From: Marco Milazzo (mmilazz1@elp.rr.com)
Date: 09/23/02-10:49:48 AM Z
Judy,
I'm not making myself clear. I don't want to deny anyone anything, or to
censor anyone's images. Let street shooting proceed with reckless abandon.
I'm just trying to figure out limits which people may (or may not) want to
voluntarily place on their own shooting.
Let me give you a practical (albeit extreme) example suggested by ender100's
message about what he will or won't shoot:
Q: Is there anything wrong with a wealthy Caucasian redneck shooting
pictures out his/her limousine window of poor Hispanics in a barrio and
presenting them as a social comment?
We all agree it's legal. I for one don't think it's immoral, yet I still
think that on some human level, it's misguided. I've labeled this level
"ethics," but if you have a more accurate word, please supply it. It's not
just about photography issues; it's about people issues.
Some people may say "Yeah, it's kinda crass. I wouldn't do that." Some may
say "Hey, all's fair in love, war and photography," and some might say
"Yeah, it's crass, but I'd do it anyway."
All are legitimate answers for that photographer. I'm just trying to arrive
at a set of questions.
This is a difficult issue to define -- for me at least -- but discussing it
with you and others helps. We may decide that it's much ado about nothing,
but I'd like to kick it around a bit.
Marco
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: To Judy -- Ethical issues of street photography
> Marco,
>
> Because some so-called street photography could be used to mock or
> diminish people is hardly a reason to deny it -- after all, some marriages
> are abusive, some teachers are sadists, and so forth, yet we don't outlaw
> these institutions.
>
> As a matter of fact, the street photography that comes to my mind for the
> most part romanticizes people, makes even the fat and retarded look
> appealing -- as for instance Faurer's "Eddie" and most Cartier-Bresson.
> Even Robert Frank probably shows folks as would please them. The one
> photographer I think of who consistently destroys people is William Klein
> -- he is the genius who shows that if you stick a wide-angle lens in
> anyone's face they look freakish: well, duh. If you wanted to ban his
> photographs from face of the earth you'd be doing humanity and photography
> a favor -- because at least in those I'm familiar with there's NO OTHER
> IDEA, except hey hey look at the freaks. He's a one-trick pony -- bent on
> freakizing quite normal looking people.
>
> So I again conclude that refraining from this mode is a kind of
> squeamishness on the part of the photographer somehow made into a
> principle of *ethics* (your word) -- perhaps to cover the inhibition.
> I'll add that I myself have often chickened out, and I certainly don't
> find the mode tension free -- tho in my work at Times Square I found ways
> to station myself so as not to be noticed, or minimally.
>
> Meanwhile folks on this list have also claimed the best work requires
> total *immersion.* I'm not claiming "best" or any ranking for myself, only
> discussing the principles -- but the project, for what it's worth, was
> total immersion -- in more than 4 years I knew every inch of that ground,
> every store front, & many of the hangers out... if that matters, which
> some folks around here seemed to think does. I'm not sure that I took
> better pictures on day the last than day the first, tho, having taken so
> many more, the total was more good ones, or more I considered "good" --
> you might not.
>
> However, trust me -- there is no safe, risk-free art -- or so my own
> observation, schooling, mentors, teachers, and "the literature"
> consistently declare. There are all kinds of risks involved in sticking
> your neck out --- whether of process, subject, conceptual, or -- physical.
> Even "fancy borders" if you could believe was subject to defamation !!!
> But again, I say, for SURE, whether the subject likes his her picture, is
> ABSOLUTELY irrelevant, as my story about my beautiful portrait of Lynn so
> amply illustrates. That matters for a portrait studio, not for excellence
> in "art."
>
> So folks here mentioned "comfort level" -- which would be a *new
> criterion* for art -- not just a bad one but inverse of all our art
> values. (Tho our fave critic Jed Perl wrote for many years for a magazine
> called "New Criterion" -- coincidence ?) Anyway, conventional pictures
> like Ansel Adams have no problem with "comfort level", but in the big
> picture of art, somehow The Agony and the Ecstasy and the Comfort Level
> seems unlikely.
>
> If you have no taste for it, no one, as I said, is trying to force you. My
> point was that the grounds for dismissing the genre were personal feelings
> raised to general principle -- assertions or assumptions that considered
> objectively, IMO, do not compute.
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Judy
>
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Marco Milazzo wrote:
>
> > Judy,
> >
> > Thanks for responding to my message with civility. I'll do the same.
But
> > for the moment, let's skip over personal issues of my feelings and
yours,
> > and just look at street photography, or really candid photography in
> > general. At bottom, I'm just asking a question. It may be a question
that
> > was answered in "Criticism 101," but I didn't take that course, so maybe
we
> > can discuss it for a short while here.
> >
> > This is my premise: Sure life isn't fair -- that's a "given." But I
think
> > we're supposed to try to make it as fair as possible. Having an
> > unflattering picture of you taken without your permission hanging on a
> > gallery wall may seem like small potatoes compared to some injustices
> > society can deal out, but it has potential for real abusiveness.
> >
> > The real point is that freedom to photograph people without their
permission
> > also implies freedom to distort their image, to catch them at their
worst,
> > or to tack onto their picture, some title just a bit short of slander.
> > That's all perfectly legal.
> >
> > (By the way, most of us got the "Arrington vs. the NY Times" case wrong.
I
> > later learned that an appeal court decided that ending up on the cover
of
> > the Times Magazine is the price we may have to pay for living in a
society
> > with a free flow of information.)
> >
> > Not all street photography is abusive. I see lots of street
photography --
> > Cartier-Bresson's for instance -- which (pardon the corniness), seems
like a
> > celebration of life. But some street photography seems designed to
make
> > people look ugly, venial, ridiculous, etc. in one way or another.
> >
> > As I sit here this Sunday morning, caffeine- and carbohydrate starved,
my
> > brain is unable to come up with a resounding summation, so let me stop
here,
> > and say that if any of this strikes a note in your symphony, please
> > respond -- I'm all ears. If not, well it was just an idea.
> >
> > Marco
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:10 PM Z CST