Question: Has there been any discussions regarding photographing children?

[guangong]

Some time in the 70's. That left the people that were born earlier who had been affected by the fumes to do what they did. The kids born after are less violent in general.

I made the connection of why society in general now does not approve of taking photos of children in the public space. I then stated that I think that society has wrong assumptions about safety in general and backed it up with data but it seems that it's hard to dissuade a lifetime of media influence. So I'll make it simple.

People are afraid of the world because they've been told to be afraid. They'll over shelter their children and lash out at strangers. Statistics and data does not back up this fear.

I have never seen a reference to the discontinuation of leaded gasoline as a cause for the reduction of crime, or juvenile delinquency. I am very interested in such a claim and would appreciate a scholarly citation. If you believe we were more violent then than today, you are surely mistaken.

 

[koraks]

@guangong and others: please keep away from discussions of politics, which extends to policy. As it is, the thread is skirting this area and we don't want it to move further into the political (and policy) domain, unless explicitly and directly related to photography (and even then we'll monitor this closely).

 

[AgX]

The fact is, in order to get great photos and photos of social importance, you may need to disregard the contextual and temporary concerns of the individuals involved. It's more a matter of what you, as a photographer, are trying to do.
Socially important photos tend to remain important when removed from the time and context of the photo. Great photos, one could say, transcend those concerns entirely.

But already at taking these photos you may get in conflict with the law. Over here it may be even a crime and prosecuted as such, without the subject uttering any concerns, even without having such.

I admit there is a lot of hippocracy behind this legislation, but so are our times...

 

[VinceInMT]

People are afraid of the world because they've been told to be afraid. They'll over shelter their children and lash out at strangers. Statistics and data does not back up this fear.

That is true. There was shift in how media reports “news” over the decades and stories about things to be fearful of tend to dominate. Add to that, in America, people are tuned in to TV at least 4 hours per day, soaking up a false narrative of the world. This is one of the main reasons I got rid of my television decades ago and never looked back.

I suffer from no fears, even with the prospect of the big volcano under Yellowstone Park erupting at some point and it’s just west of me.

 

[Cholentpot]

I have never seen a reference to the discontinuation of leaded gasoline as a cause for the reduction of crime, or juvenile delinquency. I am very interested in such a claim and would appreciate a scholarly citation. If you believe we were more violent then than today, you are surely mistaken.

I left links earlier in the thread. Unless they've been removed, then feel free to PM me. Or Google it.

That is true. There was shift in how media reports “news” over the decades and stories about things to be fearful of tend to dominate. Add to that, in America, people are tuned in to TV at least 4 hours per day, soaking up a false narrative of the world. This is one of the main reasons I got rid of my television decades ago and never looked back.

I suffer from no fears, even with the prospect of the big volcano under Yellowstone Park erupting at some point and it’s just west of me.

I grew up more or less without a TV and don't have one now. I notice a different take on views when interacting with 'TV' people and 'non tv' people.

There's a great fictional series of books about what would happen if Yellowstone blew.

@guangong and others: please keep away from discussions of politics, which extends to policy. As it is, the thread is skirting this area and we don't want it to move further into the political (and policy) domain, unless explicitly and directly related to photography (and even then we'll monitor this closely).

Ethics and philosophy is going to stray into politics and policy eventually one way or another. As is, I'll take my foot off the gas.

 

[koraks]

Thanks And I understand (and agree with) the point you make about the relationships between these fields.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

One interesting thing to ponder: Does this recent trend mean that candid “non concentual” photos taken of children, and people in general, in “the past” including masterpieces like the aforementioned ones by HCB, are now evil and wrong? Should they be canceled? How? And from what cutoff date?

Well, the children have grown up since then or are dead.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This is pretty simple. Discussing societal norms on photrio is not going to help making better photos.

Your actionable item here is to conform to these societal norms or not. Being a conformist is safe and requires no effort. However, anything truly great only comes from crossing the boundaries and showing a middle finger to someone or something. Yes, this means risking a fistfight with a moron father in a park.

This is true not just with photography but with everything. However, you have to be selective with your non-conformism, because if you stop following the rules on everything you'll quickly end up in jail or dead. When it comes to photography, I choose to conform. I ask people's permission, I avoid kids altogether, etc. My results are shit of course, but I am lucky to have bigger passions to reserve my middle finger for.

I often feel uncomfortable shooting strangers, adults included. So I'll pass. Sometimes, if I'm away from them, then I shoot. Go with your gut. If you're feeling uncomfortable, pass on the shot. This is supposed to be fun. That goes for dangerous landscape shots too. If ledges make you nervous, skip the shot.

Reminds me of the character from back in the 1930's: Frank Buck - Bring 'Em Back Alive. We don;t have to be Buck.

Bring 'Em Back Alive (1932) - IMDb

Bring 'Em Back Alive: Directed by Clyde E. Elliott. With Frank Buck. American animal trapper Frank Buck travels with Ali, his "number one boy," on an expedition into the Malayan jungle. From their jungle headquarters just north of Singapore, Frank, Ali and a team of native helpers roam the area...

www.imdb.com

 

[Steven Lee]

Fear for the safety of the children around us is far from a personality fault or mental disorder - even if it is sometimes based on erroneous assumptions.
And the vast majority of photographs of children are not great - even if they are made by photographers who have made great photographs in the past, or will make great photographs in the future - of other subjects.
I am sure that there are specific situations where it is necessary to photograph children to tell very important stories. But I am equally sure that those situations are rare, and in most cases the needs for that photography can be met by first obtaining informed consent from the parents/guardians of those children and, in many cases, the children themselves.
If by "great work" one means nothing more than visually arresting photographs, then I'm sorry but the societal value of those photographs is so little in comparison with the value of privacy and security for children, as to be not worthy of consideration. Take steps to protect those concerns - e.g. obtaining informed consent - and those concerns disappear.

Matt, I am not arguing against your reasoning. I am simply pointing out that people with completely different priorities and views on this should exist, and we need more of them, and I am rooting for them. Everything around you, all significant achievements of our civilization, were built by them. Obsessed maniacs for whom your arguments mean nothing, and the end goal - be it a photograph or a transistor - is everything. Basically I am a classic Ayn Rand kid.

 

[MattKing]

Basically I am a classic Ayn Rand kid.

And I can't stand Ayn Rand - the epitome of selfishness at the cost of everything!
Returning at least slightly to an earlier point - I'm not saying that there aren't some really exceptional situations where the concerns about children are outweighed. I am saying that our personal need and desire to make photos doesn't create those situations.
Napalm Girl is an example of an exception. The photography that led up to the child labour laws was another. A photo essay documenting the life of street youth would potentially be another.
But asserting your rights at the neighbourhood playground because you see yourself as the next Henri Cartier-Bresson just doesn't cut it.

 

[Cholentpot]

And I can't stand Ayn Rand - the epitome of selfishness at the cost of everything!
Returning at least slightly to an earlier point - I'm not saying that there aren't some really exceptional situations where the concerns about children are outweighed. I am saying that our personal need and desire to make photos doesn't create those situations.
Napalm Girl is an example of an exception. The photography that led up to the child labour laws was another. A photo essay documenting the life of street youth would potentially be another.
But asserting your rights at the neighbourhood playground because you see yourself as the next Henri Cartier-Bresson just doesn't cut it.

However, asserting your rights at a parade or public event shouldn't open you up to abuse. It's a Memorial Day Parade. I'm gonna take photos. If your kid is in it that's too bad.

 

[logan2z]

It's a Memorial Day Parade. I'm gonna take photos. If your kid is in it that's too bad.

I had a situation like that arise a few years ago when I was with my wife at a huge amusement park in Northern California. I was taking some pictures around the park when a guy from park security stopped me and said there had been some complaints from people that I was taking pictures of their kids. It's an amusement park so, naturally, it's crawling with people and their children. It would be virtually impossible to take a photo there that didn't have someone's child in it. Nonetheless, they asked me to stop. The situation made me so uncomfortable that I left the park and have never been back.

After that incident, the only place I took pictures that contained people was in large cities like San Francisco. There are so many tourists around taking photos that you're essentially invisible. But I've mostly switched to taking landscapes during Covid and I suspect my candid 'street photography' days may be behind me for good.

 

[MattKing]

However, asserting your rights at a parade or public event shouldn't open you up to abuse. It's a Memorial Day Parade. I'm gonna take photos. If your kid is in it that's too bad.

I totally agree. It is a parade where people go to see people and be seen by people.

 

[faberryman]

I had a situation like that arise a few years ago when I was with my wife at a huge amusement park in Northern California. I was taking some pictures around the park when a guy from park security stopped me and said there had been some complaints from people that I was taking pictures of their kids. It's an amusement park so, naturally, it's crawling with people and their children. It would be virtually impossible to take a photo there that didn't have someone's child in it. Nonetheless, they asked me to stop. The situation made me so uncomfortable that I left the park and have never been back.

I would have thought that an amusement park, like a mall, is private property, and as such, the property owner can restrict the taking of photographs.

 

[Cholentpot]

I had a situation like that arise a few years ago when I was with my wife at a huge amusement park in Northern California. I was taking some pictures around the park when a guy from park security stopped me and said there had been some complaints from people that I was taking pictures of their kids. It's an amusement park so, naturally, it's crawling with people and their children. It would be virtually impossible to take a photo there that didn't have someone's child in it. Nonetheless, they asked me to stop. The situation made me so uncomfortable that I left the park and have never been back.

After that incident, the only place I took pictures that contained people was in large cities like San Francisco. There are so many tourists around taking photos that you're essentially invisible. But I've mostly switched to taking landscapes during Covid and I suspect my candid 'street photography' days may be behind me for good.

I totally agree. It is a parade where people go to see people and be seen by people.

I would have thought that an amusement park, like a mall, is private property, and as such, the property owner can restrict the taking of photographs.

Solved the problem for myself.

I just use a really oddball camera and no one cares. That or a 110 or 16mm tiny thing and most people don't even realize it's a camera and leave me alone.

 

[VinceInMT]

I volunteer at various running events (if I’m not running in them myself) and one I do every year is an elementary school cross country meet for grades 3-5. With a couple others I work the finish line and it’s not unusual to see lots of people lining the chute with cameras. One guy even had one with one of those massive Canon lenses. I never really thought about it until this conversation.

 

[logan2z]

I would have thought that an amusement park, like a mall, is private property, and as such, the property owner can restrict the taking of photographs.

That could be the case, although park security didn't say that photography was not allowed and I didn't see any sign that mentioned it. But it wasn't worth fighting it.

 

[BrianShaw]

the only place I took pictures that contained people was in large cities like San Francisco.

It might be something to re-think!

After violent camera robberies, a number of photographers plan to stay away from San Francisco

Days after a terrifying attempted robbery at gunpoint where a photographer wrestles with masked men to keep his camera gear, other photographers are speaking out, declaring they no longer will hold photoshoots in San Francisco.

abc7news.com

 

[logan2z]

It might be something to re-think!

After violent camera robberies, a number of photographers plan to stay away from San Francisco

Days after a terrifying attempted robbery at gunpoint where a photographer wrestles with masked men to keep his camera gear, other photographers are speaking out, declaring they no longer will hold photoshoots in San Francisco.

abc7news.com

Yeah, I've been avoiding the city for the last couple of years.

 

[cliveh]

This thread must surely discuss the work of:-

Family Pictures — Sally Mann

www.sallymann.com

 

[Daniela]

This thread must surely discuss the work of:-

Family Pictures — Sally Mann

www.sallymann.com

I was thinking that it was strange that Sally Mann had not been mentioned here!
I heard her daughters talking about growing up being photographed and they both said they were ok with it at the time, one of them may have said she would sometimes get bored posing, but I don't remember for sure. They're happy with the photos now as adults, too.
Did she have the right to publish them? It does make a difference that it was her own children...Were her children really able to consent to that? Still no...

 

[BrianShaw]

… gosh, who next, Jock Sturges or David Hamilton? Please spare us.

 

[Arthurwg]

A perceived uptick in violent society has led to people being more protective in public. I postulated that society is less violent than ever and backed it up with data and the reason why society is less violent today then in the past.

Tell that to the 20 people who were pushed onto the subway tracks in New York this year. The good news is that only two were killed. Crime in New York is up by 30% and there have been over 600 mass shootings so far in 2022, not to mention 27 school shootings. Doesn't sound like the Peaceful Kingdom to me.

 

[Don_ih]

But asserting your rights at the neighbourhood playground because you see yourself as the next Henri Cartier-Bresson just doesn't cut it.

Yet it should, in a way. The fact is, apart from what you see as selfishness, what is done for the individual often benefits the greatest number in the end. There's nothing wrong with ambition, but it must be guided by intelligence. Chances are, someone who will make a significant contribution is not going to get in a fight in a playground with parents. But such an altercation cannot be what prevents someone from making a contribution, or nothing ever gets done. If it's a city instead of a playground, if it's citizens instead of children, if it's police instead of parents - you can see how all these things line up the same way.

But already at taking these photos you may get in conflict with the law. Over here it may be even a crime and prosecuted as such, without the subject uttering any concerns, even without having such.

I think it's only a matter of time before similar legislation is introduced everywhere. Canada, for instance, is never far behind Europe in legislating things that don't matter.

 

[MattKing]

Yet it should, in a way. The fact is, apart from what you see as selfishness, what is done for the individual often benefits the greatest number in the end.

And of course, what often benefits the individual, can also harm the greatest number in the end.

There's nothing wrong with ambition, but it must be guided by intelligence.

Exactly. You don't avoid taking photos of children to avoid a fight with the parents. You avoid taking photos of children without prior consultation and agreement to help protect the interests - privacy and otherwise - of children.
If you have a very good reason to document something that needs documenting, then I support your legal right to do so. But if you are merely desiring to satisfy your artistic needs, than the children and/or their guardians should be consulted, because their interests are just as important as yours.