Why you SHOULDN'T do STREET PHOTOGRAPHY
Video Statistics and Information
No captions available for this video.
Channel: Jamie Windsor
Views: 811,686
Rating: undefined out of 5
Keywords: Street, photography, photos, portraits, shooting, people, legal, camera, lens, ethics, ethical, unethical, poor, homeless, fan ho, nan goldin, martin parr, london, tips, class
Id: E10Z5_3C19s
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 9min 13sec (553 seconds)
Published: Thu Nov 22 2018
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
Good video but really should be titled, why you wouldn't exploit people's situations just in the name of street photography
Completely hit the nail on the head with the Ethical vs Legal thing.
A number of people justify their actions by what's legal and what's not, be it photography, art or things they say. And frankly if the best way you can justify what you're doing is by saying "well, technically it's not illegal" then I'm not sure you're doing what you're doing in good faith.
I'm a huge fan of Street Photography when it's done well. Most of the shots I think are well done tend to be shots where the face of the person isn't so defined, when they aren't singled out in that way. I love it when a shot just has an anonymous person in their life. It always feels far less invasive and also as a viewer, far more intriguing than other forms of Street Photography. Fan Ho is absolutely amazing in this respect (and in many others, his work is mind blowing)
It's the difference between a Street Photographer who takes images as if their subjects are animals in a zoo. And a Street Photographer who waits for opportunities, taking a mirror to different, often ignored or taken for granted, aspects of our cultures.
Not sure I agree with a lot of this.
Outsider views of cultures can be very valuable (see De Tocqueville for one). I also daresay that Martin Parr, for example, is not some chap who just turns up from the suburbs without an understanding of what he is looking for.
Furthermore, I don't think the "talk to people, move them around and take a portrait" school is actually traditional street photography. It's more off a branch of environmental portraiture - injecting the photographer into it changes things up.
Depends on why you’re taking photos.
If you’re merely doing it as shot from your point of view, a shot left alone to speak for itself, then I see no problem in taking it. If you’re taking picture of homeless people and selling prints of them then maybe you should reconsider your moral compass.
Nothing in street photography is off limits. It’s up to you to choose your own ethics.
What makes a picture of a homeless person any different than a picture of a CEO? They’re both human beings, you’re taking a picture of both of them. Their only difference is socio-economic status. Why should that make a difference in whether you take their photo?
Here’s an excerpt from an interview of Daniel Arnold (LEGENDARY street photographer of today)
Your images never strike me as mean spirited, but obviously the ethics involved with taking photos of people without their permission are very complicated. There’s also a fine line between capturing an amazing moment of humanness and potentially mocking someone. Even if cruelty isn’t your intent, you don’t necessarily have control over the way the image will be read or perceived. There must be times where you question whether or not you should delete an image for those very reasons.
“Yeah. That’s such tricky territory. It’s kind of an unanswerable question. What makes something good and what makes something ethical? I think in this case usually the only answer is the viewer and every viewer is going to interpret things differently. It’s so subjective and so hard to sort out. I don’t know. I took a picture yesterday of a quadriplegic person. Actually, I don’t know what his condition was necessarily but he had a tube coming out of his mouth and his face was all slack and he was a very profoundly disabled man. He was being lifted into one of those horse-drawn Central Park carriages by the carriage captain and a woman who I think was his mother. I realize that it is a problematic picture. It’s definitely questionable. To me, it was such a lovely thing to think beyond. To think about the before and the after of that moment and to consider that guy’s experience and what a tiny, tiny simple thing humanity is. Obviously I didn’t have that complex of a thought in the moment but I’ve been having that thought process for so long that it just kind of clicks when I see those kinds things happening in front of me and I respond to that. I’m so glad that I have that picture. When I took that picture the guy managed to make eye contact with me. Not at the camera. The camera was down at my waist. He looked me right in the eye as it happened. That’s another very subjective thing. Maybe that look was a fuck you. I don’t know what he was thinking and I don’t know what he thought my intention was. To me, the whole thing was so vulnerable and beautiful and universal. Universal in such a very specific way. I understand other people might not see it that way. There’s just no way out of this question. It’s a very tricky one. I am extremely biased obviously because I know what’s in my heart and in my mind when I’m doing what I do. I think if that could be transparent nobody would find fault with it. Although, people love finding fault these days.”
https://thecreativeindependent.com/people/daniel-arnold-on-the-ethics-of-street-photography/
As a street photographer I definitely deal with this all the time. Apart from homeless or mentally ill people being a no-no for me I have taken an image of a physically disabled person that to this day I feel was totally wrong of me to take. The camera does not just all of a sudden free you of the burden of having morals and ethics just because you feel you're an artist.
Not to be rude, but some of our greatest and most powerful photos, science, literature was either unethical at the time or unethical later. You have to kind of just do what you want. Just know you may face backlash. As an artist there are things that will get you in trouble. Photographing an addict (during an emergency) or a victim of war, that would be pretty unethical. Or photographing several obese people sitting in a honda with McDonalds in their hand, that may be unethical. But if it shows the current state of the world or even a certain demographic, is that not the point? Not saying I agree with these methods. Just saying, when you try to put a lid on something, that could be a very boring/dangerous/mundane oversimplification of your current life and the life of others. Not everything is pretty and honorable.
I hate that the title is so stupid because the video is great. That was really interesting.
Most of my street photography is taken in moments when nobody sees me, because I feel so awkward having people actually as the focus of the frame when I don't know them. Often my pictures will get edited to darken or obscure the identifiable faces but you can't really explain that to people if they get concerned.
So often I hold off on potentially good pictures. I feel very conscious of pointing cameras at people and worry about coming off as exploitative like the White Bear episode of Black Mirror.
Like stated in the video, it's an important question to ask ourselves.
Problem is value, culture, etc. vary amongst people. It's gonna impact how we answer this question.
This is also why art is (in part) subjective.
All I can say is I won't represent people in photos, like I would not want to be represented myself.
Don't do to others what you don't want to be done to you.