Interesting stuff Skylar. As a guy who spent nearly 20 years of his life creating privacy training for big global companies, I have to say … I think this whole fascination with privacy is overblown. We are all just dust in the wind, and if some stranger captures an image of us that happens to make some kind of sense to some other stranger, how on earth could it possibly cause any harm or any offense? We make too much of ourselves, not to say our data, when in fact we are insignificant beyond belief.
yeah I'd agree, which kind of boils it down to intent in a way. Maybe it's less about privacy and more about respect? I think Sontag's bigger fear was the commodification of life and the effect the proliferation of imagery has on us, which to me was the more interesting of themes but didn't want to get into it this time around - maybe in a few weeks! haha
True, but it also comes down to who benefits from it. Big tech profits from our data, and it can be misused either by bad actors or by government actors (sometimes both). Painting in front of an open window is one thing; having personal conversations databased without consent is a different matter, especially when windows are closed, curtains drawn.
The argument perhaps becomes blurred if you sold the image, Skylar. There’s also the argument of art, of communicating a moment for greater good.
There are no easy answers regarding street and documentary photography ethics. For me I rarely shoot people eating or in places where they can’t move away if they choose to, if they see me. I always try to preserve dignity.
Quite a topic for discussion, and quite controversial as there are so many ways to look at it. Both photos in the post are like still-lifes. The man at his desk, the lighting, his attention to his work. The couple in the gondola, the bridge, the sky, lovely and romantic.Truly, I wonder if there is an answer.
What a fascinating and rich topic that I wish we could sit down and discuss, as it's something I've given a lot of thought.
When I first read the Sontag quote about the violence and imbalance, I thought, "What a load of horseshit."
Then I watched the clip about Gilchrist and, well, what he's doing does almost seem like a violent act. Honestly, I don't know how didn't get punched in the face.
That being said, I do think Sontag is engaging in a lot of hyperbole, Gilchrist notwithstanding. And her charges against photography can be leveled against almost any form of art because they almost always draw on human experience, often experience that isn't ours.
Indeed, how many times have novelists been accused of using other people's lives for their own art?
I was discussing photographing people just the other day with a new friend. His attitude is very much it's okay to take pictures of anyone you want out in public.
I admit that I WANT to take pictures of anyone who catches my attention -- but that also makes me very uncomfortable.
My general rule of thumb is I only photograph people who haven't given permission from a distance so that they are hard to recognize. Or I ask permission.
Two days ago, an older Mexican man dressed in jeans, cowboy boots, a flannel shirt, and wearing a cowboy hat was standing in front of this gorgeous blue wooden door that had faded with time.
I REALLY wanted that photo, but walked by without taking it. Then I turned around, went back, and asked him (in Spanish)if I could take his photo. He barely glanced at me, then looked away and refused to even give me the time of day. He seemed very pissed by the request.
My complicated feelings about photography go just beyond people though. I was recently in a poorer neighborhood in Guanajuato, an incredible place for taking pictures -- old, crumbling buildings painted in bright colors. Empty lots filled with trash, shrines to the Virgin Mary, murals everywhere, old cars. And yet I felt like a vulture pawing through these people lives for what? Social media content? Art? My enjoyment? All of the above?
Hmmm, I think I need to write a newsletter about this topic!
haha yeah I had the same reaction when I read her thoughts on the medium, granted I think she's speaking more metaphorically (but maybe not!). It does generate quite the discussion though, even my own internal monologue because it is such a provocative stance. At the very least it's an interesting counter position to use as discussion point! I was thinking of doing a mini series on this stuff because there's so much to unpack with Sontag. Roland Barthes writes Camera Lucida, which is another read that is far less critical but still pretty interesting!
I do a lot of photography but usually go out of my way to not include people in my pictures if at all possible. Having said that, I see no harm in the sort of images you are writing about - just appearing in public means people will see us, and possibly not at our best. There is no absolute right to privacy outside our own homes. Photographs of birds and insects are just so much more interesting than people anyway.
Very thoughtful observations about photography and the invasive nature it entails. I hadn’t thought about this in such detail; I think the only time I would think about it is if I was considering taking a possibly insensitive photo, like of a disaster. And it also depends on your intended uses for the photograph. And it depends if the subject knows you are taking the photo, if it is going to be an “ insensitive “ photo. If the photo is just for yourself, and the subject wouldn’t know you were taking the photo, I wouldn’t think about it too much.
It used to be required to get a model release from any person in a photo that would be published , or that the photographer was trying to use to make money.
I hadn’t seen the Venice photo of the couple; it is an excellent photo! Love the composition and sharing of love.
Interesting stuff Skylar. As a guy who spent nearly 20 years of his life creating privacy training for big global companies, I have to say … I think this whole fascination with privacy is overblown. We are all just dust in the wind, and if some stranger captures an image of us that happens to make some kind of sense to some other stranger, how on earth could it possibly cause any harm or any offense? We make too much of ourselves, not to say our data, when in fact we are insignificant beyond belief.
yeah I'd agree, which kind of boils it down to intent in a way. Maybe it's less about privacy and more about respect? I think Sontag's bigger fear was the commodification of life and the effect the proliferation of imagery has on us, which to me was the more interesting of themes but didn't want to get into it this time around - maybe in a few weeks! haha
True, but it also comes down to who benefits from it. Big tech profits from our data, and it can be misused either by bad actors or by government actors (sometimes both). Painting in front of an open window is one thing; having personal conversations databased without consent is a different matter, especially when windows are closed, curtains drawn.
The argument perhaps becomes blurred if you sold the image, Skylar. There’s also the argument of art, of communicating a moment for greater good.
There are no easy answers regarding street and documentary photography ethics. For me I rarely shoot people eating or in places where they can’t move away if they choose to, if they see me. I always try to preserve dignity.
Quite a topic for discussion, and quite controversial as there are so many ways to look at it. Both photos in the post are like still-lifes. The man at his desk, the lighting, his attention to his work. The couple in the gondola, the bridge, the sky, lovely and romantic.Truly, I wonder if there is an answer.
What a fascinating and rich topic that I wish we could sit down and discuss, as it's something I've given a lot of thought.
When I first read the Sontag quote about the violence and imbalance, I thought, "What a load of horseshit."
Then I watched the clip about Gilchrist and, well, what he's doing does almost seem like a violent act. Honestly, I don't know how didn't get punched in the face.
That being said, I do think Sontag is engaging in a lot of hyperbole, Gilchrist notwithstanding. And her charges against photography can be leveled against almost any form of art because they almost always draw on human experience, often experience that isn't ours.
Indeed, how many times have novelists been accused of using other people's lives for their own art?
I was discussing photographing people just the other day with a new friend. His attitude is very much it's okay to take pictures of anyone you want out in public.
I admit that I WANT to take pictures of anyone who catches my attention -- but that also makes me very uncomfortable.
My general rule of thumb is I only photograph people who haven't given permission from a distance so that they are hard to recognize. Or I ask permission.
Two days ago, an older Mexican man dressed in jeans, cowboy boots, a flannel shirt, and wearing a cowboy hat was standing in front of this gorgeous blue wooden door that had faded with time.
I REALLY wanted that photo, but walked by without taking it. Then I turned around, went back, and asked him (in Spanish)if I could take his photo. He barely glanced at me, then looked away and refused to even give me the time of day. He seemed very pissed by the request.
My complicated feelings about photography go just beyond people though. I was recently in a poorer neighborhood in Guanajuato, an incredible place for taking pictures -- old, crumbling buildings painted in bright colors. Empty lots filled with trash, shrines to the Virgin Mary, murals everywhere, old cars. And yet I felt like a vulture pawing through these people lives for what? Social media content? Art? My enjoyment? All of the above?
Hmmm, I think I need to write a newsletter about this topic!
haha yeah I had the same reaction when I read her thoughts on the medium, granted I think she's speaking more metaphorically (but maybe not!). It does generate quite the discussion though, even my own internal monologue because it is such a provocative stance. At the very least it's an interesting counter position to use as discussion point! I was thinking of doing a mini series on this stuff because there's so much to unpack with Sontag. Roland Barthes writes Camera Lucida, which is another read that is far less critical but still pretty interesting!
I do a lot of photography but usually go out of my way to not include people in my pictures if at all possible. Having said that, I see no harm in the sort of images you are writing about - just appearing in public means people will see us, and possibly not at our best. There is no absolute right to privacy outside our own homes. Photographs of birds and insects are just so much more interesting than people anyway.
yeah I try to not get explicit or easy to recognize faces, also because i think it adds a little intrigue, but sometimes it happens!
Very thoughtful observations about photography and the invasive nature it entails. I hadn’t thought about this in such detail; I think the only time I would think about it is if I was considering taking a possibly insensitive photo, like of a disaster. And it also depends on your intended uses for the photograph. And it depends if the subject knows you are taking the photo, if it is going to be an “ insensitive “ photo. If the photo is just for yourself, and the subject wouldn’t know you were taking the photo, I wouldn’t think about it too much.
It used to be required to get a model release from any person in a photo that would be published , or that the photographer was trying to use to make money.
I hadn’t seen the Venice photo of the couple; it is an excellent photo! Love the composition and sharing of love.