I'll probably come across as a selfish jerk, but nevertheless I will
step out and bluntly voice my opinions partly in response to the
(relevant) thread about pictures of people.
I'm sure we all agree that we should respect people, and that being
nice is.. well, nice. Indeed it is. But respecting people doesn't
mean giving in to the their demands (or wishes, if you wish for a less
loaded word) like a dog. While the demand for not to be photographed
isn't unreasonable and hard to comply with, I strictly question the
motive and logic behind wanting so. The sight of a camera in an
unexpected situation commonly provokes a defensive reaction, and the
less shy people are quick to spout out their gut response about what
feels right and what feels wrong -- without actually thinking much
about it.
I speak about gut feelings specifically. How many people really have
in advance thought about what it means to be photographed by a
stranger on the street? And have these people come up with real
reasons as to why a picture of them, one among nearly seven billion
people, among countless photos already taken and shared with the
world, is so special and wrong that it must not happen, at least not
without a special permission? It's not a simple thing one can reason
through in an instant -- definitely not when you're surprised by that
big glass pointed at you. Most people will shy away and keep doing
whatever they were doing, go wherever they were going, perhaps hoping
that the photographer was really looking at something else. But the
unfortunate subject isn't "most people", and feels the need to
respond, she might say something completely devoid of logic and
reason. The first thing they'll say is that photographing without a
permission is bad! Made up ridiculous hysteria about stalkers,
molesters, and whatnot, come only after.
In many situations gut feelings might very well lead to morally and
ethically valid choices, but I would argue that our surrounding
environment molds our minds a lot. How often do you hear people
casually tell how it probably wouldn't be very fun if someone took
pictures them me without letting them know! And how often do people
advise others to be nice and always ask for a permission to shoot?
Little casual things like this tend to stick in the subconscious, and
people will repeat without thinking. Unfortunately this might lead to
the misconception that a photographer is always obligated to get a
permission. And god forbid when someone breaks this rule! It's not
the taking of the photograph that's bad, it's the sneaky attempt at
breaking of the rules that makes you evil!
In fact, it came as a surprise to me too when I once read that in
public spaces, we do indeed have the legal right to shoot and
publish (non-offending) pictures of people without seeking a
permission. I really would have expected something more
draconian from a western country where the (in my opinion) strong
regulation of everyday matters is commonplace. But let's not
delve into politics.
Then we have these silly arguments about how a picture posted on
the Internet is available to the whole world, and it cannot be
erased. While almost true in theory, it's both false and
irrelevant in practice. But first we must ask, why does
this "whole world" thing matter at all? The only major
difference between private use and the Internet is the number of
potential viewers. How does one know the number of people
that'll see the private picture? It could be a large family,
plus relatives, plus friends, etc. If two pairs of stranger eyes
may see picture, then why not five? Ten? Fifty? I don't
believe there's any reason the number should matter. But if you
post it on the internet, all the stalkers and crazy people can
see it! True, until you realize that the relatives of the
photographer, who only keeps the photo for private use, might be
just as crazy.
If time and money were infinite, I could view almost every photo in
the world. Visit every country, visit every home, see through every
book and all. Of course this will never happen in practice. The same
is very true on the Internet -- the amount of photos available is
astounding, and though viewing them is cheaper than travelling to
every possible place in the world, it still would require infinite
time. What this means in practice is that if somebody posts a great
photo, chances are it will become popular and many people will view
it. I don't see why the subject should be anything but flattered. If
the photo is just average or outright poor, few people will look at
it, and those who do will probably jump to the next one in mere
seconds. There's no friggin' chance the whole world would look at it.
And what does it change if a pair of eyes from the other side of the
Earth sees the unknown you in a collection of fine photos?
What I'm getting at is that the good majority of people don't really
have any good reason to object to being photographed on the street.
"I don't like it" is not a reason. The fact that people aren't posing
and perhaps aren't wearing their best clothes is also no reason -- why
on earth would they step on the street in the first place if the
natural look is bad for eyes to see? I'm somewhat hesitant to
categorize street as "documentary" photography, but if you have to, it
documents people AS THEY ARE.
This applies doubly so when it comes to photographing children.
Parents and grandparents so love their little, innocent sweethearts
who spend their days laughing (and sometimes crying) and learning and
being cute. Guess what! The average photographer surely appreciates
these qualities just as much as the average grandma does. Shouldn't
it be a priority to store moments of these people everyone wants to
protect and hold dear? Yet, parents get so defensive! Oh, I wouldn't
like anyone to see my little starshine! Photos of children are
sometimes the most touching of all.
Last weekend I went to see some arts performances in the library. I
caught a two-photo sequence in which a small girl, perhaps six years
old, pulls her father's arm back while he's walking towards the exit.
"Dad, I don't want to go yet!", I can imagine her say. In the next
photo, she's still tightly holding onto daddy's arm with both little
hands, but now they're both walking close together. It's unfortunate
that the photos are technically poor, to the point that they're not
worth publishing. Of everything I captured that night, I find this
one the most touching moment.
As much as I'd like to show people respect, I won't "be nice" by
complying with uneducated and pointless demands. Even if you had way
too much money, you probably wouldn't be nice and buy your child all
the toys and ice cream she wants. Demands that show lack of thought
and reason are something I prefer to ignore, whether they're coming
from a grown up body or from a smaller one. Giving up awesome photo
opportunities for "respect" over such pointless gut feelings is in my
opinion no respect. We shouldn't give in to demands which would only
strengthen the idea that people should and are right to disallow
street photographers (or other photographers) to do what they love. I
might have the right to commit to stupid ideas, but that doesn't mean
I *should*, and people definitely need not need to embrace it if I do.
This is where I come across as a selfish jerk. But rather plain doing
whatever we want, and accusing people of being stupid, we all should
INFORM people. Tell them what street photography is about. Tell them
that they need not fear the camera. Make actually them *think* about
these things -- I'm certain most people will come to realize that
photos don't lead to molestation, and that there's absolutely no harm
in getting shot on the street. No pun intended. Informing people is
important, because one day the common gut feeling might become a law,
which would be rather the disaster. Privacy is a noble word, but it
only needs to be applied where it matters. Remember, I'm talking
about decent (non-offending) photos made in public space. Respecting
the privacy of people in their homes is obvious.
Travel back a few years, and I probably would've been one of those
who'd say it's no fun to be photographed without a permission. That's
only because I really hadn't thought about it back then. One day I
started using my head. I'm glad I turned out the way I did, because
otherwise I'd be unable to appreciate street photography. It's not
possible without the legal right we have. Street portraits don't
count. Architecture isn't street photography.
What does this have to do with paranoia? Well, one must first and
foremost know her rights. Second, one must understand and challenge
the reason people feel uneasy with strangers pointing glass at them.
It becomes easier to ignore the misguided (and thus largely
irrelevant) opinions many have. If you're social and don't mind
apologizing for everything you do, go ahead, perhaps it won't hurt
you. I'm shy and hardly social. I'm also pretty tired of trying to
show I'm not guilty, and of trying to convince convince people and
fight their wild ideas. Let people think what they think (but educate
them if you get the chance!). Just ignore and walk straight through
the obstacle.. concentrate on the photos.
Don't read me wrong though. I'm not telling you to be blunt at the
grumpy lady who spouted her gut feelings on the street. If people
stop you, it's very wise to be nice and cooperate. If someone were to
nicely ask me not to take a photo of himself, I'll most certainly do
as he wishes. If he were angry about it, he'd probably stop looking
nice in a photo, and as such, I wouldn't want to keep it anyway. More
importantly, you must CHALLENGE the common feeling about strange
photographers. Be confident in your mind, be confident that you're
doing the right thing and that there's no reason to feel like a sneaky
burglar when you're out with the camera. Just shoot away exactly as
you like, ignore whatever ideas people might have. Whether it be
children or adults, black or white, tourists or locals.. just shoot
away. But be nice if people stop you.
Perhaps you think that my logic is flawed. That I place myself above
people, that I'm wrong. I'm the stupid one. Maybe most people have a
really good reason not to be published photos of. Go ahead.