[Leica] Boston T and Bob Dylan. NOW: Implications for street photography

[chs2018 at med.cornell.edu (Chris Saganich)]

If I might jump in...
Being a subway rider, subway shooter  and having stumbled on a publication 
where there was a photo of myself sitting on the subway, I have mixed 
feelings.

First the isolation talk sounds like allot of projection.  Riding a subway, 
bus, airplane, car, boat, Amish buggy, etc doesn't require social 
interaction.  It is a boring necessary thing, like waiting on line at the 
bank.  Why should the expectation be anything else?

The idea of "studied indifference" is interesting too, who is indifferent?
There is no way to know if the subject is indifferent.  You can only know 
for sure if they are NOT indifferent.

Under such circumstances the photographer therefore places himself in a 
position contrary to solidarity with his subject.  His actions become one 
of contempt towards the subject.  Lets be honest, photographing someone 
without their knowledge or consent is voyeuristic and speaks more about the 
shooter then the subject.  Wrap it up in high concept if you like, even 
call it art if you dare, but don't forget what it is.

What a photographer wants to avoid is doing violence to the existential 
moment.  Often we think that requires being "unknown" to the subject or 
that the subject be indifferent to our presence.  Unfortunately, being 
Unknown,  or Indifference then becomes the subject.  So, if you want to do 
a thesis about invisible photographers or indifferent subway riders, then 
great, but if you want to capture something deeper the subject must know 
you, trust you,  and fully accept what your doing. And then they will be 
indifferent to the CAMERA, not the photographer...there is a difference, a 
big difference.

BD obviously has such a trusting and sweet countenance that complete 
strangers, in these trying and troubled times, automatically leap to full 
acceptance and trust.  'Tis a gift, 'tis a gift, my friend and BTW the 
photos are great.

Chris Saganich

At 08:54 AM 5/18/2006, you wrote:
>
>On May 18, 2006, at 8:49 AM, Steve Barbour wrote: