As a photographer, I am always interested to read articles about the ethics and laws of photography, which can often be very confusing. In the case of Arne Svenson’s series The Neighbors, I still don’t quite know where I stand after reading this article, because I can see both sides of the issue and I believe that both sides have valid points.
In favor of Svenson, I agree that his intentions seem legitimate, and I think the fact that he was careful to omit faces does give him at least a few brownie points when it comes to ethics. However, when I try to put myself in the perspective of his neighbors, I predict that I would also probably feel a little uncomfortable or exposed if I were to walk into a gallery and happen upon an image of myself taking a nap on my couch, like Neighbor #11.
With that being said, I think that the court ruling was fair, as I don’t feel that Svenson broke any laws. Like I have said many, many times in class, photography is a contextual technology and art, and I think that our attitudes on an image and on photography in general depend entirely upon its context. Svenson makes a compelling point when he says, “social media, banks, internet companies, etc., know far more about the occupants of the building than I ever would learn through the process of taking photographs of their hands, backs, and legs.” As was discussed in class, we are photographed and videoed more times throughout a single day than we can imagine. When I was abroad in London, CCTV notices were always there to remind you of this fact, and it just became something that you got used to. Here in the U.S., you might see a sign that makes you aware of surveillance – however of the 200 plus times that you’re photographed daily, you’re only aware of it maybe a small fraction of the time. I think that’s part of why we’re always so shocked here in the states to hear a statistic such as “200 plus photographs and videos” for the first time, because your initial reaction is, “When?!”, “Where??”, or “HOW?!!”. Conversely, you end up just taking it in stride in London because you already know what you’re getting into. I’m not saying that I love the idea of being constantly recorded, but I am certainly saying that I appreciate being made aware of it.
To bring this back to Svenson, maybe it would have been a good idea for him to let his neighbors know what he was doing before he put the images up in the gallery. If he were to ask before he shot, I’m sure that they would say no; if he were to ask them after he shot but before he showed them, they would probably also still say no. But at least he would show that he was caring enough to ask. And honestly, the images are damn beautiful enough that I’m sure he would get permission from at least a handful of his neighbors. If not, at least they would maybe start investing in some curtains.
1 comment:
Reading the article I, too , found myself thinking,'Why didn't he just ask his neighbors permission first?' Perhaps not before taking the shots, as has been mentioned in a previous comment, because he wanted that genuine at home, non-scripted shot, but at least before displaying them in the gallery. It would have taken him perhaps an afternoon to sit down and write a letter to send out to these neighbors about the photographs and his intentions with them. That way, the neighbors would have at least been given some kind of warning before the images were displayed in public.
Post a Comment