I drove past a series of these ticket scalpers outside the Giants ballpark last week. Each one looking meaner than the next. I had the good sense not to photograph these guys but my assistant (and driver) kept goading me into shooting them by pulling up to them and slowing way down. Eventually I couldn't t take her implied assault on my verility
and snapped one frame.
"Get his camera! Rip that camera out of the car! " and then after we pulled away with me having taken my brand new Linhof Master Lecknika off the tripod and clutching it to my chest, he yells "Faggot". The fact that the largest gay pride parade in the galaxy was a mear six blocks away seemed lost on him.
I calmed down, set the camera up again and like a 6 year old insisted we drive by him ( in the far lane) just to prove he wasn't the boss of me.
7 comments:
Thomas-
You're killing me man. This post is so funny.
-ED
You are so gonna get your butt kicked if you keep this up!
Make sure your driver has a camera to snap pix of the pummeling!
d
In all seriousness, it is my opinion that the recent rash of "it's my legal right to take photographs of anyone and anything in public" despite protests by the subject, and then even flaunting it on the web, WILL eventually lead to some of our photographic "rights" being taken away. I'm sure many will disagree, but I personally think it's only a matter of time before some of this gets tested in the courts and new legal precedents start getting set. I mean yeah, you have the legal right, but is it ethical? And should you do it anyway when someone would rather you not? And, although people may not have any expectation of privacy in public, I personally believe a distinction is going to start being made because I do think people have an expectation that their image isn't going to be plastered all over the Internet while being ridiculed. Furthermore, you'll eventually get your due -- I bet we see more photographers getting their asses kicked, if not killed. I thought it was highly ironic that Hawk made the post about the cigar shop owner, mocking him, and even going as far as suggesting people contact him directly about it, and then days later makes a post about a photographer literally getting KILLED in Hawaii for essentially doing the exact same thing. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I think photo editors have known this and taught this for decades, but to each his own...
This made me laughed out loud.
But it's getting the same in the UK. I challenge anyone to try and shoot in London without getting busted. I was moved on by a gezer with bullet proof jacket and a walky talky, who only described himself as London Security?
I was photographing city buildings. However I'm not sure how many terorists would be quite so obvious as shoot with a 5x4 and huge silver tripod !
ok..ok...that dude in Afghanistan did get assassinated by guys with an exploding camera, Sept 9th, 2001:
"Ahmad Shāh Mas'ūd was the target of a suicide attack which occurred at Khvajeh Ba Odin on September 9, 2001. The attackers were two Arabs who claimed to be Belgians originally from Morocco. The assassins claimed to want to interview Massoud and set off a bomb either in their video camera or in a belt worn by the cameraman while asking Massoud questions. One of the attackers was killed by the explosion and the other was shot while trying to escape. The news of Massoud's death was reported almost immediately, appearing in European and North American newspapers on 10 September 2001."
So there is a reason for cops and security guards to be concerned, but I don't really think ethics have a place in art, or at least in this art. You gotta take your chances to say what you wanna say. He's not peeking in anyone's window or anything, this is art about people reacting to him on the street. I don't think anyone's rights are being violated. Bruce Davidson got mugged doing SUBWAY, TB may indeed get pummeled, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
As a photographer dealing with a visual form of communication I hate the idea of explaining my work. If a photograph needs an explanation it is already a failure.
That being said I think Mr Anonymous brings up some interesting points that speak to the heart of what I am trying to do with this project.
Ideally the Copy Stand project brings up the following questions:
What responsibilty does an artist have to his subjects? Do we need to flatter them? Make them look good? If a subject is not happy with an image of themselves does that make the photograph less successful?
Are all photographers theives? Are all photographs stolen?
Has art ever been made that makes people comfortable? Is that art worth looking at?
How importatnt is process? Is the making of the thing as important as the thing itself?
What happens when strangers are on the street and are physically close but do everything they can to remain emotionally isulated from each other? What role does technology that is supposed to keep us connected (cell phones, PDAs, Ipods) play in keeping us apart? What happens when you get really close, as close as you can get and shine a light on this?
"[This] WILL eventually lead to some of our photographic "rights" being taken away."
I find the idea that our rights will be taken away by using them interesting. Following this practice is in itself a forfeit of rights through simple self censorship.
Post a Comment