The idea here is that because street photographers are simply recording something which is taking place in public, there is no violation of the subject’s privacy. This is because it actually does engage with the ethical issues raised by street photography. After all, nobody thinks that it would be alright to torture or kill someone for the sake of an art installation, but if art really were more important than ethics, then there would seem to be nothing wrong with such actions.Īrgument number (4) is much more interesting than the preceding ones and is worth spending a little bit more time on. I think that this approach is pretty obviously the wrong one to take. Now, we could try to argue that producing art or preserving social history is actually more important than avoiding moral wrongdoing - that art (for example) should come before ethics. Saying that street photography is art, for example, tells us absolutely nothing about whether it is ethical. Actions can be both legal and morally wrong (just as they can be morally right while also being illegal), and the production of a historical record or a work of art can also involve actions that are morally wrong. Nevertheless, these arguments all fail to show that street photography is morally permissible, simply because they don’t actually engage with the ethical issues raised by street photography. The claims made in arguments (1) – (3) are all true. It would be different if street photographers were peering through windows into people’s homes, but they’re not: they’re simply making a record of events that take place in public in front of whoever happens to be around. Street photographers don’t need to worry about consent because they are taking photographs in public spaces, and so, there is no violation of a subject’s privacy.Many truly great works of art have been created by street photographers, and it would be a massive cultural loss to prevent more of these works from being made. It creates a visual record of places, people, and events that would otherwise be missing from our social history. Street photography has important value as a historical record.Street photography is perfectly legal, and photographers have a right to capture images of the public if they so choose.The ArgumentsĪs far as I can tell, there are four main lines of argument that tend to come up quite regularly. Unfortunately, none of the arguments which I’ve heard used to defend street photography stand up to critical scrutiny, as we’ll now see. Many of them have argued that there is nothing wrong with doing street photography and that street photographers can continue to do it with a clear conscience. Of course, lots of photographers also have an interest in the ethics of street photography, particularly street photographers themselves. I’m interested in this question, not as a photographer, but as a philosopher who researches issues in ethics. However, the lack of consent that street photography often poses an ethical question: Is it morally permissible to take, and to publish, photographs of people without their knowledge or consent? Photographing people in this way is perfectly legal in many Western countries. Subjects usually aren’t asked whether they consent to being photographed, and many of them may not even realize that their photograph has been taken at all. Street photography involves capturing candid moments of real life, typically by photographing unsuspecting members of the public as they go about their day.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |