Creepshots as Art

[Michael Nagel]

Article:

She sees you every move (Studio360)

Interesting thread on metafilter (where I found it).

I have no words for comment, so I leave this here.

Wait, there is a phrase in the metafilter discussion which is a good start:
No, judge, I'm not a peeping tom! I'm a fine art photographer! (thanks to mefite Justinian).

In the street it is a bit different, but _this_

still choking...

Michael

 

[Tom dinning]

Article:

She sees you every move (Studio360)

Interesting thread on metafilter (where I found it).

I have no words for comment, so I leave this here.

Wait, there is a phrase in the metafilter discussion which is a good start:
No, judge, I'm not a peeping tom! I'm a fine art photographer! (thanks to mefite Justinian).

In the street it is a bit different, but _this_

still choking...

Michael

Nothing wrong with Peeping Tom.
As creepy as it might be to some, and somewhat unethical to others, it is within the law of this country within harrassment and obscene limits.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I'm impressed. Both with the moral difficulties of the topic under discussion and even more so with the quality of some of the work being shown. But I'm happy to have seen some of the work. There's a common quality of great sanctuary and a membrane through which we actually see real people, without poses.

Arne Svenson: Neighbors #3, 2012
pigment print
57 x 28
At the Julie Saul Gallery, New York​

I'm happy to see that, knowing it's the truth and also it does not humiliate the person by disclosing to us a frozen moment of truth caught in an unintended, but wide open, gap in her private domain.

Still, I'd look down at anyone doing this for fear they are seeking much more than this and becoming wretched. If I did this, I'd feel guilty. If I got such a picture, I'd feel it became justified by the inherent nobility of such a picture of a fellow human being.

I always feel guilty photographing a person without their knowledge, even though I'm legally allowed that distraction. But I do it a lot as it's allowed and pretty non-intrusive. The problem for the folk with open glass windows is that they imagine they're anonymous, LOL, and that no one would every notice them among thousands of other open windows!

If someone cut a hedge to steal glimpses of private peoples lives, then for sure it's mega-creepy. But for folk who choose to live their private life in front of a clear glass window, they have only blame on themselves for naivety.

Now to take such pictures of people naked through their windows, could when it's systematic, be illegal, because law has been made to exclude that kind of dedicated picture-taking.

Asher

 

[Michael Nagel]

Tom - I knew when posting that this was permitted within the laws of New York (though this is not the case for the entire U.S.).

Asher - I do not say that there is no quality in the photos, but where to draw the line? Even if the one you shown is maybe less voyeuristic than others - what's the limit?

My views on this are certainly shaped by recent and not so recent history in the part of the world where I live. Others may understand this on a logical base and maybe even more, but ask yourself:
What is your place of retreat?
What do you respect as place of retreat for someone else?
Does this mean that you always have to use heavy curtains or more?

Just imagine yourself on the other end of the camera than the one you are used to and this implies publishing (what - Model Release?).

This might turn out like discussions about large and potentially dangerous industrial facilities - Yes, but not in my backyard or am I wrong?

Best regards,
Michael

 

[Asher Kelman]

As I implied Michael, the subject is full of moral issues, but what's shown is quite remarkably constrained and not particularly invasive. There' no long distance recording of conversation assumed to be private, no caught on camera tryst.

So far, it's pretty tame.

If folk crossed the line to record private unions, then they'd be arrested, for sure, unless it was actually done on the windowsill!

Asher