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.
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.
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.
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.
@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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.It's a Memorial Day Parade. I'm gonna take photos. If your kid is in it that's too bad.
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 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 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.
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.
It might be something to re-think!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
I was thinking that it was strange that Sally Mann had not been mentioned here!
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.
But asserting your rights at the neighbourhood playground because you see yourself as the next Henri Cartier-Bresson just doesn't cut it.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?