Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 29, 2020, 12:07:01 pm
-
https://www.goethe.de/en/kul/med/20849366.html?fbclid=IwAR3VppiAq8Lb5XpPoq66I88UPXZzdYiP36Nrvbf3ziUicYDRkb26UXQc700
“PHOTOGRAPHERS THESE DAYS HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL”
Street photography in Germany can really be quite tricky – if passers-by are in the picture, the photographer can quickly find himself in court. Lawyer, Thomas Schwenke, explains which shots are allowed.
-
Seems to me it's only lunacy if your departure point is that you should be allowed to take anyone's picture so long as they are in public view in a public place. That's a specific cultural value, no reason to assume everyone thinks like that, so there's no reason to expect that all jurisdictions would allow it.
It seems reasonable to say that if I am out on the street, I have no expectation of privacy. But does that extend to my presence at that place being recorded by someone? A culture can decide that for itself, but it's not obvious to me that the one point of view has an a priori superior claim. I don't see it as a slam dunk.
While I'm walking down the street minding my own, if a photography starts snapping pictures of me, regardless of what the photographer believes and regardless of local laws, I would feel that my privacy is being violated. In some jurisdictions I would have no case, in others I might. And of course that problem arises even when the state is taking the pictures, as with CCTV. It also arises when the press or citizens are recording the behaviour of police or other officials.
-
I am speaking from the perspective of the US, where the German/European rules seem crazy. Also speaking from the perspective of the street photography as a genre, which seems impossible in Europe, where it originated. HCB must be rolling over in his grave.
-
It's Germany, not all of Europe
-
It's Germany, not all of Europe
GDPR has some nasty ramifications throughout the EU. I'm not sure to what extent it's actually being tested, but I'd be concerned even if if I was just selling fine art prints.
https://petapixel.com/2018/05/30/how-bad-is-gdpr-for-photographers/ (https://petapixel.com/2018/05/30/how-bad-is-gdpr-for-photographers/)
-
It's Germany, not all of Europe
There are some pretty sharp restrictions in France, as well -- I'm not sure about the other countries of the EU. As Robert points out, the concept of "privacy" may be a cultural thing. In the US, there is no explicit guarantee of privacy in the Constitution, although some jurists have argued that there's an implicit guarantee. In any case, if a person is in public in the US, you can take his/her photograph. You can use it for artistic purposes -- including the sale of prints at an art show -- but can't sell it for commercial reasons (you can't sell the photo for an advertisement without explicit permission.)
Despite Robert's comment about cultural concepts of privacy, it seems to me that the biggest problem with the European system is that it is unenforceable in a general sense -- most people get away with taking "illegal" photos, but some people face draconian penalties. It is these kinds of laws that inevitably lead to governmental and prosecutorial abuse. And the the fact is, very few people get recognizable photos taken of them on the street. I doubt I've ever been photographed that way (and I have an eye for cameras), maybe because I'm not a colorful person. So, you have these weighty laws squashing a fly and creating a serious potential for abuse. Doesn't seem reasonable to me.
-
There are some pretty sharp restrictions in France, as well -- I'm not sure about the other countries of the EU. As Robert points out, the concept of "privacy" may be a cultural thing. In the US, there is no explicit guarantee of privacy in the Constitution, although some jurists have argued that there's an implicit guarantee. In any case, if a person is in public in the US, you can take his/her photograph. You can use it for artistic purposes -- including the sale of prints at an art show -- but can't sell it for commercial reasons (you can't sell the photo for an advertisement without explicit permission.)
Despite Robert's comment about cultural concepts of privacy, it seems to me that the biggest problem with the European system is that it is unenforceable in a general sense -- most people get away with taking "illegal" photos, but some people face draconian penalties. It is these kinds of laws that inevitably lead to governmental and prosecutorial abuse. And the the fact is, very few people get recognizable photos taken of them on the street. I doubt I've ever been photographed that way (and I have an eye for cameras), maybe because I'm not a colorful person. So, you have these weighty laws squashing a fly and creating a serious potential for abuse. Doesn't seem reasonable to me.
Just to add to this, you can use a picture of someone in a news article in the USA so long as you are not violating their right to publicity, or right to be accurately portrayed. For instance, you can take a picture of a sharply dressed woman downtown and use that image in a story about business women in general. It is a fair assumption a woman dressed in a suit downtown is more then likely a business woman. However, you can not use that same image in a story about high end call girls unless you can prove she is a call girl.
Insofar as using the images in fine art, this is another fine line. Although legal, I know many professional gallerists in NYC that will not show images of people without a model release provided by their photographer. A gallerist I know told me of a story where a friend of his showed a street photography show captured in London at his NYC location. There were no model releases and they did not think it was a big deal. It so happened that the person in the image used to promote the show came to NYC the day of the opening and noticed his image being used all over the city. He sued. Talk about bad luck.
-
I'm also not comfortable with using blunt legal tools to deal with what is essentially a cultural matter. Does anyone know the history behind the German legislation? Was it the result of some incident that went wrong and they felt the need to "do" something and maybe acted too quickly, or was it given lots of deliberate thought?
For most of the past hundred years, I suppose that most people didn't find it so terrible that someone taking photos out in public might happen to catch them in a frame. But times change, and I wonder how much the interweb is affecting people's attitudes. If my face appears on social media somewhere, even if only in the background, and if face recognition can find it, tag it, and have it be available to job recruiters or whoever, forever, then we can't pretend that all the old (informal) rules automatically still apply without modification. What was "public" in 1956 isn't exactly the same thing as what is "public" now. Accidentally appearing in someone's street photography that 10 people saw at a photo club meeting is one thing, being permanently on the web, possibly linked to something you weren't actually a part of could be a different situation altogether.
Just one more thought about the concern about effects on street photography. I appreciate that this would worry some photographers, me included, but we should be prepared that most people would simply yawn at that argument, if not be downright antagonistic. One mention of a male photographer walking through a park in which there are kids playing would derail any social media thread. It doesn't take much these days. It's possible that the number of people who care about the loss of street photography rounds to zero.
-
Just to add to this, you can use a picture of someone in a news article in the USA so long as you are not violating their right to publicity, or right to be accurately portrayed. For instance, you can take a picture of a sharply dressed woman downtown and use that image in a story about business women in general. It is a fair assumption a woman dressed in a suit downtown is more then likely a business woman. However, you can not use that same image in a story about high end call girls unless you can prove she is a call girl. ....snip
Joe,
I agree with a lot of what you write, but this time I think your a little off base. What if it's a burning building and a person runs past you lens screaming. Yes that might be newsworthy, it also might implicate the screaming person in an arson crime. It just depends on the judge's interpretation.
What I have the most problem with is the law the covers the NYT also protects every fashion or specialty magazine in the U.S. The release forms the models sign basically say the publication has the right to run the image from the session anywhere in the universe, for all of time.
These wonderful talents have portfolios that will blow you away, probably with 2 million dollars of production value, though all they get is cab fare (maybe) and a free lunch they don't want to eat.
They are true living artists and you don't have to say more than three sentences to great talent.
Of course the talent does it for the publicity, but they don't get hired. On one lingerie project the CD was reviewing my work and loved two of the models. His bosses wouldn't agree because they thought the talent was too unique. So we went with perfectly (like retouched talent) before we retouched.
The specialty magazines and websites know this and use it to their advantage.
So to me if you photograph someone you get a release and pay them something, or just hang it on you wall.
IMO
-
Is it really a matter of public or private usage, or of someone making a picture of someone else without that person's permission?
Intended use is a secondary matter to the more important, and crucial one of taking the shot in the first place.
If it's the intention to use that picture to promote yourself or to make money out of it, then I think you should be obliged to have prior permission from the subject. I can't actually see any difference in that aspect from using such a picture for advertising purposes or for so-called art purposes. If you are going to gain something from that person, then why should it be a one-way advantage?
(And signing a model release is only one part of it; releases for stock work were tricky, too: not every model or agency is willing to let their people be shown in the wrong kind of advertisment or publication, however legal that ad or publication may be. For example: you might be fooled into thinking that any model agency that hires out models for calendar nudes or semi-nudes doesn't care about where their images go: wrong! Most calendars were perfectly okay, but that didn't apply to many of the so-called men's magazines, and I'm not surprised! There are all kinds of different levels of exposure, some that can only help you along to even better gigs and others that are the kiss of death for a model.
It hits both ways: Nina Carter was probably the most famous British Page 3 and calendar model of her day. She was a lot more than a nice pair of boobs. I used her for two commercial - as different from glamour - shoots: once for a jewellery calendar and once for a bank advertisement. She was dressed in both shoots. The bank ad caused chaos for me and for the ad agency. They had chosen her from the set of different model cards I'd offered, and everybody in the industry knew who she was. To me, a model is a model, not a personality; if their face and bearing suits, it's valid. In the work they are used to illustrate, they become a fictitious person. (Remember, there was no social media in those days.) However, some mischievous twat in a Glasgow newspaper decided it made a great story to ask the public if it knew the identity of the girl smiling at them from behind her desk, chequebook and pen in hand - she was actually wearing my wife's cardigan and I think a string of pearls we had as props; how much more county could the poor girl get? The initial explosion rocked the agency as it did me, but nothing further happened, and both agency and I contined to work for that bank. I guess they realised that, in fact, the publicity had done them more good than they had bargained for when they commissioned that ad in the first place.)
The fact that somebody is in a public space doesn't mean they are fair game: it's like saying that anyone in a public space is also forfeiting their right not to get mugged on the grounds that hey, it's what can happen in a public space. Both are violations of your personal right to be left in peace as long as you are leaving others in peace too. And is getting photographed without permission that different to being mugged? It may well depend on whether or not you realise it's happened to you. If the mugger is super-efficient and picks your pocket without you realising it until you look for your wallet, you might think it fell out or you lost it yourself; you won't go on forever after knowing you are likely to have it happen to you again - the fear doesn't take root if you don't know.
If a pretty woman gets snapped out in the street as she walks to the shops or sits having a coffee somewhere, and if she catches you, she's entitled to wonder and ask why, and even object. If she's walking towards you, a big guy with her, would you still take the shot? If not, you already know your true motivation without anyone having to spell it out to you.
Today, life isn't as it was decades ago. The first print I ever saw coming up in a dish happened because a fellow apprentice in my engineering company also had a gig with a street photographer, and used to process for him on weekends. A street photographer in 50s Britain was a guy who went to holiday resorts and photographed people walking down the street, on the beaches etc. and offered to snap them and send them souvenir prints. It was a business. To do it legally, you required a hawker's licence, which kinda tells you where snappers stood back then on the social scale. If you snapped somebody on the street, they didn't think you were going to exploit them in magazines or use them as wanking material; they thought you might make them an offer to buy the blessed picture. Of course, nobody actually made that first exposure until the punter had committed to the sale. Today, would anybody give out their name and address to a total stranger? There was a time they did - in droves.
-
The lunacy continues.
-
Joe,
I agree with a lot of what you write, but this time I think your a little off base. What if it's a burning building and a person runs past you lens screaming. Yes that might be newsworthy, it also might implicate the screaming person in an arson crime. It just depends on the judge's interpretation.
What I have the most problem with is the law the covers the NYT also protects every fashion or specialty magazine in the U.S. The release forms the models sign basically say the publication has the right to run the image from the session anywhere in the universe, for all of time.
These wonderful talents have portfolios that will blow you away, probably with 2 million dollars of production value, though all they get is cab fare (maybe) and a free lunch they don't want to eat.
They are true living artists and you don't have to say more than three sentences to great talent.
Of course the talent does it for the publicity, but they don't get hired. On one lingerie project the CD was reviewing my work and loved two of the models. His bosses wouldn't agree because they thought the talent was too unique. So we went with perfectly (like retouched talent) before we retouched.
The specialty magazines and websites know this and use it to their advantage.
So to me if you photograph someone you get a release and pay them something, or just hang it on you wall.
IMO
Fair point on the judges interpretation, although images like what you describe are used all the time in news. Think of the current riots; I think any person in a situation like what you are describing would be hard pressed to find a court that would agree with him/her. The courts tend to be very lenient on images used in the news.
I have to disagree with you on the idea that the NYTs and magazine are protected by the same law to the same extent. If this was the case, then there would be no need for the magazine to get the model release, which you state that they do. If that law protected them just as much as the NYTs, then, just as when the times runs an image, no release would be necessary. That is not the case though.
I'll admit an editorial in a magazine is a grey area between news and advertising, and not clearly defined. However, since many editorials are paid for by the company, I think one would be able to argue it is actually an advertisement and therefore not protected by "newsworthy" usage.
Insofar as model releases, I tend to agree with you, but that is an issue with contracts and abuse within the industry, not really the law.
-
Fair point on the judges interpretation, although images like what you describe are used all the time in news. Think of the current riots; I think any person in a situation like what you are describing would be hard pressed to find a court that would agree with him/her. The courts tend to be very lenient on images used in the news.
I have to disagree with you on the idea that the NYTs and magazine are protected by the same law to the same extent. If this was the case, then there would be no need for the magazine to get the model release, which you state that they do. If that law protected them just as much as the NYTs, then, just as when the times runs an image, no release would be necessary. That is not the case though.
I'll admit an editorial in a magazine is a grey area between news and advertising, and not clearly defined. However, since many editorials are paid for by the company, I think one would be able to argue it is actually an advertisement and therefore not protected by "newsworthy" usage.
Insofar as model releases, I tend to agree with you, but that is an issue with contracts and abuse within the industry, not really the law.
News reporting is one thing; street photography as we think of it today is another, different animal.
What HC-B used to do, and which street photographers try to ape today, wasn't street as we know street to mean now: it was reportage, financed by left-wing magazines with an agenda devoted to poverty, the masses and the situation of the Jews in a Europe where the Nazi party held a lot of influence, even if it was not in power in other countries. Of course the "downtrodden" would be delighted to be photographed by someone "on their side" however unlikely that might seem or be.
There is no comparison between the world of HC-B and today's world of social media and everyone looking to sue everyone else.
-
The lunacy continues.
from your quoted article:
" The problems only arise in extreme cases, for example, when someone is photographed in the sauna or on the beach."
-
from your quoted article:
" The problems only arise in extreme cases, for example, when someone is photographed in the sauna or on the beach."
Oh, please! Read the article carefully.
-
Evidently Europe's rulers (and I use that word advisedly) have decided that when you're out in public you have an expectation of privacy. That's an idea as close to insane as anything you can think of. As I think Slobodan pointed out, HCB, Kertesz, Chim, Doisneau, Ronis, Brassai, Riboud, and others who did street photography when the world was sane must be spinning in their graves.
-
Evidently Europe's rulers (and I use that word advisedly) have decided that when you're out in public you have an expectation of privacy. That's an idea as close to insane as anything you can think of. As I think Slobodan pointed out, HCB, Kertesz, Chim, Doisneau, Ronis, Brassai, Riboud, and others who did street photography when the world was sane must be spinning in their graves.
Could be, Russ, but their combined whirlings produce but a minor hum today. It also ignores the reasons for their photography, which I think was about anything but selfish, photographer gratification. As for the world having been sane then... really, you are serious? The world that gave us Stalin, Hitler and a little bit later Pol Pot and the boys, not to mention the earlier fun and games of the Conquistadores, various iterations of Crusaders, Genghis Khan et al...? The world has never been sane: at best it has held, briefly, onto a tiny oasis here and there. I think we are currently in another very dry spell with no minor puddles of sanity in sight. Jesus, just look at all of Africa, South America, Iran, NK, Syria, the US, Italian and UK politics right now if you want to see blind, dangerous madness running the show.
To misquote Harold Macmillan: we never had it (madness) so good.
Rob
-
The reason the US has a "liberal" position on such things as street photography goes much deeper than the problems of photographers or the concept of privacy. It goes to the whole idea of a democracy -- that if you can't know what's going on, how can you be a responsible citizen? That's why the US separates "commercial" usage from anything that could be argued is reportage or art, because art (as well as reportage, and sometimes better) also reflects what's going on in a culture. The idea of street or art photography is a logical evolution of the real intent, which is to allow reportage of political and other news events that the governing authority might wish to suppress, but which the public needs to know about (like lynchings in the American South, which might not have ever stopped without the horrifying coverage they engendered; the racist governing authorities at the time certainly had no intention of stopping them.) The American argument would be that if you draw complicated lines about what you can and cannot photograph or report upon in public places, where will the lines stop being drawn? The answer is, they won't be, when it's convenient for the governing authority to keep drawing them.
The US also makes it clear that you *can* have privacy -- nobody, including the police or the FBI, can break into your house or any other private place (like your car) without a warrant, or without knowledge of an immediate crime taking place. (The whole thing gets complicated, because if you are in your car, and you have a bag of weed laying on the front seat, and a cop stops you for a traffic offense, and sees the weed, he can arrest you and enter your car to secure it, without a warrant, because the weed is in public view. If it was in the trunk (boot) of your car, a private place, then he could not enter it.) By the same reasoning, nobody else can intrude on your privacy either, and that includes photographer. But you have to assert your privacy, and then you have to physically achieve it. You can't just raise a barbed wire fence around your property and stand behind it and say nobody can photograph you from the public street. You have to actually be out of sight.
Ultimately, I think the European system is a problem that lends support to authoritarianism. But one thing I've noticed in Europe (including the UK) is that people there seem to have a taste for authoritarianism. I think it gives them a sense of stability, which works until people start disappearing into the gulags. When Americans start disappearing into the gulags (American Indians, Japanese-Americans during World War II) at least people know about it, and there are protests, and eventually some possibility of some kind of recognition of wrong, and some possibility of compensation.)
-
After twenty-six years in the military and three wars I’m certainly conversant with the insanity of the human race, Rob. Among other things, I was at Udon Thani in Thailand when the Case-Church amendment took effect and the United States ceased combat operations and abandoned the Cambodian people to the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, and one of the most horrendous genocides in recorded history (to quote part of the preface to my “Short Stories from Thai Seeds”). The insanity goes on. Look at the rioting here in the U.S., mostly by people destroying their own neighbors businesses, the businesses they need for their own comfort. At the bottom of the soul the human race never has been particularly sane.
But there is a sane side to human nature, and people like HCB have made that clear. There always are and always will be what I’ll call the “keyhole peepers”: the photographers or painters or writers or musicians who search for the nasty and sensational. But the heart of real street photography isn’t the nasty or sensational.
I’m going to assume few LuLaers have read my old essay, “On Street Photography” and quote some conclusions from it at length:
“There's a cliché that tells us a picture is worth a thousand words, but a truly great street photograph conveys something that words can't convey at all. In his wonderful book on the power of poetry, Poetry and Experience, Archibald MacLeish pointed out that poetry conveys its "meaning" not through the denotations or connotations of words, but through the interstices between images. And, in a sense, so it is with the best street photography. Within a great street photograph the people, like words, must themselves be understandable, but the real power of the photograph is in the relationships between the people and the geometry of their surroundings.
“Beyond the poetry of street photography there's an historical element street photography shares with other kinds of documentary photography. Unlike landscapes, Ansel Adams's "Half Dome" for instance, people change, and it's not just their surroundings and the way they dress that change. Their attitudes toward life change, and really good street photography can give later generations a revealing glimpse at the attitudes and the outlook of their forebears.
“Nowadays we can look at the photographs of Eugene Atget and learn something about the people who lived in his time and in his surroundings, but the most effective glimpse of historical human differences comes not from the kind of documentary photography possible with Atget's slow view camera and his posed subjects, but from the kind of street photography that became possible with the introduction of the small hand camera. Oskar Barnack's 1925 Leica finally made it possible for artists like Andre Kertesz and Cartier-Bresson to photograph people as they are, in an uninterrupted state, rather than as they were when posing.
“An historical novelist guesses at the past on the best evidence he can find, but a photograph isn't a guess; it's an artifact that has captured time. And so, a street photograph that has captured not only the visages of its subjects but the story that surrounds their actions can be a more convincing reminder of how things were than any novel or any straight, posed documentary photograph.”
John Camp already has made the point very well that Europe is about to lose something that future generations should have been given: a look at their predecessors. They’ll have to jump all the way back to HCB and his contemporaries, and they’ll miss the generations that have given them their values. It’s a tragedy.
-
The reason the US has a "liberal" position on such things as street photography goes much deeper than the problems of photographers or the concept of privacy. It goes to the whole idea of a democracy -- that if you can't know what's going on, how can you be a responsible citizen? That's why the US separates "commercial" usage from anything that could be argued is reportage or art, because art (as well as reportage, and sometimes better) also reflects what's going on in a culture. The idea of street or art photography is a logical evolution of the real intent, which is to allow reportage of political and other news events that the governing authority might wish to suppress, but which the public needs to know about (like lynchings in the American South, which might not have ever stopped without the horrifying coverage they engendered; the racist governing authorities at the time certainly had no intention of stopping them.) The American argument would be that if you draw complicated lines about what you can and cannot photograph or report upon in public places, where will the lines stop being drawn? The answer is, they won't be, when it's convenient for the governing authority to keep drawing them.
The US also makes it clear that you *can* have privacy -- nobody, including the police or the FBI, can break into your house or any other private place (like your car) without a warrant, or without knowledge of an immediate crime taking place. (The whole thing gets complicated, because if you are in your car, and you have a bag of weed laying on the front seat, and a cop stops you for a traffic offense, and sees the weed, he can arrest you and enter your car to secure it, without a warrant, because the weed is in public view. If it was in the trunk (boot) of your car, a private place, then he could not enter it.) By the same reasoning, nobody else can intrude on your privacy either, and that includes photographer. But you have to assert your privacy, and then you have to physically achieve it. You can't just raise a barbed wire fence around your property and stand behind it and say nobody can photograph you from the public street. You have to actually be out of sight.
Ultimately, I think the European system is a problem that lends support to authoritarianism. But one thing I've noticed in Europe (including the UK) is that people there seem to have a taste for authoritarianism. I think it gives them a sense of stability, which works until people start disappearing into the gulags. When Americans start disappearing into the gulags (American Indians, Japanese-Americans during World War II) at least people know about it, and there are protests, and eventually some possibility of some kind of recognition of wrong, and some possibility of compensation.)
John, you seem to be suggesting that democracy somehow began as an American idea, and that it is today its flag-bearer. Not so by many centuries, and by a long chalk. Hanging flags from every available support and waving them on every occasion does not a democracy nor a country make, though it may define one or two.
Knowing what's going on is an admirable concept, but hardly supports being a street snapper. I think there's a world of difference between a so-called street shooter doing it largely for kicks, and a news photographer doing it for information that can, in turn, be relayed to the world. I can't stretch my imagination far enough to merge the drive to street with the reporting of lynchings, a sound reason for reportage that, today, rather than please the smug mugs of the thugs that did those things (as is obvious in the photos), would instead have the photographers hanging from those southern trees too.
That contemporary street may be derived from reportage isn't difficult to understand: that's what today's street guys are trying to ape, as I already suggested: wannabe HC-B cats, every last one of 'em. That said, they may believe they are trying to be Robert Frank or even dear old Garry, but it all goes back to reportage for magazines and newspapers. I often wonder what Garry did with all that stuff: did it actually sell and pay any bills? I really have no idea. It did no favours for most of the later people until it was possible to convince the art world that hey, it's art too! and by that time many of them were dead, so it was academic at best. There is no point in trying to fill a gap that no longer exists - street today is about self and ego, not reporting because nobody's going to print your stuff in their news magazine. What news magazine?
Authoritarianism as a European taste? Don't know about that, but certainly the more intelligent voter realises that without order you have chaos, and that chaos brings no good to anyone. Very few Europeans (apart from criminals), knowing what they do today from the American example, would ever desire their laws to enable the ownership of guns by the average Joe. They see enough crime as it is. Rampant gun ownership could only increase it to an even more deadly level. Rather than being any romantic nod to democracy, I think the relative lawlessness that seems to pass as part of the American ideal is more a sign of immaturity than of sophistication. If one desires a peaceful life, then it's not difficult to understand that that same peace must be extended to the rest of the community too. Selfishness brings no harmony.
Does government seek to erode personal freedoms? There may be some that do, especially the religiously driven ones, but you don't have to go as far as to the Middle East to find that. Birth control? Abortions?
At the moment, in Britain, we seem to have a govermnent that can't make up its mind whether it wants to save lives by strict quarantine regulations, or to play to the idiots who appear to believe the pandemic is all about the common cold and influenza. Heysoos, they can't even find the moral courage to fire the architect of the distancing policy who then went on to breach it with his entire family in the most appalling way. It attempts to bring in a cellphone app to track possible infection contacts but even there, lacks the guts to make it mandatory, leaving it voluntary instead, which means, effectively, useless. That's government clamping down on civil liberties? That's government showing its weakness and dependency on slogans, unelected officials (ironic, then, that so many its followers down the Brexit trail condemned Europe for its supposed dependency on unelected mandarins!) and with no deeper concern but to be relected next time too, so nobody must be offended less a vote be lost. Not much sign of any powerful democracy killers there... more, I'd suggest, of power-hungry individuals whose sole concern for power is not governance itself, but using position both to buy influence and to slant public spending policy in order to make themselves and their shell companies richer. A pox on them all.
-
Rob, kudos.
Well said.
-
But one thing I've noticed in Europe (including the UK) is that people there seem to have a taste for authoritarianism. I think it gives them a sense of stability . . .
I suspect that's an oversimplification, but I do think the monarchical tradition of top-down government in Europe has influenced cultural attitudes in a way that differs from the libertarian tradition of bottom-up government in the United States.
I've long had the impression that the tendency in Europe is to assume that everything which is not permitted is forbidden, while in the United States the assumption is that everything which is not forbidden is permitted. The Brits and the Dutch strike me as tending more toward the libertarian approach than the middle and Eastern Europeans.
But cultural generalizations based on personal impressions rather than objective evidence should always be made with caution and skepticism, not least by those offering them. North American* and European democracies all value personal freedom and all of them impose restrictions on the unfettered exercise of it. And the populist movements that have recently popped up on both sides of the Atlantic all seem to have authoritarian overtones.
―――
*Apropos of the original subject of this thread, if I recall correctly the laws regarding freedom to photograph from public spaces in Canada and México are very similar to the law in the United States.
-
<snip>
Knowing what's going on is an admirable concept, but hardly supports being a street snapper. I think there's a world of difference between a so-called street shooter doing it largely for kicks, and a news photographer doing it for information that can, in turn, be relayed to the world.
<Snip>
Authoritarianism as a European taste? Don't know about that, but certainly the more intelligent voter realises that without order you have chaos, and that chaos brings no good to anyone.
<snip>
Rob, I would sincerely like you to explain how you would look at a photographer and designate him as a serious news photographer, a serious artist, a street snapper, a total goof, or a guy who's running down the street with a stolen camera, or whatever, without having the government do that. And if the government does that, guess what? The only "snappers" you'll see are those that the government likes. You're reflecting a little of what I describe as the European taste for authoritarianism -- you apparently want some authority to tell you who can do what. In the US, at least in theory, we reject the idea that the government has the right to tell us what to do, unless that is sanctioned by the people through their legal representatives. In other words, our default position is that we can do what we wish, and there may unfortunately be some restrictions on that. The European position seems to be that the people have no rights in particular, except those defined by the authorities. That's why the queen is called a sovereign, and the Brits in general are called her subjects. (We all know it doesn't work exactly that way in reality, but that's the historical basis for the all-powerful sovereign that reigns over the people, whether it be a king or a parliament.) The US Constitution, on the other hand, says (Amendment X of the Bill of Rights) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
As far as the order/chaos thing goes, Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That's been redone over the years by a variety of pundits, and now is most often seen as "Anyone who'd give up a little freedom for a little safety will soon have neither." That's also our default position here: we'd rather have a little chaos from time to time, as we are having now, than a police state, however warm and cuddly that police state tries to pretend to be.
-
I suspect that's an oversimplification, but I do think the monarchical tradition of top-down government in Europe has influenced cultural attitudes in a way that differs from the libertarian tradition of bottom-up government in the United States.
Not sure about that. "Monarchical tradition" will mean a lot of different things to different people. The European Monachs of now, are not in the same position as they were once. After all, "Enlightenment" is a "European" concept of the late 17th and 18th centuries, and thinking has evolved since then.
I've long had the impression that the tendency in Europe is to assume that everything which is not permitted is forbidden, while in the United States the assumption is that everything which is not forbidden is permitted. The Brits and the Dutch strike me as tending more toward the libertarian approach than the middle and Eastern Europeans.
Generalizing, that could be a correct observation (although we do test the boundaries of what's allowed/forbidden, depending on nationality), and I can really only speak as a Dutchman, not for the Dutch, let alone for Europeans ;D.
In generall, the Dutch can come across as relatively blunt/sober, but honest.
But cultural generalizations based on personal impressions rather than objective evidence should always be made with caution and skepticism, not least by those offering them. North American* and European democracies all value personal freedom and all of them impose restrictions on the unfettered exercise of it. And the populist movements that have recently popped up on both sides of the Atlantic all seem to have authoritarian overtones.
Quite so.
I (we?) consider that one's freedom ends where it infringes on that of another. Of course we cannot consider anyone's freedoms, because there are a lot of idoits around. But there are a lot of shared values, and visions to improve on those.
-
The reason the US has a "liberal" position on such things as street photography goes much deeper than the problems of photographers or the concept of privacy. It goes to the whole idea of a democracy...
Thanks, John, well said.
As for Europeans, I said that several times in the past, they have serfdom mentality in their genes. Centuries of being subjects of their royal overlords does that to peoples.
-
1. Rob, I would sincerely like you to explain how you would look at a photographer and designate him as a serious news photographer, a serious artist, a street snapper, a total goof, or a guy who's running down the street with a stolen camera, or whatever, without having the government do that. And if the government does that, guess what? The only "snappers" you'll see are those that the government likes.
2. You're reflecting a little of what I describe as the European taste for authoritarianism -- you apparently want some authority to tell you who can do what. In the US, at least in theory, we reject the idea that the government has the right to tell us what to do, unless that is sanctioned by the people through their legal representatives. In other words, our default position is that we can do what we wish, and there may unfortunately be some restrictions on that. The European position seems to be that the people have no rights in particular, except those defined by the authorities. That's why the queen is called a sovereign, and the Brits in general are called her subjects. (We all know it doesn't work exactly that way in reality, but that's the historical basis for the all-powerful sovereign that reigns over the people, whether it be a king or a parliament.) The US Constitution, on the other hand, says (Amendment X of the Bill of Rights) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
3. As far as the order/chaos thing goes, Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That's been redone over the years by a variety of pundits, and now is most often seen as "Anyone who'd give up a little freedom for a little safety will soon have neither." That's also our default position here: we'd rather have a little chaos from time to time, as we are having now, than a police state, however warm and cuddly that police state tries to pretend to be.
1. The government's pronouncements on a photographer's status seem the last things I seek to guide my own definitions; I can hardly imagine any government having the least interest in such definitions except for one thing: access to the shooting of official images of kings, queens, presidents etc. where some hope of good photographic quality is the least that can be asked, along with the expectation of some decent personal behaviour while in the presence of the subject. As an aside: I must say, those holding positions of office that deserve respect should themselves respect that position they temporarily hold, and not confuse themselves with the office: dressing like slobs does not uphold the dignity of office.
A news photographer is a guy who gets paid to shoot news pictures as a full-time job. A photographic artist is a guy who expresses his artistic bent through images made via cameras; he may be a recognized professional in this endeavour. A simple, amateur photographer may be an artist or he may not; not all photographers have the ability to create works of art. So-called art photographers don't always create art either: some of their works are total failures whether they see that or not; the label doesn't always guarantee the contents of the tin when they appear on the plate.
If you are speaking about propaganda photographers, then yes, but they are already in the commission of political parties; their power is facilitated or limited by the owners of the media wherein their work may or may not be published. The media owners are key, and partly why so dangerous: witness Brexit. That media ownership is always at least as powerful as government and may, in certain instances, actually dictate government action or reaction.
2. That supposition strikes me as odd: in the course of my life I seldom give a thought to whether a thing is or is not legally listed as allowable or not - it's almost always a matter of common sense. Of course, when it comes to taxes, contracts etc, that's an entirely different world to normal living, and a great deal of care should be exercise to get it right and not screw up. It's why we need lawyers and accountants. When one is breaking the law, as is happening all over American cities today, seems to be a fairly obvious: folks running riot and looting shops because of the opportunity afforded by genuine protests at the killing of a black prisoner by police provides nothing but ammunition for those who declare that all blacks are criminals. It requires no listing on a piece of paper to brand it criminal behaviour.
Regarding who decides what can be considered legal or not: I think that in general terms Europe resolved most of that (again, in terms of daily life) a long time ago. I think your American preoccupation with such matters is nothing more than a result of the newness of your country, the trashing of what went on before, and of trying to catch up and get yourselves a new set of observable, liveable rules: I think you are still trying to settle what works best for the majority and what does not. Your national status quo (where you are stuck with some relatively recently penned guidelines some hold sacrosanct) is far from the final version. I am convinced, for example, that the day will come when public opinion finally does decide, and more strongly than vested business interests, and brings into being the banning of guns as the commonplace playthings and sometimes "final solutions" of Joe Soap.
I can think of no official list that Europeans have where is listed the things that Europeans are allowed to do, nor of a European mindset that seeks one or believes in one. (Obviously, I do not include here lists of international agreements as to what is or is not permissible.) The only lists I can think of are those where things are specifically prohibited as criminal activities. I imagine you have the latter in America too? You do have traffic laws, traffic lights? Thinking that Europeans are any different in their expectations of freedom is either a mistake, the result of misinformation or simply a conceit of imagined US superiority in such matters. As for "sovereign" John, a flippin' collector's coin is a sovereign too!
Actually, British jails are overcrowded too. I hardly think that reflects a society of conformist, spiritual slaves. A society of many morons, and/or some examples of miscarriages of justice, yes.
3. Why do you see things as possible only in such extremes? It doesn't even reflect life in America or Europe: all it does is permit the choosing of some political decisions and the branding of them as essential freedoms or the opposite. It's an invitation to simplistic thought.
Rob
-
"The reason the US has a "liberal" position on such things as street photography goes much deeper than the problems of photographers or the concept of privacy. It goes to the whole idea of a democracy..."
Thanks, John, well said.
As for Europeans, I said that several times in the past, they have serfdom mentality in their genes. Centuries of being subjects of their royal overlords does that to peoples.
I thought you were of European birth and extraction; how come you see yourself as the only one thinking differently?
It doesn't compute.
Europeans are as diverse within Europe as people are everywhere. In fact, there are more Europeans who travel outwith Europe than Americans who travel outwith America. Guess who is the more insular, and judging the state of the rest of the world having never been to any of it?
;-)
-
I thought you were of European birth and extraction; how come you see yourself as the only one thinking differently?
It doesn't compute.
It does.
You see, my people were 500 years under Muslims, fighting them all along, until finally drove them out. It is in our genes to see government as an oppressing, occupying power, a foreign body, so to speak.
This has a negative effect still today, when we see our own government the same or, as a minimum, with distrust.
-
It does.
You see, my people were 500 years under Muslims, fighting them all along, until finally drove them out. It is in our genes to see government as an oppressing, occupying power, a foreign body, so to speak.
This has a negative effect still today, when we see our own government the same or, as a minimum, with distrust.
In the other East European states, that anti-government sentiment and genes were developed equally effectively under the Habsburgs and then the Communists. However, instead of a violent resistance, the frustrated denizens often fought the ruling bullies with pretending idiocy and incompetence, as well as humour. As reported in the most translated Czech novel The Good Soldier Svejk.
-
Photojournalism, which is allowed, even encouraged, is photographic prose, often banal prose. Real street photography is photographic poetry. Not allowed any longer in Europe, even though that's where the whole thing started. Stupid and tragic.
-
It does.
You see, my people were 500 years under Muslims, fighting them all along, until finally drove them out. It is in our genes to see government as an oppressing, occupying power, a foreign body, so to speak.
This has a negative effect still today, when we see our own government the same or, as a minimum, with distrust.
But Slobodan that's not indigenous governmental oppression: that's invasion. And after 500 years it hardly matters because nobody remembers what went before. Memory is tragically short - or should that really be thankfully transient? Can you then state convincingly that some Brits voted for Brexit because they still smart from the Roman invasion that brought them their early tastes of culture? Perhaps the Balkans are a special case: the region has always been a hotbed of intrigue: ask James Bond.
Look at black America: do those imported still harbour a trace memory of Africa, or do they instead look at their oft dire economic situation and hate the system that keeps them there? Is it a system that keeps them there, or is it their own fault, as is usually the case in white trash situations repeated across the western world? Can a successful black American swanning around in his Porsche still, reasonably, feel the same angry emotions as does one still twiddling his thumbs in a ghetto? How much is real and how much of it is perpetuated by class/race traditions where seeing oneself as oppressed often compensates recognition of, or hides all personal shortcomings? And how much of racial tension exists because there are ever those who profit from its perpetuation either socially, through the power of the influence they can wield by being spokesmen for a movement? Where there is opportunity for personal advancement there is often an ulterior motive lurking in the background. Why do you think so many black politicians in Britain adhere like limpets to the Labour party? Even when they become well-off? Catchment areas, baby; natural votes: the local demographic.
Now regarding mistrust of government: of course one must have it: from when the fledgling's eyes open he has to be aware of the realities of why things are as they are: the altruistic eagle, snake, jackal or tiger is, so far, unknown. That should not imply that rules and regulations that help the possibility of harmonious relationships between citizens should either be abandoned or new ones not introduced where improvements are discovered. It takes a modicum of realism and open-mindedness from people to get along together. Should we own our private island, things might realistically be viewed through a different prism. Though even there, unless it's also a private country...
-
Photojournalism, which is allowed, even encouraged, is photographic prose, often banal prose. Real street photography is photographic poetry. Not allowed any longer in Europe, even though that's where the whole thing started. Stupid and tragic.
Russ, there is so little real street photography around that its demise would pass unnoticed. What we have in place of poetry is doggerel. I think it's a lost cause, not because of government but because of visual language shorcomings where, as with popular culture as expressed on tv or in movies, doggerel is usually the accepted norm. To be honest, too much poetry can creat a bomb at the box office.
But all is not actually lost; influence can survive:
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/culture-news/news/a36106/how-a-forgotten-photographer-inspired-carol/
Rob
P.S.
As I have oft remarked, motion scores heavily over stills in the instance as quoted in the brief article: the approach of a person as seen in a reflection. All a still can do is show a moment, not a continuity of a few seconds of high emotional charge.
Here's another link you may enjoy:
https://www.provokr.com/photography/saul-leiters-new-york/
-
Photojournalism, which is allowed, even encouraged, is photographic prose, often banal prose. Real street photography is photographic poetry.
Well put.
Not allowed any longer in Europe, even though that's where the whole thing started. Stupid and tragic.
That's nonsense. Voyeurism and invasion of privacy is not appreciated but that's photography in the street, not streetphotography,
-
That's nonsense. Voyeurism and invasion of privacy is not appreciated but that's photography in the street, not streetphotography,
Bart, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say in that sentence. Voyeurism is not street photography and street photography is not voyeurism. I agree with Rob: the real problem is that few people are familiar with real street photography any longer. Which is a terrible shame. On the other hand, I wrote poetry for many years, got a lot of it published, and subscribed to Poetry magazine for decades -- until the stuff in the magazine descended to the same level of stupidity at which current street photography finds itself. The essential problem is that the ability to be moved by the subtlety of poetry -- either written or visual -- has been lost. The English language has become pretty badly corrupted by the deficiencies in our "education" systems, and visual language has been degraded by the cell phone and selfies.
-
It does.
You see, my people were 500 years under Muslims, fighting them all along, until finally drove them out. It is in our genes to see government as an oppressing, occupying power, a foreign body, so to speak.
This has a negative effect still today, when we see our own government the same or, as a minimum, with distrust.
500 years. Native Americans could say the same about white Europeans.
-
The irony is that apparently HCB didn't particularly like to have his picture taken.
-
In case nobody else here actually resides in the UK, can I point out that photographing anybody in the ‘street’ here is perfectly legal. And in France and Italy I’ve never had any problem photographing people out and about. Whatever the strict legal position might be, I think you’re highly unlikely to be apprehended for doing the sort of documentary photography being discussed. And as Rob says, nobody is buying this stuff so it’s basically an amateur pursuit anyway.
Jim
-
Thanks, Jim. That's good to hear. But I have to tell you that street photography is sort of like poetry. It may be published but it's not something you're going to make money on, so it's certainly not something people do for money. Even T.S. Eliot had to do his bank work for a living. Yes, amateurs do it. How about Elliott Erwitt? He used to do it after his days' commercial shoots. Was he an amateur when he was doing street? And here's a shot to consider. Is this documentary? If so, what, exactly is it documenting? I don't mean to get on your case, but real street photography tends to be complicated stuff when you try to pigeonhole it.
-
I am speaking from the perspective of the US, where the German/European rules seem crazy. Also speaking from the perspective of the street photography as a genre, which seems impossible in Europe, where it originated. HCB must be rolling over in his grave.
Didn't he use a German camera?
-
If pictures are illegal, can a cell phone video of a cop killing a perpetrator while arresting him on a German street be used as evidence since the video was illegally taken? What if an American tourist takes a picture of a German statue with a stranger standing nearby. Is he guilty of anything?
-
Rob, I would sincerely like you to explain how you would look at a photographer and designate him as a serious news photographer, a serious artist, a street snapper, a total goof, or a guy who's running down the street with a stolen camera, or whatever, without having the government do that. And if the government does that, guess what? The only "snappers" you'll see are those that the government likes. You're reflecting a little of what I describe as the European taste for authoritarianism -- you apparently want some authority to tell you who can do what. In the US, at least in theory, we reject the idea that the government has the right to tell us what to do, unless that is sanctioned by the people through their legal representatives. In other words, our default position is that we can do what we wish, and there may unfortunately be some restrictions on that. The European position seems to be that the people have no rights in particular, except those defined by the authorities. That's why the queen is called a sovereign, and the Brits in general are called her subjects. (We all know it doesn't work exactly that way in reality, but that's the historical basis for the all-powerful sovereign that reigns over the people, whether it be a king or a parliament.) The US Constitution, on the other hand, says (Amendment X of the Bill of Rights) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
As far as the order/chaos thing goes, Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That's been redone over the years by a variety of pundits, and now is most often seen as "Anyone who'd give up a little freedom for a little safety will soon have neither." That's also our default position here: we'd rather have a little chaos from time to time, as we are having now, than a police state, however warm and cuddly that police state tries to pretend to be.
Well said.
-
In the other East European states, that anti-government sentiment and genes were developed equally effectively under the Habsburgs and then the Communists. However, instead of a violent resistance, the frustrated denizens often fought the ruling bullies with pretending idiocy and incompetence, as well as humour. As reported in the most translated Czech novel The Good Soldier Svejk.
Reminds me of the WWII German soldier Sgt. Schultz of the old TV program Hogan's Hero. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsXrpxo4uC0
-
Thanks, Jim. That's good to hear. But I have to tell you that street photography is sort of like poetry. It may be published but it's not something you're going to make money on, so it's certainly not something people do for money. Even T.S. Eliot had to do his bank work for a living. Yes, amateurs do it. How about Elliott Erwitt? He used to do it after his days' commercial shoots. Was he an amateur when he was doing street? And here's a shot to consider. Is this documentary? If so, what, exactly is it documenting? I don't mean to get on your case, but real street photography tends to be complicated stuff when you try to pigeonhole it.
Erwitt: being or not being an amateur when you are already an established pro is not difficult to get: if you do it (that kind of photography - street) for pleasure and without expectations of turning a buck from it, you are doing it exercising your amateur status; if you do it hoping to turn a buck (as could happen to a commercial photographer also well enough known to interest the wider public) by getting published in some magazine somewhere, then you are doing it wearing your pro hat. By that definition, a full-time stock shooter could almost never be able to claim an amateur status for his photography since the agencies tell you anything can be a subject for sales. Which latter is one helluva hook: sure, the subject may be of commercial value, but it doesn't imply that your shot of it is going to be the one that sells! Great business model - for agencies.
;-)
-
I adopted the “amateur” word because Jim used the term “amateur pursuit” to distinguish that kind of work from, I would guess, “professional” work. I probably shouldn’t have made that kind of distinction because the real difference is why you do it. You, of all people, know that when you’re shooting or writing for pay, you’ve got to satisfy your client or your market. When you’re shooting or writing as an amateur (amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant), you’re doing it for love – because there’s something you want, or better yet, need to say. To me, real street photography is an expression of amor, whether you consider yourself a pro or an amateur. I’d go further and say that real art always is an expression of love. Your professional status has nothing to do with it. Erwitt was an established professional photographer but he did his street photography as an expression of amor. I was an established professional software engineer but I did my street photograph as an expression of amor. The only difference I can see is that Elliott’s professional equipment was usable in his street photography. (On the other hand, ever see a picture of his beat-up Leica?) 8)
-
I adopted the “amateur” word because Jim used the term “amateur pursuit” to distinguish that kind of work from, I would guess, “professional” work. I probably shouldn’t have made that kind of distinction, because the real difference is why you do it. You, of all people, know that when you’re shooting or writing for pay, you’ve got to satisfy your client or your market. When you’re shooting or writing as an amateur (amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant), you’re doing it for love – because there’s something you want, or better yet, need to say. To me, real street photography is an expression of amor, whether you consider yourself a pro or an amateur. I’d go further and say that real art always is an expression of love. Your professional status has nothing to do with it. Erwitt was an established professional photographer but he did his street photography as an expression of amor. I was an established professional software engineer but I did my street photograph as an expression of amor. The only difference I can see is that Elliott’s professional equipment was usable in his street photography. (On the other hand, ever see a picture of his beat-up Leica?) 8)
Exactly. Pretty much what I tried to express in my post.
Even pro photography, when you are lucky with a client, is nothing more and nothing less than self-expression with the happy additional value of letting you eat another day. Many of us were able to say that, by and large, we picked work genres that were fairly likely to allow that sort of self-indulgence to blossom. It was an aspect of my life that many couldn't understand: in particular, I'll never forget Ann's Dad asking me, in utter incomprehension, why I would no longer shoot weddings; he was a surveyor with a successful business, and I will never forget his immortal line: "a shithouse or a palace - it's the same to me: I get well paid to measure it!" What could I say or even begin to try to explain about why being a photographer in a specific field mattered to me? Fortunately, Ann never, ever, put things like that to me. She understood because we met so young and she knew all about my career desires as quickly as I did. Was I lucky!
-
Looks as if we agree, Rob. And your story about “…why I would no longer shoot weddings…” hit home. That was why I gave up any idea of turning pro with a camera. And you were indeed lucky to find your Ann. Many years later I found out that after our first date my Autumn told her best friend: “I just met the man I’m going to marry.” I felt the same way, and still feel the same way nearly seventy years later. Few, I think, are that fortunate.
-
Thanks, Jim. That's good to hear. But I have to tell you that street photography is sort of like poetry. It may be published but it's not something you're going to make money on, so it's certainly not something people do for money. Even T.S. Eliot had to do his bank work for a living. Yes, amateurs do it. How about Elliott Erwitt? He used to do it after his days' commercial shoots. Was he an amateur when he was doing street? And here's a shot to consider. Is this documentary? If so, what, exactly is it documenting? I don't mean to get on your case, but real street photography tends to be complicated stuff when you try to pigeonhole it.
Well Russ the only reason I mentioned money in my post, was that unless you are trying to sell your pictures pretty much nobody in them is going to see them. So there will never be repercussions from taking the pictures in the first place. The point being that in spite of some apparently draconian laws in some parts of Europe, for the most part you could shoot away quite happily for your own satisfaction. My experience is that there are not hoards of police or vigilantes out looking for photographers breaking any laws. Personally I prefer the type of 'Street' photography where I often engage with my subjects (I know that does not fit with your view of the genre and I have no problem with that), sometimes I will shoot trying not to attract attention to myself, because I want to capture people unawares. However I'm not fond of 'furtive' photography where I feel the subject may object to or have grounds for, not wanting their picture taken.
So I appreciate it's not a professional pursuit, and although I make all my income from photographing people - it's because they or somebody is paying me for the pictures - 'Street' photography is just for my own pleasure. And as I say, in the UK perfectly legal.
Jim
-
Thanks, Jim. That's good to hear. But I have to tell you that street photography is sort of like poetry. It may be published but it's not something you're going to make money on, so it's certainly not something people do for money. Even T.S. Eliot had to do his bank work for a living. Yes, amateurs do it. How about Elliott Erwitt? He used to do it after his days' commercial shoots. Was he an amateur when he was doing street? And here's a shot to consider. Is this documentary? If so, what, exactly is it documenting? I don't mean to get on your case, but real street photography tends to be complicated stuff when you try to pigeonhole it.
That picture is not 'documentary' by my estimation. It tells me nothing. As a piece of art it may have some merit - for me it is an interesting juxtaposition of heads. That is all. But I'm not especially interested in it.
Jim
-
That picture is not 'documentary' by my estimation. It tells me nothing. As a piece of art it may have some merit - for me it is an interesting juxtaposition of heads. That is all. But I'm not especially interested in it.
Jim
Thanks, Jim. A truly objective analysis. And it reinforces what Rob said:
"...with popular culture as expressed on tv or in movies, doggerel is usually the accepted norm. To be honest, too much poetry can create a bomb at the box office."
-
As for Europeans, I said that several times in the past, they have serfdom mentality in their genes. Centuries of being subjects of their royal overlords does that to peoples.
I suspect that you are acquainted only with Serbia, a country that isn't even in the European Union. Maybe this irritates you a little?
In my country I am consulted officially 4 times a year (vote) on business pertinent to the country, region or city.
I can collect signatures and make petitions any time I want.
I live in what is called a democracy of consensus, semi-direct democracy, a representative democracy with strong instruments of direct democracy and it doesn't look like any kind of serfdom. The people participate in determining the political agenda and in the decision-making process itself.
Maybe you shouldn't charter direct flights from Serbia to the USA and next time make one or two stops just for looking around?
Just MHO ;)
-
I suspect that you are acquainted only with Serbia, a country that isn't even in the European Union. Maybe this irritates you a little?
In my country I am consulted officially 4 times a year (vote) on business pertinent to the country, region or city.
I can collect signatures and make petitions any time I want.
I live in what is called a democracy of consensus, semi-direct democracy, a representative democracy with strong instruments of direct democracy and it doesn't look like any kind of serfdom. The people participate in determining the political agenda and in the decision-making process itself.
Maybe you shouldn't charter direct flights from Serbia to the USA and next time make one or two stops just for looking around?
Just MHO ;)
Not to forget, that anyone in Switzerland can own a gun.
-
Not to forget, that anyone in Switzerland can own a gun.
Well, not "anyone" and even then, under some conditions.
-
John, you seem to be suggesting that democracy somehow began as an American idea, and that it is today its flag-bearer. Not so by many centuries, and by a long chalk. Hanging flags from every available support and waving them on every occasion does not a democracy nor a country make, though it may define one or two.
The U.S. is actually the oldest existing democracy, although it you look it up, there are claims by the Isle of Mann and Iceland, but neither of those places was actually independent of a country that *wasn't* a democracy. The earliest was supposedly Athens, but nobody would recognize what they had as a democracy anymore -- voting was simply too limited -- but the germ of an idea was there, I guess.
-
Here's an actual question to which I don't know the answer. Assuming that the kinds of riots that we are currently experiencing in the U.S., were happening in Germany, exactly what restrictions would be placed on using riot photos (with recognizable faces) in an art show or in journalism? Does anybody have any idea?
-
The U.S. is actually the oldest existing democracy
When was slavery abolished? When did racial segregation ended? All well within the period you consider "democracy"
Democracy =/= freedom
Democracy =/= justice
It is just an illusion
-
I suspect that you are acquainted only with Serbia, a country that isn't even in the European Union...
Neither is Switzerland.
For your information, I visited 38 countries, lived in four. Educated enough to read about other countries.
-
When was slavery abolished? When did racial segregation ended? All well within the period you consider "democracy"
Democracy =/= freedom
Democracy =/= justice
It is just an illusion
That is very discouraging thought, the idea that something must be perfect all the time before it's worth saving. We got rid of slavery, and before that, we got rid of kings. We got rid of male-only voting. It's a progress, not a steady state.
-
Neither is Switzerland.
Quite right.
But the point is that the Swiss People voted NO to the EU
For good or worse, it was the Swiss who decided.
Not their imaginary "masters" (While the Serbs are still trying to get in, as far as I know) ;)
For your information, I visited 38 countries, lived in four. Educated enough to read about other countries.
Sounds like just tourism to my ears, above all taking into account your sentence about "As for Europeans... they have serfdom mentality in their genes."
How come, after so much erudition?
That's rubbish, this said with due respect.
-
That is very discouraging thought, the idea that something must be perfect all the time before it's worth saving. We got rid of slavery, and before that, we got rid of kings. We got rid of male-only voting. It's a progress, not a steady state.
If the American Consitution was perfect from it's inception, there would have been no need to incorporate an amending process within it.
-
Quite right.
But the point is that the Swiss People voted NO to the EU
For good or worse, it was the Swiss who decided.
Not their imaginary "masters" (While the Serbs are still trying to get in, as far as I know) ;)
Sounds like just tourism to my ears, above all taking into account your sentence about "As for Europeans... they have serfdom mentality in their genes."
How come, after so much erudition?
That's rubbish, this said with due respect.
To argue that America was not a perfect democracy back then and compare to European nations seems odd to me. After all, Germany, England, France, The Netherlands, Spain and other colonialist nations were enslaving entire continents at the time.
-
To argue that America was not a perfect democracy back then and compare to European nations seems odd to me. After all, Germany, England, France, The Netherlands, Spain and other colonialist nations were enslaving entire continents at the time.
Hi Alan.
I think you are quoting the wrong person.
I was explaining why I don't believe that "Europeans" carry "serfdom genes" in their DNA.
Some people maybe read (or nowadays watch TV) too much and, like Don Quixote, come to fantastic conclusions... ;)
-
... I was explaining why I don't believe that "Europeans" carry "serfdom genes" in their DNA...
And you are using Switzerland as a representative for Europe!? A small, hard-to-find on a map country, with negligible impact on Europe, let alone the world (short or hiding criminal money, but even that has ended). A country whose only contribution to humanity are giant holes in cheese!? And time-telling devices nobody uses anymore!?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/30/world/europe/geneva-coronavirus-reopening.html
“A Mile-Long Line for Free Food in Geneva, One of World’s Richest Cities”
-
And you are using Switzerland as a representative for Europe!? A small, hard-to-find on a map country, with negligible impact on Europe, let alone the world (short or hiding criminal money, but even that has ended). A country whose only contribution to humanity are giant holes in cheese!? And time-telling devices nobody uses anymore!?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/30/world/europe/geneva-coronavirus-reopening.html
“A Mile-Long Line for Free Food in Geneva, One of World’s Richest Cities”
Looks like you are getting nervous and short of crossing the red line Slobodan
You made a silly assertion at the beginning and I explained why I think you were wrong.
If you cannot stay at adult level, there is no point in continuing the argumentation.
Take care
-
And you are using Switzerland as a representative for Europe!? A small, hard-to-find on a map country, with negligible impact on Europe, let alone the world (short or hiding criminal money, but even that has ended). A country whose only contribution to humanity are giant holes in cheese!? And time-telling devices nobody uses anymore!?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/30/world/europe/geneva-coronavirus-reopening.html
“A Mile-Long Line for Free Food in Geneva, One of World’s Richest Cities”
In my case, only because mine was ripped off my wrist in the street!
That stolen Submariner was beautiful and useful, and ergonomically wonderful. The rebadged Seiko that I bought to replace it looks, to Joe Soap, identical. Boy, is he mistaken: the logo is too large and its shape confuses me every time the hour hand is near it: is it indicating 11 or 12? My Sub had no calendar, and I wish this new thing didn't either; it, too, gets in the way. (This is starting to feel like a paean to the simplicity of an M3!) The rotating bezel only rotates in one direction and is stiff as hell. That single direction of rotation plays havoc with rapid figuring of where to set it to mark elapsed time or time to run; awful! The Swiss original is a work of art, the rip off not. (But, its clasp is more secure - had my Rolex had similar, perhaps it would still be on my wrist today.) Actually, a watch or a clock are the only devices around here that I do use by which to tell the time; my cellphone is always off unless I need to use it and ditto everything else electronic. Life without a watch feels terrible, which is why I could only survive about six weks or so before giving in and buying a replacemement after the theft here.
The watch is not dead. The good Swiss one is still art.
-
Here's an actual question to which I don't know the answer. Assuming that the kinds of riots that we are currently experiencing in the U.S., were happening in Germany, exactly what restrictions would be placed on using riot photos (with recognizable faces) in an art show or in journalism? Does anybody have any idea?
Here is an example from Germany. Of course it is not strictly comparable to the US situation as the policeman seems to be talking to the old lady, not beating her with a stick.
(https://preview.redd.it/fxq89pgdhqb01.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=1ed961c79b9cacd9bb5d16816af119af03329e63)
-
That soldier seems to be suffering from a serious sleep deprivation, but the ladies look very assertive.
-
Here is an example from Germany. Of course it is not strictly comparable to the US situation as the policeman seems to be talking to the old lady, not beating her with a stick
What a moronic comment, like the police in the US would beat her.
There are hundreds of pictures from the States, in addition to the three examples below:
-
What a moronic comment, like the police in the US would beat her.
What a moronic comment, like the police in the US don't beat old people.
-
What a moronic comment, like the police in the US would beat her.
Nah, they don't beat them now, they shoot them.
On Friday night, photojournalist Linda Tirado was shot in the eye by a rubber bullet while covering an anti-police brutality protest in Minneapolis — one of more than two dozen incidents of journalists experiencing violence while covering the recent demonstrations.
Also, CBC's Susan Ormiston was shot in the shoulder with a rubber bullet while standing in a parking lot that was already cleared of protestors.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/5/31/21276013/police-targeted-journalists-covering-george-floyd-protests
-
What a moronic comment, like the police in the US don't beat old people.
Example?
-
Nah, they don't beat them now, they shoot them...
Les, are you seriously using stray bullets as a proof that police is beating/shooting old people?
-
Example?
https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1266908354821206016?s=20
-
Hmmm...Not valid IMHO
The terrorist with the white hair is wielding a stick as big as a walking cane.
The policeman felt threatened.
-
Les, are you seriously using stray bullets as a proof that police is beating/shooting old people?
Well, if you get shot, a stray bullet hurts as much as an intended one.
Here is a tweet from Adolfo Guzman-Lopez with a graphic picture, who was shot in the neck while interviewing a protester.
https://twitter.com/AGuzmanLopez?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1267269781805137920&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Flaist.com%2F2020%2F05%2F31%2Freporters_injured_protests_police.php
-
Well, this topic strayed far of course!
-
Well, this topic strayed far of course!
All because of two old ladies.
-
Well, this topic strayed far of course!
A pity. There had been some very interesting opinions on the subject proper, some food for thought.
In "normal" societies, such as mine, but also on the other side of the Atlantic, I dare say, the rules reflect their idiosyncrasy.
The rules on street photography are based on the society, not on the wishes of some imaginary despots creating laws to keep their subjects on a short leash.
If we would disagree with the actual norms, we would change them. Period. That doesn't seem to be the case. Other societies, other models.
If you point your feet to a statue of Buddha, in some societies it could be considered offensive.
If you are in Asia, do as the Asians do. If in Europe , do as the Europeans do.
Just MHO
-
I think the German policemen will only arrest you if you're shooting with a Nikon or Canon rather than a Leica.
-
A pity. There had been some very interesting opinions on the subject proper, some food for thought.
In "normal" societies, such as mine, but also on the other side of the Atlantic, I dare say, the rules reflect their idiosyncrasy.
The rules on street photography are based on the society, not on the wishes of some imaginary despots creating laws to keep their subjects on a short leash.
If we would disagree with the actual norms, we would change them. Period. That doesn't seem to be the case. Other societies, other models.
If you point your feet to a statue of Buddha, in some societies it could be considered offensive.
If you are in Asia, do as the Asians do. If in Europe , do as the Europeans do.
Just MHO
The thing is despots or even local ego-narcissist politicians cannot make illegal laws as they try to be little Caesars. Our Constitution protects free speech which is what shooting pictures in public is all about. For example, the video of the cop with his boot on the guy's neck would not be allowed in other countries. How easy it would be for leaders to outlaw activities that might show their administration in a bad light. Isn't that what happens in one-party countries? Well, even in democratically elected nations, politicians don't want to be embarrassed. So outlawing activities like public photography, or how about public speech demeaning the government, becomes something they'd like to prohibit. Discussions we're having today about Facebook and Twitter fits into the same arguments. Are you going to be a society that encourages open debate, open criticism, open photography, or are you going to have one that clamps down on those activities to protect those in power?
-
For example, the video of the cop with his boot on the guy's neck would not be allowed in other countries. How easy it would be for leaders to outlaw activities that might show their administration in a bad light. Isn't that what happens in one-party countries?
On the other hand, Alan, there are justifiable reasons for policemen doing their duty for not liking being identified.
Mafias, clans, parallel societies can take revenge, extort, threaten etc once they got their number.
One should be careful when taking pictures of security forces at work, one should also protect those who protect us.
-
On the other hand, Alan, there are justifiable reasons for policemen doing their duty for not liking being identified.
Mafias, clans, parallel societies can take revenge, extort, threaten etc once they got their number.
One should be careful when taking pictures of security forces at work, one should also protect those who protect us.
That was the argument given by police to stop people from taking videos or photos of them. They use to take your cameras away or make you expose your film. But the Supreme Court ruled that photography is free speech in America. That taking pictures of public officials including police officers to show them doing wrong or right is no different than public speech complaining about them in public or private. It's free speech.
Regarding threats to their person, these are cops in uniform arresting common criminals. In any case, America isn't Mexico. Even the Mafia here never aimed their guns at the police to take revenge because they knew it would bring the whole police power of the American government down on their heads.
-
Maybe you're right, Alan.
But if this is happening (it CAN very well happen) we common people are going to be the last to know.
Better prevention than blind faith.
-
Maybe you're right, Alan.
But if this is happening (it CAN very well happen) we common people are going to be the last to know.
Better prevention than blind faith.
Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean?
-
Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean?
Sorry Alan, my fault.
I mean that if police-persons are being bribed, threatened, intimidated, extorted, corrupted or whatever, we the common populace are going to be the last to find out.
-
What a moronic comment, like the police in the US would beat her.
There are hundreds of pictures from the States, in addition to the three examples below:
But Slobodan, the far-left shouts like that and perhaps believes it, too. In the UK it lost them the last election. The last time the left in Britain had a reasonable face it was Blair, but he blew it too. Just as did the reasonable Conservative Cameron blow it when he opened the door to the Brexit vote; he thought he could trust the people. You can't trust anyone when politics and excitable nationalism raise their heads together. Observe the two Irelands. Like Stromboli, it all rumbles within.
It's the problem of power and corruption: even if it leads to no corruption externally, it corrupts the individual with a complex of infallibility which directly leads to grave miscalculations. Keep watching Mr Trump: the day of the great humbling is coming, either in or out of government.
-
Here's an actual question to which I don't know the answer. Assuming that the kinds of riots that we are currently experiencing in the U.S., were happening in Germany, exactly what restrictions would be placed on using riot photos (with recognizable faces) in an art show or in journalism? Does anybody have any idea?
Here in Portugal we have the Corpo de Intervenção, a special corps of Policia de Segurança Pública whose mission is to maintain and restore the order in public places. They were created in 1976, and honestly I can´t remember the last time they had to act.Sometimes they have to intervene before and after football matches where rivalries run high.
As to your question: they wear masks, it would be difficult to recognise them.
-
Here in Portugal we have the Corpo de Intervenção, a special corps of Policia de Segurança Pública whose mission is to maintain and restore the order in public places. They were created in 1976, and honestly I can´t remember the last time they had to act.Sometimes they have to intervene before and after football matches where rivalries run high.
As to your question: they wear masks, it would be difficult to recognise them.
In local papers and on news programmes, the fuzz often wears masks or is pixellated into space when making arrests or escorting guys in or out of court.
What I often wonder about, far more than of what the police may be subjected to, is the situation of prison wardens. Inmates must soon get to learn "where they live".