Has the privacy line been crossed?

elrey2375 wrote in post #15944208
You don't have a reasonable expectation to privacy if you're walking around with the drapes open.

I think that might depend on what it would take to see you. If you're close to the street, and anybody walking by can see you then no, but if you're in a situation like the OP, or the ones for William and Kate where the photographer needed a very long lens, then I would think you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I don't think the concept is original either. I recall another project with images of people in their apartments, and another of people having trysts in the bathroom of an investment bank or similar environs. Although right now Google isn't very useful for finding either project due to the noise associated with the current one.

It's rude to take pictures of people you don't know without their permission. Obviously there are exceptions, such as when you can't remove other people from a photo (if you're shooting Mt. Rushmore and some kid is running in the background, so be it. Or your kid's soccer game (he's not the only one on the field). In cases like this you are shooting your subject and others happen to be in the frame. so what. There's also the case of people who are on display, such as street performers, musicians, athletes, etc. They do what they do because they want an audience.

But pointing your camera at a stranger who doesn't expect it is rude.


Consider this, however: In the 60s the Rolling Stones' manager would pay old ladies to picket the concerts and show outrage. It worked.

Could it be that this guy takes pictures of people willing, then drums up fake controversy, and now has an article with national attention?

A win-win situation for the photographer and models.

Something to think about.

smells like a made up "scandal" to me as well. And it's pretty boring. I'm sure it'll sell out though, there's always somebody with too much money

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #15944937
It's rude to take pictures of people you don't know without their permission. Obviously there are exceptions, such as when you can't remove other people from a photo (if you're shooting Mt. Rushmore and some kid is running in the background, so be it. Or your kid's soccer game (he's not the only one on the field). In cases like this you are shooting your subject and others happen to be in the frame. so what. There's also the case of people who are on display, such as street performers, musicians, athletes, etc. They do what they do because they want an audience.

But pointing your camera at a stranger who doesn't expect it is rude.


Consider this, however: In the 60s the Rolling Stones' manager would pay old ladies to picket the concerts and show outrage. It worked.

Could it be that this guy takes pictures of people willing, then drums up fake controversy, and now has an article with national attention?

A win-win situation for the photographer and models.

Something to think about.

You've basically just described street photography.

And for the people who inevitably said that the photos sucked anyway and anyone could do it, art requires more of you than just looking at a photo and saying it sucks. If that's all you've got, art isn't for you. You have to bring something to the table. It's interactive.

sure

phantelope wrote in post #15945357
sure

It's quite clear where you stand, you've made no secret of it. Art isn't for everyone, don't feel bad.

Art is always subjective. Sure, there are technical aspects that have to be learned, mastered, etc., and when looking at art in the realism genre it's easy to say, "wow that's good" because the artist is doing his or her best to accurately display reality. For example, an artist who paints a waterfall exactly how it looks can get praise of, "that's really good" if he or she captures it accurately.

But a picture of a guy sleeping on a couch is subjective because one person says, "Wow, look," and others choose to follow that opinion, ignore that opinion, or make up their own.

It's like the famous "Piss Christ" photo. Some dude drops a crucifix into a jar of urine, takes a photo, and calls it art.

I call that taking the easy way out. But that's just me.

This guy pointing his camera at strangers is creating art, sure, but what he's doing could be done by anyone. He's not breaking ground.

I think the whole thing is contrived.

I went to an art gallery in La Jolla, California a few years ago and came away with a theme: This place is for rich people to look at the lives of poor people without having to go to where the poor people live.

On a sort-of similar note: the best art piece every made by Bob Ross was Bob Ross. Think about it. Nobody will remember a single painting he did. But they remember him. He IS the art.

elrey2375 wrote in post #15945348
You've basically just described street photography.

And for the people who inevitably said that the photos sucked anyway and anyone could do it, art requires more of you than just looking at a photo and saying it sucks. If that's all you've got, art isn't for you. You have to bring something to the table. It's interactive.

You're right. Street photography is pointing the camera at strangers, which I think is a bit rude (but I certainly see the artistic merits of it and don't think it should be illegal...which it's not). I just don't think it's polite. But then, neither is stand-up comedy, and I enjoy it tremendously.


Street photography takes courage. What the guy doing in the article we're talking about isn't really unique and certainly isn't very courageous. Anyone can sit in a dark apartment with a very clean window and see the neighbors without them being able to see the photographer.

On the other hand, it would be neat if an artist were to remove ALL shades and curtains, make every wall glass, including all doors, and then the whole neighborhood watch HIM or HER as he or she goes about daily life: cooking, cleaning, showering, and anything else.

That would take a ton of courage.

I've always thought it would be adventurous to have people in a zoo exhibit, like Pandas or Gorillas, but with the exact same parameters. Sure, they can wear clothing, because that's what humans do. But what if EVERY facet were on display like it is with Pandas and Gorillas. Mating, cleaning, fighting, etc. All in the open. The people on display could rotate in shifts of say, one week per year.

But after a while we would think, "That's not art. That's just boring."

I seem to recall something like that actually being done some time ago as "performance art."

And it's been done by many people on the Internet using their webcams.

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #15946594
You're right. Street photography is pointing the camera at strangers, which I think is a bit rude (but I certainly see the artistic merits of it and don't think it should be illegal...which it's not). I just don't think it's polite. But then, neither is stand-up comedy, and I enjoy it tremendously.

Good street photographer, however, is not just pointing a camera at strangers--it's not as if one set a camera up on a street corner to take a shot automatically at intervals.

Good street photographer--the photographs that will connect with our consciousnesses and last in our memories for years--will communicate something to us about those people, that places, and that moment, and probably something about all people in all places and at all moments.

The very good work will give us a view that was unique to that photographer's eye...it will make each of us realize, "I probably would not have seen that...but it's so obvious, now that he's captured it."

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #15946575
Art is always subjective. Sure, there are technical aspects that have to be learned, mastered, etc., and when looking at art in the realism genre it's easy to say, "wow that's good" because the artist is doing his or her best to accurately display reality. For example, an artist who paints a waterfall exactly how it looks can get praise of, "that's really good" if he or she captures it accurately.

But a picture of a guy sleeping on a couch is subjective because one person says, "Wow, look," and others choose to follow that opinion, ignore that opinion, or make up their own.

It's like the famous "Piss Christ" photo. Some dude drops a crucifix into a jar of urine, takes a photo, and calls it art.

Andre Serrano's work has never impressed me, but his work is "art" and he is an "artist" to the extent that he intends to make a point and he makes it with consistent success.

I'm less impressed by "artists" who do something arcane and insist that I have to find my own meaning in their work.

Maybe it's art, but if the artist has no point to make, nothing to say to me, then I don't have time to figure out my own meaning from what he's done.

There are so many artists who do have something to say--and the skill to say it successfully--and they are so much more worthy of the time taken to hear them, IMO.

^^^
That's what always frustrated me about Ozzy Osbourne. I can understand half of what he's singing about, and when interviewed he tells us "it means whatever you want it to mean."

Or The Life of Pi. I didn't read the book, but loved the film. I formed my own conclusions, but the writer says that's what I'm supposed to do. Yet, I'm the kind of guy who wants the artist to say, "here's what it means" so that it either validates my assumption or clears my confusion.

But that doesn't make me right by any means. Just one man's opinion out of 3.5 billion men.

Or, for that matter, maybe I want to argue with his "artistic syntax" and point out why what he meant is not what he actually said. At least even then, there is a point to giving mental energy to his work.

Maybe it's because I'm an artist myself that I see no need to figure out my own meaning from someone else's work...I'm quite busy creating my own work to manifest my own meanings.

Maybe if I didn't have a way to manifest my own meaning through my own work, I'd have to depend on finding my meaning through someone else's work.

nathancarter wrote in post #15941248
Pretty sure "reasonable expectation of privacy" is the key phrase here.
<snip>
Does one really expect privacy when all the windows and curtains are open?

You took the thoughts right out of my head. I believe we all have an expectation of privacy inside our homes, but come on! You have to do your part too! If you want to lounge around 'nakies', at least stay away from the windows and doors, keep the lights off and/or install a blind or curtain or something and USE it! If you're prancing around in front of the windows inviting folks to look, well... there you go.

That said, those people who like to peer into other peoples' homes with gigantic telescopes or whatever as a "hobby" give me the skin-crawling creeps!