Dan Scott wrote:
I applaud Glen's good works. But I don't know that good works earn
anyone the right or an entitlement to photograph someone else. I
understand that being in public entails being seen in public, but when
you are homeless you have no privacy and no choice. You can't escape.
it.
Brad
- Original Message -
From: John Whicker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 6:07 AM
Subject: Re: Ethics of Documentary Photography
Dan Scott wrote:
I applaud Glen's good works. But I don't know that good works earn
anyone the right
On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 02:17 PM, Mike Johnston wrote:
Please accept my apologies for contributing to this drift. I
will try harder to stay on topic in the future. I really enjoy the
PDML and
learn a great deal from all of you.
I enjoyed hearing from you, Glen, and I certainly think
I share your uneasiness about photographing the indigent, Dan. As I posted
less than an hour ago, I think we should afford the homeless a shred of
privacy - they may be in public, but the unfortunate reality is that bus
shelters and doorways are their homes, and really should be seen as
private
Dan Scott wrote:
When someone comes along
looking for something interesting to shoot, their interest in you is
most likely in exploiting your misery for their benefit.
I think that is wrong.
I disagree. I shoot street people every now and then. I always pay them
quite well, usually five
shower.
Glen
-Original Message-
From: Dan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 4:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mike Johnston
Cc: Dan Scott
Subject: Ethics of Documentary Photography
On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 02:17 PM, Mike Johnston wrote:
Please accept my
Hi,
Monday, December 16, 2002, 10:57:15 PM, you wrote:
When someone comes along looking for something interesting
to shoot, their interest in you is most likely in exploiting
your misery for their benefit.
I broadly agree with the arguments you put forward to support this,
but as usual there
On 16 Dec 2002 at 18:03, Glen O'Neal wrote:
Okay so you have chosen to continue the thread as a discussion of
photographic ethics. I can jump in on that. Let's ask the question; do we
applaud or condemn the Afghan Girl image of Steve McCurry?
Not much to say on this however for whatever
I think that is wrong.
Dan,
Street photographers can have a streak of ruthlessness. They can be very
exploitative, intrusive, and persistent. What they want is the shot.
Personally, I think I only ever shot a picture of a street person once. And
he was sound asleep.
--Mike
- Original Message -
From: Mike Johnston
Subject: Re: Ethics of Documentary Photography
I think that is wrong.
Dan,
Street photographers can have a streak of ruthlessness. They
can be very
exploitative, intrusive, and persistent. What they want is
the shot.
It's not just
10 matches
Mail list logo
