| | | -
Go bait someone else Ian. I've made my point, my opinion will not change. Get used to it.
----------- My Flickr-----------
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.
✯
-
 Originally Posted by Andy K  Go bait someone else Ian. I've made my point, my opinion will not change. Get used to it. I don't want you to change your opinion Andy. I was just interested in whether there was much thought behind it.
-
 
Going out in the streets and shooting people is a continuous testing of your limits.
When you are out there you are in a "awareness mode" and your senses are heightened and you start seeing more great images than usual.
There are times when fear won't allow you to do the necessary steps to shoot, but then eventually this "frozen reaction" will get to you and you start to react and be more daring.
It is like a muscle that needs to be exercised. If you don't use it continuously eventually will go back to the original state and you will need to do the necessary workout even though it will be an easier job.
I have always thought that if I don't do something I want to do, because of fear, and I find myself rationalizing the reasons why it is right not to do it, then I know I need to do them.
I have always wanted to shoot the crowd, I have always admired the work of Bresson, Kline, Frank as one of the purest form of photography capable to unveil Beauty underneath the blanket of coldness and cruelty that we see in the streets. What has always kept me from doing it, was the inability to shake that fear of using a 35 mm lens and get close to the subject-s to catch what I was looking for.
Now I am doing it and to answer to Ian David, yes I am willing to catch a punch in the face, if that will happen, because a good image is more important than that, moreover, if I silence my voice, if I ignore my calling because of fear of getting hit, what does that say about me ?
About the issue of privacy.
When you see a great image like for instance this one do you think Bresson made a terrible thing by taking this picture? After all he took a picture of a vulnerable child without parents consent!
The answer is no. This is a great picture that takes the apparent subject as a pretext and transforms it into a glimpse in the wonderful realm of childhood, where reality and make believe are one.
I absolutely agree with Firecracker's assessment, the only thing is that it is not society that censors us but it is us that do so to ourselves, by imposing limitations based on rationalizations.
If there is a law that allows us to take picture of people in public places is because many people have been involved in pushing that law after many discussions and philosophical scrutiny.
It always is puzzling to me how photographers can be against creativity. I take photography extremely seriously because not only I love it but it teaches me about Life, about myself, the world around me and the wonderful Humanity I am part of.
-
yes, but HCB was an obnoxious lout and we all know that is the last thing we should aspire to.
-
 
Thanks Domenico. I was interested to read more of your thoughts. And I do understand your point of view.
I do think it is good that there are great photos like that one of Bresson's above. It really captures something essential. (One point about that particular image though is that kids, as subjects, mostly enjoy having their photo taken. Generally nobody is upset by an innocent photo of children except paranoid adults.) And I really do hope to keep seeing excellent candid photos in future which are revealing of the rich depths of humanity.
But I also understand why some people do not like being photographed up close and without warning by strangers, and I would not be surprised to get negative reactions. The main reason I generally do not take many such photos is not out of fear, but out of respect for other people's space. That's just me. But then, if I felt a stronger pull towards candid street photography, I might find that barrier easier to breach. I am not attacking you or Andy, but am just interested in your approaches. Nor am I against creativity. But there are (at least) two sides to this issue. The guy who punches you or Andy in the face may feel just as passionately about his right to privacy in public as you do about your right to creativity in public. If you are prepared to understand and accept that, even if you are not afraid of it and choose to push past it, then I think you are better placed to understand the humanity you are trying to capture in your work.
Last edited by Ian David; 06-29-2009 at 07:25 PM.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
"The guy who punches you or Andy in the face may feel just as passionately about his right to privacy in public as you do about your right to creativity in public."
How do you feel about it, Ian?
Would you consider a punch in the face in reaction to a click of a shutter a fair reaction?
I said I am willing to catch a punch in the face in the event someone might decide to do so, but understand and accepth that? No.
If I get assaulted the guy or gal can trust me to call the cops and will see their ass sent to jail for that.
-
Originally Posted by iandavid I presume you are one of the former, Andy. So are you prepared to accept the occasional punch in the face from someone bigger than you as the price of being a fearless artist? i have my life threatened by a drunk after i photographed his "general direction" late one night.
i often times have photographed not giving a hoot
or how and who and where i photographed, but times are different now.
people will ruin your life ( lawyers ) these days .. especially if you can get a tan ...
-
Domenico
I didn't say you must necessarily accept a punch in the face. I said that, in my view, you should be prepared to accept and understand that someone may feel just as passionately about his right to privacy in public as you do about your right to creativity in public. Rightly or wrongly, that sort of passionate feeling may lead someone to assault you, or to yell at you, or to try to grab your camera, or to simply stare at you.
How I personally feel about having my photo taken by a street shooter would depend upon the circumstances, Domenico. As a photographer, I am aware of the drive to take photos and am almost always perfectly OK with being in someone's photo. But if I was feeling really delicate for some reason and a photographer was being particularly in my face or pushy, I would probably tell them to get lost. If I was in the middle of a very tense situation, or bending over the body of my dead child, or involved in various other heavy situations that news photographers routinely photograph without any sensitivity, I can imagine getting very upset...
But this is not just about me, it is about the whole spectrum of people you might wish to photograph on the street. If you cannot understand and accept that some of those people in some situations (that may not be wholly obvious to an observer) will object in an unpredictable and angry way, then you do not understand a pretty basic aspect of humanity. If someone did assault me in that sort of situation, I would have a think about exactly what I had been doing before I decided whether or not to call the police. Do you not agree?
Ian
-
No one needs to accept the actions of a person who breaks the law as being some how equivalent to someone well within the law.
-
The law changes from day to day and from place to place. It is a blunt instrument. Some actions that are strictly against the law are, when viewed in their totality in a particular situation, not something that should be prosecuted. One day, certain forms of street photography may be outlawed in your country. Will your view of the legitimacy of those forms of photography then change?
I think French law takes a dimmer view of street photography these days, doesn't it? Does your attitude to the merits of street photography change when you are in Paris? (This is not a rhetorical question - I am interested in your answer)
| |
Adv Reply
