Let's face it: to some extent or another, every person is a voyeur. And even when it tries not to be, photography is always voyeuristic. Once the exposure is made and published, it's then up to the beholder as to how voyeuristic they intend to be. That's the nature of the medium.
In my field of photojournalism, I've always held the opinion that we are professional voyeurs; i.e., we're paid to look in on the activities of others, prurient or otherwise -- kinda like your nosey neighbor who always appears "magically" in his back yard every time you're changing clothes by the window.
"Voyeur" is a loaded term that comes with all kinds of (mostly negative) connotations. It's unfortunate that such scorn is laid at the feet of what I consider the perfectly normal social curiosity of the human race.
voyeurism or curiosity?
in The History & Philosophy of Photography
Posted
Let's face it: to some extent or another, every person is a voyeur. And even when it tries not to be, photography is always voyeuristic. Once the exposure is made and published, it's then up to the beholder as to how voyeuristic they intend to be. That's the nature of the medium.
In my field of photojournalism, I've always held the opinion that we are professional voyeurs; i.e., we're paid to look in on the activities of others, prurient or otherwise -- kinda like your nosey neighbor who always appears "magically" in his back yard every time you're changing clothes by the window.
"Voyeur" is a loaded term that comes with all kinds of (mostly negative) connotations. It's unfortunate that such scorn is laid at the feet of what I consider the perfectly normal social curiosity of the human race.
Even the humans who read People magazine.
Just my two cents.
RC