"To Helen Levitt, photographing in the subway (even though it was in fact against the law) was not daunting. Evans' difficulties looked to her more like a case of his usual inertia. Prodding him along, she volunteered to ride the subway with him as the photographer's foil. During the colder months of 1938, the two would set out for several hours of subway travel on the Lexington Avenue local, as he later described, 'down among the torn gum wrappers into the fetid, chattering, squealing cars underground.'"
In order to work inconspicuously, Evans did not use flash equipment in the subway car's dim available light but slowed his shutter speed down to a risky one fiftieth of a second. He painted the bright chrome parts of his 35mm Contax camera matte black, tucked its body under his coat with the lens slyly protruding between two buttons, and rigged the shutter to a cable release on a slender cord that led up to his right shoulder, down his sleeve, and into the palm of his hand. Sitting beside him, Levitt would feel him stiffen his back, his camera aimed at his captive and unsuspecting subjects, and know that he was about to squeeze the trigger. Every so often, they dismbarked onto a station platform for a cagarette break." - Walker Evans by Belinda Rathbone
4/11/2006
Philip-Lorca diCorcia
"In 1999 Philip-Lorca diCorcia set up his camera on a tripod in Times Square, attached strobe lights to scaffolding across the street and, in the time-honored tradition of street photography, took a random series of pictures of strangers passing under his lights." - New York Times
My 83 year old dad cut the article out from the Times and sent it to me with a note, "thought you would find this interesting." At least ten people e-mailed me links to the article.
The gist of the article is that Philip-Lorca took a series of long-lens shots of people walking under his strobe lights and then had a show of the "heads."
An orthodox Jew saw his head shot in the show's catalog and sued the photographer on the grounds of invasion of privacy - and the fact that his religion forbad the worshop of graven images - or something like that.
The case went through the usual channels and wound up at - state supreme court - where it was thrown out.
That, anyway - is my understanding of the case.
The article in the Times (and maybe it has appeared in other venues) included a reproduction of the complainent - Erno Nussenzweig's head.
"Neale Albert, the lawyer who represented Pace/ MacGill, said the case surprised him: 'I have always believed that the so-called street photographers do not need releases for art purposes. In over 30 years of representing photographers, this is the first time a person has raised a complaint against one of my clients by reason of such a photograph.'"
The decision confirmed that street photography - being an art form - was protected by the constitution.
Link to article.
Several thoughts ran through my mind:
1) The reach of the New York Times is astounding.
2) Erno Nussenzweig complained that his religious rights had been violated in that his religion forbad the use of graven images.
- Does Mr. Nussenzweig have a driver's license with his photo on it? And if so - isn't this also a violation of his religion?
- I thought (silly me) that the worshop of graven images was forbidden, not the taking of photographs.
- Could the New York Times be sued for reproducing Mr. Nussenzweig's head shot?
3) So many people have written to me over the years asking whether I got model releases from strangers photographed on the street. This would be a good case to cite.
4) What would happen if a less-financially solvent photographer (myself as an example) were sued. Instant poverty?
5) Since "big brother" security cameras are now all over the place - citizens are being photographed all the time. Since these photographs are not for artistic reasons - wouldn't that make a better case?
6) There is no "time-honored tradition" of photographing strangers with a long lens and strobe lights. Where is the intimacy? Where is the time-honored tradition of fragments that coalesce at just the right moment?
7) How exactly did Erno Nussenzweig discover this shot of himself in a photographic catalog? I find it hard to believe that he's on the subscription list for the Pace gallery?
8) Mr Nussenzweig has substantially increased the price for Mr. diCorcia's work. I wish someone would sue me - but only if it got the same sort of publicity. Perhaps I should set up a long lens rig outside Mr. Nusenzweig's house.
At any rate - the idea that using a long lens and strobe lights to do street photography is a "time-honored tradition" is nonsense.
This photographic technique has more in common with the big-brother security cameras that are now omnipresent than with traditional street photography. And street photography is not time-honored. Walker Evans put off showing his series of subway close-ups for many years because he was afraid of being sued.
I noticed that Mr. Nussenzweig's image was not shown in the online New York Times version - but was in the print edition. I wonder how many New York Times lawyers it took to make that decision.
I think that when I have the time, I'll scan Mr. Nussenzweig's photograph from the print version and photoshop it into my picture with the monkey on the train. That would take this case to a whole nother level. Let me check first with my own battery of lawyers.
My 83 year old dad cut the article out from the Times and sent it to me with a note, "thought you would find this interesting." At least ten people e-mailed me links to the article.
The gist of the article is that Philip-Lorca took a series of long-lens shots of people walking under his strobe lights and then had a show of the "heads."
An orthodox Jew saw his head shot in the show's catalog and sued the photographer on the grounds of invasion of privacy - and the fact that his religion forbad the worshop of graven images - or something like that.
The case went through the usual channels and wound up at - state supreme court - where it was thrown out.
That, anyway - is my understanding of the case.
The article in the Times (and maybe it has appeared in other venues) included a reproduction of the complainent - Erno Nussenzweig's head.
"Neale Albert, the lawyer who represented Pace/ MacGill, said the case surprised him: 'I have always believed that the so-called street photographers do not need releases for art purposes. In over 30 years of representing photographers, this is the first time a person has raised a complaint against one of my clients by reason of such a photograph.'"
The decision confirmed that street photography - being an art form - was protected by the constitution.
Link to article.
Several thoughts ran through my mind:
1) The reach of the New York Times is astounding.
2) Erno Nussenzweig complained that his religious rights had been violated in that his religion forbad the use of graven images.
- Does Mr. Nussenzweig have a driver's license with his photo on it? And if so - isn't this also a violation of his religion?
- I thought (silly me) that the worshop of graven images was forbidden, not the taking of photographs.
- Could the New York Times be sued for reproducing Mr. Nussenzweig's head shot?
3) So many people have written to me over the years asking whether I got model releases from strangers photographed on the street. This would be a good case to cite.
4) What would happen if a less-financially solvent photographer (myself as an example) were sued. Instant poverty?
5) Since "big brother" security cameras are now all over the place - citizens are being photographed all the time. Since these photographs are not for artistic reasons - wouldn't that make a better case?
6) There is no "time-honored tradition" of photographing strangers with a long lens and strobe lights. Where is the intimacy? Where is the time-honored tradition of fragments that coalesce at just the right moment?
7) How exactly did Erno Nussenzweig discover this shot of himself in a photographic catalog? I find it hard to believe that he's on the subscription list for the Pace gallery?
8) Mr Nussenzweig has substantially increased the price for Mr. diCorcia's work. I wish someone would sue me - but only if it got the same sort of publicity. Perhaps I should set up a long lens rig outside Mr. Nusenzweig's house.
At any rate - the idea that using a long lens and strobe lights to do street photography is a "time-honored tradition" is nonsense.
This photographic technique has more in common with the big-brother security cameras that are now omnipresent than with traditional street photography. And street photography is not time-honored. Walker Evans put off showing his series of subway close-ups for many years because he was afraid of being sued.
I noticed that Mr. Nussenzweig's image was not shown in the online New York Times version - but was in the print edition. I wonder how many New York Times lawyers it took to make that decision.
I think that when I have the time, I'll scan Mr. Nussenzweig's photograph from the print version and photoshop it into my picture with the monkey on the train. That would take this case to a whole nother level. Let me check first with my own battery of lawyers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)