From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/21/02-06:45:39 PM Z
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Marco Milazzo wrote:
> A few days ago, I raised a simple question on this list - "A question we
> should all ask ourselves. . .," about the fairness of street photography to
> people who don't want to be photographed. My question was jumped on by one
> person who threw a few illogical assertions at it, said I was trying to
> impose my morality on others, called me "pious" and "sanctimonious," and
> said if I didn't want to exploit people, no one was holding a gun to my
> head, etc. I didn't deserve that treatment, and my question didn't deserve
> it either.
Marco, I note your sense of injury, dwelt on, nourished, eloquently
expressed. But, you speak of "illogic" of MY assumptions about YOUR
message -- they didn't seem so to me, and I'm generally as cogent as the
next one.
So let me ask you now, in all fairness, is it remotely possibly possible
that one getting your previous message could also feel a sense of injury?
Being told, for instance, what I should ask myself -- do you suppose I
never thought of that? That no one has said this before? That this was a
new idea -- Especially in the context of previous sneers, from Carl, et
al, which it would be too depressing to repeat.
Or am I to suppose that you suppose that my response -- defense of street
photography and my interest in it -- was entirely out of my imagination.
In which case -- why do you bother defending yourself from a loony tune?
> ... I was simply trying to raise, and possibly discuss an issue that
> seems consequential to me: Is it fair to use people for our purpose when
> they may not want to be used?
As for "fair," life isn't fair, and art LEAST of all is fair. Also,
without "street photography" or grab shots or "taking pictures without
permission" we would NOT have many of the photographs we most cherish --
and find most compelling -- of the 20th century. Unless your scruples
prevent full enjoyment of these. Or you prefer to have other folks do
your dirty work?
> Why ask ethical questions on a photo list? First, because some of us want
> to be good people as well as good photographers. That doesn't make us
> plaster saints. Between "bucaneer" and "choir-boy," there is a territory
> called "Decent Human Being." This is the mark I'm aiming at.
This may surprise you, but not only do I consider myself a "decent human
being" (tho if I were a real loony tune I'd get seriously uptight about
the implication that I'm not !!!), but that has got NOTHING NOTHING
NOTHING to do with art. Was anything "decent" about Picasso? You know
the story of Gaugin? And I promise you, there are all sorts of ways to
be decent, even sublime or SAINTLY -- and still be a street photographer.
In fact, as noted, we could be doing you a favor.
> But I also raise it because we deal with ethics everyday. Questions ranging
> from plagiarism to disposal of spent chemicals are about ethics. To ask
> these questions isn't being pious or sanctimonious, it's simply about
> respecting the same rights and wishes we want for ourselves.
Which others may consider misplaced, or overly delicate, or.... in my next
I'll describe what I consider a REALLY immoral (or unethical if you
prefer) photograph...
> This may be a new issue for this list, but that doesn't mean it doesn't
> belong here. I also recognize that it's not an issue everyone will care
> about. But why go out of your way to kill it at birth by stigmatizing it
> (and me) as ridiculous? If questions of ethics or fairness to people bother
> you, then please hit your "delete" key. Some people may want to discuss
> it - difficult to do when it has been mislabeled as pious and sanctimonious
> and slam-dunked into the trashcan.
Actually that was part of my impatience -- it's been discussed on this
list quite often, surely at least once a year, if not more. Also on the
old History of Photography list, and others as well, I wot.
Again, I perceived your remarks as both pious and sanctimonius.. as I do
your apparent reservation of YOUR position for "decent human being." Tho
perhaps you didn't mean that?
> My idea of discourse is a Socratic
> dialogue where both "sides" refine each other's ideas and help each other
> arrive at a correct position.
Indeed.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:09 PM Z CST