'Why Street Photography is Facing a Moment of Truth'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/apr/18/street-photography-privacy-surveillance

In the Observer today. Nothing substantially new here, the article traces the origins of street photography, pays lips service to Winogrand, goes on to talk about the difficulties faced by the current climate and briefly mentions the 'I'm a photographer, not a terrorist' campaign. It's a decent round-up though, bringing it all into a modern context.

What I did find quite interesting was the discussion about the art market's view of street photography. Also, towards the end - where 3 photographers try to describe what street photography is - showed how it's pretty pointless, all told, to try to define something like that.

Also made me wish, again, I could do that stuff. I've tried but I'm shit at it.

No mention of the recent kerfuffle with the Information Commissioner's Office and the application of the Data Protection Act to photography?

cybertect said:

No mention of the recent kerfuffle with the Information Commissioner's Office and the application of the Data Protection Act to photography?

Click to expand...

I haven't been keeping up with all of this, I'll be honest. I know about section 43 of the DE Bill, and the gist of stuff that's been going on, but what is the stuff you mention?

Vintage Paw said:

I haven't been keeping up with all of this, I'll be honest. I know about section 43 of the DE Bill, and the gist of stuff that's been going on, but what is the stuff you mention?

Click to expand...

Hiyas

Its in relation to a proposal or item under discussion/recommendation at the Information Commissioners Office - the info I had was that images taken in public, by professional photographers would/should/could be subject to the Data Protection Act

(Of course separating professional and amateur photographers would be really easy wouldn't it )

I'm waiting for an update at the moment - so when I get more - I'll post on here

cybertect said:

No mention of the recent kerfuffle with the Information Commissioner's Office and the application of the Data Protection Act to photography?

Click to expand...

link or stfu

Pickman's model said:

link or stfu

Click to expand...

I did see this mentioned too

It was originally on the stop43 website some weeks back (or one of the other ones recently re the Digital Economy Bill)

As I said, I did see it a couple of weeks ago but everyone seemed to be more concerned about the DEB at the time - however, I'm awaiting a proper update - I'll link/update when I have that

Ah, okay. I found this http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...acy_revamp_ban_street_photos_news_296725.html

Sounds like some pretty grey areas. Lots of 'you should be okay taking photos in a public place' and 'it's unlikely you'll be in breach of the act'.

I fucking hate this shit.

Vintage Paw said:

Ah, okay. I found this http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...acy_revamp_ban_street_photos_news_296725.html

Sounds like some pretty grey areas. Lots of 'you should be okay taking photos in a public place' and 'it's unlikely you'll be in breach of the act'.

I fucking hate this shit.

Click to expand...

Aye - from what I understand, it'd apply essentailly to pro photographers because of them being in business, but could possibly mean that if they took a pic of an athlete or a competitor in a marathon for example, (or a performer at, say Brighton Festival, then they'd have to get consent)

Of course the difficulty would be - when someone walks over and says "you aren't allowed to take my photo" - you'd have to have a discussion around being amateur/professional etc ... all in all - a mess again Of course it may not apply as people think and so all be a storm-in-a-teacup

Anyhow - waiting to hear more & will post again

Oh and of course the ICO consultation ended on the 5th March

A bit further info and a link to the ICO is on Copyrightaction.com and a quick summary following the JK Rowling court case mentioned here http://copyrightaction.com/node/314/390#comment-390

Thanks for the link.

It's a funny time for street photography -- there is actually an upsurge in interest but, as the article mentions, galleries are reluctant to show any "modern" street photography at the moment as it's not really in fashion. Although I do sense a backlash against high concept stuff.

I'm looking forward to the Thames & Hudson "Street Photography Now" book mentioned in the article, as I am one of the 46 featured photographers. Alongside established names like Parr, Gilden, Meyerowitz, Parke, Mermelstein, there are, erm, me, Maciej Dakowicz, and Mark Alor Powell... I've seen some of the spreads, and it should be a really great book!

Contents list here for the design director's Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johanna/4307279785/

An argument I couldn't possible win

As a long time amateur photographer I have experienced the winds of change.
Before 9/11 you could basically photograph most public places and people.
When I last visited the UK I was told when snapping tourist pictures to watch out that you didn't get any faces of children by accident in the shot. They get very agitated now days, everyone is seen as potential paedo. I got stopped making photos in a shopping mall in Hartleypool. "Where is the sign" I asked, "don't need one" the security replied. "So are you accusing me of being a terrorist" I asked." No, but we don't allow it". "Then stop those cctv cameras taking video of me then. An argument I couldn't possible win but I said it anyway.

Shopping centres don't usually allow anything v much - however much you tell kids not to do surveys in them when on geography fieldwork there's always one who manages to get chucked out

It's the private property excuse.

Yeah, I don't think I'd even bother trying to take a photo in our local shopping centre.

Congrats on being in the book, Paul. I was thinking I like the sound of it.

The think about the market interests me a lot.

Oddly enough - at that Westfields Shopping Centre I'm told they don't seem to have any problems with photography (and every time I wander around Churchill Sq in Brighton wondering if I'll get stopped - and so far nothing )

BlueSquareThing said:

It's the private property excuse.

Click to expand...

Yeah. This is where it dovetails with one of my old architectural/urban planning hobbyhorses. i.e. the privatisation of public space.

Time was that social activity would take place in public places that were genuinely public - the street, (street) markets, etc. Common land in its broadest sense. Today, increasingly, that takes place in semi-public, privately owned spaces, such as shopping centres and places of commercial entertainment.

Where I was a student in Cardiff, a whole chunk of the public city centre had literally been privatised when a block of streets had been redeveloped into the St Davids shopping centre. It was monitored and patrolled by security, and locked up at 7pm leaving that part of the city as a dead block which you had negotiate your way round.

Sutton Market where I live suffered a similar fate in the late 80s/early 90s. Where public rights of way existed, they became a shopping mall (the St Nicholas Centre).

In the US, they have at least the back-stop that land owned by the state is deemed public in law, unless there are reasons of national security at stake (such as military bases). In the UK, we don't even have that protection and your council-owned park is, legally, private land.

The point here is that you have certain rights in public spaces, such as to take photographs (or sketch, or pass without let or hinderance) which are not available to you on private land, where it is entirely subject to the discretion of the landowner, or the whim of their agents, the security guards.

Paul Russell said:

Thanks for the link.

It's a funny time for street photography -- there is actually an upsurge in interest but, as the article mentions, galleries are reluctant to show any "modern" street photography at the moment as it's not really in fashion. Although I do sense a backlash against high concept stuff.

I'm looking forward to the Thames & Hudson "Street Photography Now" book mentioned in the article, as I am one of the 46 featured photographers. Alongside established names like Parr, Gilden, Meyerowitz, Parke, Mermelstein, there are, erm, me, Maciej Dakowicz, and Mark Alor Powell... I've seen some of the spreads, and it should be a really great book!

Contents list here for the design director's Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johanna/4307279785/

Click to expand...

In true journalistic fashion, the article mentions the 'Hardcore Street Photography' group on Flickr, without bothering to mention that it isn't 'hardcore' in the sense that most members of the readership would understand it.

GoneCoastal said:

Oddly enough - at that Westfields Shopping Centre I'm told they don't seem to have any problems with photography (and every time I wander around Churchill Sq in Brighton wondering if I'll get stopped - and so far nothing )

Click to expand...

With the Brunswick Centre in Bloomsbury I got stopped by security guards from taking pictures in the underground car park a few weeks ago. I would like to take some pictures of the main (above ground) shopping precinct. Whereas before I would have thought that as its members of the public milling around shops its effectively/traditionally/morally a public space and I can take pictures, now I am more aware that it is legally a private space.

I was wondering whether to ask permission from the shopping centre to take pictures or chance it and just take a few snaps until I got chucked out. The photos are for my own photoblog.

I came across a similar problem with security guards taking pictures in this brand new commercial precinct behind the Santander building on the north side of Euston Road between Warren Street and Great Portland Street.

What I thought was particularly ironic is that I was taking a picture of some new commercial visual installations that were obviously meant to be looked at. One of them was a large animated wall installation of a pedestrian walking. I thought. "Hello! I just walked into your precinct as a pedestrian and had a look at your pedestrian-themed commercial art, and now your saying that I cant do that" Ironic!

cybertect said:

Yeah. This is where it dovetails with one of my old architectural/urban planning hobbyhorses. i.e. the privatisation of public space.

Time was that social activity would take place in public places that were genuinely public - the street, (street) markets, etc. Common land in its broadest sense. Today, increasingly, that takes place in semi-public, privately owned spaces, such as shopping centres and places of commercial entertainment.

Where I was a student in Cardiff, a whole chunk of the public city centre had literally been privatised when a block of streets had been redeveloped into the St Davids shopping centre. It was monitored and patrolled by security, and locked up at 7pm leaving that part of the city as a dead block which you had negotiate your way round.

Click to expand...

Also parts of Bristol and Bath city centres have been sold off to private developers in just the last couple of year

toblerone3 said:

With the Brunswick Centre in Bloomsbury I got stopped by security guards from taking pictures in the underground car park a few weeks ago. I would like to take some pictures of the main (above ground) shopping precinct. Whereas before I would have thought that as its members of the public milling around shops its effectively/traditionally/morally a public space and I can take pictures, now I am more aware that it is legally a private space.

I was wondering whether to ask permission from the shopping centre to take pictures or chance it and just take a few snaps until I got chucked out. The photos are for my own photoblog.

I came across a similar problem with security guards taking pictures in this brand new commercial precinct behind the Santander building on the north side of Euston Road between Warren Street and Great Portland Street.

What I thought was particularly ironic is that I was taking a picture of some new commercial visual installations that were obviously meant to be looked at. One of them was a large animated wall installation of a pedestrian walking. I thought. "Hello! I just walked into your precinct as a pedestrian and had a look at your pedestrian-themed commercial art, and now your saying that I cant do that" Ironic!

Click to expand...

A friend of mine used to manage part of a shopping centre and said that if someone went to the centre management offices and asked first & explained what was they were doing, that might well have get a more positive response than when someone just walks in and starts snapping away

(At least that was her approach when people used to ask - her comment was it's often "if people ask in the first place and also how" )

Unless of course there's a policy from "management" above - in which case there's not a lot that can be done - her point was really - if people have an "attitude" from the word go, then it's quite likely that any possible co-operation will go out of the window

GoneCoastal said:

A friend of mine used to manage part of a shopping centre and said that if someone went to the centre management offices and asked first & explained what was they were doing, that might well have get a more positive response than when someone just walks in and starts snapping away

(At least that was her approach when people used to ask - her comment was it's often "if people ask in the first place and also how" )

Unless of course there's a policy from "management" above - in which case there's not a lot that can be done - her point was really - if people have an "attitude" from the word go, then it's quite likely that any possible co-operation will go out of the window

Click to expand...

I will ask permission and see what happens and report back.

toblerone3 said:

I will ask permission and see what happens and report back.

Click to expand...

I'll certainly be interested to know

I believe the biggest problem is that we are no longer a tolerant society. We had in the past problems with some sensitive subjects and we started to change attitudes. But now we have created a self feeding system where we have to legislate every aspect of human existence into law. Photography is just one small area where our freedoms are being eroded. I think the terrorist threat has just accelerated this process to a point where we can all see it happening in weeks and not decades.

Other things are on the list some good and some bad.

Smoking is the obvious one and drinking is going through a similar process. The most recent manifestation is the flight bans which from a green point of view is brilliant but I am sure there was ways of operating aircraft without exposing them to the risks albeit higher fuel burns lower altitude flights reduced schedules.

There is more of these restrictions on freedom to come?