It's all in the eye of the beholder

[Miaow]

Thought this article might interest a few people - It was in the opinions section of a local paper here.

It's all in the eye of the beholder

* Christopher Deere
* June 2, 2008

In a society under constant surveillance, the photographer has become an object of suspicion.

TWENTY years ago, as a rather young and over-confident photography student, I wandered into the Victorian College of the Arts and asked if I could photograph a ballet class at the dance school. I had made no arrangement with the college; in fact, I had thought of the subject only a few minutes before stepping through the doorway of the main building on St Kilda Road. After barely five minutes of discussion with the reception staff and the teacher of the class, I was given permission to fire away, with only two restrictions: "Don't use a flash and don't disturb the pupils."

With that, I was left entirely free to burn a whole roll of film on a large group of teenage girls dressed in their figure-hugging leotards and flimsy wraps as they gracefully moved around the rehearsal studio. The close presence of an unknown male with a camera did not seem to bother them in the slightest. At the end of the class I thanked the teacher and his pupils and went on my merry way.

That was then, this is now. Now, as a balding and bespectacled nearly middle-aged man, I can hardly walk through a public park without looks of guarded alarm and gestures of defensiveness from the mothers of the children playing there. It probably doesn't help that I still carry a camera almost every time I step out of the house. That instrument immediately turns me into a figure of open suspicion in any public place. I can almost hear people thinking, and sometimes aloud: What is he doing here? Why is he carrying a camera? He looks a little odd; I'd better keep my eye on him.

I suppose that I should be accustomed to it by now, but I'm not. I can still feel a flash of offended realisation when a young woman gathers her children towards her as I pass nearby, or when a security guard in a supermarket follows my movement along the aisle towards the raw sugar. I'm innocent, I sometimes want to say; I'm really not here to cause you any harm. But that would be pointless, and might only make matters worse. Better to simply go about my own business and leave everyone else in peace.

Unfortunately, I know the reason for their panic. I know that there are real concerns about the safety of children and young women in this technology-heavy age of the internet, when even a mobile phone carries a camera that can send its pictures around the world in seconds, or photograph people and change their appearance before showing the tweaked version to thousands of curious viewers. It happens more often than even the ongoing series of mentions in the media would suggest. And that's the real fear: that someone might be paying us that kind of attention; so on some level we assume that it could happen at any time. One day, we reason, we're bound to be right.

As a photographic veteran of dozens of public occasions, from protest rallies to community festivals to open-air concerts, I know that there is no immunity from the growing sense of suspicion that a camera can provoke in many people. More than once have I been questioned or heavied by someone who believed that I wanted to make a photograph of him or his family. It does little good to point out that threatening to break my nose or my lens is a criminal offence — and I should know, because I've tried to do it, and it usually makes matters worse. It does no good, either, to point out to a wedding party in the Fitzroy Gardens or on the steps of Parliament House that I cannot be asked to leave a public place if they do not like my presence. People do not want to be provided with proof that they cannot get their own way when they are being unreasonable, or even irrational. They simply want me and my offensive camera to disappear over the horizon.

The situation is such that at times I have not been allowed to photograph the work of community organisations or humanitarian aid agencies when young people are the subject of the story — often, I suspect, simply because I am a man. The apprehension about who has the right to possess a person's image (and, by implication, his identity) has spread to the point where, not so long ago, a suburban council tried to prevent parents from taking photographs of their children at the local pool. The farce of the matter was matched only by the fear that brought it about: legal and economic as much as moral, the move was a heightened reaction to a palpable modern anxiety.

I wouldn't be able to photograph the ballet class at the VCA now — or certainly not so easily. I'd first need to write to the dean of the college and pass a police check and promise to provide copies of all of my pictures, and I wouldn't be able to use any image for any reason without the written permission of the pupils' parents. I might even need to hand over my negatives, for surely I couldn't be trusted not to do something sinister with what they reveal. I'm a photographer, after all, so it's my job to steal people's souls.

Meanwhile, every train station and office building and shopping centre and corner pub and casino is taking my picture, and there isn't a damn thing that I can do about it.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/its-all-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder-20080601-2kgq.html?page=-1

 

[Socrates]

Thought this article might interest a few people - It was in the opinions section of a local paper here.

I believe that it's incorrect to suggest that photographers are being singled out. Right or wrong, it's a new world and everyone is impacted. When I flew commercially the first time, the airline gave out free cigarettes and the cockpit didn't even have a door! Now, they'll lock you up if you light a cigarette and you need to prove your innocence before you can so much as set foot in the airport.

 

[Overread]

Meanwhile, every train station and office building and shopping centre and corner pub and casino is taking my picture, and there isn't a damn thing that I can do about it.

people don't see them - most people hardly ever look up and those black domes in shops don't look like cameras so most people forget that they are there; A photographer with a huge lens however is easily noticable.

Going further I think the first thing is that media, government and general hype has gone a long way to make people fear other people more and more - we no longer walk in saftey and fear our fellow Man.
The final bit I think is that people don't like to feel out of control - in the past when your photo was taken by a "pro" (as only pros could afford a big camera!) people felt that they could trust them to some degree- and besides the worst that could happen is that the photo of you would end up in a gallery. Nowadays people fear finding their photo on the internet - and what could happen to it in the hands of a photoshopper - just think you could be made out to be having an affare!

 

[Garbz]

With terrorism yes the entire world is going to ****, but this article being about the suspicion of paedophilia really doesn't affect airlines much.

In that sense yes photographers are being singled out. Sure in airlines it's back to the whole terrorism mentality but I had enough problems photographing a university volleyball tournament (everyone was 18 or over). The management of the event tried to throw me out (out? they were playing on a beach) and only decided against it when the two teams I was with threatened to walk off the tournament.

It is an interesting article but a sad one too. My camera makes people suspicious especially mothers for no reason what so ever. Heck I weigh in at about 70kg most of these mothers could easily beat me in a fight (or eat me whole and have space for desert in the case of some). How am I a threat.

 

[Overread]

What I find most annoying is holiding a little silver compact no one cares less - but you hold an expensive camera and suddenly you must be a bad person - I mean you can zoom like miles and miles with a big camera - all you can do with a compact is hide it!

 

[usayit]

Good read...

Photographers are just among several groups playing the part of the scapegoat for an unknown/invisible enemy (whether pedophiles, terrorists, or the boogeyman).

I'm not that old and even I can look back just 1 decade and see a huge difference. It is a sad state of affairs. Shame on those (all of them) that leverage fear for their own agenda. Shame on those that are willing to give up their rights to "feel" more secure.

 

[jg123]

You can't take pictures at the local pool here in Toronto, Canada

 

[Overread]

Shame on those (all of them) that leverage fear for their own agenda. Shame on those that are willing to give up their rights to "feel" more secure.

This reminded me of something I (rather painfully) learnt. You know all those CCTV cameras - well most can't even read a car number plate - let alone a face. All they can do is show up these coloured blobs on the screen - so is you can identify the blob that is you and the blobs that are your attackers you can see that you were - in fact - attacked. Can't see thier faces though....
(that is if you are lucky enough to get attacked in a camera zone - and not 5 paces after!)

 

[Mullen]

I'm a photographer, after all, so it's my job to steal people's souls.

This made me giggle a little bit inside..

I don't really photograph people, so I never really get those 'He's a criminal' looks. When I'm walking around outside with the 70-300mm and a monopod attached to my 40D that's around my neck, I get some 'WTF is he carrying?' looks from people that drive by.

 

[jvgig]

I find that if you are walking around and stop specifically to take a picture you get many more glancing eyes than if you are stopped at a street corner due to traffic or are sitting on a park bench. Maybe people then think that you are just trying to pass the time by taking a few shots rather than being on a mission to photograph them.

 

[Socrates]

With terrorism yes the entire world is going to ****, but this article being about the suspicion of paedophilia really doesn't affect airlines much.

In that sense yes photographers are being singled out. Sure in airlines it's back to the whole terrorism mentality but I had enough problems photographing a university volleyball tournament (everyone was 18 or over). The management of the event tried to throw me out (out? they were playing on a beach) and only decided against it when the two teams I was with threatened to walk off the tournament.

It is an interesting article but a sad one too. My camera makes people suspicious especially mothers for no reason what so ever. Heck I weigh in at about 70kg most of these mothers could easily beat me in a fight (or eat me whole and have space for desert in the case of some). How am I a threat.

The fear of terrorism has certainly accelerated these issues but they've been gradually implemented over quite a period time. I expect that you have at least heard of the Liberty Bell in the U.S. I remember when you could walk up and touch it (which I did many times). Now, you can't get within ten feet and it's protected by bullet-proof glass and human guards. Bullet-proof glass! It's cast iron, for God's sake and it was broken several hundred years ago. For the record, these conditions have nothing to do with 9-11. They've been in place for at least the last twenty years. On the other hand, you are allowed to photograph it (through the glass).

 

[usayit]

Isn't that nice...

Liberty Bell imprisoned...

 

[Iron Flatline]

As an aside...

We are usually peeved when an image gets posted that's not ours, and especially when an image gets used by someone while the photographer gets no benefit from that use.

I think it's great when someone paraphrases an article and links to it, but cutting-and-pasting the whole thing from a site that lives off its ad revenue... well, you just took viewers and visitors from that site. The link at the bottom is a nice gesture, but why bother once the whole article was posted.

 

[cdanddvdpublisher]

I think that, unfortunately, yes, everyone's under suspicion - but the reality is the majority of people were okay with letting it happen

 

[Miaow]

As an aside...

We are usually peeved when an image gets posted that's not ours, and especially when an image gets used by someone while the photographer gets no benefit from that use.

I think it's great when someone paraphrases an article and links to it, but cutting-and-pasting the whole thing from a site that lives off its ad revenue... well, you just took viewers and visitors from that site. The link at the bottom is a nice gesture, but why bother once the whole article was posted.

I get the idea - Maybe in future I'll just post a link I tend to post articles like this so its a lot easier to read rather than having to open new links etc.