Interesting Case

[Brad_]

>>> 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.

 

No basis? I suppose another possibility is that he actually demonstrated a great deal of empathy putting

himself in the shoes of the parents and children he photographed surreptitiously with a telephoto lens,

contemplating how they might feel if they were aware of that happening. But after careful and reasoned thought, he came to the fair-minded conclusion

there was no reason for them to mind the act of being photographed in the manner in which they were, and

later, no reason for them to mind the public display of their images.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I think the discussion would be more clear if privacy concerns didn’t blur with accusations about empathy.</p>

<p>If it's about privacy, some reasoned arguments have been presented (though challengeable and not legally binding). But if it's about empathy, then all the examples of photos and situations in public that might show a lack of empathy (the street photos in which people are shot without their permission who may not want the photos taken or shown) can't be dismissed because they weren't taken behind closed doors. Every time one of these public photos has been given as an example—photos that haven't garnered the negative reaction Svenson's have—it's been rejected as an example since it was not taken in the privacy of someone's home. But the point of those photos is whether or not the photographer is putting himself in the other guy's shoes (which is what empathy is about), and that can happen both in public and in private. This can't be avoided by making it seem like all examples would have to take place behind closed doors in order to apply. That’s only if we’re talking strictly about privacy. If the additional claim is made that Svenson had no empathy, that claim is based on his not putting himself in others' shoes, and the claim is that a photographer is not putting himself in a subject's shoes if he shoots them without permission and if they don't want to be shot. That would hold in both public and private and is why at least most of the examples given in this thread are relevant and would have to be considered in a discussion involving empathy.</p>

<p>Not only has empathy been brought up in a way that can lead to some potentially hypocritical stances (applying it in private but not in public), further steps have been taken to claim he has both ridiculed and humiliated his subjects as if invasion of privacy, if it applied, would automatically mean someone is out to ridicule and humiliate those whose privacy they invade.</p>

<p>I am becoming used to stories like this going well beyond what they’re actually about, which I believe is more limited to the clash of expectations of privacy and freedom of expression. This seems a big and significant enough topic without throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the guy.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>To be clear, I don't think street shooters who don't always get permission or who might show photos of people who wouldn't necessarily want their photos shown can be determined automatically to lack empathy because of those decisions and actions. And nothing I've read about Svenson makes me think he's any different from a lot of street shooters in terms of empathy, even if his way of shooting and resulting photos do bring in questions of privacy, which I believe still leaves him on solid ground.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Yes the appellate court found as to privacy that Svenson's use of the photos was on solid legal ground. Here is the text of the appellate court's unanimous opinion: <a href="http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-first-department/2015/651826-13-12998.html">http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-first-department/2015/651826-13-12998.html</a> . "Undoubtedly, like plaintiffs, many people would be rightfully offended by the intrusive manner in which the photographs were taken in this case."</p>

<p>And some would not be offended by the photographer's intrusiveness to the degree the plaintiffs were, perhaps not to any degree. Rather than locating the nexus of moral perception in the intrinsic quality of the act (judging that an act lacks empathy), those not particularly offended might instead locate that nexus in the results of the act, in the consequences of the act. Broadly, some advocate for moral reasoning that is based on the intrinsic quality of the act, advocate for moral reasoning that holds some acts as just plain categorically wrong. And some instead advocate for consequentialist moral judgment, a more utilitarian one.</p>

<p> </p>