Fujifilm Drops Street Photographer After Backlash to Video

Todd Jones said:

athensGA said:

Todd Jones said:

athensGA said:

Bill your post is a well reasoned and comprehensive analysis of the whole situation. Ultimately this is going to be a tempest in a teapot and it probably won't matter a fig to fuji sales reputation etc with either the artistic crowd or those offended. I am concerned though that some of the comments under the article here were viscerally negative: 'the guy is a creep!' 'mass murderers took photos of their victims should i consider that art too?' 'he should have his face punched in!' 'he should try that in nyc and see what happens!' 'he should have that camera shoved up his (sic) bum!' etc. All of this on a forum that i would assume is peopled by folks who have some appreciation of art.

There are plenty plenty plenty of examples of art - paintings, books, music etc that society freaked about wanted banned etc. I'm talking the impressionists, james joyce, elvis etc. Art that is universally admired now. My favorite example is the John Singer Sargent painting 'a portrait of Madame X'. He first painted her with her gown strap falling off her shoulder (God forbid!!). Society at the time freaked out. It almost ruined him and it did ruin her. It's my favorite painting. Sits proudly in the Met these days and no one bats an eye at it.

So it's a very slippery slope for society in general to start dictating what is and what isn't acceptable art as they are so often proven wrong with the passage of time.

Click to expand...

It's not "proven wrong with the passage of time", it's accepting rudeness, ignorance, and a moral collapse as commonplace by the volume of it at any point in time. The goal posts have never been moved by decent people, but artist that do push and cross those boundaries simply can't create art to begin with without a shock or blow to decency.

Click to expand...

So you think since society was scandalized by John Singer Sargent's painting in the 1880s we should still be scandalized by a bare female shoulder?

Click to expand...

Yes. Why do you need to see that?

Todd Jones said:

Do you miss white and colored water fountains too?

Click to expand...

No.

Click to expand...

Ok well I can respect your consistency but I'm grateful that social mores are not dictated by a puritanical minority.

In my mind, street photography is about capturing life in pictures. I’ve got to think that there is a way to do it that is not so much in your face. To the extent that some of the images reflect avoidance or annoyance, it could be debatable that that is real life vs reactionary life. I suppose art contributes to the enrichment of society, but there is a balance that I think could be adjusted for to minimize the intrusive aspects of the process.

Bill Ferris said:

frez said:

Bill Ferris said:

Let us please do each other the courtesy of respecting a difference of opinion. Disagreement on these matters is not equivalent to wanting a return to the Jim Crow South. Please, let's keep the discussion civil.

Click to expand...

Had anyone not been civil, crossed the line or was this just a warning not to descend in that direction?

Click to expand...

If you read the posts immediately prior, you'll see a person asked if another missed segregated water fountains. Disagreeing on the matter of what is and is not appropriate or tolerable public conduct is not the equivalent of wanting a return to segregation. There's no need to dwell on it or call anyone out. Let's move forward being respectful of other's right to disagree.

Click to expand...

Todd expressed his regret that art has pushed the boundaries of social acceptance. He clearly states that he believes a woman's bare shoulder should not be exposed in public. I was just curious as to whether his conservatism extends to other changes in society, so i asked if he missed segregation too. I thought it was legitimate. Maybe i should have asked instead if he thinks women should wear burkhas.

Bill Ferris said:

athensGA said:

You probably haven't punched anybody in your adult life.

Click to expand...

If true, would that be bad? Would it be bad if nobody who has contributed to this thread has ever punched another person in their adult life?

It sounds pretty good to me.

On the topic of Mr. Suzuki's conduct as a photographer, I'm on the record saying I believe that, while quite possibly annoying or obnoxious to some he photographs, it is public behavior that should be tolerated. I believe you and I are in agreement that Suzuki's non-violent approach - he doesn't initiate physical contact with people he photographs - does not merit a punch in the face.

In that exchange, the person who has crossed the line, is the person who got violent.

Click to expand...

You totally whiffed on this one. Of course it would not be bad if he/she has never punched anybody, But he/she is bragging on here like its a regular activity and acceptable too. Which i highly doubt. But maybe the general idea of punching a photographer gets accepted and all of a sudden somebody is punching me on the street instead of saying 'hey! did you just take my picture!?!?' which is what i usually get.

Rob-in-Alberta said:

tvgc said:

biza43 said:

Rob-in-Alberta said:

biza43 said:

Todd Jones said:

frez said:

Todd Jones said:

But he (and I) let people know that there is a line not to be crossed. As a decent adults, they should have learned that by now.

Click to expand...

And who decides where this line is, you?

Click to expand...

When you get in my or heaven forbid my wife's or kid's face, ME!

Click to expand...

And that would be fine. I would get punched by you, and you would spend some time in jail for breaking the law. When I go out to shoot in the street, I take the risks. I am not so bold as the photog under discussion, but I had several negative reactions during my time.

Rob-in-Alberta said:

Rob-in-Alberta said:

Different cultures have different values, are other people's cultures wrong because their values are different than yours?

Click to expand...

You apparently didn't see the video or you would have not said that. Those people were offended in their culture, period

Click to expand...

In the video, some had a negative reaction, that could be construed as being offended, or being shy. Others were ok.

Click to expand...

The Penal system could not handle imprisonment of every one who was guilty of a “punch in the face” minor assault. live in the real world for a minute, there is no “going to jail” for punching unless it results in a pretty severe injury.

Click to expand...

At least in my country, such an offense would throw you in jail, assuming there was a complaint, of course. No need for you to make such swiping statements about living in the real world, etc.

Click to expand...

I live in his Country and it would land you in jail as well.

In Canada it is called The Criminal Code Of Canada and under 264.1 simply uttering a threat could land you jail.

If you assault someone you will go to jail otherwise there would be chaos and he knows that. If he would like to punch someone in the nose to test theory - go for it.

Cheers, Terry

T.

Click to expand...

“Could” sure there’s laws, no question. but if i punch someone i’m not sticking around for police to come. what percent of assaults get prosecuted? what percent of minor assaults get Jail sentences?

Click to expand...

You subscribe to "hit and run"?

So in your mind because someone "got in your face" legally it's OK for you to commit an illegal act and then run away? What if the person you punched fell backward, hit their head and suffered a serious injury or worse died? Doesn't that make you judge, jury and executioner?

Think about that.

Bob

Suzuki seems to have copied Bruce Gliden's style, to some extent. Gliden used flash along with the sudden move from behind someone in the path of a target, or suddenly turning from the side to someone immediately adjacent. He definitely gets the "surprised" look that he desires. Photographing in mid-town Manhattan, he probably gets fewer stiff arms and hip-checks than he might, from people who view him as rude, or simply in the way.

Glidden:
Japanese society is much more polite than US society, and Suzuki's personal space invasion is probably less likely to invoke "a punch in the nose" reaction, than the look of surprise and annoyance that seems to be the desired result.

The great Gary Winogrand, by contrast, stood in the flow of people, pretending to be a goofy guy fiddling with his camera controls, at waist or chest height, and suggesting "I'm not really taking your photograph", while lifting the camera towards his eye, and making a "capture," often getting faces "as they were." Often, the shot is made long before the camera reaches his eye for "accurate" framing.

There's an example at about the 23 second mark in this clip.


There are more shooting examples in the documentary "All Things Are Photographable" and in various other film clips of him at work.

In contrast, Suzuki and Gliden favor "confrontational" style, looking for reaction, indeed provoking surprise and alarm. In Japan, this might be viewed close to assault, and as such, undesirable in a spokesperson and sponsored photographer.

athensGA said:

Bill Ferris said:

frez said:

Bill Ferris said:

Let us please do each other the courtesy of respecting a difference of opinion. Disagreement on these matters is not equivalent to wanting a return to the Jim Crow South. Please, let's keep the discussion civil.

Click to expand...

Had anyone not been civil, crossed the line or was this just a warning not to descend in that direction?

Click to expand...

If you read the posts immediately prior, you'll see a person asked if another missed segregated water fountains. Disagreeing on the matter of what is and is not appropriate or tolerable public conduct is not the equivalent of wanting a return to segregation. There's no need to dwell on it or call anyone out. Let's move forward being respectful of other's right to disagree.

Click to expand...

Todd expressed his regret that art has pushed the boundaries of social acceptance. He clearly states that he believes a woman's bare shoulder should not be exposed in public. I was just curious as to whether his conservatism extends to other changes in society, so i asked if he missed segregation too. I thought it was legitimate. Maybe i should have asked instead if he thinks women should wear burkhas.

Click to expand...

No, you shouldn't. I'm generally fine with this discussion, but NOT fine with bringing any form of specific religious beliefs or traditions into it, such as headwear or other such topics for debate. I think the overall discussion has value, but want it kept on topic, at least remotely related to photography, and away from specifics like this that invite very off topic and heated discussions.

He’s not doing photography any favors.

Especially given his useless results.

When you stick a camera in the face of a person you’ve *changed* the moment. However subtly.

So is this really “street photography” anymore or just one guy essentially promoting himself by using a controversial “style”?

One day he’ll stick his camera in the face of the wrong person and this will be the result:

https://petapixel.com/2019/09/19/st...-bloody-for-taking-photo-of-a-couple-hugging/

There are so many pictures in the world today. The absence of his obnoxious style of photography is much more appreciated than his photos to the majority.

He gets some good pictures, but that working method is so random and lacking in civility that I find it difficult to appreciate what he does or even produces. The discussion of what is art and how you make it goes on forever, but I think it wise Fuji reconsidered their association with this guy. It makes it easier for me to go back to saving up for an XT4.

eric333 said:

He’s not doing photography any favors.

Especially given his useless results.

When you stick a camera in the face of a person you’ve *changed* the moment. However subtly.

So is this really “street photography” anymore or just one guy essentially promoting himself by using a controversial “style”?

One day he’ll stick his camera in the face of the wrong person and this will be the result:

https://petapixel.com/2019/09/19/st...-bloody-for-taking-photo-of-a-couple-hugging/

Click to expand...

Useless results? Yes, his work has been recognized, displayed and published internationally to a great deal of praise..but some guy on the internet with unrelated photos in his gallery of mediocre quality has proclaimed the work useless.

From what I saw of the video (& I did not watch it thoroughly & I have not perused every post in this thread & this video has since been taken down) I saw him non-verbally asking to take someone's photo by presenting his camera directly to them. Rather than remaining aggressive he seemed rather demur about moving on when he got any non-verbal indication that his attention was unwelcome. He quickly moved on to the next prospect. Pushy, but not terribly aggressive.

I can imagine why Fujifilm made the corporate decision they did, although I find it gutless, but not without reason.

I've recently seen a video of another photographer who seemed unwilling to take no for an answer - that's where I drew the line.

"Street Photography" generates so much argument all the way down to the basic "What is street photography?" that I never admit to doing it. When I do, I call it something else.

Time to pick another name for this, everyone.

Lance St. Paul said:

From what I saw of the video (& I did not watch it thoroughly & I have not perused every post in this thread & this video has since been taken down) I saw him non-verbally asking to take someone's photo by presenting his camera directly to them. Rather than remaining aggressive he seemed rather demur about moving on when he got any non-verbal indication that his attention was unwelcome. He quickly moved on to the next prospect. Pushy, but not terribly aggressive.

I can imagine why Fujifilm made the corporate decision they did, although I find it gutless, but not without reason.

I've recently seen a video of another photographer who seemed unwilling to take no for an answer - that's where I drew the line.

Click to expand...

On a side note, regarding taking "no" for an answer - once in Singapore, we were passing by a standing uniformed guy, armed with a rifle (some military or police forces, I guess), and I raised my camera to take a photo of him, but doing so in an obvious manner, making an eye contact and basically waiving the camera, asking for permission.

His face was dead serious as he shook his head left and right, disapproving. Meh, I wasn`t really surprised, taking the camera away (and thus not taking the photo).

But what did surprise me was his next reaction - as I started lowering the camera, his face got lit by a huge grin, and he said - "Thanks!"

I smiled back... That short exchange of both sincere and respectful reactions between two total strangers meant more to me than if I had made the photo, and I`ll remember it longer for sure.

Disagree with you about artistic license. No-one ever thinks about the person having his or her photo taken against their will. We never think of the other person, only ourselves and our own pursuits. You don't need to physically bump a person to offend him or her. And I don't think there is anything particularly brilliant about pointing your camera in someone's face and messing the shutter button.

And being brilliant at something doesn't necessarily make that something right or moral or acceptable.

Jerry-astro said:

athensGA said:

Bill Ferris said:

frez said:

Bill Ferris said:

Let us please do each other the courtesy of respecting a difference of opinion. Disagreement on these matters is not equivalent to wanting a return to the Jim Crow South. Please, let's keep the discussion civil.

Click to expand...

Had anyone not been civil, crossed the line or was this just a warning not to descend in that direction?

Click to expand...

If you read the posts immediately prior, you'll see a person asked if another missed segregated water fountains. Disagreeing on the matter of what is and is not appropriate or tolerable public conduct is not the equivalent of wanting a return to segregation. There's no need to dwell on it or call anyone out. Let's move forward being respectful of other's right to disagree.

Click to expand...

Todd expressed his regret that art has pushed the boundaries of social acceptance. He clearly states that he believes a woman's bare shoulder should not be exposed in public. I was just curious as to whether his conservatism extends to other changes in society, so i asked if he missed segregation too. I thought it was legitimate. Maybe i should have asked instead if he thinks women should wear burkhas.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Nope, but they can if they want. What I do KNOW is that bare shoulder leads to. It's what leads to the soft porn on 500px that's at the top of the popular photos over and over again because it's what gets looked a lot by "men". It's what leads to some of the revealing wedding dresses today. It's what leads to the Superbowl halftime show (do you know JLo prayed before going on stage?). This in the era of "Me too".

"In the last few decades, though no one can say exactly how it happened, the unthinkable became tolerable. And then acceptable. And then legal. And now, God help us, applaudable." - Joni Eareckson Tada

That pretty much sums it up

How in the world did we get here on this forum?

At the end of the day, Thank You Fujifilm. And what people think of each other (and me) on here is absolutely irrelevant. If that's who your trying to impress you've probably failed, at least I hope so.

Take good photos, be nice, and don't let anyone treat the females or kids in you life like objects.

There is and always was decent and indecent people its just the percentage of each that's changing.

Be concerned with someone's reaction to rudeness after you've acknowledged the original offender.

I'm going away to watch X100V videos on YouTube, bye.

Jerry-astro said:

you shouldn't. I'm generally fine with this discussion, but NOT fine with bringing any form of specific religious beliefs or traditions into it, such as headwear or other such topics for debate. I think the overall discussion has value, but want it kept on topic, at least remotely related to photography, and away from specifics like this that invite very off topic and heated discussions.

Click to expand...

Todd Jones said:

Jerry-astro said:

athensGA said:

Bill Ferris said:

frez said:

Bill Ferris said:

Let us please do each other the courtesy of respecting a difference of opinion. Disagreement on these matters is not equivalent to wanting a return to the Jim Crow South. Please, let's keep the discussion civil.

Click to expand...

Had anyone not been civil, crossed the line or was this just a warning not to descend in that direction?

Click to expand...

If you read the posts immediately prior, you'll see a person asked if another missed segregated water fountains. Disagreeing on the matter of what is and is not appropriate or tolerable public conduct is not the equivalent of wanting a return to segregation. There's no need to dwell on it or call anyone out. Let's move forward being respectful of other's right to disagree.

Click to expand...

Todd expressed his regret that art has pushed the boundaries of social acceptance. He clearly states that he believes a woman's bare shoulder should not be exposed in public. I was just curious as to whether his conservatism extends to other changes in society, so i asked if he missed segregation too. I thought it was legitimate. Maybe i should have asked instead if he thinks women should wear burkhas.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Nope, but they can if they want. What I do KNOW is that bare shoulder leads to. It's what leads to the soft porn on 500px that's at the top of the popular photos over and over again because it's what gets looked a lot by "men". It's what leads to some of the revealing wedding dresses today. It's what leads to the Superbowl halftime show (do you know JLo prayed before going on stage?). This in the era of "Me too".

"In the last few decades, though no one can say exactly how it happened, the unthinkable became tolerable. And then acceptable. And then legal. And now, God help us, applaudable." - Joni Eareckson Tada

That pretty much sums it up

How in the world did we get here on this forum?

At the end of the day, Thank You Fujifilm. And what people think of each other (and me) on here is absolutely irrelevant. If that's who your trying to impress you've probably failed, at least I hope so.

Take good photos, be nice, and don't let anyone treat the females or kids in you life like objects.

There is and always was decent and indecent people its just the percentage of each that's changing.

Be concerned with someone's reaction to rudeness after you've acknowledged the original offender.

I'm going away to watch X100V videos on YouTube, bye.

Todd Jones said:

you shouldn't. I'm generally fine with this discussion, but NOT fine with bringing any form of specific religious beliefs or traditions into it, such as headwear or other such topics for debate. I think the overall discussion has value, but want it kept on topic, at least remotely related to photography, and away from specifics like this that invite very off topic and heated discussions.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And I think this discussion has gone on long enough and, in some cases, wandered WAY OT. I’m not a fan of censorship, but at this point, the discussion has ceased to be productive an is now wandering in to issues of morality.

We’re done.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod