In the USA, taking pictures in public places is considered free speech and strongly protected by our constitution.
My full quote is: "...the information about me being in that place belongs to me and I should control whether or not I want to make it public, and to whom I want to make it public."
You are partially right. The information recorded on the film belongs to the photographer, but the information about me being where I am, doing what I was doing, being with who I was, etc., belongs to me.
The two are not the same. That's because image and context are not the same. Or rather, the photographic image creates new contexts that may or may not have anything to do with the actual context of what was captured.
We all know this: photography puts on a single plane a three dimensional scene. In doing so, it creates new relationships between people, objects, etc — most famous and oft quoted example of this being Friedlander's cloud on a street sign (Knoxville, Tennessee, 1971). These relationships are further manipulated by the photographer: shallow depth of field isolates, different lenses make things closer or further than they actually are, angle of capture creates or breaks relationships. Relationships created can also add symbolic meaning — like the American flag in Frank's The American, or rather how Frank photographs it.
On a photograph, I'm sitting on a bench, in a park, next to a woman, my head slightly turn toward her, my mouth slightly opened. Do I know her? Am I talking to her? Our hands seem close, are they touching? Is the guy behind us close or far? Do we know each other? How many people are there in the park? Why are we there?
This is all context, and depending on where the photographer is, what lens he is using, what depth of field he is using, what he decides to put in the frame (as the saying goes, a photograph is as much about what's in it than what's not in it), with all this, he can give different answers—or rather, suggest different possibilities of answers—to these questions.
We know this, it's street photography 101. Great street photography create relationships, play with context, or rather, the ambiguity of context. One of the greatest photographer working with all these possibilities is Garry Winogrand, who keeps suggesting relationships, brilliantly plays with the ambiguity of context, and adds a fantastic physicality to it all (his 1964 World's Fair photograph is a masterpiece, and a masterclass about this). This is what he meant by his famous quote: "How do you make a photograph that's more interesting than what happened? That's really the problem," and also why he compared street photography to a very physical sport in which you have to keep moving very fast in order to capture what you want the way you want it.
To sum up (sorry about the long post), "what happened" is the full context of why I'm sitting on that bench. That belongs to me. That's my privacy ; "what's more interesting" is your photograph of me. If it all stays between you and me, it's all fine, even if I don't know you took the picture. Problem arises from the fact that photos are made to be looked at, and people looking at it are free to make their own context from the contextual ambiguity and new relationships created or suggested by the photographers. There is a clash, a distorsion between the two narrative that comes from the very nature of photography, and that's why the right to privacy goes way beyond just "you're not allowed to take my picture," and also the reason why, if there is a "right to privacy" written down in may law books, nowhere in the world is there a "right to photograph."
And just to be clear. I'm not at all saying that one shouldn't do street photography or always ask for consent — I love great street photography and cherish the books I have by Winogrand, Frank and the other great street photographers precisely because the create ambiguity by creating new relationships which create new narratives which creates new realities, and that's what is so fantastic about street photography well done: it makes us see the world differently. I'm just saying one should be aware of what one is doing when taking a photograph.
Again, sorry about the long post, a bit off subject from the original post specifically about photographing children.
Garry Winogrand
World’s Fair, New York City
1964
He needed to know if it was any good ya know? And you can pick your nose, you can pick your friends but you can't pick your friends nose. It's a picky situation.
I think the expression is you can pick your friends but you can't pick your relatives.
Indeed it is, and rightfully so: without a camera, we wouldn't have known about George Floyd. Part of the reason it is a constitutional right is not only to report news but to protect the public from such abuse.
And it's the reason why I mentioned that the question of photographing children is not a legal matter but an ethical one.
I've deleted part of your comment Mark because it is about an issue that is so incredibly political and religious that it breaches all the Photrio rules about those sorts of discussions.
That moderation action was taken without any reference to the position you appear to be taking with respect to the issues referenced.
My reference to the children as chattels is actually a reference to how the law stood not too long ago. And more generally, about how radically changed things are from only a number of decades in the past.
Historically, most children had no rights and were rarely considered as being of importance under the law. The only exceptions tended to be children who were heirs entitled to substantial fortunes.
Traditionally, the only time that there were legal disputes about children were when having their "custody" meant that the custodial parent had access to the use of the substantial inheritances that those children were going to receive when some future event occurred.
And in those cases, the law heavily favoured the fathers - mothers often didn't even have standing to be heard in those cases.
The concepts of best interests of the child or parenting rights or a raft of other things that seem normal to us are remarkably modern.
I reference all that, because it was the context for how the world looked at photographs of children until fairly recently. If there was any complaint that might have been made back not so long ago about a photographer photographing a child without consent, it would probably have had been a complaint from a father - never a mother - about potential damage to his property (child).
is the expression of art next on the Photrio chopping block?
What I stated was not "incredibly political and religious". l it was a simple statement of fact. I layered no political agenda on it nr took sides. Both sides of the argument YOU are referring to agree with the statement I made. When you said basically that things are better for children today, my statement seriously questioned your statement. But clearly we cannot discuss philosophy on Photrio, because someone may get offended over a simple fact. Maybe that is ok, it is a photography forum. Are you going to Start editing controversial photographs that may imply issues like the one I raised, e.g., is the expression of art next on the Photrio chopping block?
The majority of the people in your country appear to disagree with your "fact". A larger percentage in my country appear to also disagree. I won't say what my opinion is of the issue, but that disagreement is intensely political and religious - thus the deletion.
And any future complaints about moderation are to be addressed directly to the moderators.
All of which can make for a useful philosophical discussion in a thread, on a different site, that is concerned about something other than photographing children. All of which is outside Photrio's rules - the only reason for the moderation.I am taking this as discussing ethics and philosophy, and not questioning your moderation action (since you are continuing the conversation) which I have let pass and will not discuss openly anymore. I disagree, I have heard intelligent people on both side of the issue state basically what I stated. What is an issue is to whom the civil right(s) belong to, and I purposely avoided that issue, trying to keep this a discussion of philosophy and ethics, and not politics. Even independent of religion both sides tend agree to that statement. Anyone who does not agree to that fact (as opposed to the political and religious issues attached to the fact), is not dealing in science and facts, but rather emotion and perhaps nihilism.
What some are either unaware of or purposely ignoring, is that people object to their children being photographed because they do not want the photographs being manipulated to exploit their children's images to something embarrassing or pornographic.
Which would move the perspective from the unethical to the immoral.
Stating something that is blindingly obvious and has been said in slightly different words multiple times through this thread, could be construed as insulting to our intelligence.
What some are either unaware of or purposely ignoring, is that people object to their children being photographed because they do not want the photographs being manipulated to exploit their children's images to something embarrassing or pornographic.
Which would move the perspective from the unethical to the immoral.
And then there is Anne Geddes........Now the problem is more clearly presented.
And then there is Anne Geddes........
...and maybe it's just me. I find some of her photographs, like this one, profoundly disturbing. I'd be very curious to chat with her about it to try to understand what she sees.
I find her work pretty positive.
I agree. She is somehow able to create mages which, in other hands, would be horribly kitsch, but Ms Geddes is able to make them appealing, at least to some.I find her work pretty positive.
A lot of people do. I honestly can't explain why I find it and what I find in it so disturbing — I want to say "repulsive," but it's a bit too strong, although there is something almost physical in the way I react to a lot of it. Maybe a discussion I should have more with a psychologist than on a photo forum...
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?