Interesting Case

Norma Desmond · April 13, 2015

he did so based on his interpretation of law rather than his sense of decency

</blockquote>

I'm content not to be dictated to by others' sense of decency. If I were to be ruled by what others deemed decent (including a fair amount of legislators and judges), I wouldn't even be allowed to do behind closed doors what I want. Honestly, "sense of decency" sounds like just another mainstream standard whereby American society's ever-growing sense of Puritanism can be kept alive and encouraged.

Can't we even consider that the photographer in question had intentions that were not prurient or sexually deviant? Where's the empathy for a fellow photographer's curiosity and interest in capturing everyday gestures? Why do we refuse to take his own words at face value? Are they not born out by his photos, if we bother to actually consider the photos?

Take another look at the pictures, the full body of work. Don't reduce it to the rear-end of one woman, which is the photo that seems to have caught YOUR eye out of all of these! Then come back and tell me these photos are sexual or suggest the photographer was a "peeping tom" more than a curious guy with an unobstructed view of his neighbors. I'm not saying you have to like these pictures, but the charges leveled at the photographer go beyond what's there. Living in an apt. in NYC can be a fascinating thing because of proximity to so many neighbors at once. In many settings, you can easily hear the fights of others, neighbors having sex, neighbors talking in the shower, even neighbors going to the bathroom and passing gas. You see all kinds of things in windows directly opposite to you. That some photographer or artist might choose to express that does not make him a deviant or, if he is a deviant, then I applaud that kind of deviation from what normally appears, say, in the PN top photos: more boring saturated landscapes and pics of old people with wrinkles and sweet water lilies. IMO, anyone seeing overt sexuality or the expressions of a "peeping tom" in Arne Svenson's work here is telling us more about themselves than about the photos. Any peeping tom worth the appellation would have had a whole different approach to these photos and the photos would be a lot more charged sexually than they are. And, if the curtains were open to him, they'd be just as legal and just as worthwhile a photographic expression, even with a whole lot more sexuality to them.

The righteous indignation and fear of fabricated sexual predatorship in this thread is a lot more regrettable to me than a guy with a camera taking somewhat benign pics of his neighbors through clearly visible and wide open windows.

jordan2240 · April 13, 2015

Fred,

I'm not sure where in my comment you inferred I was referring to anything sexual. The woman with here rear in the air stood out because it was featured in the article and a shot I think most women would be embarrassed by. My point with regard to a 'sense of decency' was based on the appellate court's statement that the behavior was somewhat disturbing (i.e. secretly photographing people inside their homes), not with regard to the behavior being photographed. The content of the shots doesn't matter, nor, to me, does the right of the public to be treated to what some might consider 'art.'

What if the shots were never taken? Is society missing out? Who's rights are more important - those of the individual(s) being photographed or the photographer? Where do we give up our right to privacy - only when we are completely closed off to the rest of the world, or elsewhere?

Those are the questions I believe the issue raises, and while I couldn't care less who photographs me and where I am when they do it, I can surely understand why others would, and believe it is reasonable to expect privacy inside our own homes (assuming we aren't breaking any laws).

I do have a related question - if he sells any of the photos, do the rules change?

Norma Desmond · April 13, 2015

I'm not sure where in my comment you inferred I was referring to anything sexual.

</blockquote>

My comments were initially directed to your "sense of decency" phrase and much of the rest of my post was directed to people participating in this thread in general. The term "peeping tom" has been used often and repeatedly in this thread and "peeping tom-ism" is usually used to refer to someone getting sexual gratification at looking at others surreptitiously. Yes, I know the article singled out the photo of the woman's rear-end. That's what articles do, especially when they want their headlines to garner attention. But looking at the more full body of work should help put a context to that one photo and should put that photo and the photographer's series into perspective. It's not a series about women's body parts, though that one photo taken in isolation and used as the article uses it can be very misleading. As has been stated, if privacy is a concern, then reasonable actions, like having and closing curtains or blinds, should be taken, especially in a city like NYC, to make sure one gets it at home when it's wanted. I live on a San Francisco street that has a bus running down it, at half hour intervals. I'm aware that people from that bus, which slows down near my house because the bus stop is on the corner, can see into my windows at night. There are times I care about having privacy and times I don't. When I do, I close my blinds. In a million years, I wouldn't expect that in this day and age, people might not look through my windows and even take pictures if they saw something they deemed interesting. If I still lived in NY, opposite other people's windows, I would think it eminently reasonable (perhaps necessary) to have curtains on my windows if I expected privacy in my home.

_________________________________________

Not everything has to boil down to a matter of "rights", the rights of the individual photographer, for example, vs. the right of others to privacy. If we just used common sense, a lot would go smoothly. Most people know to have curtains on their windows if they want privacy in their homes. Closing them doesn't amount to boarding themselves up. It just requires a quick swing of the arm. Curtains can also add color and softness to a room!

jordan2240 · April 13, 2015

The problem with common sense is it's subjective. To me, common sense would dictate you don't take pictures of people inside their homes. But then, I'm also rather sheepish about taking shots of strangers in public as well (unless it's a crowd or I'm documenting an event), feeling that I'm in some way violating their personal space by doing so. Obviously wouldn't make much of a street photographer.

Brad_ · April 13, 2015

>>> The problem with common sense is it's subjective. To me, common sense would dictate you don't take

pictures of people inside their homes.

Agree. Also, for me, having an empathic view with respect to fellow humans, thinking about how people in their home might feel about being photographed surreptitiously, would carry a lot of weight.

As a photographer I know I have many rights, and as a street photographer I employ them regularly on the street. But that doesn't mean I'm required to use them in all situations.

Norma Desmond · April 13, 2015

Bill, if common sense were subjective, it wouldn't be called common. I'm not talking about subjectivity, I'm talking about what most people do. Common sense is shared. Subjectivity is individual. Common sense and subjectivity, actually, are sort of opposites! Most people in NY who care about not being seen doing private things through their windows draw their curtains. That's fairly common behavior and seems to serve most people quite well. People who do this don't generally run the risk of having photographers across the way taking pictures of them. Not everyone does it, of course, but it's a COMMON practice. It's not subjective and it's not a matter of opinion. It's what a lot of people do. We can argue whether the plaintiffs were truly outraged or were ironically willing to call more attention to themselves as the subjects of the faceless photos in order to file a lawsuit and get some money. And we can argue whether the photographer overstepped his moral bounds by photographing people in their own home. Or we can draw a curtain and leave the courts and everyone else out of it. This photographer did push some boundaries and thought out of the box, something paid lip service to here on PN but often not embraced in any real sort of way. I remember the old WEEKLY DISCUSSIONS, when that famous photo of the woman jumping out of the hotel window was posted. Lots of people felt that photo should never have been taken. Photography, as much as being about pleasantries and beautiful landscapes, is also about realities we don't always want to face or think about. It can be a good thing when it makes us uncomfortable or challenges our notions of privacy and even decorum. Arbus, Serrano, Jock Sturges, Larry Clark, Nan Goldin, and many others have all had to face accusations by the behavior and aesthetic regulation and acceptance crowd. I'm glad some photographers are willing to act outside of the prevailing norms and run the risk of being called all sorts of names by all sorts of normative-seeking folks.

”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.” --Ben Franklin

charleswood · April 13, 2015

Bill Jordan: "...I can't help but feel there was an invasion of privacy here."

The appellate judges in their written opinion agree with you, agree that there was an invasion of privacy

"...the invasion of privacy of one’s home that took place here is not actionable...because the defendant’s use of the images in question constituted art work" [the author of the article goes on to say]..."as opposed to used for advertising or trade."

</blockquote>

So as to where the judges drew the line in deciding there was an invasion of privacy: would have to look for that determination in their written opinion.

Bill Jordan "I do have a related question - if he sells any of the photos, do the rules change?"

Would seem to depend on the facts in and surrounding the contract for the sale of any of the photos. For example, if the contract of sale had The National Enquirer as the buyer, that use may be actionable use as far as the subjects of the photographs are concerned. If the contract of sale had as the buyer the Annenberg Space for Photography, that use may not be actionable.

jordan2240 · April 13, 2015

In my experience, Fred, one man's 'common sense' can be another man's 'nonsense.' Raise any of the issues with emotional hotspots like 'gun control,' 'abortion,' 'the death penalty,' 'gay marriage,' and even 'privacy,' and you'll find various opinions on what constitutes 'common sense.'

I don't disagree that the photos are interesting. Whether the photographer was thinking 'outside' the box, I don't know. Perhaps he was merely spying on people, and was audacious enough to make the shots part of an exhibit.

I also don't disagree that pulling the shades provides a greater guarantee you won't be photographed inside your home, but is that where we've come as a society - where anything and everything is open for public display unless you make a concerted effort to keep it from being so? One lesson I always tried to teach my kids is that treating people with respect should be their default mode. I feel similarly about privacy in this instance, particularly when someone is in the confines of her own home.. The photo of the jumping woman is a bit different because she made her act public. I suppose you can argue the subjects of these photos did the same by not concealing themselves behind shades (though you can't really expect children to anticipate being photographed in their home), and perhaps you'd be right, but for me, it goes back to the issue of, not normalcy, but respect.

To paraphrase what Brad stated, just because you have the right doesn't mean you're doing right.

charleswood · April 13, 2015

Bill Jordan " To me, common sense would dictate you don't take pictures of people inside their homes."

What if the photographer is inside some people's home taking candid pictures? In a sense, not drawing the blinds isn't much different than inviting someone inside, IMHO.

jordan2240 · April 13, 2015

Charles,

To me there's a difference between being invited inside a home to take pictures and taking pictures of the inside of a home through the windows uninvited.

What if I'm on the 12th floor of a hotel, and I toss off my clothes in the bedroom to go hit the shower, not thinking to close the shades, and someone in a room in an adjacent hotel who has visibility of my room and just happened to be scoping the area with a camera and telephoto lens snaps a shot of me? Am I fair game for becoming part of a photo exhibit?

Several years ago I was visiting Hollywood California. I was on the balcony of a building, and snapped a shot of some very nice cleavage as a young (but legal as far as I could tell) girl passed below me. I immediately felt a bit guilty about it, but given I had no intention of doing anything with the shot other than filing it in the photo album documenting my trip, I kept it (and, after all, it was rather representative of that area.) It would not have occurred to me to make a public exhibition of it, though perhaps the gal would have liked that, and perhaps I even had a right to do it within the realm of 'street photography.' Now, just because I wouldn't feel comfortable doing something doesn't make it wrong, but what IS the 'common sense' approach here? I realize it's a moot point because the decision has already been made from a legal standpoint, but it makes for an interesting discussion nonetheless, for me at least.

charleswood · April 13, 2015

Right, you can be invited into a home to take some pictures and in doing so take some candid shots, candid shots for which you weren't specifically given permission to take. Someone sitting on the pot with the bathroom door wide open, for example: use is fair game depending on the type of use apparently. If the bathroom door was open just an inch as opposed to being wide open? What circumstances make something actionable as opposed to just being offensive to our sense of decorum? I don't know really.

Norma Desmond · April 13, 2015

What if I'm on the 12th floor of a hotel, and I toss off my clothes in the bedroom to go hit the shower, not thinking to close the shades, and someone in a room in an adjacent hotel who has visibility of my room and just happened to be scoping the area with a camera and telephoto lens snaps a shot of me? Am I fair game for becoming part of a photo exhibit?

</blockquote>

In my mind, yes. (I've never seen a picture of you so I'm not sure I'd personally want to see the exhibit!) It was asked above how we would feel if a neighbor in a window opposite to us was staring at us all day long. My first thought was to half jokingly but half seriously say that if he were cute, I'd invite him over. And I honestly would. I don't take people's sexualizing me as a necessarily negative thing. Those kinds of furtive looks and stolen glances can be quite fun, erotic, and significant. They can, of course, also be nefarious. Caveat emptor. If I didn't like the way he was looking at me, I'd . . . here it comes again . . . close the curtains and be done with him. If he did something illegal or threatening, I'd call the cops.

Is there a point where we start taking ourselves and these questions too seriously? I think so. TV shows from Sex and the City to others and quite a few movies have had episodes or scenes where people see each other through their facing apartment windows and wind up having sex with each other or even wind up becoming romantically involved. This does go on in real life. And these people are treating each other with respect, believe it or not. Not everything is my Grandmother's storybook and clean-cut engagement. People have prurient interests (and, as I say, whether Svenson did is not clear) and they act on them. It's reality. We're allowed to look at other people naked when they're in view and we're allowed to be turned on by that. Many are, whether they would admit it to others or not. If you take a picture of it and can make it artistically relevant, more power to you.

As far as empathy and respectability, many people judged Arbus to be disrespectful at first and lacking in empathy for her subjects. As far as I'm concerned, they couldn't have been further from the truth. Once what Arbus was doing caught on, she became famous and her work became acceptable and the accusations, for the most part, stopped. That's a typical pattern when it comes to people who TRULY think outside the box. They are derided until the context changes enough that they become safe enough to be respected. Respectability is often just a matter of a herd mentality and an acceptance of the already-existing rules.

Brad_ · April 13, 2015

>>> Is there a point where we start taking ourselves and these questions too seriously?

Is there a point where we fail to think about, consider, and try to feel how other persons might feel about

being photographed surreptitiously in their home? Yes, when one so easily lets *their* rights trump

empathic consideration of others.

jordan2240 · April 13, 2015

Fred, I don't think I'd want to see an exhibit of me in the buff, though I doubt I'd give anyone nightmares anyway.

I think 'respect' is a cultural matter, but is generally universally understood within the culture. I certainly don't see it as a heard mentality issue. If 'common sense' is standard, then I think 'respect' is even more so, though what is considered respectful and disrespectful can change over time. I just can't imagine taking uninvited photos through someone's window would ever be respectful and certainly not necessary, and hopefully not a social norm. Intent, on the other hand, can be misinterpreted, thereby making something perhaps seem disrespectful that was not. No one but this photographer knows what his was - though I still think seeking permission to exhibit the photos would have been the proper action.

GerrySiegel · April 13, 2015

I don't know. The closer people live, the more we have to use caution about how we photograph them inside their homes. It may not be unlawful, but it is unseemly even when done with sensitivity and some benign motive. Well, anyway, I would not do it even for artistic or documentary measures. There have been shows, with subject consent, where we got to look into the private lives of people and frankly private lives are pretty dull. Reality TV is not Reality....it is fantasy choreographed... Photographers who want to document this sort of thing without consent do not win my respect, that is me and I am old fashioned on such things.

Shooting may not go so far as documenting with a hidden video of ladies in a ritual bath, a real extreme that one with dark motives, but even this case istarts to make one squirm...from the subjects point of view, uninformed and exposed to a public. I would suggest that Japan, a small country with tight quarters has precise norms for so much behavior just because of tight proximity. Expectation of privacy trumps photographic "freedom" in my view.

But on the other hand we have mixed thoughts. (To stray quite aways from the subject , If a women wears a plunging neckline dress, we are considered ill bred if our eyes stay fixed on her bosom, when we are close, does it not. In a photo it is acceptable and expectable to coin a word. )

I am glad there is disagreement, such an unsettled topic. Always going to be tension. As the topic says, an Interesting Case.

movingfinger · April 13, 2015

If you view a purpose, perhaps even a definition of 'art', as stuff that makes people think and question, the w/o a doubt the responses on this thread indicate that Arne's work qualifies as 'art'. As I stated in an early post, I see no problem with what the photographer has done, even if some of the subject's of his work take offense. Regarding the offense taken by some of the subjects, here are some question for those who think that trumps the works display.

Photography is instantaneous and thus much more vulnerable to such offense by the subject depicted, but suppose Arne Svenson were instead a painter with a reasonably good memory and saw some particular scene in an apartment window - to include people - and painted it, say in a very precise style. Would this painting raise the same sorts of privacy concerns and objections? Should it?

I greatly admire the street photography and the documentary photography of the 20th century. I think we've probably all seen photographs of NYC (and other city) tenement scenes with dozens of faces in windows, in yards, etc, and surely permission was not given by all, probably even any, of the faces (not just rear ends) in the image. Since these are now historic, most likely all the people shown are dead, are these OK? Were they OK one year after the photographs were shot, when many of the subject still lived in the same tenements? Suppose Arne had waited and these photographs appeared in an exhibit 50 years from how, depicting life in NYC in 201X, just like the tenement photos depict life in NYC in 19XX, will they be OK then? If not, do you find those photographs from the 20th century to be likewise an invasion of privacy and objectionable and perhaps they too should be censored?

Norma Desmond · April 13, 2015

Good points, John. I was also thinking about the many important documentaries about homeless people (as well as the many unimportant snaps of homeless people). We consider the insightful ones of social significance, whether or not the homeless people gave their permission to be photographed. And many amateur photographers feel perfectly comfortable photographing homeless people as a personal observation and expression. Well, the fact is homeless people, for the most part, can't afford to have the privacy a home affords. So their vulnerability and inability to afford the privacy of a home seems to make it OK for anyone who wants to photograph them and they have no defense against that such as a curtain or a window blind. The rich folks who live in this new luxury high rise with floor to ceiling windows, on the other hand, can afford homes and curtains and yet complain about being photographed when on view in front of their uncovered windows. Something's off about that picture, to me. How many of the folks living in the highrise have looked at photos of homeless people and experienced the requisite pathos for the plight of homeless people without ever thinking of the homeless person's lack of ability to afford themselves not just window treatments but homes themselves? As they look at and feel compassion for the homeless people in those photos, are they considering that they are doing exactly what they're suggesting has been done to them?

Brad_ · April 13, 2015

>>> Well, the fact is homeless people, for the most part, can't afford to have the privacy a home affords. So their

vulnerability and inability to afford the privacy of a home seems to make it OK for anyone who wants to photograph them

and they have no defense against that such as a curtain or a window blind. The rich folks who live in this new luxury high

rise with floor to ceiling windows, on the other hand, can afford homes and curtains and yet complain about being

photographed when on view in front of their uncovered windows. Something's off about that picture, to me.

It's not about windows or blinds. You've crafted an odd scenario to fit your position, where there's a lack of empathy in the

first situation, and, in the second situation, because you cast the people as rich (squinting ones eyes with a little sneer

helps), you portray them as complainers and less worthy of empathic consideration being photographed surepititiously.

What if they were merely middle class or poor? There's nothing wrong with treating all people with respect and dignity.

>>> As they look at and feel compassion for the homeless people in those photos, are they considering that they are doing exactly what they're suggesting has been done to them?

What? It appears a case is being made that most rich people in towers look at pictures of the homeless. And with that synthetic scenario, they should feel ok about being photographed surepititiously?

GerrySiegel · April 13, 2015

It isn't about art if by art we drop constraints about who and when we photograph. This is not the first time we face shoot or don't shoot dilemmas.... It isn't even about motives, they can be pure as you like. The idea of no privacy from the camera in someone's home is getting to George Orwell 1984. Not quite, but window peeping to document private lives irks. How would you feel if you were the subject, and it got all over the place even with faces blocked out, but other tidbits bare.

( So If we want to tap someone's phone we need a warrant. Maybe we should have a warrant to shoot photos of them living their private lives as they wish to live it. In their undies or with the house messy..)...

Stretching of points to confirm our personal strong held views? Maybe natural? Debater tactic. Useful try. The homeless are fair game and if they are then we are hypocrites? Uh uh. Not for me. I do not shoot vagrants nor people sleeping in doorways. And I am careful with street photos, and I do not chase ambulances. Or use super tele lenses to catch an indiscretion of a public person..

To me that is tacky and mostly artless. Better go take pictures of tent dwellers living in refugee camps. But even then I would ask permission. They share a right in their makeshift homes to the privacy of a home and I respect their humanity that way.. I think that is the most defensible position.

Even if legally not a crime.

But I can see both sides. And that is not a wishy washy answer because it depends a lot on the way and the time and the situation. High minded motives, or artistic license a defense? Hardly. But I have not seen the whole exhibit, how it is presented and purpose and its messages in real life. Someone is upset. I think I would be. Maybe not.

I meanI could change my mind. Nothing written so far is persuasive enough. Softening of stand I do once in a while on moral questions. I am treating it as a moral question with stake as big as we want to project. Or, which is the lesser evil or the greater good.

I am coming down on Brad's side so far.

Norma Desmond · April 14, 2015

It isn't about art if by art we drop constraints about who and when we photograph.

</blockquote>

Gerry, consider Arbus again. She was the first photographer to shoot a population which had previously remained pretty faceless in terms of being subjects of photographs and series. She dropped existing constraints about who she photographed, thankfully, because now we have an honest document of her recognition of a community about which the world, at that time, remained mostly ignorant and mute. Contrary to what I think you're expressing, I think photographers and artists have historically been very much about dropping constraints about the who, the what, and the when of photographing. Until Mapplethorpe came along, for example, the degree of homoeroticism and shows of male S&M practices were very much taboo. He helped society get over that or at least confronted society with something that had remained unseen up until then. Sure, now it's safer to look back at Arbus and Mapplethorpe and say what they did was a good thing. At least I would certainly say that, as it increased awareness and raised consciousness. But at the time, I can just hear the "old fashioned" people decrying what was being done.

John Petro is right when he says that the best art makes us think, discuss, and question (and disagree). And I appreciate that you also seem very open to an honest discussion and sincere disagreements. I'm generally more interested in photographers who can stimulate this kind of discussion and push us to consider such moral questions than I am of the more benign yet universally accepted photographers who can shoot a pretty sunset or flower. Earlier, you said you were "old fashioned on such things." I appreciate that and agree and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having old fashioned values, especially if you recognize them as such. Perhaps our difference comes from the fact that I don't think of myself as old fashioned or traditional, at least in a lot of ways. So I'm often willing to expand acceptable notions of morality and decorum. I'm willing to consider some of the downsides to things we generally take for granted as something positive, like privacy. I think the assertion of privacy is very often a detriment to understanding each other and sharing in many ways.

We live more and more in isolated ways, watching more and more movies at home on tv, riding the bus without engaging with others in person but instead texting or reading on our cell phones, Americans asserting their so-called "rugged individualism" and referring to most things that are community-oriented as socialism or worse. We live behind our private walls and share with each other less and less. When I grew up, in the summer in my NYC apartment building, we would leave our doors wide open and neighbors would pass by and look in and sometimes even stop in to say hello. I didn't fear my neighbors who took an interest in me. I enjoyed the camaraderie. I can't say for sure how I would have felt about being photographed by a neighbor passing by. But maybe these pictures of Svenson show us that we all look somewhat similar when our faces are turned away and we're doing everyday things in the privacy of our own home. Maybe, in some ways, if seen in a certain light, we could allow these photos to bring us closer together in realizing how silly it is to be so protective of the privacy to recline on a couch and watch tv. I think it might be better for society if we allowed our private lives to be exposed more, not less. That may seem odd but it's honestly how I feel and I don't mind expressing it. I'd have to talk to Svenson to know exactly the kind of guy he is and the type of empathy he has for others and what his thoughts are about this work. But I can certainly see a lot of good messages that could come out of this work. And that freedom of expression, for me, trumps the privacy I would afford someone who chooses to do things in front of an open window.

Brad_ · April 14, 2015

>>> Gerry, consider Arbus again. She was the first photographer to shoot a population which had

previously remained pretty faceless in terms of being subjects of photographs and series.

Arbus? She engaged her subjects openly, not surreptitiously. Her body of work exhibits extraordinary

empathy towards her subjects because of her direct and honest engagement.

Imagine if she were to photograph her subjects through windows, from great distances, without permission or knowledge...

Norma Desmond · April 14, 2015

"Imagine if she were to photograph her subjects through windows, from great distances, without permission or knowledge..."

</blockquote>

I can imagine it and could easily see it being a significant way to photograph. I don't view her work as exhibiting quite the sort of empathy you do. I think it's more conflicted than that and even alienated in a lot of instances, which is honest (if not always easy to digest or moralize about) and may actually help the viewer relate. This seems to be confirmed by her own words.

"There's some thrill in going to a sideshow. I felt a mixture of shame and awe." She felt shame, most likely because she didn't feel totally moral or totally empathetic in terms of what she was doing. I certainly get a distinct feel of otherness (which ironically accompanies whatever empathy there also is) in her work. Working with and admitting that shame and feeling the otherness of her subjects, rather than insisting on a moral high ground for herself, takes its own sort of courage and risks moral outrage from others, which she received plenty of, if you read some of what Sontag said about her, for example. Shame is human and those willing to risk feeling shame are often those who will express something as intimately important as what Arbus expressed. Moral ambiguity is often necessary to such kind of willingness to approach something honestly and from a flawed, human point of view.

____________________________________________

Sontag and plenty of others used the word "voyeuristic" in describing Arbus. Much of the time it was meant pejoratively. The same way Arneson is described. I, too, think both of them have voyeuristic aspects to their work. I don't view that pejoratively. I think it's human and honest.

GerrySiegel · April 14, 2015

Fred, this is only partly in response to your last statement but it comes to mind as a reference point. I happen to be reading a history of cultural movements in the early part of the last century. As part of the stage against which great powers fought over small things and large things.

The arts fought or challenged European traditions as well and tried to bring new ways of seeing in painting for instance. Cubism by Picasso and Braque she mentions. Erotic ballets by Diaghilev and Nijinski and Stravinsky

The author, the very capable historian Margaret McMahan writes that the feeling then was that" a generation of artists should not be about upholding the values of a society; it should be shocking and liberating." To accomplish that, as she says, they tried quote" to probe beneath the surface into the life of instinct and emotion." One could even say human and honest ...in hindsight.

I imagine that artists are expected to, and will whether we "approve" or not, be pushing boundaries just as segments of the same society will push back. I think I can admire the human compulsion to push and I guess I can claim the right to push back -some. It all depends on the case, and the conversation is never over. Aloha.

jordan2240 · April 14, 2015

John raises an interesting comparison with regard to painting vs photography. I can't explain why exactly, but I don't see painting as the same sort of violation of privacy as I do an uninvited photo. Perhaps it's because paintings simply don't represent reality like photographs do. The attachment to the subjects of a photograph are far more powerful, at least for me, and we also don't necessarily know how much of the painting came from the artist's imagination and how much is based on reality. And we might not even recognize that we are the subject for the painting. After all, a woman bent over cleaning could be any woman.

We live in an interesting age, where many do lock themselves away from personal interaction yet reveal minute details of their lives to others on social media. But that's their choice, and it really isn't for anyone else to decide what privacy they are entitled to. You mention, Fred, that growing up, neighbors and friend would stop by unannounced. I grew up similarly. But you also mention you left your door open to them. Symbolically, that's an 'invitation,' but even then it was an invitation for them to participate in your lives, not record it. And I'd suggest that when the door was shut, the neighbors knew to stay away whether the shades were drawn or not. We should each be able to decide when to open our doors and when to close them.

Artists can push their boundaries all they want, but does that give them the right to push mine?

I'd also like to point out that the article said 'most' of the photographs had unrecognizable subjects, leading me to believe some did not. Does that make a difference? (please feel free to read that as rhetorical - not trying to belabor the issue)

Norma Desmond · April 14, 2015

We should each be able to decide when to open our doors and when to close them.

</blockquote>

I agree. It's kind of what I've been saying all along. Similarly, we should each be able to decide when to open our curtains and when to close them. I don't know whether these open doors and windows should exactly be considered an invitation, really. In our case, we were keeping our doors open mostly to allow cooler air in during the summer. The looks in from neighbors and visits seemed a reasonable response to the door being open even if we didn't consider it an active invitation. Regardless, though, neither an open door nor an open window seems to be the sign of a DISINVITATION, to me.

________________________________________________

As you say, the point is not merely a visit or a look in but a photographic result. I would not advocate that all photography of people be done only upon invitation or by request, overt or implied. I can certainly understand that some photographers would restrict their photographing in that way. But all photographers being asked to do so would have stifled a lot of the best photographic voices throughout the ages and would continue to do so.

Sign In

Interesting Case

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