Image estate of Walker Evans
Image Philip-Lorca diCorciaIs it? Yesterdays post was all about our rights, what about theirs? Is taking a portrait of an unsuspecting member of the public wrong or exploitative? Philip -Lorca diCorcia won a court case upholding his right to do it, as it was Art. Is this a good enough justification? http://www.postmedia.net/01/dicorcia.htm Candid shots of people especially in urban environments has a long tradition, diCorcia's series "Heads" is a modern take on Walker Evan's "Subway" http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/evan/ho_1971.646.18.htm I have been doing some myself recently which is why I'm currently asking myself and you is it OK to do or are we just a bunch of gits? To your right I've added a poll so please let me know.............
4 comments:
I know I feel more comfortable taking candid shots with a nice big camera as it looks like I'm there for the photos, rather than snapping away quietly with a point and shoot, which feels kind of sneaky somehow...
Highly dependant on the location too - an event or special occasion is always easier to take pictures at, whereas snapping people on the bus would probably raise a few more eyebrows.
I agree with John there. It's quite complex moral issue, no definite rights and wrongs for me, although there are certainly times when I definitely wouldn't take the picture.
There are also issues of what is going to be done with the picture, how it is published. Some people are just not happy for their photo to be put on say the internet, but feel it's quite okay for a book. Not sure why that is, but I'd respect that.
I wrote a blog post about the whole issue after seeing someone in a nearby town publishing pictures and associated comments about strangers in the street. Very unpleasant too, a lot of it.
Oops, clicked a tad too soon, sorry.
It's a problem I often have!
Post a Comment