Interesting Case

jordan2240 · April 14, 2015

<blockquote>I would not advocate that all photography of people be done only upon invitation or by request, overt or implied.</blockquote>

I agree. The disagreement expressed in this thread pertains to when such should require an invitation/request. Always, sometimes, never? I don't think we have any votes for 'always' and perhaps none for 'never,' so the difficulty is in defining 'sometimes.'

Norma Desmond · April 14, 2015

I thought you stated it well in the early hours of this thread, when you said:

" . . . perhaps 'visible with the naked eye' would be the deciding measure, though I still wonder why we should be expected to block all visibility to the inside of our homes to maintain privacy . . ."

</blockquote>

That seems perfectly reasonable to me, so if someone climbs up a ladder and draws your curtains for you, that would be a no-no, but if someone lives across the street and can see you unobstructedly (with the naked eye, as you say) that would not be a no-no. In terms of your qualification, the doubts expressed in the second part of your statement, I think it's perfectly reasonable to wonder about that and consider it. My answer would be that we should block visibility to the inside of our homes to maintain privacy because the reasonable standard for not being photographed would be what's not available to the naked eye. So I would make sure, if I didn't want to be photographed, even in my own home, not to make myself available to other's naked eyes. It seems more reasonable to me than demanding all passersby and all neighbors and all photographers refrain from taking pictures of what's visible through my open windows, remembering that examples of the photojournalistic or documentary tenement pictures spoken about above should come into play and be allowed just as strongly as the pictures Svenson took. The naked eye standard feels like it works quite well. The I'm visible to the naked eye but in my own home exception would restrict too much significant expression, such as the tenement photos and many other street photos I've seen of, for example, European women hanging laundry in their windows, kids playing with their cats in a sunlit window, a lovely portrait of an unknown older woman reading by daylight behind her exposed window.

Brad_ · April 14, 2015

>>> I can imagine it and could easily see it being a significant way to photograph.

As it would be if she shot blindfolded, or with earplugs, or from a ladder, or with a large format camera, etc. - there are myriad

possibilities that can yield significant outcomes. Yet she chose to engage here subjects directly in the manner that she did.

>>> She felt shame, most likely because she didn't feel totally moral or totally empathetic in terms of what she was doing.

My interpretation is it's more likely guilt, though the words are closely related. With respect to her empathic views, much has been

written about that. I'll go with Sandra Phillips characterization as Arbus being a great humanist photographer.

But, this is neither here nor there, nor is using her as an example of artists pushing boundaries. I suspect most people here are aware

that artists push boundaries, even in this particular situation where shooting through open windows has been done before.

>>> Regardless, though, neither an open door nor an open window seems to be the sign of a DISINVITATION, to me.

And that speaks to who we are as humans, and prioritizing your needs and wants over the discomfort, pain, humiliation, etc that

others might feel as a consequence via a default rule about open windows not being the sign of a DISINVITATION - an interesting

double negative, usually the domain of politicians.

We all make choices.

Norma Desmond · April 14, 2015

prioritizing your needs and wants over the discomfort, pain, humiliation, etc that others might feel as a consequence

</blockquote>

For me, it doesn't simply boil down to such a morally black and white conclusion.

Some people have expressed feeling a lot of pain when journalist cartoonists draw unwelcome images of their religious icons. To me, freedom of expression trumps the humiliation they feel. Many Catholics expressed feelings of discomfort, pain, and humiliation over Serrano's Piss Christ. His right to express himself photographically, IMO, trumps their pain and humiliation. As a gay man, I'm terrifically offended, even horrified and certainly pained by the words that Reverend Fred Phelps speaks in his public spectacles. His freedom of expression trumps my feelings and I've learned how to handle those feelings and how to embrace the freedom I want him to enjoy just as I would expect him to embrace the freedoms I want to enjoy. My embrace of such freedom of expression feels more important to me than whatever pain his words cause me. I'm sorry for the pain and humiliation the folks in these photos feel. I wish they didn't feel that way and can understand why they might. Since I think they would have had a relatively easy way to safeguard against feeling humiliated and in pain, by having curtains, I'm comfortable advocating for Arneson in this case. Just as I advocate changing the channel instead of banning a lot of programming that some would find offensive and even painful or humiliating, I advocate getting curtains instead of curtailing the freedom of expression of a photographer like Arneson. And I try to practice what I preach by welcoming the freedom of expression of those who hate me, which, for me, helps act as an antidote to that very hate.

Brad_ · April 14, 2015

For me, there's a huge difference between satirizing or criticizing religious icons and tenets, and, humiliating and

ridiculing specific fellow human beings simply because they are in front of your lens.

If you need to prioritize your personal goals, feelings, and belief that you're pushing the boundaries making

Art, over and at the expense of hurting another human (i.e., an open window not being a sign of

disinvitation), that may be legal in many situations. But others, myself included, would prioritize things

differently.

Again, personal choices about how we think and care about other people.

Norma Desmond · April 14, 2015

humiliating and ridiculing specific fellow human beings

</blockquote>

The thing is, this is an assumption being made. I don't see these photos as in any way humiliating or ridiculing others. I can understand the folks in the pictures feeling that their privacy has been invaded (even though I think it's a tenuous accusation), but I can't understand the accusation that Arneson ridiculed or humiliated them. They are simply going about their business in their homes. The fact that it's made public seems to bring up questions about privacy but not about ridicule or humiliation.

I suspect most people here are aware that artists push boundaries

</blockquote>

I suspect so as well. My observations, both historically and personally and very much so in critiques and discussions I've read on PN, is that there's a difference between being aware that artists push boundaries as a general tenet and being confronted with specific cases of boundaries being pushed. The former, as I said above, gets acknowledged frequently. But, quite often, when the latter occurs and when people actually experience the boundaries being pushed, their general awareness often turns to rejection and even disgust, as has happened in this thread. Now, it's certainly possible that there is some art that pushes boundaries that, for whatever reason, deserves to be shunned and rejected. But I've seen it happen so frequently that I'm skeptical when a lot of people claim to embrace art's provocativeness as I see those same people consistently rejecting provocative art when it's newly placed before them. I've seen art that breaks rules be dismissed, derided, and rejected because a subject is centered, because a street photographer doesn't ask permission, because highlights are supposedly blown and the expressive value of that is missed, because there are distracting elements, because there is misunderstood blur, because it doesn't show a pleasant side of life, because it's not "pretty", because there are homosexual implications, because a photo may normalize someone who's transgender, because there's too blatant nudity. And while you and I may think there's a big difference between criticizing religious icons and photographing people in their homes, there are plenty of people who would come crashing down on us for even suggesting that criticizing religious icons in photos is OK, as bitterly as you are criticizing Arneson for what he's doing. That's why I'm for the most liberal allowances when it comes to photographic expression. And it's also why I said that a lot of people seem to me to be paying lip service to artists breaking boundaries but so often when push comes to shove they don't walk that walk as much as they talk the talk.

Brad_ · April 14, 2015

>>> But, quite often, when the latter occurs and when people actually experience the boundaries being

pushed, their general awareness often turns to rejection and even disgust, as has happened in this

thread.

No, it's not that. It's that some people are adverse to putting and prioritizing their own needs over those

who might suffer as a consequence; likely viewed as collateral damage by the "my needs first over

others" group.

>>> My observations, both historically and personally and very much so in critiques and discussions I've

read on PN, is that there's a difference between being aware that artists push boundaries as a general

tenet and being confronted with specific cases of boundaries being pushed. The former, as I said above,

gets acknowledged frequently. But, quite often, when the latter occurs and when people actually

experience the boundaries being pushed, their general awareness often turns to rejection and even

disgust, as has happened in this thread.

Quite often? Please give a dozen examples of boundaries being pushed that later turn to rejection and

disgust after awareness, on photonet.

I have not seen any "disgust," here. It's more acknowledgement of the law and a discussion about empathy towards other humans, or lack of, personal priorities, and making choices when making photographs.

By the way, it's Svenson, not Arneson (as in the sculptor/ceramicist).

Norma Desmond · April 14, 2015

Please give a dozen examples of boundaries being pushed that later turns to rejection and disgust after awareness.

</blockquote>

LOL. I don't think so. And I can imagine certain conclusions might be drawn by my refusal, which is fine. But my advice would be simply to follow many of the critique threads and look back at several of the WEEKLY DISCUSSION threads. It's certainly possible you and others won't interpret those discussions the same way I did which is part of the reason I wouldn't bother to take the time to find examples. They likely would have little impact. And to clarify, just as you have seen no evidence of disgust and I find it rather easy to find in many of the posts made, I see no evidence of things being viewed as collateral damage by the "my needs first over others" group and yet you have obviously picked up on that attitude. Thankfully, I'm not as interested in agreement or in convincing as I am gratified for having had a thoughtful discussion on these fairly controversial and tricky matters. I'm definitely with Gerry on the benefits of speaking candidly about these things.

movingfinger · April 15, 2015

Brad says:

and a discussion about empathy towards other humans, or lack of, personal priorities, and making choices when making photographs.

</blockquote>

I'm not exactly sure how to parse this sentence and who is on which side but one parsing suggests to me that being in favor of a ruling for the plaintiff's shows empathy and being in favor of the defendant, Svenson, shows a lack thereof. I find such a reading intriguing and, as one who supports the Svenson side, worth a bit of disputing. So if I may, I'd like to say a few words in defense of my empathy.

What I find fascinating about Svenson's photographs, and the many other most likely candid - taken w/o permission photographs - of humans in their environments (I've referred to tenement photos in earlier posts here), is precisely the empathy they evoke in me for the human condition. Vivian Maier, the reclusive street photographer, whose work was not discovered till after her death is another case in point. Most of her photographs I expect were taken w/o permission and some in this discussion may view them as an invasion of privacy. I just love her work and back in Jan I wrote a blog post on my web site about what it means to me and why and what it tells me of her. One of the words I used is "empathy". I wrote of her photographs "...each image speaks to me of the awareness and empathy she had for her fellow man...". Svenson's work, admittedly a bit more clandestine than Maier's so getting closer to an edge, suggests to me the same thing. I think it takes empathy to see a photograph worth scene in the windows of a building with only ordinary people doing ordinary things in view. I know that what I personally admire in such works is precisely the feelings of empathy they bring forth in me in witnessing an instant in time with humans going about their lives dealing with the circumstances in which they find themselves. Were such photographs taken with permission, hence staged, that same empathy would not be present to the same extent. A case in point, my own work.

It is empathy that guides my own rather lame efforts in photographing people. I take photographs of people precisely because I find each and every one fascinating in their own unique ways. I have a gallery on my web site called "Environmental Portraits" of people I've encountered along the way. Most were taken with permission - because I am somewhat of a coward. For that reason I don't consider them as empathy evoking as Maier's or Svenson's.

The defense rests.

Brad_ · April 15, 2015

John... I looked at your portraits and they are beautiful and move me a lot. There's clearly a connection and understanding between

subject and photographer. I come away feeling the same about many of Vivian Maier's photographs. I don't with Svensen's.

Though "artful," they feel like surveillance photographs. And, I don't really feel boundaries were pushed as similar work has been created

before - which of course is ok as it's not the issue. Svensen photographing the family's children without thinking about how their parents

might feel, to me, demonstrates a lack of empathy. There are many aspects to empathy, one dimension is as you described. Another is

putting one's self in another's shoes and being able to understand what the other is feeling or would feel if discovered from their frame of reference as photographs

are being made.

Most of the photographs I make on the street are a mixture of both candid and engaged street portraiture of strangers I

meet when out there. There have been countless photographs I have not made, likely the majority, for various reasons that have to do with

putting myself in a potential subject's shoes, and considering how they might feel. I also try and give back to the community in which I

shoot, engaging in publishing projects to raise money for an organization that helps kids living on the street who would normally be

subjected to human trafficking, drug/alcohol abuse, gang activity, prostitution, hunger, lack of health care, etc.

In situations where I'm shooting candidly, my personal rule is to shoot out in the open, not hiding or pretending to be doing something else,

not sneaking shots from the hip or from a telephoto half a block down. If a subject takes issue, I'm willing to listen to their complaint and

have a conversation. Or to be punched in the nose if someone is that agitated. That's a sort of unwritten contract I have with those on the

street. Engaged portraits, of course, are a different matter. Still, because I usually engage in conversation and get to know the person and

leave as a friend, I try my best to not make photographs that might paint someone negatively.

That's my view and how I conduct myself. It's the best I can do within the limits of the circumstances that exist. I also try very hard to not

take the position that the photographer is always right, and do not make assumptions about people on the street who have absolutely no

idea what street shooting is about and rightfully might come away spooked/frightened/angered when their picture is taken. Sometimes I find

street shooters insular and selfish prioritizing their rights over a subject who might genuinely feel uncomfortable or threatened when

photographed. There are other aspects as well, but that's enough for now.

movingfinger · April 15, 2015

Brad...It sounds like we have much in common in the underlying emotions and rewards of our photographing of people. While I wish I had more courage and insight (to get that 'decisive moment') for taking candid, unsolicited people photographs, I very much enjoy the conversations and shared stories that have resulted from my confronting people and asking permission. On my web site I try to include a brief sentence or two as caption on my people photographs giving a snippet of the subject's story. I ask for an email address and happily send the subject a copy of the resulting photograph. But, if I came across a quotidian scene of ordinary life taking place in the window of a structure (and all the visible people were clothed and nothing grossly embarrassing were taking place) I think I'd eagerly point my camera, compose and shoot. And for me why I'd want to capture such a scene is because the scene represents 'us', our common humanity. Might the individuals in the scene take offense, sure, some of Svenson's subjects demonstrated this conclusively. But personally I don't understand why. I see wanting to take and display such a photograph as celebrating our shared humanity.

I don't know all the details in what happened in the Svenson case, but I will concede that when the subject's saw the photographs of themselves and if they then asked Svenson to remove them he should have acceded to the request - out of empathy for their concerns. I don't know if this was done or not. But if he refused, then while I lose some respect for Svenson, I don't think that the subjects should have legal recourse. If he acquiesced to their request, but the subject's responded that since the pictures were already displayed the harm was done so we are taking you to court, then I lose lots for respect for the subjects.

For the record I am sitting here typing this in front of a window that often has the blinds raised. If someone comes by with a camera and wants to capture this scene of me in my house engaging in this humdrum activity I say, "have at it!". Could it make an engaging photograph? In my estimation, yes (and I don't say this because I'm in it). Besides....it could be the only way I'll ever have connection to a photograph on display in the MoMA ;-)

Brad_ · April 15, 2015

>>> Brad...It sounds like we have much in common in the underlying emotions and rewards of our photographing of people.

I think we do as well, John. I also ask subjects if they have email and have forwarded many photographs. Unfortunately though, some

people in some areas do not have regular internet access or email. Many times I would make prints from an Epson 4x6 printer I have

at home and carry a dozen or two of them in my bag - prints are cheap at less than 25 cents each. Often I'd find previous subjects

on the street months later and give them a photo. One subject I encountered a 2nd time, kind of a tough guy, became teary-eyed when I gave him a photo of himself I made six months earlier - he never had a

photo of himself and it was a very emotional moment.

In the past, I've said that when shooting on the street, and especially making street portraits, coming away with a photo was

secondary - and what jazzed me was the engagement and learning something new from someone I just met. That's mostly what

drives me. Of course I still like to make photographs, but it's engagement and friend-making that makes my day.

Norma Desmond · April 15, 2015

This should address your question about removal, John, at least in part.

From PDN, by David Walker

Svenson has said he tried to avoid photographing the faces of his subjects to conceal their identities. But the images included two of the Fosters’ children, Delaney and James. And in one of the images, Delaney’s face is identifiable.

Svenson complied with the plaintiffs’ request to withdraw the two images of the children. The Fosters then sued to get a court injunction to stop Svenson from showing the images in the future. They also sought monetary damages. But Svenson argued that because his images were art, they were protected by the First Amendment. The lower court agreed, and dismissed the Fosters’ claim.

</blockquote>

__________________________________________________________

I brought up the class issue earlier. A lot of significant photography and art addresses social issues and class distinctions and I thought all along there was some relevance to this being a series of photos taken through unobstructed floor to ceiling windows in a luxury apartment building. In further research, I found I wasn't alone in my thinking and thought I'd share part of an article that appeared in The Guardian by Jill Filipovic. I don't know whether what Filipovic is talking about was even a part of Svenson's motivation (he, himself, hasn't talked about it in any sources I read through), but it's still an interesting reading of the series, not to mention gets to at least some irony surrounding the monetary damages part of the lawsuit that ensued:

Though we may literally live stacked on top of one and other, making privacy an illusion, that facade of privacy keeps us sane. It's one thing to accept the fact that your neighbor might catch a glimpse of you getting ready for work; it's another to live understanding that you may be covertly photographed, and your image sold for thousands of dollars out of a Chelsea gallery.

And yet that is a truth about living in New York: you may be covertly photographed, and your image may be sold for thousands of dollars out of a gallery. That is also the power of Svenson's art: it challenges the artificial lines we draw around the public and the private, especially in a place where true privacy is a luxury. It also shines a light on the fact that for the many in this city who live in luxury, part of the appeal is in its display.

The very homes Svenson photographs offer only a transparent line between private abode and public display – they're showcase homes, with walls made of glass that are meant to let the casual observer see in as much as they allow the residents to see out. Their windows are frames for their interior; residents know people can see in, and furniture and art are positioned accordingly. The home is itself a piece of art, designed and owned by the person living in it. When Svenson shifts that ownership – complete with human being inside – to be his art, it's uncomfortable for the person who was previously creator of the space. Now they're just an object in a frame, like the chair they carefully selected for display.

That his photos depict the rich inside glass homes – designed to be envied – is partially why, I suspect, it's easier to see Svenson's photos as art rather than violations. That he used a telephoto lens makes the photographs more offensive, but he wasn't peering into anything that the residents were trying to hide – as noted, part of the appeal of the real estate he photographed is its exhibition architecture.

</blockquote>

Norma Desmond · April 15, 2015

Bill, <a href="http://www.moma.org/collection_images/resized/269/w500h420/CRI_261269.jpg">THIS HOPPER PAINTING</a> came to mind and relates to your post about painting and photography. For me, Hopper's paintings have always seemed exceptionally realistic and I don't know that I'd agree that painting doesn't have as much reality as photography. But, there does seem a very interesting sort of connection/disconnection between the person/thing photographed and the person/thing when it appears in the photograph. I tend often to at least partially disconnect photographed things and people from what was originally photographed. I think some, perhaps even many photographers do this and a famous one has quotes about that difference but these quotes are trotted out too often so I won't do that here. So, honestly, when I look at pictures of myself and when I look at portraits I've done and when I look at Svenson's work, I see them at least to some extent (not completely, of course) in the same sort of abstract way I would view the part of the woman in Hopper's painting, as not necessarily even representing the original people that were photographed just as Hopper's woman may very well not be based on an actual woman he saw in an actual window somewhere. I think that's part of the transformative aspect of photographing something or someone. The photo, for me, often both is and is not representative of the living breathing person or the actual thing originally photographed. The balance and extent of that possible separation will depend on the particular photograph, style, and approach. Again, this is how I experience photographs. Most people probably think of the real people and things the photographer was standing before, and though I might see a lot of Hopper in Svenson's work and therefore tend to disconnect the people in his photographs from who they actually were and might not even have thought about who they actually were had it not been for the lawsuit, I do understand why many people (particularly those involved) connected the photos to the real people in that building. I agree with what John said about Svenson's work having the ability, if we let it, to connect us to each other more than divide us from each other. In a sense, those simple daily gestures seen through the unobstructed windows, are all of us and I can view them universally and as a bond among us and probably would have done so much more before the lawsuit made them so much more connected to the real individuals for me.

movingfinger · April 16, 2015

Fred.....Here, here! Thanks for the ref to the Hopper painting. In my 'artist statement' that I post at the few local gallery shows I've had, I list Hopper as one of my inspirations. The one you link to perfectly demonstrates my earlier question about painting vs photography, and further shows that such images evoke empathy for the human condition - where we live and how we live. You nailed it for me in saying "...see a lot of Hopper in Svenson's work". I did and do. Most of your analysis throughout this entire thread has resonated with me. Finally, I am glad to hear Svenson offered to withdraw some images (now maybe he did so under the threat of lawsuit) and I'm sorry to hear that nevertheless the subjects wanted some monetary compensation.

Brad....Here, here, as well. I too have both hand delivered and sent printed photographs via the good old USPS to probably a half dozen or so of the folks in my "environmental portrait" collection. The encounters I've had with people thanks to my camera (I am an introvert) have been very rewarding for me. Making one such encounter can make my day, yes, even sometimes when the intended subject says no to the photograph or as happened recently in Santa Fe, a lovely young woman agrees to the photograph but asks that I not post it on my web site - I acceded to her request but this was disappointing since to me a photograph's value is to be shared and seen by others.

To conclude (is anyone still there?), we are in the midst of a major transformation in coming to terms with the fact that everything we do and say can be recorded and saved and played back AND shown to the world. In the 20th century and earlier such stuff was novel and hence the subjects of such recordings were generally happy to be the subject. Now it is not only NOT novel, it is pervasive, and it is becoming the exception to find a place or activity where we are NOT being recorded. And so we grasp and fight back at the few instances where perhaps we can hold on to some privacy and what suffers is something like Svenson's work which is really one of the least threatening (and actually to me, uplifting) invasions of privacy his subjects will probably ever experience going forward in the 21st century.

jordan2240 · April 16, 2015

I applaud the thoughtful and civil discussion here. Many valid points on different sides of the issue, and while I am not convinced that what the photographer did was respectful, honorable, or even useful, I do understand why others would disagree.

Fred, I appreciate the link to the Hopper work. I think we tend to disconnect with strangers whether they are in a photo or painting, though when I look at a painting of a realistic scene, I tend to focus more on the detail the artist was able to achieve and the technical merits more than the scene itself, while with a photo, I tend to focus more on the overall scene.

So, for example, if I were to see a painting of a homeless child huddled in a corner under a makeshift lean-to on a cold winter morning, I wouldn't view it in quite the same way as a photo of the same. The photo would be far more powerful, to me, in its ability to generate a feeling of sympathy and sadness, while in the painting, I'd be more engaged in looking at how the artist was able to capture every fold in a blanket or the forlorn look in the child's eyes.

I'm not suggesting that is the correct way of viewing those things - it's simply how I do it. Perhaps it is different, though, when we recognize the subject. If I knew the child in the painting, and therefore knew the scene was real, would it make a difference? I really don't know. Perhaps this is a bit off topic, but I think it might help explain why someone would be more objectionable to a photograph than a painting, and feel more violated by one over the other.

As far as whether or not Svenson's work has the ability to connect us more than divide us, that may be true, but would it be any less true had he asked the subjects for permission to display the photographs once he'd taken them? I don't think class matters at all in this issue.

Norma Desmond · April 16, 2015

As far as whether or not Svenson's work has the ability to connect us more than divide us, that may be true, but would it be any less true had he asked the subjects for permission to display the photographs once he'd taken them?

</blockquote>

It might very well be less true because they might not have given their permission so we wouldn't have seen them in the first place and would therefore have missed the opportunity to even consider that.

Now, if someone asked me to take down a photo, I'd respond the way Svenson did and take it down. And there have been instances where I have asked permission before printing or showing a photo. But I'm not in the habit of doing so when I'm shooting people who I haven't made prior arrangements with. And I don't expect my own practices to be followed by other photographers and am actually glad they're not. I would not want all photographers, and am glad Svenson didn't, to ask for permission from their subjects to use photographs of them, whether they're in their homes on view to the public or out on the street on view to the public.

There have been plenty of too important pictures taken over the last century that would have been withheld from our group consciousness had the subjects or their parents or families been given the power to decide what can and can't be shown. I have to wonder how Kim Phuc and/or her parents and family (if they were still alive) would have answered had they been asked permission if their daughter's picture, running nude down the road at such a moment of extreme personal terror and danger, could be shown. There's a sense in which her "privacy" was "violated" more than the kids shot by Svenson, IMO. If I say the trade-off is worth the world being able to see that picture despite what Phuc and her family may have wanted, some will suggest I lack empathy. I will always think there are more important causes and reasons and concerns than the individual (though will only make those decisions on a case by case basis). And, yes, IMO, sometimes an individual's right of privacy gets trumped by expression and information that the world is entitled to hear, see, and know.

<a href="http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2012/5/31/14/enhanced-buzz-wide-18934-1338487526-6.jpg">THIS</a> 1940s photo by Claude Detloff might likely not have been made in today's times because either the photographer would have stopped himself because so many of us won't take recognizable pics of other people's children or because our overly protective collective sensibility would have been too suspicious of a photographer daring to take or show a picture of another's child without permission. (We might be tempted to draw a distinction between photojournalism/documentary work and art photography and there are certain distinctions, but I believe all photos, art and still life and nature and landscape have documentary elements and that unfettered artistic expression is as significant as unfettered journalistic expression.) I think there are good reasons to fear for our privacy in this day and age but I still regret it and am very glad there are contemporary photographers willing to put themselves out there and challenge what I see as society's increaslingly over-protective nature. (I understand wanting to protect ourselves from a spying government more than I understand our suspicions of art photographers and each other.)

I might well ask permission. But what I would do is often not my own standard for what I accept from others. I think there's plenty of room for a lot of differing interpretations of what's moral and what's empathetic and, sometimes, empathy demands the difficult action of putting oneself in the shoes of those with whom one disagrees vehemently. I am admittedly flawed when it comes to that and I suspect many of us are, and I'm glad we're flawed. It would be too difficult and energy-consuming, IMO, to always be righteous. So, as I said much earlier, if there is some voyeurism on the part of Svenson and he's willing to expose his own voyeurism by making a public display of it, that's worthy of an artist, IMO.

jordan2240 · April 16, 2015

Powerful photo Fred, thanks for the link. The difference, I would argue, in the linked shot and the Phuc photo as compared to the Svenson work is that those photos were taken out in public. The discussion is not about street photography in general but about how far it should reasonably extend, I suppose, though Svenson wasn't photographing from the street anyway, so I'm not sure we can even categorize it as that.

Nonetheless, I'm in full agreement with this:

I think there's plenty of room for a lot of differing interpretations of what's moral and what's empathetic and, sometimes, empathy demands the difficult action of putting oneself in the shoes of those with whom one disagrees vehemently.

</blockquote>

Norma Desmond · April 16, 2015

Bill, for me, the important question you asked about Svenson getting permission was whether it would make a difference in terms of connecting us in a human way and, as I said, it might well have made a big difference. And, having thought about his series now in terms of, as Filipovic put it, the lines between public and private and, even more importantly, the offense many take to them, yes it would have made a difference because asking permission would have made the photos less transgressive. There's much art that's reliant on its offensiveness to prevailing sensibilities for its power. NOT LIKING art and even resenting some of it can and has been as important both personally and historically as liking it. Serrano and Mapplethorpe, as well, wouldn't have been as effective if they hadn't offended some sensibilities.

Brad_ · April 16, 2015

>>> Serrano and Mapplethorpe, as well, wouldn't have been as effective if they hadn't offended some

sensibilities.

Serrano and Mapplethorpe's work only offended some viewers. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Don't like their work, you are not required to look at it.

Svensen's work offended the subjects of his work, extending no empathy to those he photographed.

Sad that in order to "connect us in a human way" (a tenuous and debatable goal, ascribed after the fact),

humans need to suffer as a result. Some might consider that collateral damage - though that's

probably not the right phrase. As an aside, I wonder how much money Svensen will make off his gallery sales?

BTW, extending empathy to one's subjects is certainly not a requirement. Some photographers though choose to do so, that aspect being important. Others don't.

Norma Desmond · April 16, 2015

Svensen's work offended the subjects of his work, extending no empathy to those he photographed.

</blockquote>

And Kim Phuc now says, in her words, “I really wanted to escape from that little girl. But it seems to me the picture didn’t let me go.” So there was a time when she might well have felt that the picture was harmful to her as the subject of the photo. Yet, I don't question Ut's empathy. And now Phuc says she is able to use the photo in a more positive way. So what once felt as if it was causing her harm has transformed through the years into something positive, which is wonderful. I can't and wouldn't draw the conclusion that a subject's being offended by a photo of them means that the photographer extended no empathy.

BTW, extending empathy to one's subjects is certainly not a requirement.

</blockquote>

Agreed. Many great photographers have made important photos of people they have little empathy for, even people they hate. I consider that a great challenge and something very worthy of respect. Alienation, which often doesn't feel so good, can be as important a photographic tool as empathy, which tends to feel better. It's negative emotions that often wind up pushing boundaries and going deep. But that's certainly not for everyone.

"connect us in a human way" (a tenuous and debatable goal, ascribed after the fact)

</blockquote>

Tenuous and debatable, yes, and we're doing just that here. But it couldn't have been described before the fact, since until we had the photos we couldn't have discussed them. A big part of this series is that most have discovered it due to the lawsuit, so most of what has been ascribed has been done "after the fact." I wonder if many of the same negative opinions would have been ascribed if the lawsuit controversy had never taken place and people were just viewing these photos without the input from the subjects or the artist or the lawyers or the media writing prolifically about it.

Brad_ · April 16, 2015

>>> Yet, I don't question Ut's empathy.

Nick Ut is an AP photographer who covered the Vietnam war. Quite a different situation.

>>> But it couldn't have been described before the fact, since until we had the photos we couldn't have

discussed them.

Sure it could have. Many (most?) project-oriented photographers start with a project idea, an issue to

explore, pursue and reveal over a period of time. Their photos support that journey. Many times, on the other hand, and I've

seen this firsthand locally, the project narrative is driven after the fact from a collection of photos captured.

Norma Desmond · April 16, 2015

Their photos support that journey.

</blockquote>

As I said, it wasn't Svenson who described his work as bringing together humans, either before or after the fact. He did describe his project from the standpoint of the New York experience of anonymity and the importance and universality of simple human gestures, which sounds to me like he does have some sense of connection to those around him. Even if he didn't think about his work, overtly, in terms of human connection, a lot of good art expands in the public consciousness well beyond the intents and goals of the artist. Art that doesn't expand in such a way is often a failure. Since art is alive, as much may happen after the fact as before it and the artist can still be thanked for that.

Nick Ut is an AP photographer who covered the Vietnam war. Quite a different situation.

</blockquote>

With regard to potential harm done to a subject, I think there are similarities enough to bring Ut and Phuc, the subject of one of his most noteworthy photos, into the discussion. Situations don't have to be exactly the same in order to draw out important ideas about a subject's response not necessarily cluing viewers into a photographer's ability to empathize. To me, it simply doesn't work and doesn't do justice to an artist or photographer to draw a conclusion about the level of a photographer's or artist's empathy by the reaction of the subjects. A lot of famous and unfamous subjects have deplored the way they've been portrayed in books, films, documentaries, and articles. They are entitled to their feelings but their feelings don't necessarily tell us something about the minds and hearts of the people showing or telling their stories.

Brad_ · April 16, 2015

I don't see any similarities worthy of comparison. A war photojournalist is *required* to cover a story with

photographs made (with or without empathy - hopefully the former if circumstances permit) that let others

understand what is being experienced - in this case the horrors of war..

I don't think Svensen was required to photograph his neighbors surreptitiously. Nor do I think empathy

was considered by putting himself in the family's shoes and contemplating how they might feel

photographed in such a manner. Again, extending empathy is not a legal requirement. Many photographers

however choose to be empathic when engaging their subjects. It's a choice I make without reservation.

Svensen/you/others are not required to make the same choice.

Norma Desmond · April 16, 2015

I was thinking more about Kim Phuc as subject and how she felt, just as you've been talking about the NYC families and how they felt. Kim Phuc's being somewhat tormented by those photos weren't much affected by the requirements that may have led to them. And I'm relatively sure, as you've stated you do and many photographers do all the time, there are photojournalists who've made decisions not to take certain pictures, specifically to spare victims all kinds of pain, whether that accedes to the requirements of their job or not. We very often don't see published pictures of rape victims. My guess is that more of war winds up not getting shown than does, and that's mostly to the detriment of society and mostly because of increasingly repressive attitudes toward photographers and toward the dissemination of information and free expression. I'm not suggesting Ut should have made a decision not to take that photo by any means, any more than Svenson should have. But the ethical question of whether photojournalists should take pictures of families or children in grief or in the throes of suffering tragedy and how far that extends is not set in stone. The answers are not cut and dry, black and white. There's plenty of room in this discussion of Svenson to leave open the possibility that Svenson has empathy and that those of us who support his art or who even might shoot as he does have empathy as well. There's really no need to divide us up into the false categories of those like yourself who have empathy on the one hand and "Svenson/you/others" on the other who are "not required to make the same choices." The claim to know what's in Svenson's mind and heart, the degree to which he has empathy, continues to seem unsupportable to me.

Svensen/you/others are not required to make the same choice.

</blockquote>

Right, though the fact that I appreciate, understand, and like Svenson's work and that I think there's no basis for the assumption that he's shown no empathy or that he's humiliated and ridiculed his subjects doesn't mean I would make the same choices as him as a photographer. I try to shoot with many varied approaches, sometimes feeling great empathy for my subjects, sometimes feeling alienation from my subjects, sometimes a degree of each, sometimes with feelings much more ambivalent, sometimes not even knowing what I feel and finding that uncertainness helping my photographic expression and helping get to a true or significant photo of my subjects. I don't shoot the same way or with the same feelings or empathetic/non-empathetic approach toward my subjects each time.

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