This was a very interesting article because the case in question is so tough to take a side on. Arne Svenson started a series called The Neighbors for which he took photographs of his neighbors from his apartment using a telephoto lens. As creepy as it sounds, his goal was to capture "vignettes of quietude", not record his neighbors lives. He also kept their identities a mystery by only capturing the back of their heads, their legs or their backs. Despite the attempt to keep his neighbors identities a secret, when they found out his neighbors were obviously upset and took him to court claiming he invaded their privacy. The case was eventually thrown out because Svenson was merely operating under the First Amendment and the photographs did not break any New York State civil rights laws.
I also side with the judge and Svenson that he is well with in his right to take these photographs for the sake of artistic expression. He very clearly was not trying to expose anything about his neighbors or embarrass them in any way. He made a good point in saying that, “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”, which illustrated in Neighbors #11. It is just an image of an unidentified person laying on a couch, you don't know what they look like or where they are as far as how descriptive the building is that they're in.
To go back to another article I read for this class about the rules of street photography, Svenson might have been able to avoid all of this by just merely letting his neighbors know what he was doing. It might have been a little discomforting for them to hear initially but it might have turned in to something that we talked about in class, we're under surveillance all the time and it does not bother us one bit. It's an uncomfortable situation, but I think ultimately there was no wrong doing or intent to cause harm, it was merely for the sake of art.
2 comments:
Troy, i my discussion I also considered that maybe Svenson should have just asked first. After I posted, I then thought about the possibility that if he did ask, and they did say yes, then the neighbors might start to curate their actions and censor themselves. Svenson was going for genuine candid moments, and I'm thinking that he wouldn't be able to capture that if they know that there is always a chance that someone is watching. I do like your point that they may get used to is after a while, as we discussed in class, but I think that it might be harder to apply that idea to our own homes than it is to a place of work or other public areas.
I agree with Brooke in that if Svenson asked or informed his neighbors of his actions ahead of time, they would edit their behaviors. On Wednesday, the Illustration seniors were working on the Mural at the Co-Op, and a photographer was present for a short while documenting us work. I found myself become more aware of what I was doing when I knew she was there, as I didn't want myself to look like an idiot or be pulling a weird face at any point. After she left, I hadn't realized for awhile that she had left her camera behind, taking photographs at intervals. I wasn't bothered as much because I hand't known that other camera was there.
Post a Comment