In a Street Photography class, we read and discussed the following article written by Bill Jay.
To start, I quote from Bill Jay's website and hence, why I'm OK with posting the link:
"This web site provides an opportunity to "archive" many of them [his essays] while, hopefully, making them available to a wider, new audience. Here is a preliminary selection. Further articles will be added at frequent intervals.
Please feel free to download and print them for your personal use, although I expect commercial users to follow the laws of copyright."
Fred, it this is still not acceptable to link from FM, either delete or let me know and I'll delete this thread.
Bill Jay is a writer published in "LensWorks," "Practical Photography" and other media, and his website is here: http://www.billjayonphotography.com/
The article "The Photographer as Aggressor" was a very interesting read and started quite a good discussion in class.
It is a little long but if you want to read it and post your thoughts on it, it might make for an interesting discussion.
Well, I gave up. Philosophical, psychological and quasi-historic musings aside, the writings and discussions of privacy by Brandeiss are older than Sontag's and probably more practically important to most photographers.
Craig Gillette wrote:
Well, I gave up. Philosophical, psychological and quasi-historic musings aside, the writings and discussions of privacy by Brandeiss are older than Sontag's and probably more practically important to most photographers.
The style reminds me of various philosophical essays, many of which had little meaningful substance and were fancy ways of saying "look! I is soo good".
I think the important question/issue is whether society at large agrees with the author.
Craig Gillette wrote:
Well, I gave up. Philosophical, psychological and quasi-historic musings aside, the writings and discussions of privacy by Brandeiss are older than Sontag's and probably more practically important to most photographers.
Hi Craig, while I can appreciate not wanting to read the whole thing, it was written by Bill Jay who for years has been one of the leading contributors to photography for many years with a regular column in what many consider the best photography rag in the nation, Lensworks. And the course was taught by the directory of photography for the Smithsonian Institutes, who gave an entire class to this narrow topic and thought it a vital discussion for serious photographers…not to mention that the subject of the role of photography in society is sort of a little important…oh well, thanks for chiming in.
Edited by Shane Canfield on Feb 29, 2008 at 01:53 AM GMT (Reason: to correct serious typos...going too fast and not editing first. )
invalid2 wrote:
I think the important question/issue is whether society at large agrees with the author.
I think he makes a strong case that it does and has for a hundred years. We are constantly pushing the limits and often crossing into people's private space with a big chip on the shoulder and screaming about our rights to do so...when my experience, especially shooting street work, jives strongly with Jay's thoughts. And today with cameras even more present everywhere we go, this issue is not going to go away, just the opposite. People do not seem to be more tolerant, despite the millions of cameras and amature photographers out there.
invalid2 wrote:
The style reminds me of various philosophical essays, many of which had little meaningful substance and were fancy ways of saying "look! I is soo good".
Oh well, I tried to set up a meaningful discussion instead of the "show me a 100% crop of a corner of a photograph of a brick wall." Maybe it will work here on FM, maybe not...but I'm sick of hearing about what camera has the best sensor and thought it might be interesting to talk about actual photography as a craft...maybe not the place, or maybe it is...
invalid2 wrote:
I think the important question/issue is whether society at large agrees with the author.
Shane Canfield wrote:
I think he makes a strong case that it does and has for a hundred years. We are constantly pushing the limits and often crossing into people's private space with a big chip on the shoulder and screaming about our rights to do so...when my experience, especially shooting street work, jives strongly with Jay's thoughts. And today with cameras even more present everywhere we go, this issue is not going to go away, just the opposite. People do not seem to be more tolerant, despite the millions of cameras and amature photographers out there.
I will claim that people are more tolerant (or ignorant) in some ways (ubiquitous "security" cameras), and not in others (I will say cameras+children, for lack of a better example). On the topic of "ubiquitous cameras" - maybe people are differentiating between the common (cellphone or small P&S) and the uncommon (interchangeable lens) cameras as compared to previously when the distinction was between having a camera or not.
As for the essay itself - I think it should be simple enough to find a few references over a hundred year span that fit with the premise, I would be curious to see other viewpoints.
Shane Canfield wrote:
Oh well, I tried to set up a meaningful discussion instead of the "show me a 100% crop of a corner of a photograph of a brick wall." Maybe it will work here on FM, maybe not...but I'm sick of hearing about what camera has the best sensor and thought it might be interesting to talk about actual photography as a craft...maybe not the place, or maybe it is...
The essay "The Photographer as Aggressor" seems unbalanced to me, and as I said before - the style does not impress me. I could complain about the essay, but I think it would be far more interesting to hear what you think of the issue. To add further fodder, I will mention "The Transparent Society" which is exactly the same, but still somewhat related.
I scanned through the article and it seems to me that the author was trying to describe a camera as another tool to impose our will, perverse or otherwise, on someone else who may not be agreeable. I think it is even more applicable today because of availability camera phones/PDAs and any embarrassing moment you may have can end up on the web for all to see.
I like the subtitle "When photography becomes a moral act." The person with the camera has to make a value judgment when using a camera: just because you "can" doesn't mean you do whatever you want and disregard someone else's wish.
This should hopefully turn into an interesting discussion. One thought that seems to me to be a forgotten concept--photography related or not--is that one individual's rights end where another's begins.
For myself, I don't bother with street photography much at all as it's just too much hassle & I have plenty of other stuff to shoot. I also explicitly avoid the types of shots that cause problems as mentioned early in Mr. Jay's article. It's just not worth the trouble. Like Elton alludes to, just because you can doesn't mean you should.
EltonTeng wrote:
I scanned through the article and it seems to me that the author was trying to describe a camera as another tool to impose our will, perverse or otherwise, on someone else who may not be agreeable. I think it is even more applicable today because of availability camera phones/PDAs and any embarrassing moment you may have can end up on the web for all to see.
I like the subtitle "When photography becomes a moral act." The person with the camera has to make a value judgment when using a camera: just because you "can" doesn't mean you do whatever you want and disregard someone else's wish....Show more →
Well said. While we may not intend to use the camera as a tool for ill, it turns out that way when we photograph those that do not want to be. My own experience shows that many people are private and this is considered invading their space. So we have to be aware of that, respectful, and not do it just to serve our own desires...in other words, a camera does not mean that we have to right to invade someone's space just because we are not physically touching them.
And my sense is that the size of the camera does not change this. It only changes how aware people are of you doing it...not thier reaction to it once they know what is going on. A small rangefinder was/is the preferred tool of many street photographers because it draws less attention...not because poeple mind less. That would apply to call phones, little P&S, etc.
claudermilk wrote:
This should hopefully turn into an interesting discussion. One thought that seems to me to be a forgotten concept--photography related or not--is that one individual's rights end where another's begins.
For myself, I don't bother with street photography much at all as it's just too much hassle & I have plenty of other stuff to shoot. I also explicitly avoid the types of shots that cause problems as mentioned early in Mr. Jay's article. It's just not worth the trouble. Like Elton alludes to, just because you can doesn't mean you should.
True all...it can be a hassle. I only do now when out and about for other reasons. The local art festival is an example. But rarely do I go out anymore, by myself, on city streets to just shoot. I like seeing those photos, but especially being a tall man with a big camera, some people feel odd about getting snapped. That being said, I enjoy the results of, and seeing good street photography, so not really consistant in my thinking.
Pulling this from the rest of your post: Shane Canfield wrote:
While we may not intend to use the camera as a tool for ill, it turns out that way when we photograph those that do not want to be. My own experience shows that many people are private and this is considered invading their space.
Do you think it matters if someone is using a still camera, motion camera, writing notes or just looking? Also, are you talking (in general) about any specific society(s)?
Do people mind cameras more than eyeballs because the perception of photo==truth?
My experience with taking pictures of people has been favorable - but I am not pushy about it, and don't try to take pictures inappropriately.
There are certainly many layers of a "problem." I think that the photographic community could easily miss issues if they narrowly define or confine the concerns of others.
I think before one gets to esoteric academic (read as "boring") discussions, the photographic community has to take that "first step." Admit there is a problem. Then we can sit around some hotel round table discussing it, or in a dark little coffee house with imported cigarettes (or not - smoking being seens a a bigger social ill at this point that untoward behavior by photographers). The societal responses to smoking should be seen as a warning to photographers, not an aberration or an irrelevancy. "It's for the children!" can be used to excuse all kinds of repressive activity.
Deciding anti-photographer feeling is some primal response to an agressive "male" drive to ensure survival of the species, or some philistinian reaction by the unwashed, or even a political smokescreen is ignoring the activities engaged in by some people with cameras and the response significant parts of society have to those activities.
However, it's not necessary to be so self-absorbed as to figure that only photography is unliked or only photogrraphers are being seen as boorish, unsocialized or aggressive.
When one looks to some of the earliest photography and privacy conflicts, they arose with technological advances. Pictures could be taken quickly, and easily. And, this may be as important to the "responses," transmitted or published easily and widely. The development of radio and wired transmittal processes meant that the "embarrassing" picture (etc.) was no longer restrained. It could leave the immediate neighborhood and be splashed everywhere a wire could reach or a radio signal could be received. The internet has just taken that "advance" and in 100 years or so, has made the Victorian/Edwardian era esponses and technology seem to be museum quality quaint.
Henri Cartier-Bresson liked to hide and sneak around taking his shots, he often hid his camera under an article of clothing. Good or bad...who knows. At least he did not invade someone's space or publish distrubing photos or use them for ill-gotten purposes.
Rights is an argument that has two sides...not just photograhers rights, which seems to be the ONLY concern of most photographers. This lack of looking at how others view us is one of the main points of Jay's piece...we ignore the rights and privacy of others to our own peril.
Just because one has the right to do a thing does not mean it is civil behavior. Context is everything and thinking people must apply judgement.
In DC, I did some shooting on the Metro system. At one point, I took some shots of a few Metro Police and they were not happy about it. Was it my right to do so, sure...but to what end? Just to be obnoxious?
I talked to them later and there are good, sound reasons a police officer does not want to be photographed. So now I only do it if I have a reason, that reason is never just because I have the right to do it.
I do not think the right to photograph everyone and anyone means that rude behavior is acceptable. We live in a open society and without some form of treating each other well, we are not helping matters.
I photographed a series on homeless people. I was not wearing my press creds. At one point, one guy jumped up and nearly attacked me, it was all I could do to get away without a brawl. He was ticked I took his photo. Was it my right, sure. Was it a decent thing to do, he sure did not think so. Later I had to agree with him, he is not a stage monkey for me to treat with disrespect. Do I shoot homeless people now, yes...but I use a little common sense and if they see me and I get the impression that it is not acceptable by them, I don't do it...rights or no rights.
I think the problem is when real-life meets theory. Too many photographers are so wrapped up the "rights" arm-chair debate and that debate is just too black-and-white for those of us that do get out on the streets and shoot real people doing daily life.
I also have press credentials and shoot for newspapers now and then. That is a different ball of wax so I won't add that to mix.
In the end, it is about common sense and common decency.
On technology, yes, it has been changing everything, and fast. That is one reason we should talk about how it affects people's reaction to us...lest someone on Capitol Hill get out the old quill pen and then we might have a really problem.
Thank you for sharing both the link to Bill Jay's site and the article on aggression in photography. While the writing may not be what a lot of us are used to these days, it's pretty typical for that kind of essay. We generally don't bother sourcing assertions in photo forums, so by comparison it is challenging reading.
Certainly the issue has come up here before, especially on the People Forum. I've had some pretty heated message exchanges about the ethics of forcing unwilling people to be photo subjects. I wasn't aware of Sontag's assertion regarding sublimated murder. However I have only to look at a shot of someone trying to hide her face from a photographer to feel that something wrong has taken place. The old adage holds that just because you have the right to do something, that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Ultimately each of us arrives at a personal decision about photographing strangers without their consent. My take is that when people make it clear that they don't want to be photographed, their wishes should be respected. I'm also uncomfortable with surreptitious photography---hip shooting on public transportation or using viewfinders that fool people. It seems like a very slippery slope on the continuum to peeper cameras for capturing crotch shots on escalators. They arrest people for that.
However, I do take photos of strangers on the street. I make a point to be open about what I'm doing and thus give them the chance to say no. No doubt I sometimes catch them by surprise anyway. Then I have to make a decision about whether to post such a photo or not. It isn't always crystal clear.
But what is clear to me is that bullying is wrong. Taking something of someone when they don't want you to it is an aggressive act. You can say that "it doesn't really hurt anybody," but unless you're unable to understand facial expressions, that doesn't hold up. Shortly after I moved to Chicago in the 1980s, a local judge let a rapist off the hook because, "after all the woman wasn't really hurt." (That judge did lose his seat on the bench in the following election.) My point is that if you are very short on empathy, like that judge was, you're not in a good position to know whether taking someone's picture against their will does hurt them or not. As the Bill Ray essay made clear, such of behavior makes it harder for all photographers to take pictures in public. So if you do, I wish you would stop.
Craig Gillette wrote:
Deciding anti-photographer feeling is some primal response to an agressive "male" drive to ensure survival of the species, or some philistinian reaction by the unwashed, or even a political smokescreen is ignoring the activities engaged in by some people with cameras and the response significant parts of society have to those activities.
You definitely have the potential for a career in politics.
Soenda wrote:
While the writing may not be what a lot of us are used to these days, it's pretty typical for that kind of essay. We generally don't bother sourcing assertions in photo forums, so by comparison it is challenging reading.
True, nice change of pace to have to read something more than a few paragraphs long.
I wasn't aware of Sontag's assertion regarding sublimated murder.
Hyperbole but still like many essays designed to grab the attention, there is truth in the premise...we as photographers just find it over the top, and sadly often miss the point.
However I have only to look at a shot of someone trying to hide her face from a photographer to feel that something wrong has taken place.
Agreed, it ain't rocket science.
Ultimately each of us arrives at a personal decision about photographing strangers without their consent. My take is that when people make it clear that they don't want to be photographed, their wishes should be respected. I'm also uncomfortable with surreptitious photography---hip shooting on public transportation or using viewfinders that fool people. It seems like a very slippery slope on the continuum to peeper cameras for capturing crotch shots on escalators. They arrest people for that.
In today's world, sneaky photography does often carry the 'creepy' vibe.
However, I do take photos of strangers on the street. I make a point to be open about what I'm doing and thus give them the chance to say no. No doubt I sometimes catch them by surprise anyway. Then I have to make a decision about whether to post such a photo or not. It isn't always crystal clear.
Agree with this, my practice as well.
But what is clear to me is that bullying is wrong. Taking something of someone when they don't want you to it is an aggressive act. You can say that "it doesn't really hurt anybody," but unless you're unable to understand facial expressions, that doesn't hold up. Shortly after I moved to Chicago in the 1980s, a local judge let a rapist off the hook because, "after all the woman wasn't really hurt." (That judge did lose his seat on the bench in the following election.) My point is that if you are very short on empathy, like that judge was, you're not in a good position to know whether taking someone's picture against their will does hurt them or not. As the Bill Ray essay made clear, such of behavior makes it harder for all photographers to take pictures in public. So if you do, I wish you would stop.
