Well this has certainly been an interesting thread. And, I suspect it isn't over yet.
There certainly have been some strong feelings demonstrated and comments written. And, certainly, I have done my share. I do feel strongly about being photographed without my permission and feel empathy for others caught in a photographer's crosshairs.
There have been some interesting and thought provoking posts. Let's look at one of those by Ken.
Back to the germane issues here...
I find Kevin's reaction to his recognition of personal prejudice admirable. Grabbing your mind by the throat and asking it why it has reacted in such a manner is precisely how you avoid letting prejudices and fetishes turn your mind's eye into a schlerotic pin hole.
In Kevin's case he graciously started a new discussion and bared his reaction to the revelation that Charlie is drive-by-shooting on the streets of LA, and began exploring the preconceptions that he suspects as motives for his reactions. (Unfortunately for Kevin, this public venue has become more of a referendum and unproductive shoving match.)
Kevin, confronting your personal boundaries is precisely the path toward gradually overcoming them...or discovering that they're simply part of your DNA. Being as close to, and involved with, a major art museum as I am, I don't think a month passes where I don't have such discussions with myself over any number of types of arts.
Recognition and exploration of prejudices may not restore the value of work to your eye today...or tomorrow...or even next year. But, like statin medications, it can prevent such intellectual cholesterol from accumulating and clogging your mind. The heaviest baggage we take to our graves is regret.
His message could be interpreted differently by different people.
His message seems to suggest that something is merely a prejuidice and is to be overcome, if not today, then maybe tomorrow or the next year. Perhaps, something isn't a prejuidice but rather a value.
Do you want to change your values? I don't.
The heaviest baggage we take to our graves is regret when we have betrayed our values and hurt others by or through our actions.
Later I will return to Ken's other remark concerning his role in working in a major art museum and facing similar challenges.
I genuinely appreciated interacting with Charlie Chipman. Throughout his discussion with me, he was straightforward and earnest. Unfortunately for Charlie and I, we disagree.
Asher made a number of thoughtful and helpful comments, including
this one. Perhaps his thoughts as expressed in this thread was the reason why the reason why he wanted me to raise this issue.
Asher made another helpful comment as shown below.
For sure. I've had many experiences where the subject wants the photograph to vanish! If the person is polite, I most often delete the image, although I offer to send them the picture or take a new one if they wish. If the person is hostile, rude or threatening, likely I'll not delete the picture, just invite them to call the police!
In the USA, it's a high bar for a plaintiff to pass in order to make a case for defamation or other damage, especially if the work is made for art. A case in point would be pictures of the homeless, which like abandoned wood sheds are popular subjects for photographers! Not photographing the homeless is likely to move them further from our attention.
So your quick questions do not lend themselves to simple answers.
In
another post, I responded to his homeless concern, so I won't address it here.
Asher's comments here cut to the heart of my concerns: The willingness of the photographer to listen and consider the concerns of his subjects.
In his comments, Asher says, if the subject is polite, no problem. Rude, problem. Moreover, it's a high bar for defamation or other damages.
I hope Asher manages to stay away from the courts. Legal processes are often brutal. And regardless of what one might might think of his or her position, when one enters the legal arena for a fight, in the fog of war, unintended consequences often occur. Again, Asher, I hope your good nature and charm is sufficient to ward off legal actions.
Again, I emphasize that I appreciate Asher attention to his subjects' concerns.
Being as close to, and involved with, a major art museum as I am, I don't think a month passes where I don't have such discussions with myself over any number of types of arts.
Unfortunately, Ken never discussed how he resolves he bridges his concerns.
There is a large body of work discussing ethics and morals and legalities. Brilliant and earnest people themselves often, most often, don't agree on complex issues. So our disagreement here is no surprise.
Let me state right up front, I am a big believer in
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Translated, just because something is legal doesn't necessarily make it a good thing to do. Conversely, just because something is illegal, doesn't mean you should refrain.
One way of judging ethical and moral questions is to apply the golden rule. That is, does this situation fit with,
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The problem, of course, is that we are all different. Asher likely doesn't care who takes a photograph of him in public. Others, as demonstrated in the
Canadan Supreme Court case, sometimes feel differently.
Another test is,
How would you feel if your actions were posted in the front page of your local and national newspaper?
If a street photography subject were emotionally devasted as a result of having his or her photograph published, how would you feel? If the subject asked you to delete the photograph and you overrode the person's concerns, would you feel good about having caused severe emotional distress? Would you feel good having your actions known to everyone?
Why would a person be so upset at having his or her picture taken? For me, that question is irrelevant. It is not for me to decide how a person feels. It might be the person is sensitive about their body image because of a medical condition, because of family or other relationship, because he or she was teased, tormented, or bullied by others, or because of any number of other reasons. To me, it really doesn't matter why the person feels upset.
Some of you will argue that you can't protect everyone. And any attempt to do so will forego many valuable opportunities. While I have sympathy for that point of view, making a small effort to allow your subjects to interact with you in most circumstances is usually not a great burden.
Switching topics slightly, some or many of you seemed offended or aggrieved by my seemingly aggressive style. Imagine how offended your subjects might feel. Your anger or frustration or whatever with or against me doesn't hold a candle to what your subjects might feel against you when you publish an undesired photograph. Your feelings with or against me are absolutely nothing by comparison. Nothing at all.
Photography is a powerful medium. Images once published can never be retracted. Along with great power comes great responsibility. I hope you use it wisely.
