Hypocrisy is the bad thing about street photography
The new babies have no idea
The Street Photographer Polly Rusin written an article for petapixel that confirms to be the house of garbage:
6 Ethical Considerations When Doing Street Photography
I have never believed in these ethical codes, not even when they were written by a recognized and acclaimed Italian man of culture. In general, one should respond to one's ethics as a human being. Because then it happens that people who say they are, for example, pacifist, display flags next to their name to express their support for the war. All this, you will have understood, is always a precise desire to be seen as good and just, sensitive, but in truth it is the festival of hypocrisy.
The same people arguing like her are the first ones to celebrate Martin Parr, Bruce Gilden and Boogie. Because, of course, is convenient. But at the same time you write an article about the ethics when it comes to Street Photography. It would be sufficient to take as examples the struggle with a woman in the streets of New York City as showed in a famous video of Bruce Gilden, or Martin Parr photographing a man sleeping in a hotel in Sicily. But, of course, about them nothing to declare. Much, much more convenient to make a generalist article, anyway the goal is only one: look how sensitive and correct photographer I am in what I do.
Give me a break from this bullshit.
I will answer point by point, to express better my ideas. As a street photographer making this since 2007 I think to be a voice that represents several street photographers who will agree with me. Let’s start!
Privacy
Privacy doesn’t exist in a public place. With that said, Polly writes:
it’s important to be respectful of people’s boundaries and avoid photographing anything that might be incriminating or embarrassing, such as kissing for example (it could be an affair!), or where someone’s knickers are on show by accident, or someone is visibly upset
A kiss? Really? Do you think Joel Meyerowitz on the well known photograph KISS ME STUPID questioned himself if the couple were lovers who cheated on their respective partners? While I agree with the upskirt example, which would also be a crime, photographing an angry person is more of an act of self-defense and this highlights we need to be a little psychologist when we are on the street with our camera. I can be a guess of that because a day I photographed a man looking upset and he beaten on my chesst, but…is it a matter of privacy?
Privacy is respected when Martin Parr goes to a beach showing people half naked, with ridiculous clothing or sunscreen that highlights the surreal of their person at the time? What about privacy when Parr himself photographs ravenous people storming the catering tables?
2. Power Dynamics
This is the second no-sense in that post. Is photographing marginalized people disrespectful under what code? You know how I think: it's not about photographing a certain type of person but how you photograph them. I photograph people living on the street just like Boogie, Moriyama or other photographers do. Of course if you are a little princess and you think that street photography is limited only to the downtown you can think like that. But someone experiences street photography every day, even in places where little princesses can never go.
Take my point: I taught street photography last year to a class made up of people who are re-entering society after living on the street. I approach the theme with particular attention, but then I don't make distinctions of social status or that given moment on the street. Because I only have to answer to one thing: photographing reality on the street. And if I don't photograph certain things, I'm making a serious omission. From the pandemic the number of people living on the streets has increased in Mexico: should I ignore it and present only a perfect, clean and fun world? The world is not clean and it is not fun. In most cases. Little princesses live in fairy tales. I sometimes interact with these people, sometimes I don't. I don't take pictures for likes, this seems clear to me and amply testified by my long journey into photography.
3. Cultural Sensitivity
Yes, this voice repeats the previous one. But it's a foot-written article and she had to fill it.
4. Safety
C’mon…seriously? Cross on the strips and don't push the lady. But do they really accept garbage like this now? I laugh at those who can't write and put themselves in the position of wanting to write by force.
5. Intrusive Shooting
Bruce gilden and Mark Cohen, this one is for you! and yeah, including all your copycats….they will be happy to read this. You explain to the young lady that much of the history of photography is made through intrusive shots…
6. Post-Processing
Don’t mind it: “Cropping and fixing the horizon” is not fine, at least to me. And this shows only the absurd of this no-ideas post on petapixel. By including the last voice about the rules of post processing when it sould be something about ethics…
In Summary
I thought articles like this had been out for a few years. Instead they continue to persist in their childishness, thanks to magazines like petapixel, specialized in photographic gossip.
I think we need to avoid just the textbook trend of young marmots. The street is a hard, dirty place with its own rules. Bourgeois coming to tell you what the rules of the street are like is frankly ridiculous in every respect. I have nothing against Polly but she has never been on my list of favorite photographers either. I just can't shut up in the face of a sloppy, mediocre and superficial article. Street Photography is something more serious and certainly more relevant than operations of this type.
