arielelf wrote:
[snip]
If you've read my others posts, you will already know what I think of
these photos as far as artistic merit is concerned. But whether I
think it is art or not is beside the point. Your suggestion that
candidly photographing people in public is unethical is, imo,
wrongheaded.
Actually I didn't say that I thought that street photography was
unethical.
I know that, but you declared that the photography of women, without their knowing, is unethical. That's a wide net to cast because it encompasses street photography.
[snip]
I said that I though that it was unethical for someone to obviously
single out shots of attractive women and post them on the internet
and then discuss with others in a forum about how they can trick
women into thinking that they are photgraphing them for a legitimate
purpose by using bussiness cards and other tricks, and then boasting
about how they have used those tricks before. That is creepy, and why
are they tricking them?
Handing out business cards or claiming to be working on a project is well-known technique for dealing with people's objections. Why "trick" people? So you can take their photos, of course. That's precisely what Walker Evans did when photographing people on subways. He used a TLR camera to frame unobtrusively and a cable release so he could trip the shutter without being noticed.
If you cannot see the difference in that and legitimate street
photography then I believe that you are "wrongheaded"
My point, which you're not getting, is that your original declaration of what is unethical is too broad because it encompasses street photography. If you want to refine your statement, then fine, go ahead.
There are a great many street photographers whose work
has both artistic and historical merit and photography in general
would have been poorer without their influence.
I totally agree. Walker Evans is one of my Favorite photographers,
but he would have never done anything like this, and would have
scorned the OP for doing so.
Evans used deception to make his subway images. The only difference here is that the OP was photographing attractive women and that the OP's results don't look particularly artistic. It sounds like you're basing your argument on your perceptions of the photographer's intentions. This has nothing to do with photographing without permission or photographing surreptitiously.
Furthermore, one could expand your argument to architecture
photographers and suggest that they stop photographing bridges and
other "sensitive" buildings because they're perpetuating this
impression as photographers as terrorists.
Totally different.
In what way? In both cases, you're judging the photographer's motivations rather than the photos themselves. If these were celeb photos, or fashion critique photos, you wouldn't have any complaints.
In fact, for many photographers, it is precisely the question of "is
this art?" that cases them grief. Security guards who scoff at the
idea of someone photographing their factory for the sake of art.
Policemen doubting the claims of a bus photographer that he enjoys
photographing buses.
I may not see artistic merit in the OP's photos but it doesn't mean I
should support the idea that we should never, in a public place,
photograph people without their permission.
I have never suggested that. You are saying that I said that.
This is what you said: "Just the fact that you have had women let you know that they don't like being photographed should give you a clue that this may not be the best idea. You are right that what you are doing is legal, but I do not think that it is ethical. It is perpetuating a sexist/voyeristic impression of our hobby, and it makes people uncomfotable."
You're right, I took liberties with your use of the word "ethical." By that, I presumed you meant that photographer's
shouldn't photograph people in public without their permission. What was the purpose of you calling unethical?
If the subjects were photographed in a demeaning way, I could see it being unethical and, in fact, I believe the subjects might have recourse in a court of law if such photos were made public. But to simply photograph people in public without permission, I disagree that it is unethical.
The simple fact of photographing people without their permission makes people uncomfortable. Again, that's a fact of street photography. Should we stop doing that?
Basically, to me, it sounds like your objection is based on the fact that the photos featured attractive women and not a lot of photographer-supplied interpretation. Fine. You're entitled to that opinion. But don't drag permissions and ethics into it because that also includes street photography.
larsbc
