with the law, and that's often the pervasive contradiction encountered when weighing rights against moralities, ethics and the law. </p>

<p>Consider the case of murder vs. attempted murder - the law considers attempted murder with greater leniency yet they are morally and ethically identical by the perpetrator's intention with the only difference being the outcome. Should the perpetrator be punished for his intention rather than the actual harm caused by his crime? What if an attempted murder caused a victim lifelong suffering worse than death; should the perpetrator's punishment be equally worse than death? </p>

<p>As you've concluded, I concur that we can only find our own truths and conduct ourselves within personal moral and ethical bounds.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Fred -- I find Svenson's work interesting as well. When I say "distasteful" I mean it in the sense of being something that would be distasteful for me to engage in. Perhaps "a sense of unease" would be a better way to put it. That doesn't mean I can't look at it dispassionately. I find that Sally Mann's photographs of her pre-adolescent children also gives me a certain unease. But, as we both know, art is not always about that which is uplifting, comfortable, and "pretty". And with or without permission, one could say that much of the work of Ed Templeton, Larry Clark, Bruce Davidson, Diane Arbus, et al, shows people in compromised positions. I absolutely love Davidson's photo "<a href="http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_89028_303864_bruce-davidson.jpg">The Dwarf</a>" and many others in the carnival/circus series he did. Distasteful? Compromising? Exploitive? We all have to make our own determinations. (I think Dani was referring more to the work that posters here on PN do, but it is hard <em>not</em> to expand the consideration beyond PN.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Steve, any judge can also write an equally thoughtful opinion to the contrary while complying with the law, and that's often the pervasive contradiction encountered when weighing rights against moralities, ethics and the law.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael -- Sorry, I missed your post while I was responding to Fred. Yes, any judge might have written an opinion to the contrary, but wouldn't you agree that there is a preponderance of legal decisions in the US which seem to give broad latitude to "artists" in cases such as this? It's another topic altogether, but appropriated art and mash-ups are also given a broader latitude than some people seem to realize.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, I was curious to get a little more context for the quote you provided. In several stories I read about Svenson, I didn't get a sense that he was into providing much moral justification for what he did. While he does say, briefly, that he felt winning the case was a victory for artistic expression, he doesn't spend a whole lot of time discussing the morality issue. The few quotes I could find, rather, describe his philosophical or aesthetic outlook, which I also find interesting.</p>

<p><em>"I find the unrehearsed, unconscious aspects of life the most beautiful to photograph, as they are most open to interpretation, to a narrative. A dramatic moment has the single power of action, but tiny, linked moments are how we mark time on this earth – I am much more interested in recording the breath between words than I am the actual words themselves." </em><strong>—Svenson</strong></p>

<p>Now it is true that sometimes artist's words seem self-serving and/or needlessly oblique. I don't find that to be the case here. His thoughts are salient and I would imagine many of us can relate to them. The way he explores this may be objectionable to some, but he seems to have a genuine outlook about things that certainly suggests a sincere human interest and sense of the small moment and its value.</p>

<p><strong>Steve:</strong> <em>"Perhaps a sense of unease would be a better way to put it."</em></p>

<p>Bingo! Here's what Johnny Weeks wrote in The Guardian about this:</p>

<p><em>"They are truthful, artistic representations of life which possess a subtle theatricality (a characteristic evident throughout his practice). That the chosen moments are so acutely observed makes them disturbing. Indeed, the mere sensation that we are being looked upon is, as Jean-Paul Sartre concluded, enough to haunt us."</em></p>

<p>Creating and exploring unease, IMO, is one of the more noble functions of art, and has been throughout history. It is through and with awareness of the look of the other that so much of our sense of self develops and so much existential energy is expended. That includes our own fears of actually being seen, and being seen unprotected by our own masks.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Fred, thanks and bravo! for finding those words by Svenson. You are quite right in imagining that many of us can relate to them. You know how "airy-fairy" I can sometimes be, so his comment -- "<em>I am much more interested in recording the breath between words than I am the actual words themselves." -- </em>resonates quite strongly with my own outlook. </p>

<p>I also have to agree with your observations on exploring unease. </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Photographers photograph what the this world reveals to them.</p>

<p>They seek a truth.</p>

<p>If there is a Sin, then the Sin would be to hide that truth.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Having participated in a war I am, I think, quite sensitive to the impact of what I do to others. I am not a subscriber to the attitude of the hell with the subjects because I am righteous in what I do. I think Svenson was an intruder. He has the freedom to intrude as long as the intrusion is deemed legal. But my approach to street people is that they are humans as I am. As I said earlier, I have had enough trouble in my life to not only empathize but sympathize with those who are down and out. I would only use pictures of that ilk if there were agreement between us that that would be ok. The consent should be mutual. I worked for a newspaper and I did my level best not to disadvantage people in my pictures. I was born in a country where there is a lot of opportunity. That is an accident of birth not of my doing. I have made a decent wage. Many are not so fortunate. I have lived in two of three different countries outside the US where there are not the same opportunities. I am grateful for what I have but to quote a line from the musical Miss Saigon "they all are human too". That musical dealt with the children American GIs left behing in Viet Nam. I would say same the same thing for street people, "they all are human too." And they should be treated as if they are human when being photographed.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>" I am not a subscriber to the attitude of the hell with the subjects because I am righteous in what</p>

<p>It is not about the hell with the subjects but the hell that is being perpetuated on them. Perhaps that should be hidden not wanting to upset some folks sensibilities.</p>

<p>The more open and revealing society is the better.</p>

<p>I am not talking about exploiting subjects with a £xxxx camera for personnel sadness of soul.</p>

<p>But the truth of the world should not be hidden in a shroud. Sort of like all those folks taken to death camps without a photograph being taken of their suffering.</p>

<p>But then their sensibilities were being protected by the good and righteous.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>The way the truth is for some folks their reality...</p><div></div>

[DickArnold]

<p>Allen a great point. The death camps of WWII have critical photo documentation providing historical evidence of those horrible truths. I think photographers both film and video did a great service in exposing the tragedies in Viet Nam and in our later adventures. However that doesn't equate with invading privacy through someone's bedroom window and justifying it as exposing some valuable truth. Nor does equate with degrading street people to shame them more than they are already shamed. I admire Nachtwey and his ilk for documenting our current wars. All I am really saying is that if I want to go shoot prostitutes, the addicted, the drunks no matter their station in life that I respect them as human beings. As others have said I should recognize them as human beings and try and protect their dignity while trying tell a story. That's a somewhat compelling picture you posted but what's his story? Did you talk to him or try to communicate? I did some street work in Russia in the early nineties and I lived the story in 1991 during a cold winter food shortage as I lost weight along with the rest of them. There is a fine undefined line between expository photography and exploitation which is not well established, I think, in jurisprudence. Allen, I think we agree in principle. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Something I find of value in assessing photos of people in "compromised" positions is looking at the <em>photos</em>, which can be as or more telling than judging the actions or intentions of the photographer, whom I rarely know well enough to judge. Someone might find the actions of Svenson questionable or even deplorable and might still see in the photos themselves a kind of benign and light-hearted style, with a bit of mystery thrown in and, perhaps most importantly, very few faces that could be said to be recognizable. One can deduce from the photographer's actions and the many articles written that the subjects' privacy has been invaded, but I hardly see much revelation of the subjects <em>per se</em> in the photos. The people actually don't seem to be the subject of these photos.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, I may hear the best of intentions expressed by photographers who photograph homeless people or people otherwise down on their luck and there's no reason not to accept those noble intentions at face value. Yet I often see in the resulting photos, despite the best of intentions, exploitation or at least objectification. The photos often tend to become more of a type than something individualized or humanized, and that has as much to do with the tried-and-true "homeless" style adopted as with anything else. Such exploitation often comes in the form of a sort of visual overlay of pathos, the lighting, the dire tones, the pitiable expression, even the more stripped down and seemingly obligatory black and white portrayal, the often motionless, almost stone-like bearing of the subject of many of these photos under the peering eye of even the most caring and sincere of photographers. <br /> <br /> Intention, motivation, the morality of the photographer and the photographic act, take us only so far. The photo often transcends all that, though all that still doesn't have to be beside the point.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>If my intentions matched my actual pictures I would be far better photographer than I am today. Fred I don't think you mean that a good photograph justifies bad behavior, do you?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>No. I don't. I mean that a good photo can be appreciated as a good photo despite whatever behavior led to its making. (Leni Riefenstahl's come to mind as one extreme case. Her photos don't justify her complicity in the Nazi propaganda machine and certainly don't justify the unshown actions of those portrayed. But neither do their propagandistic function or the murderous actions of her subjects nullify the artistic merit of the photos and films, IMO.) Just as a bad photo can be a bad photo despite whatever behavior went into it. On an aesthetic level and as an appreciator of photos, I'm more inclined to look at the photos than worry about the behaviors behind them. Which is not to say aesthetics are strictly amoral by any means. In the case of Svenson's photos and the homeless photos I view, I can see the complete photo before me and judge the photo based on what I see within the confines of the frame. His behavior is read about, has often been written about by people with various agendas, and not known to me on a first-hand basis like the photo is. Now, of course there are cases where photos point to the behavior behind them as the most salient part and I'd look at those somewhat differently. I don't look at the photos from Abu Ghraib, for example, for their aesthetic value. Those photos are all and, to me, only about the behavior portrayed and the behavior of those taking them as well as those overseeing the behavior. Svenson's photos, to me, are about much more than his own behavior in taking them, just as are most photos of homeless people about much more than the photographer's behavior in taking them.</p>

<p>[And, by the way, I don't necessarily accept the view that says Svenson engaged in <strong>bad</strong> behavior.]</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Myself: <em>"I mean that a good photo can be appreciated as a good photo </em><strong><em>despite</em></strong><em> whatever behavior led to its making."</em></p>

<p>I should explain this further. It's not just "despite." I don't simply ignore the behavior, in this case Svenson's voyeurism. But I don't let my judgment of it get in the way of processing its relationship to the message of the photos. I can simply say Svenson did the wrong thing and leave it at that. Or I can see all of us do the wrong things at times and yet we can produce some good things out of all that. He's willing to publicly admit to and show the kind of snoopery through others' windows that is routinely performed by the imperfect citizens of NY and every other city. And he's willing to engage in it to explore something personally meaningful to him. (Turns out it was legal, so he's got a leg up there.) Same with Ms. Riefenstahl. I don't look at her photos and completely dismiss or ignore, just because I think her photos are good, the bad behavior of her subjects or her own bad behavior in participating in Nazi promotion. Yet, despite or even because of my judgments about her actions and the actions of her subjects, I am able to weave that evil into the plot of the photos themselves and those photos take on an extraordinary kind of meaning because of all of it, as do Svenson's because of his own voyeurism. None of these photos are about prettiness or entertainment. They're not easy. That's why I can appreciate them so much. I like an emotional, as well as a moral, challenge.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Photographing "the homeless" isn't always exploitative or mere idle curiosity. And even if the photographer had no clearly altruistic motivation, that doesn't mean the result can't be positive. Note the following recent story. While the photographer was a photojournalist on assignment, it could just as well have been a street photographer who posted the same thing to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Google+, Flickr or a personal blog - and the outcome may well have been identical. The photo could have been picked up and circulated until the family saw it.</p>

<p>That's why I'll choose my own ethics, but won't impose them as gospel on anyone else.</p>

 

<hr />

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/us/new-york-photo-missing-man/index.html?hpt=hp_c2"><strong>Photo helps New York family find missing son</strong></a><br /> By Haley Draznin and Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN<br /> updated 7:53 AM EST, Tue January 7, 2014<br>

(CNN) -- A young man huddles under a thick gray blanket, pressed against a steam grate as he braces himself against the biting cold.<br>

While on assignment over the weekend, an Associated Press photographer took his photo to show the effects of unusually cold weather sweeping across the country.<br>

The man, who only gave his first name -- Nick -- was a face in a crowd of homeless people huddling to stay warm on a Washington street, just blocks from the U.S. Capitol.<br>

But all that changed when the photograph appeared in USA Today Sunday.</p>

</blockquote>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Her photos don't justify her complicity"</p>

<p>Yes, they do.</p>

<p>Her photographs supported Nazi propaganda....that simple.</p>

<p>The person who pulled the lever on the gas chamber was only doing a job.</p>

<p>Of course neither of them really understood the mass murder which was taking place. Of course they did not... why would anyone think otherwise.</p>

<p>Innocents.</p>

<p>I wonder if she actually took any photographs of families taken away to be mass murdered in the most degrading way.</p>

<p>After all she was, supposed to be, a Photographer and to some a wonderful Artist with her cliché photographs. </p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>" However that doesn't equate with invading privacy through someone's bedroom window"</p>

<p>Only the sad and lost would do that.</p>

<p>"The photo of a drunken on the floor, the homeless carrying all his belonging in a supermarket cart, and so on."</p>

<p>They are part of life why hide it.</p>

<p>To exploited them for personnel satisfaction or financial gain is pretty disgusting. </p>

<p>But "a truth" revealed should never be hidden.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>We are all voyeurists. Hitchcock in his movies took advantage of that truth. (both in Rear Window and in the opening scene of Psycho for two examples) Jimmy Stewart snooping on the lithe dancer and Miss Lonelyhearts and the scene of a gruesome murder across the courtyard. And yep, he was a photographer with a bird lens, (who had the greatest model in the world to at the time visiting him, Grace Kelly). Is it not self important to think one can decide what universal truth is worth taking advantage of the disadvantaged. Or what documentation is going to be above reproach. It does come down to a case by case basis I expect, per Bob. I have done it myself, shoot down and out . Never thought about it much until some of the discussions. Now will weigh it more and give some credit to Dick's offset idea strategy evaluation particularly.</p>

[jodys]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=499395">Allen Herbert</a> , Jan 21, 2014; 05:53 p.m.<br>

"The photo of a drunken on the floor, the homeless carrying all his belonging in a supermarket cart, and so on."<br>

They are part of life why hide it.<br>

To exploited them for personnel satisfaction or financial gain is pretty disgusting.<br>

But "a truth" revealed should never be hidden.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>I have been struggling with this, because the statements Allen is responding to show certain assumptions about homelessness that are no longer valid (if they ever were). The vast majority of homeless persons, in 2014, are not homeless because they're drunks or mentally ill. There are tens of thousands, perhaps millions, of persons (and families) who are couch-surfing, sleeping in cars or cheap motels when they can scrape the cash together or living in tent cities, for purely economic reasons. They have lost their jobs & their houses, they used to be middle class, and now they're homeless. In some areas, 10% of school children are homeless. And their story needs to be told. They should not be brushed out of photos or out of the public consciousness. Photographing them is part of telling their story, not exploitation.</p>

<p>In a sense though, the traditional (and exploitative) photo of the homeless pushing a shopping cart or drunk in the street serves to reinforce stereotypes about the homeless, contributes to the active dismissal of this new class of homeless persons.</p>