Re: Re:[Leica] More blind shooting discussion

[Alfred Breull <puma@hannover.sgh-net.de>]

Of course, Adi:

The thread, which has already covered different "legal" situations 
of "blind shooting" (under threat for life; during portrait session),
showed two aspects which were discussed controverse: (a) shooting
blind (no matter what) and declaring it as art, and (b) shooting
of people which you don't get otherwise (but do not fall into the
catagories of danger or portrait session). It's at least what I 
understood.

The danger aspect was covered by Ted, the portrait aspect by Eric
(and both by others also).

The art example was (also) touched by Ted (if I remember correct), 
saying that he couldn't agree with that kind of ethics, which sacrifies 
each matter as long as it brings money. I agreed to both Ted's 
statements, and I like to point at (the painter) Georg Baselitz
in this context also, whose stuff was bought by the Museum of 
Modern Art recently (several mio $$$):

Georg Baselitz was a low to middle class German painter, who didn't sell 
any paintings. People & critics ignored him, because his pix were 
too bad. One day he hung his pix upside down, and critics saw a new
source of income. Result: Baselitz is art professor now, and rather
well-heeled. Unfortunately, his pix are still bad.

The other aspect, taking pix of people you don't get otherwise, is
the aspect on which I replied now (also): I know that it's difficulty
to take pix of unknown persons, specially when you're emotionally
involved. As long as you take them for yourself (maybe because you don't
dare to ask because of the charm and beauty of certain person) it's 
close to puberty -  but I don't say anything against it. But, as soon
as you publish the pix (even if it's just showing to friends), I feel
it as dishonest, specially if you didn't care for a permission. You
exploit the subject, and have an advatage on her/his costs.

In general, I cannot agree on standpoints which sacrifies the aim,
no matter of the way, as said in the mail on which I replied. Opposite, 
most of the times the way is more important (for yourself also), than 
the aim (i.e. $$$ of an editor, galerie, etc.). I feel it as rather
important, that you can still look into the mirror next day ...

That's what I said ... well, at least, what I wanted to say :)

Alf
- -----------------------------------------------------------
At 07:18 22.12.1997 +0800, Adi wrote:
>I/m not clear on what you mean. Could you explain it please ? 
>----------
>> From: Alfred Breull <puma@hannover.sgh-net.de>
>> I follow our advice, and take them on what they are doing: 
>> They take advantages on other persons costs, and even don't 
>> have the guts to take responsiblility for their acting.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> At 12:20 21.12.1997 -0500, Art Peterson wrote:
>> >     The fact is that people who may not be very courageous 
>> >     can and do make many positive contributions to our world in many
>ways. 
>> >     I'd suggest that we would do better to appreciate people for what
>they 
>> >     can do than to denigrate them for what they cannot.