A writer can take a “real” event and twist it into fiction, so that while it contains Truths it isn’t actually true. That’s one way writers can justify or maybe blur the use of other people as subjects. I mean, when the writer is done the subject may not even recognize herself. Can a photographer do the same thing? I don’t think so.
I would not like someone to take a picture of me and use it for their own purposes without my permission. I get upset when my sisters publish images of me on Facebook, even. I’m not sure why. It’s something about a specific moment in time passing but then being revived — having to be relived.
On further thought: It has something to do with a private v. a public moment. If I pose for you, I’m showing you my public persona — I’m withholding something from you. If I’m not posing, then you have taken from me something that I don’t necessarily want the world to see.
Yay a comment! I was hoping folks would weigh in on this.
Of course you wouldn’t like it, but would it actually harm you? In some ways, I think memoirs can be a lot more harmful than photographs, but I don’t hear as much discussion about exploitation of people mentioned in memoirs. Of course, I don’t tend to seek out that discussion either.
I do think a photographer can most definitely make a photograph that’s fiction, and certainly with photoshop you can render someone unrecognizable. Although most photographers probably wouldn’t want to do that, since there was something unique about the person that made them want to photograph them in the first place.
It’s funny that we’re so concerned with controlling the use of our images when there is way, way more surveillance than ever before. There are cameras everywhere with images and videos of us doing all manner of things, but we don’t tend to think about that, or worry about it the same way we do if someone is moving around with a camera.
I suspect that every portrait photographer is always trying to get past the public face of their sitters. I remember in Leigh Wiener’s book (from the 50s or 70s I think), he likened the confrontation to a pitcher and a batter in a baseball game, both trying to get control of the ball.
Well, see, that comment about portraits is interesting. Because that’s a person showing a public persona but hoping that the photographer will see something private.
I’m still going to go with my original thought, that in taking a photo that I didn’t “authorize” there’s this feeling that maybe you caught me picking my nose, or whatever. I know that at any given moment a million eyes are on me (virtually speaking) but I don’t ever really believe that anyone is watching. I mean, there’s a difference between being visible and being watched.
On the other hand, having your picture taken is a form of flattery. Because, you know, someone is watching. Someone has spotted you & found you interesting enough to photograph.
This has been a really interesting discussion. I haven’t always commented but I’ve been reading all these posts of yours. It’s made me think a lot about how I write about my kids on my blog.
ps I don’t know if it’s relevant but I am a crappy photographer. I also never remember what color the carpet is, whether a person was wearing florals or stripes, etc.
I haven’t had a chance to see the documentaries so I feel a bit naive weighing in here. As for the “child as subject” topic, I still find it all very problematic. If I were to take my camera downtown and snap photos, I’d be in a public place recording public events. If I wanted to take a picture of an adult in his/her home, I would need to ask permission. For children who have photographer parents, the line is grey. The kids do not have the opportunity to assert public/private boundaries and they must trust the discretion of the adult with the camera. Do adults sometimes abuse that trust? Hell yes. Is it ok if it is done for the sake of a greater art? Maybe. I guess it depends on the kid and the context and the stance of the adult involved.
I find it interesting all the analogies to homelessness that come up in your thinking on these matters. Like children, the homeless are also helpless when it comes to setting up boundaries between public and private.
Can you make a photograph that’s fiction?
A writer can take a “real” event and twist it into fiction, so that while it contains Truths it isn’t actually true. That’s one way writers can justify or maybe blur the use of other people as subjects. I mean, when the writer is done the subject may not even recognize herself. Can a photographer do the same thing? I don’t think so.
I would not like someone to take a picture of me and use it for their own purposes without my permission. I get upset when my sisters publish images of me on Facebook, even. I’m not sure why. It’s something about a specific moment in time passing but then being revived — having to be relived.
On further thought: It has something to do with a private v. a public moment. If I pose for you, I’m showing you my public persona — I’m withholding something from you. If I’m not posing, then you have taken from me something that I don’t necessarily want the world to see.
Yay a comment! I was hoping folks would weigh in on this.
Of course you wouldn’t like it, but would it actually harm you? In some ways, I think memoirs can be a lot more harmful than photographs, but I don’t hear as much discussion about exploitation of people mentioned in memoirs. Of course, I don’t tend to seek out that discussion either.
I do think a photographer can most definitely make a photograph that’s fiction, and certainly with photoshop you can render someone unrecognizable. Although most photographers probably wouldn’t want to do that, since there was something unique about the person that made them want to photograph them in the first place.
It’s funny that we’re so concerned with controlling the use of our images when there is way, way more surveillance than ever before. There are cameras everywhere with images and videos of us doing all manner of things, but we don’t tend to think about that, or worry about it the same way we do if someone is moving around with a camera.
I suspect that every portrait photographer is always trying to get past the public face of their sitters. I remember in Leigh Wiener’s book (from the 50s or 70s I think), he likened the confrontation to a pitcher and a batter in a baseball game, both trying to get control of the ball.
I have a hard time photographing people as well, which is probably why I stick mostly to nature.
I feel I am intruding when I photograph people.
Well, see, that comment about portraits is interesting. Because that’s a person showing a public persona but hoping that the photographer will see something private.
I’m still going to go with my original thought, that in taking a photo that I didn’t “authorize” there’s this feeling that maybe you caught me picking my nose, or whatever. I know that at any given moment a million eyes are on me (virtually speaking) but I don’t ever really believe that anyone is watching. I mean, there’s a difference between being visible and being watched.
On the other hand, having your picture taken is a form of flattery. Because, you know, someone is watching. Someone has spotted you & found you interesting enough to photograph.
This has been a really interesting discussion. I haven’t always commented but I’ve been reading all these posts of yours. It’s made me think a lot about how I write about my kids on my blog.
ps I don’t know if it’s relevant but I am a crappy photographer. I also never remember what color the carpet is, whether a person was wearing florals or stripes, etc.
I haven’t had a chance to see the documentaries so I feel a bit naive weighing in here. As for the “child as subject” topic, I still find it all very problematic. If I were to take my camera downtown and snap photos, I’d be in a public place recording public events. If I wanted to take a picture of an adult in his/her home, I would need to ask permission. For children who have photographer parents, the line is grey. The kids do not have the opportunity to assert public/private boundaries and they must trust the discretion of the adult with the camera. Do adults sometimes abuse that trust? Hell yes. Is it ok if it is done for the sake of a greater art? Maybe. I guess it depends on the kid and the context and the stance of the adult involved.
I find it interesting all the analogies to homelessness that come up in your thinking on these matters. Like children, the homeless are also helpless when it comes to setting up boundaries between public and private.