...
Records of people doing every day things is something very interesting; they provide a fantastic glimpse into the past, and I strongly believe we can learn from it; in fact we should! If I knew that Cartier-Bresson somehow had gotten at least a nod of approval from the people he photographed, I would feel better.
To me it's just about common courtesy and respect for other fellow humans. I was raised to believe, and have later in life liked, that you ask permission of people before you do something where they are involved. It could be pouring a glass of wine, it could be about sitting next to them on the bus, or taking a picture of them. My appreciation and admiration for Bresson's work does not change how I feel. And, his pictures, or yours, are not necessarily disrespectful to those involved either (in my view) from a content standpoint.
A photographer has rights, and a photographer can choose how they operate as long as it's within the frame of law. But you also have a given right to consider the feelings of the people you photograph, and whether you should put your own agenda above theirs.
Which is more important to you? The picture, or making sure that the person you photograph actually does not have a problem with you photographing them?
Everything changes. HCB operated in a different time, when people didn't have the same concerns. Had he asked for approval, what he was able to do would not have been possible.
I photographed in crowds at public events in the late '70's - 80's, and I didn't ask permission very often. Had I done so, I would have got an entirely different kind of image, a kind that would not have been useful to the publication I worked for. In other words, I would not have had a job.
As far as I know, the magazine received NO complaints, and, in fact, people who did find themselves in a picture were generally quite happy, sometimes asked for prints and the magazine happily provided. They would order prints from me and pay me to make them.
I looked like a photographer, nothing was hidden. People mostly ignored me or accepted me as just another part of the event, just as they were, themselves. I moved freely among them, doing my job. They knew, instinctively, what I was there to do. It was just part of life, then.
I frequently worked in a crowd for 4 or 5 hours before anyone would even notice me. Sometimes, people saw me working and asked me to photograph them. Once, some young folks were drinking beer in a parking lot when I was done for the day. "Take our Picture". I said I'd just unloaded my camera, and was dead tired. "We'll take our clothes off!"
Then, it was ok. Now it's not. There are no longer any "consumer" picture magazines, so there is no model in people's minds that enables them to accept a photographer operating openly in their midst. That's gone. Now the images in magazines are heavily produced, artificial, art-directed. So, people don't trust photographers; they can't imagine why anyone would be doing that. When everyone was looking at LIFE, etc., everyone was conditioned to recognize photography as part of normal life. No longer.
We may have different feelings about this, but we may also not be quite aware that where we see these things in an absolute sense - that, for example, asking permission is and always was a requirement - it's not like that. Attitudes change with time and place. Cartier-Bresson's world is gone forever.
A friend of mine spent a year in Turkey in 1964. He photographed a couple of Mullahs. They chased him down the street. Neither he, nor they, recognized that their worlds resided in different universes. He learned that very quickly.
I now know that I was extremely lucky to have experienced working like that. For photography, my time was the end of a great era.
