Art or Just Plain Creepy?

[Rob C]

What Svenson did wasn't spying. He was photographing people on public display.

Your definition of 'public display' leaves me aghast.

No wonder there are lawyers buying Leicas. And yachts.

Rob C

[Rob C]

Then don't make the inside of your home visible to strangers. People need to learn that being in their home doesn't make them invisible to people on the street or in the building across the street if they don't have anything covering their windows. These people live in a densely populated city. They're not living on a farm miles from nowhere. You'd think they'd learn to close their blinds if they don't want people to see them.

Peeping Tom's only come out at night? People should remain in hiding behind drawn curtains all day long because a snoop has some right to snoop?

Rob C

[RFPhotography]

I think the world would be a poorer place without the work of photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Weegee, Robert Capa, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Margaret Bourke-White, Robert Frank, and Garry Winogrand.

Jim

Pretty significant difference, Jim.  There's a difference between street photography and peeking in someone's window. 

Doug, you're making a pretty big leap.  If, as in your example, someone were displaying themselves in front of an open window, that's likely fair game. That's not what's happening here; however.  People should be able to open their curtains to allow natural light into their homes without concern for peeping toms.  Or, in this case, a peeping Arne.  Your concept of 'public display' is, I'd have to think, far outside the norm. 

[Jim Kasson]

Pretty significant difference, Jim.  There's a difference between street photography and peeking in someone's window. 

Bob, look at the quote to which I was responding, the one that said, "It's my opinion that shooting people without their consent is intrusion, however you write it or whatever the law might state."

I wasn't commenting on the peeking in windows, but on the much more sweeping assertion about all non-consensual photography, which includes most street photography and much photojournalism.

Jim

[RFPhotography]

Bob, look at the quote to which I was responding, the one that said, "It's my opinion that shooting people without their consent is intrusion, however you write it or whatever the law might state."

I wasn't commenting on the peeking in windows, but on the much more sweeping assertion about all non-consensual photography, which includes most street photography and much photojournalism.

Jim

I understand that, Jim.  My point is that context matters.  PJ, again, is a different animal.  By its very nature, PJ is often going to capture people at their most vulnerable.  Again; however, there's a difference between PJ/editorial/documentary and art, or artistic voyeurism.

[WePrint]

I actually like the work and don't find it creepy. As creepy would be if he didn't put the images in a gallery or as a body of work and one were to stumble upon them.

I keep my blinds closed while changing or in the morning etc. I can completely understand the frustration of the subjects but in this day and age I feel its more of a modern day lesson for them look at the royal family they were photographed naked and so have many celebs they can't even go to the grocery store without being photographed so anything you don't want others to potentially see you must be conscious of.

15 minutes of fame I really don't feel that was the artists intent or original goal with this body of work thinking to himself "What can I do to get 15 minutes of fame" maybe "if I am a 'Peeping Tom' I will get famous". Unfortunately I don't think its that black and white.

Now I see both sides of this "debate" but remember the media tends to twist things and when the game of "telephone" is played by the time it reaches our ears the story is near opposite that of the original.

[Peter McLennan]

You'd think they'd learn to close their blinds if they don't want people to see them.

Precisely.

Having just returned from the photographer's website, I must say that, without exception the images are lovely.  They also do not invade egregiously invade the privacy of the subjects.

Just my opinion.

[RFPhotography]

I actually like the work and don't find it creepy. As creepy would be if he didn't put the images in a gallery or as a body of work and one were to stumble upon them.

I keep my blinds closed while changing or in the morning etc. I can completely understand the frustration of the subjects but in this day and age I feel its more of a modern day lesson for them look at the royal family they were photographed naked and so have many celebs they can't even go to the grocery store without being photographed so anything you don't want others to potentially see you must be conscious of.

15 minutes of fame I really don't feel that was the artists intent or original goal with this body of work thinking to himself "What can I do to get 15 minutes of fame" maybe "if I am a 'Peeping Tom' I will get famous". Unfortunately I don't think its that black and white.

Now I see both sides of this "debate" but remember the media tends to twist things and when the game of "telephone" is played by the time it reaches our ears the story is near opposite that of the original.

So because  what the royal family has to put up with or what celebrities have to put up with and that this is 'mild' by comparison, that makes it all right?  In point of fact, there are now laws in place preventing paparazzi from doing just what this guy did.  So the fact that it's legal undef Sharia law for a man to kill his wife over some trivial matter, it's all right for a man in the U.S. to beat his wife because by comparison it's less egregious?

[nemo295]

Your definition of 'public display' leaves me aghast.

No wonder there are lawyers buying Leicas. And yachts.

Does it? And whose responsibility is it to protect your privacy? Does it fall to strangers who can easily see you through your open window, or is it yours?

[nemo295]

Pretty significant difference, Jim.  There's a difference between street photography and peeking in someone's window.  

Doug, you're making a pretty big leap.  If, as in your example, someone were displaying themselves in front of an open window, that's likely fair game. That's not what's happening here; however.  People should be able to open their curtains to allow natural light into their homes without concern for peeping toms.  Or, in this case, a peeping Arne.  Your concept of 'public display' is, I'd have to think, far outside the norm.  

Bob, it's hardly "outside the norm", as you call it, if the law agrees with me. You're talking about the intent of people who are going about their daily lives in full view of strangers. I'm talking about peoples' responsibility for their own privacy. If you throw open your windows to the outside world in a densely populated city, all sorts of people are going to see you. That's a fact. You may not be intending to put your private life on display, but that's in fact what you're doing. People need to be aware of that, especially in a big city.

A peeping Tom is someone who violates the privacy of others. If I have my curtains drawn I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If someone is trying to peer inside my home through the edges of my curtain, that's a peeping Tom, and that's against the law. But that's not what Svenson has done.

[RFPhotography]

There's a difference, Doug, between being able to be seen - yes, people can see into my living room as they pass by on the sidewalk - and taking the time to compose a photo, perhaps take multiple photos.  Big difference. 

Someone stopped in front of my house a few weeks ago, proceeded to get out of his truck and start taking pictures of my house.  I went out to ask why he was doing so and he became very belligerent.  I took his plate # and called the police.  The police took my statement and said they would go to his house and speak to him.  So I guess it's not necessarily OK.  At least not in my jurisdiction.

You say the law is on our side yet you've cited no case law supporting that statement.  As I said earlier, even if it is legally all right, that doesn't make it morally acceptable.  Svenson has shown a complete lack of respect for these other people.

[petermfiore]

How about if these were painted. Would it matter? Edward Hopper made quite a few master works on this very theme and was an innovator.


Peter

[RFPhotography]

Scroll down to the bullet 'You violated my human rights', http://photorights.org/faq/is-it-legal-to-take-photos-of-people-without-asking.

Scroll down to the 4th bolded point, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/2008-04-17-public-photography_N.htm

See the definition of objective privacy, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

Peter, Hopper also worked in a time of different laws.

[petermfiore]

I am talking about ART and always will. The tittle is "Art or Plain Creepy", i did not see LAW mentioned. Time moves on, Art Remains.
I will ask again, would it matter if they were painted?  

Peter

[nemo295]

There's a difference, Doug, between being able to be seen - yes, people can see into my living room as they pass by on the sidewalk - and taking the time to compose a photo, perhaps take multiple photos.  Big difference. 

Someone stopped in front of my house a few weeks ago, proceeded to get out of his truck and start taking pictures of my house.  I went out to ask why he was doing so and he became very belligerent.  I took his plate # and called the police.  The police took my statement and said they would go to his house and speak to him.  So I guess it's not necessarily OK.  At least not in my jurisdiction.

You say the law is on our side yet you've cited no case law supporting that statement.  As I said earlier, even if it is legally all right, that doesn't make it morally acceptable.  Svenson has shown a complete lack of respect for these other people.

Oh come on, Bob. Do I really have to Google it for you? Here you go:  Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1976).

"Individuals receive no Fourth Amendment protection unless they can demonstrate that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched or the property that was seized. The U.S. Supreme Court explained that what "a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection…. "

There it is in a nutshell. What you knowingly expose to the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy". The Supreme Court has spoken.

Furthermore, I would take issue with your assertion that Svenson showed a "complete lack of respect for these other people." Take another look at his photographs. How many of his subjects could you pick out in a police lineup? Answer: none. Svenson never shows the faces of his subjects. They're anonymous. I think your definition of "complete lack of respect" is most definitely "outside the norm."

[petermfiore]

Furthermore, I would take issue with your assertion that Svenson showed a "complete lack of respect for these other people." Take another look at his photographs. How many of his subjects could you pick out in a police lineup? Answer: none. Svenson never shows the faces of his subjects. They're anonymous. I think your definition of "complete lack of respect" is most definitely "outside the norm."




In addition they are quite beautiful.

Peter

[RFPhotography]

Doug, you're kidding, right?  SCOTUS found in favour of Katz.  In addition to that, Katz deals with government intrusion in the form of search and seizure.  That's what the 4th Amendment considers.  The 4th Amendment has no bearing in a matter such as this.  Further, the quote you reference is out of context.  SCOTUS referred to another case, Lewis v United States wherein Lewis invited the undercover government official into his home.  A second case is referenced, U.S v Lee, and that case deals with probable cause.

I've never seen these people before so of course I couldn't pick them out of a line up.  That's not germane.  The people who were photographed know who they are.  Their neighbours probably known who they are.  That's the relevant test.

Doug, it's clear you really don't have a comprehension of facts or circumstances and will simply try to grasp at any straw, no matter how irrelevant or out of context.  As such, I will expend no further energy in this matter with you.

Peter, purely on the basis of art:  No.

[Alan Klein]

Here's what the Zinc Building  where the pictures were taken looks like.   If these people wanted floor to ceiling windows and maintain their privacy, they could have gotten one-way glass and enjoyed the best of both worlds.  Could it be that those who bought these apartments are exhibitionists in the first place?

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.triplemint.com/photos/uncategorized/zinc.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.triplemint.com/triplemint/2006/08/zinc_building_t.html&h=255&w=250&sz=53&tbnid=sEkF8LUVSU9I4M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=88&zoom=1&usg=__-NugStAj6oHXkI1dfy8OVu0ZukU=&docid=UfgO6BD4MuJ8CM&sa=X&ei=uiqYUYGVKqaO0QGsiIC4DA&ved=0CDMQ9QEwAA&dur=282

[jjj]

Here's what the Zinc Building  where the pictures were taken looks like.   If these people wanted floor to ceiling windows and maintain their privacy, they could have gotten one-way glass and enjoyed the best of both worlds.  Could it be that those who bought these apartments are exhibitionists in the first place?

I love big glass windows because of the light they let in and the views they afford. So why assume this then means I'm an exhibitionist, as it happens I like my privacy.
And residents replacing the windows with different types of glass in that sort of building isn't exactly going to happen, not too mention the rooms would need to be much darker than the outside for it to work. So at night it would simply fail to be one way.

[Alan Klein]

And residents replacing the windows with different types of glass in that sort of building isn't exactly going to happen, not too mention the rooms would need to be much darker than the outside for it to work. So at night it would simply fail to be one way.

I guess they'll have to sleep with their clothes on!