[Leica] That touchy subject

["Robert Appleby Personal" <rob@robertappleby.com>]

Well, maybe this will be seen as re-opening old wounds, but I wrote this
brilliant dissertation just before Brian's moratorium, so here it is. I
don't wish to be combative, Dan, but this is the way _I_ see it, in response
to how _you_ see it.

I feel it's an important topic because images are now our culture's primary
means of expression. Out here in the darker part of Europe (there's been a
reduction in the overall luminosity of around two stops in the last couple
of weeks), I'm noticing a lot of news pictures - even editorial pictures -
in which people have their faces pixeled out. It's clear that this is an
area in flux and the outcome will be crucial to far more than just "freedom
of the press", which is routinely subverted more thoroughly and in more
insidious ways than this.


>>>
There is something about what many people on the list refer to as "street
photography" that I find disturbing. In my view photojournalism is serious
business, it should not be treated as a fun "hobby" to be practiced on
Friday evenings or weekends by people to post the following week on web
site for criticism. You wouldn't expect a print journalist to randomly
pick someone such as myself and publish weekly articles about my life would
you? Why should photojournalism be any different? If a photojournalist
takes my photograph in a public street or park, he or she should have a
very good reason. If I'm involved in something newsworthy (I'm committing
a crime or I'm a public figure, for example) then that is good enough
reason to publish my photo. The law in Quebec states this, I believe.

But if I'm just sitting on the side of the curb waiting for a friend or
just killing time, then why should the photographer be allowed to publish
my photograph?   Why should a serious photojournalist even want to take my
photograph?   If the photographer sees something very artistic about my
pose in the scene, fine, that is a good reason (to take the photograph, not
publish it). But he is morally obliged (IMHO) to ask me first before
publication. The law may or may not state otherwise, that isn't the
question. If the law does say otherwise, then the law is wrong. Simple as
that.
>>>

Why oh why?

Because the ambition of photography (its "genius", as a friend of mine
recently said in another context) is not just to report on newsworthy events
but to portray life in all its variety and interest.

Look at books for instance. If writing was all non-fiction and fiction was
frowned upon for its frivolous intent, then the world would be a poorer
place. It would vastly reduce our ability to understand ourselves and each
other. Imagine the world without Middlemarch, War and Peace or The Watch,
the Girl and the Whole Damn Thing. And strange as it may sound, "street"
photography (and, I'm tempted to say, documentary, which may be a bridge
too far - but tempting nonetheless) is the _fiction_ of the photographic
venture, although it uses real models, so to speak. But no-one cares about
those models' actual identity - in fact it is completely irrelevant. When I
photograph you sitting on the curb waiting for a friend, I'm not
photographing _you_ at all. I'm not even remotely interested in _you_. I'm
photographing a man sitting on the sidewalk. It could be anyone.

To put it another way, the picture of you sitting on the sidewalk is not a
_portrait_.

Photography can show us something new about the world and that is worth
seeing, IMO. Otherwise photography just becomes a set of studio nudes,
landscapes and news photographs. All of which have their place, but the
promise of the medium is greater than that. Capturing and illuminating
everyday reality is photography's unique capability, especially 35mm
photography, and that means "street" photography, documentary, and other
modes as well.

As for the law being wrong, the law is neither wrong nor right. It is just a
system for settling disputes. But it can be changed if it fails to
reflect the perceptions of enough people.

Rob.