What is appropriate in street photography?

[Norman 202]

in the east, if you don’t photograph kids people think you are odd.

 

(this whole debate was started by someone (gungajim) who claims to be a travel photographer which strikes me as odd)

Edited November 26, 2017 by Norman 202

[Norma Desmond]

i’ve taken photos of older europeans walking with young girls <13 ish that would “trouble” people but are just photos of a man with his daughter

Regardless of what you, the photographer, know or think you know, they are not JUST anything. Photos are not the reality that existed at the time. They are images, often without context and, as such, take on a life of their own. A photo is as much what it looks like now as what was purportedly “really” happening at the time. Photographers ought to be aware that such a transformation may take place. That doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with taking a pic of a father and daughter but it also doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with a viewer seeing something malevolent in that pic of father and daughter, which may creep in because of the lack of context or what light or composition may exaggerate or manipulate. A photographer can wittingly or unwittingly take a pic of a father and daughter that conveys something that wasn’t at play at the time. Scenes can be twisted in all kinds of ways, intentionally or not.

[Sandy Vongries]

today's oversensitive landscape of political correctness

Absolute Minefield!

[Norma Desmond]

Absolute Minefield!

Yeah. Imagine how some women feel who’ve been referred to in this thread as “fair game” because they wear particular clothes. The temerity these women have to think they can wear short shorts and low cut tops and still not be thrilled with guys with cameras stalking them. No, John and Sandy, women wearing revealing outfits in public does not necessarily make it ok to photograph them in certain ways. The legal right is, of course, there. I don’t act only according to what I can legally get away with. I use judgment as well.

insisting on seeing things that simply aren't there in order to advance an indoctrinated and ill-informed ideology.

You talk as if you know what you’re talking about. By your own admission, you haven’t looked at the pictures and yet you sit there blithely telling us what people are making up about these photos due to an ill-informed ideology. I’ll-informed much, Phylo? No ideology need be involved.The photos, as I said, just give me the creeps. I don’t need an academic theory or “ideology” to tell me that.

[gordonjb]

"Unadulterated bullying" ??

 

Seriously?

 

Being of the opinion that stalking young women from behind with a long lens and taking photos of their backsides is in poor taste and creepy is not bully, it is having an opinion. Just like you starting this thread is having an opinion. If we do not agree it does not make my opinion bullying, that is bullsh*t and you have to be clever enough to know that.

[Sandy Vongries]

Taking photos certainly CAN be assaultive - think paparazzi, and certainly can ramp up to be / bestalking. In most cases, it is no more of an "offense" than a look, an occurrence measured in seconds. A cat can look at a King and a photographer can photograph one. Judgement is certainly required, as is obedience to the rule of law,

I rarely photograph women. If I chose to and observed those constraints, I would certainly capture images of attractive ones. Anyone could criticize my choice of subject matter as I could whatever subjects they picked. Still just a puppy chasing its tail - personal choice,

[Norma Desmond]

an occurrence measured in seconds

The act of photographing takes seconds. The photographer in question posts them to the Internet where they have stood for years.

 

We're not talking in hypotheticals, in "CANS." We're talking about what this photographer does, how he does it, and what he posts.

[Sandy Vongries]

posts them to the Internet where they have stood for years.

 

Don't blame photographers or photography - more Joys if the Internet. There is no privacy.

[LineMartel]

No one can pretend to know what the photographer's intent or state of mind was, maybe he saw beauty where some are injecting their own feelings of being offended... I find odd people really beautiful in their uniqueness and when taking photos of them I certainly don't want to think about what others may feel, I sometimes hesitate not wanting these beautiful people to think I want to photograph them because some people think they are circus freaks... In the end, while you can attach your perception and feelings to the photographs you cannot attach them to the photographer.

[Norma Desmond]

Don't blame photographers

Don’t blame photographers, blame the Internet? Seriously? Translate that statement into something about guns and see if you think it sounds right to you! I’ll hold the photographer accountable for how he photographs and what he posts, thanks, also knowing the detrimental role of the Internet.

 

I notice you haven't spoken directly about the pictures of the photographer in question. You're staying a safe, theoretical distance from talking about them. But that's actually the issue.

[Norman 202]

Regardless of what you, the photographer, know or think you know, they are not JUST anything. Photos are not the reality that existed at the time. They are images, often without context and, as such, take on a life of their own.

well, they are just photos to 99% of photographers but i get your point, sort of, just as I get Phil’s pov about warped interpretation.

[Norma Desmond]

By the way, Sandy and Phil, it’s too bad that in the current climate any sign of respect or notation of inequality is labeled and then dismissed as political correctness. It’s a way to try and stifle people and maintain the status quo, but it won’t work because in the end society generally tends toward progress in the arena of human rights, even though there are forces at play trying to retard such desirable evolutions of mind and treatment of others.

[Norma Desmond]

well, they are just photos to 99% of photographers but i get your point, sort of, just as I get Phil’s pov about warped interpretation.

I’d speak for yourself on that one. I’m guessing more than 1% of photographers are aware of a photo’s abilities to make things seem different than they were. But, even if you’re right about the percentages, I’ve always been grateful to be in the minority. It makes me feel so very special! :D

[Norma Desmond]

Read the thread maybe. I hadn't seen them until someone provided a link in this thread, I looked at them, and then responded that I don't see anything denigrating in them:

OK, Phil. You’re right. You did look and address the specific photos. I read what your “ill-informed” eye (two can play that game) saw in them. Thanks.

[Norma Desmond]

And that's the problem right there. You claim moral superiority by implying that people who don't agree with your interpretation and view are against human rights and are against equality. And it's such complete BS. Talk about stifling people. The hypocrisy.

Not at all. I love when people disagree with my interpretations of photos. I don’t love it when people mistakenly chalk up my interpretations of photos to an ill-informed ideology founded on political correctness.

[Norma Desmond]

I'm not talking about what you love or don't love. I'm talking about that just because someone questions the political correctness craze and the true motives that are behind it doesn't mean that they are against human rights and equality, which is what you were implying.

Wrong again. I wasn’t trying to imply anything I didn’t say. I reminded you and Sandy of how labeling something “politically correct” is often used these days and why it bothers me so to have it used against me. I do think the label is often used as a way to curtail advocacy for human rights. I don’t know whether, and wasn’t meaning to imply, that you or Sandy are using it that way, just that it is often being used that way, which makes me have a bad association to it when it’s used in arguments. George Carlin notwithstanding, why not tell me how your interpretation and view differs from mine without attempting to psychologize why I have the interpretations or views I have?

[Tony Parsons]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkhUivqzWv0

 

Thanks for this, Phil.

 

I have 'mobility issues' and walk with the aid (mostly !) of a stick. I also have 'obesity issues'.

 

When I am getting off a crowded bus, I will often announce loudly, 'Mind your backs, please - Fat Cripple coming through !' It is fascinating to watch people valiantly wondering if they should be offended - and if so, with whom !

 

Nothing to do with photography, but I do wish I could capture their expressions sometimes.

[Norma Desmond]

You got it backwards from where I'm sitting. I was pointing out that how labeling something "politically incorrect" is often used these days, not to expand freedom of speech and equality but to gradually suppress it it seems. What you're talking about (labeling something "politically correct") is simply a consequence and reaction to this.

Except no one here but you labeled anything politically incorrect. I mentioned that I thought these photos denigrated women and gave me the creeps. You then brought political correctness into the discussion. It’s a charged label and distracted from discussing the photos.

 

In any case, I don’t want to risk the discussion becoming what Sandy may have rightly feared, if it hasn’t already become that, so I’ll bow out here. I’m off to look at some of my old Playgirls, which I have cleverly hidden in the travel section of my home library!

[Norma Desmond]

The fact that you think the photos (regardless of the intent behind them) denigrate women (which is pretty much the same as saying you think the photos are politically incorrect in the context you're holding them in) is what seems to me to be the ultimate denigration here as it reduces women to a collective or group in which each individual is representative of the whole and can't speak for themselves and needs your moral protection somehow.

I often try to personalize how I might feel in a similar situation before offering opinions such as these. I've experienced denigrating comments and actions throughout my life (thankfully, less and less as the years go by) for being gay. I have not once taken offense or felt reduced or denigrated when someone else stood up for me or stood up with me (as a gay man, part of a collective which I'm happy to belong to). I embrace the moral protection I often find coming from others and appreciate it. So that's the attitude with which I enter (and leave) this discussion. I don't believe anything I've said to be hurtful to women, but I know I could be wrong and, if there is a woman reading this who has been hurt by what I've said, I sincerely apologize.

[Sandy Vongries]

[

It's not about being hurtful or of you having good intentions (you know what they say about hell). It's about the insistence to think and speak (whether as man or as woman) for all women.

Sorry, women have been taking care of themselves just as long as men. To imply they need aid as a gender is profoundly demeaning. Certainly there are needy individuals, of either / any? sex. What has it come to - yet another dystopia - read Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron.

[Allen Herbert]

This all seems rather simple to me.

 

A good street/documentry photographer will photograph the world the way it is and add a art to their vision.

 

Only troubled folk would use photography in a perverted way, and only troubled folk would see the perverted in normal street photographs...which has more to do with their troubled minds than photography.

 

And the moralists only see their own morals, which they believe are given to them, by a higher power ,Not that this higher power has ever spoken to them, but sort of a the word from those we claim are in direct communication.

 

And then there are just moralists who like to moralize....they believe they have superior morals to everyone else and just see wickedness everywhere.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Allen Herbert

[tomspielman]

I don't know that I'd categorize those photos either as "street photography' or "travel photography". I definitely wouldn't call them "kiddie porn". As to the ethics, whether it's women, kids, or adult males, really the ethics boil down to a simple question. Would the people being photographed object to it if they knew what the intent of the photographer was?

 

And if the answer is "yes", then does the reason for photographing them trump their wishes? For example, if you're photographing a politician doing something they clearly shouldn't doing, they would of course object. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be photographed. That's an easy example. A journalist may photograph all sorts of people doing all sorts of things and experiencing emotions that they would consider private. That kind of thing gets harder but we give a pass to journalists because they are recording important events.

 

Since I'm a non-professional and don't have any aspirations to become one, I feel I really need to be careful. As to the photos in question, I think it's quite possible to take pictures of young women in bikinis on a beach that neither denigrate nor demean them, - but they can still be "creepy". Of the photos in question that I saw, I kept wondering, what is the photographer trying to show? I didn't see any art. I didn't see anything I couldn't see on most any beach. There was nothing "special" about what was being captured, - so why take the pictures? That would be my question, and only the photographer knows that answer.

[tomspielman]

I ran across a thread on Quora that made me think about this question a little more. The question posed was: "Do women feel offended when men stare at them?" Not everyone's answer was exactly the same but there was some consensus and nothing really surprising. Cultures vary but people in general (women included) don't like to be stared at, - with exceptions. The reason that thread reminded me of this one is that the word "creepy" was used a lot to describe a man whose stares were unwanted.

 

A "stare" was generally defined to be something that lasted more than a few seconds. Women understand that men like to look at them, - and often don't mind men looking at them, but staring is something else entirely. However, sometimes even staring is welcome, - but only when done by certain men in certain situations. This in all likelihood does not include 16 year old girls getting stared at through a camera by an adult male stranger.

 

We are all taught as kids that staring and pointing are impolite. Taking a photo in some ways is like an unending stare. It allows staring at will, - indefinitely. Further posting a photo on the Internet is in a way pointing at someone among the largest group possible. This is why people have become so sensitive about their photos being taken.

 

In the quora thread, the women's reaction to staring varied from annoyance, to discomfort, to out and out fear.

 

Yes, let's create ever more fractions and collectives, because that's what society really needs. Let's maintain all of our precious group divisions and collective "identities" (you're part of group A, I'm part of group B) instead of being thinking individuals.

 

I understand what you're saying. It would be great if we all just treated each other respectfully and not be concerned about their gender, race, or sexual preferences when interacting with someone. However, the reality is that the groups or "collectives" we are part of have a huge impact on how we experience life and that affects how we react to things and how we are treated.

 

I'll give you a simple example. Last year my then 13 year old daughter was walking a dog. She was a little entrepreneur, - and dog walking was her business. She had a website, business cards, the whole deal. She did 80% of it on her own. On this particular day, she noticed that the same car had driven by her 2 or 3 times when she saw it come towards her again. This last time, the guy yells at her as he goes by: "Nice Rack!"

 

13 years old.

 

He may have had no intention of doing anymore than that, but she was scared to death. She called her mom and immediately high-tailed it back to the dog owner's house. The dog walking business is no more, even though my wife and I would go with her, or arrange a friend to go with her, she's no longer comfortable doing it. That's tragic.

 

I realize that's anecdotal but a 2 year old study done by Cornell states that 85% of American women have experienced some form of street harassment by the time they are 17. Further, 77% of women under 40 have had one or more men follow them in a way that made them feel uncomfortable, - in the last year.

 

Boys don't experience that. I'm not saying that boys don't have their own trials and struggles, but that's not something they experience to the same degree. And those experiences shape how we perceive the world. Some teenage boys on a beach might think it's weird if they notice some guy (or woman) taking a picture of them, but probably not think about it much beyond that. A teenage girl might feel threatened.

 

I don't believe that the photographer in question has any ill-intent but I also believe that the attention he's giving these girls would be unwelcome if they were aware of it. And yes, I believe the main problem with posting the photos on the travel or street forums is that they don't really fit there. But I think another problem is that there's not really a better place to put them. And maybe he should take that as a sign that he shouldn't be taking them.

Edited November 29, 2017 by tomspielman

[JDMvW]

Had Bresson had a portfolio full of scantily-clad children out in public and not much else

 

How about the actual case of Lewis Carroll (Dodgson)? (LINK) Although these were not "street" photography, times have changed for sure

[Allen Herbert]

Lots of words...and just lots of words.

 

Yes, the world is full of misguided creeps. Hello, is this a revelation on the road to Damascus for some folks.

 

A photographer takes photographs how simple is that to understand. Nobody dies.

 

Just a photograph.