ething about 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 wo
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 esc
- 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 t
> 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
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
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 the
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? This was a
fourteen year old orphan girl in a refugee camp. Because of this image the
whole world'
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
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
9 matches
Mail list logo
