Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/31

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Street photography
From: John Collier <jbcollier@home.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:21:23 -0600

I would also like to add that it is comically ironic that it is the public's
insatiable curiosity that drives the very type of photography that makes the
public want to limit our freedom. This is tragically illustrated in the
whole Princess Di affair with the public blaming photographers for "ruining"
her life while lining up to buy commemorative photo books of her.

Ain't life grand,

John Collier

> From: John Collier <jbcollier@home.com>
> 
> No offence taken John as my post was partly tongue in cheek. I do, however,
> feel that a great deal of the currant legislative backlash against street
> photography is due to the general public's perception that street
> photography is an intrusive and harassing act. While I do agree with you,
> the problem is not convincing me, or almost any photographer, but the
> general public. Their worse fears run along the lines of being photographed,
> a la Mussolini, in embarrassing situations such adjusting the position of
> undergarments or genitalia, or the classic, picking their noses. The
> unfortunate all too public intrusiveness of some will have far reaching
> effects on you and me.
> 
> John Collier
> 
>> From: John Brownlow <john@pinkheadedbug.com>
>> 
>> on 31/7/00 10:32 am, John Collier at jbcollier@home.com wrote:
>> 
>>> Just a quick note to say that I do not believe the Kennedy family would
>>> agree. :-) Perhaps not really "street photography" by a traditional
>>> definition but photography on the streets none the less.
>> 
>> Pardon my language, and note that in what follows I address the argument not
>> the poster, of whom I know less than nothing, but that's the kind of lo-cal
>> fibre free bullshit barstool argument that does no-one any favours. Equating
>> gross press intrusion for commercial purposes (selling to Nat. Enquirer or
>> whatever) with what is essentially a non-profit (ask any street
>> photographer) artistic endeavor is purposefully confusing two entirely
>> separate issues. Most SPs have a pretty well worked out internal moral code
>> about what they do. Very few will continue to shoot an ordinary member of
>> the public (ie who does not have bodyguards and millions in the bank) who
>> has expressed the wish NOT to be photographed: to do so is stupid and rude
>> and dangerous and has nothing to do with what SP is all about.
>> 
>> Anyone who photographed as an SP ... moving among people in the streets...
>> in the way that the press photographed the Kennedys would have their nose
>> broken within the first hour. And they would deserve it.
>> 
>> Sheesh.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Johnny Deadman
>> 
>> http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
>> 
>> 
>