East Village, ManhattanMonday, August 13, 2007
Sunday, August 12, 2007
It's about respect: This ain't no sideshow, this is reality
Carl Tompkins Square Park
East Village, Manhattan
East Village, Manhattan
I had the pleasure of chatting with Carl today during my wanderings through the East Village.
"Hot day," I said as we finished our conversation. "I don't do too well in this heat."
"I'm of Norwegian extraction," Carl answered. "How do you think I feel?"
***
I was wondering if you might say something some time about interaction with the subjects of your photographs and getting their consent or not for taking and publishing the pictures.To me, photographing people without getting to know at least a little about them is no more than going on a human photo safari. I think one of the things that makes street photography so vibrant is the context into which the images can be put by providing even the sparsest background information to the viewer. Otherwise, the photos sometimes can easily mislead. Sure, it's not always possible to get a person's name or an insight, however limited, into their lives. But usually, when I make the effort, I benefit personally for it and so do my photos. It's very easy to misinterpret the context of a photo's setting, a person's facial expression and so on. Interaction between the photographer and the person photographed can minimize this.
OK, enough of the philosophical underpinnings.
I always ask a person for permission to take their photo. If they say no, I thank them and move on. If they express reservations, I sometimes ask if I can photograph them in a way that would preserve their anonymity. Back in December, I saw two men playing chess in Tompkins Square Park. I asked if I could take their photo. They said no, they didn't want their faces captured. I said OK, can I just photograph your hands, and they assented. I was given lemons, and in this instance I made tasty lemonade:
In June, I approached a man who had similar misgivings about having his photo taken. So I asked if I could shoot him from the shoulders down. I like what resulted:
I'm very lucky, in that I've been turned down fairly few times when I ask to take someone's photograph. For every 10 requests, I may get one rejection. There are days, however, when it seems I can't even pay people to say yes. I accept some responsibility for this, because success lies in the energy I project and the way in which the question is presented. Happily, such strikeouts are infrequent.
As you would expect, when a person feels he or she is being approached for a photo in the same way one would photograph someone in a circus sideshow, that can lead to confrontation. And that's where respect comes in. I have found that if I approach people candidly and sincerely and explain my reasons for wanting to photograph them -- because of the way their face appears in the afternoon light, for instance, or because of an interesting tattoo or the position in which they're sitting -- they often agree. But I've also learned that people have pretty accurate bullshit detectors, and if there's a whiff of insincerity or exploitation to a photo request, people see through it really quickly. Honesty truly is the best policy. I tell people straight up why I want to photograph them -- even if my reasons sometimes aren't particularly flattering to them -- and I explain about this blog and how much recording the places and people of the East Village means to me. And then I offer to e-mail them copies of the original raw images.
And usually, they're cool with it.
I take lots of photos in Tompkins Square Park. And let me make it very clear that there are some people in the park who would just as soon beat the crap out of me or any other photographer and smash our cameras as say good morning. My friend Bob Arihood has alerted me to this danger, and forewarned is forearmed. Sometimes, these confrontations are sparked by unlikely instigators. I've already had a verbal tussle with a fellow photographer who thinks he has proprietary rights to photograph the park's denizens, and who bases his feelings on his disdain for digital photography. I wish this man would let me chat with him so that he could see what I'm about.
But I also have gained the friendship and respect of some rather reclusive people by extending to them the same courtesy and dignity I would demand for myself. And this leads to photographic access that isn't granted to just anyone. And yes, I'm proud of that. Very proud.
And I hope I do justice to their confidence in me by portraying them in ways that highlight their humanity.
Jean, I hope I've answered your question without going off on too many tangents.
Reality check
Lorcan Otway, left, and Bob ArihoodEast Village, Manhattan
Whenever I get to feeling overconfident about my photography, I look at Lorcan Otway's portfolio and my ego is given a quick and decisive reality check. Lorcan's compositions highlight the capabilities of the human eye to portray beauty and pathos in ways that make me jealous as hell.
Similarly, Bob Arihood has an amazing ability to tell a compelling story through photographs. Sometimes it's a story of beauty. Other times it's an account of injustice and iniquity that makes you want to holler. Always, it's compelling.
I'm very fortunate to have become friends with both artists. My own work can only improve and my own horizons only broaden as a result.
They are my older, wiser brothers in photography.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Thursday, August 09, 2007
The victor writes the history; or, What is truth?
Today, on the 62nd anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, I got an e-mail from a friend in Japan.
It's a disarmingly sincere letter describing her feelings about the destruction of that city and of the far worse fate suffered by Hiroshima three days before.
Her views contradict what we in the United States are taught about the decision to use those weapons.
Are her opinions more or less "correct" than our own?
I think the real story of Hiroshima and Nagasaki lies somewhere between her views and ours.
She also shares her views on whaling, terrorism and the war in Iraq.
Whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think her letter is a great reminder that arrogantly casting aside the opinions of others is what has gotten the world into the series of shitstorms that have rained down upon us over the course of human history.
I think the moral here is that nobody, no nation has a monopoly on the truth.
I believe the question Pontius Pilate asked of Jesus is arguably the most profound question we can ask ourselves: What is truth?
Here is her letter to me, which I have left largely unedited save for some minor corrections and clarifications in brackets:
It's a disarmingly sincere letter describing her feelings about the destruction of that city and of the far worse fate suffered by Hiroshima three days before.
Her views contradict what we in the United States are taught about the decision to use those weapons.
Are her opinions more or less "correct" than our own?
I think the real story of Hiroshima and Nagasaki lies somewhere between her views and ours.
She also shares her views on whaling, terrorism and the war in Iraq.
Whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think her letter is a great reminder that arrogantly casting aside the opinions of others is what has gotten the world into the series of shitstorms that have rained down upon us over the course of human history.
I think the moral here is that nobody, no nation has a monopoly on the truth.
I believe the question Pontius Pilate asked of Jesus is arguably the most profound question we can ask ourselves: What is truth?
Here is her letter to me, which I have left largely unedited save for some minor corrections and clarifications in brackets:
*****
"There are no warlike people
just warlike leaders"
Ralph Bunche
back to 62 years ago ...
8/6 8:15 a.m. at Hiroshima by Enola Gay (B-29): Uranium type [atomic bomb]
8/9 11:02 a.m. at Nagasaki by [Bock's Car] (B-29): Plutonium type [atomic bomb]
I offered silent prayers ... for each day.
Recently, I knew that Bush thought U.S. was prepared to use nuclear weapons to strike terrorists first. I felt angry to hear that. Whenever he uses words [like] "justice," "terrorist," I doubt what is justice, what is the definition of terrorist. U.S. leaders have often justified their sophisms.
Why do they try to take the mote out of [the eyes of other] countries before trying to take the beam out of their own eyes? For example, whaling. They look disapproving[ly] at ours (nowadays, whaling of ours is very limited, but still we do a little for the purpose of an investigation in the sea) and seem they think us barbarians because we can kill whales who have high I.Q.
But I want to ask them, "Haven't you caught a whale? Whale is no, but cow is O.K.?"
Our ancestors had used almost 100% of their [whales'] dead bodies because we believed that was the least thing we could do to reward their sacrifice. On the other hand, U.S. used 20% of them mainly as fuel [whale oil] and dump 80%.
I can't understand U.S. leaders' double standard at all.
"Thanks to our atomic bombs, the world could stop the WWII, moreover, Japan could save millions of lives [by avoiding a bloody invasion of their nation]. Unless there two atomic bombs [are dropped], Japan would still continue [to fight] ...
It is said that this is American generals' thought.
I disagree.
I admit Japanese [in] those days were brainwashed, but we didn't have energy and resources to fight against U.S. anymore. It was clear that Japan would sooner or later surrender to U.S. without atomic bombs. The real reason to have used them was they wanted to know the power of them.
Try to use nuclear weapons in Iraq, and U.S. will know that they are in a dark and deep labyrinth which [they will] never be able to escape, which only leads to death.
This time the enemy is crazy radical group of Islam. They are different from us "yellow monkeys" [a common racist epithet used against Japanese during World War II era] who try to live [in a ] gray zone. ...
If we Japanese still have "Samurai Spirit," we should protect Iraq's citizens against the hegemony of U.S. Unfortunately, our leaders are faithful dogs of U.S., though.
Today, I have criticized scathingly toward your country, but I write this because I still have a hope in people [who] live in U.S. I worry and wonder the poorest sacrifices are the returnees from Iraq who suffer PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] now. I pray for calmness of their mind.
If we suppose [that the] spirit is permanent and I chose to be born as a Japanese, I should speak out what I have to tell others. I think so.
just warlike leaders"
Ralph Bunche
back to 62 years ago ...
8/6 8:15 a.m. at Hiroshima by Enola Gay (B-29): Uranium type [atomic bomb]
8/9 11:02 a.m. at Nagasaki by [Bock's Car] (B-29): Plutonium type [atomic bomb]
I offered silent prayers ... for each day.
Recently, I knew that Bush thought U.S. was prepared to use nuclear weapons to strike terrorists first. I felt angry to hear that. Whenever he uses words [like] "justice," "terrorist," I doubt what is justice, what is the definition of terrorist. U.S. leaders have often justified their sophisms.
Why do they try to take the mote out of [the eyes of other] countries before trying to take the beam out of their own eyes? For example, whaling. They look disapproving[ly] at ours (nowadays, whaling of ours is very limited, but still we do a little for the purpose of an investigation in the sea) and seem they think us barbarians because we can kill whales who have high I.Q.
But I want to ask them, "Haven't you caught a whale? Whale is no, but cow is O.K.?"
Our ancestors had used almost 100% of their [whales'] dead bodies because we believed that was the least thing we could do to reward their sacrifice. On the other hand, U.S. used 20% of them mainly as fuel [whale oil] and dump 80%.
I can't understand U.S. leaders' double standard at all.
"Thanks to our atomic bombs, the world could stop the WWII, moreover, Japan could save millions of lives [by avoiding a bloody invasion of their nation]. Unless there two atomic bombs [are dropped], Japan would still continue [to fight] ...
It is said that this is American generals' thought.
I disagree.
I admit Japanese [in] those days were brainwashed, but we didn't have energy and resources to fight against U.S. anymore. It was clear that Japan would sooner or later surrender to U.S. without atomic bombs. The real reason to have used them was they wanted to know the power of them.
Try to use nuclear weapons in Iraq, and U.S. will know that they are in a dark and deep labyrinth which [they will] never be able to escape, which only leads to death.
This time the enemy is crazy radical group of Islam. They are different from us "yellow monkeys" [a common racist epithet used against Japanese during World War II era] who try to live [in a ] gray zone. ...
If we Japanese still have "Samurai Spirit," we should protect Iraq's citizens against the hegemony of U.S. Unfortunately, our leaders are faithful dogs of U.S., though.
Today, I have criticized scathingly toward your country, but I write this because I still have a hope in people [who] live in U.S. I worry and wonder the poorest sacrifices are the returnees from Iraq who suffer PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] now. I pray for calmness of their mind.
If we suppose [that the] spirit is permanent and I chose to be born as a Japanese, I should speak out what I have to tell others. I think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)