Respect, sensitivity and the Chennai PhotoWalk
A pseudonymous commenter – Respect – asks this question.
I read your blog on and off and follow your photowalk updates. I’ve also seen a complaint or two from you post-photowalk-Sunday about “how people treat photographers”. My comment is relevant to that: how many people are in a group of photowalkers? I’ve got the impression that it is 10/15+. Would you like 15 photographers come on to your street/outside your house and start clicking pictures at random? What sort of sensitisation (if any) do you give the folks who come on these tours? Before the question of sensitisation, a more fundamental question: Is it RIGHT for 15 cameras to be in one place (especially populated areas – for instance the slums on Harris Road where people’s lives and effects are all on the pavement for all to see, the “inner lanes” of Vepery, wherever) looking around and clicking at whatever they want to click?
I don’t have a very clear answer.
Oh wait, I do have a clear answer for one question. The usual strength of the photowalk is a high 30s. On a few walks, I’ve had 45 people and more walking the route.
As for the rest, what follows is a meandering take on photography, photowalks and privacy. Please to treat it as such, and with pinches of salt.
Can 15 photographers with cameras assemble at one place? Why not? A photographer has as much right as the rest of us to be at a place and do what he/she wants to do. And as far as I know, there’s nothing in our laws/constitution that prevents photographers (and other professionals/non-professionals) meeting people of a similar bent of mind. The right to move freely within the country is granted us all, including the lowly photographer. If News channels can poke cameras and microphones at random people exiting a cinema hall or take sweeping panoramic shots of slums, why not amateur photographers? Indeed, why not anybody else?
This is something I’ve argued with policemen and museum curators and sundry officials. If there is no clearly-stated ban on photography, then I, and 45 other people I bring with me, are free to take photos of anything and everything. Bear in mind – this ban needs to be at private/semi private spaces. Roads are public space as are pavements, local markets, buses, bridges etc. You cannot ban photography in a public space.
I cannot state this enough. YES! PHOTOGRAPHERS CAN BE AT ANY PLACE THEY WANT TO BE, SHOOT ANYTHING THEY WANT TO, AS LONG AS THERE IS NO CLEAR BAN AGAINST PHOTOGRAPHY.
The question about 10-15 photographers outside my street, shooting my house – come on! What do you expect me to answer? Of course I will not mind it. I don’t care what these 10-15 people photograph as long as they don’t come into my house without my permission. The street outside my house is public space. My house is my own private space. I might invite these 15 folks in and that is up to me. (Personally, I’d be thrilled if people landed on my doorstep asking me if they could photograph me/my house.) Again, photography in public spaces is not for any single individual/body of individuals to control. The government might try and impose such a ban, but it will be at the expense of curtailing free speech/expression and free movement.
The question about sensitisation. What is sensitisation? The folks who come to the photowalk – barring a few occasional exceptions – are all Indians, residents of Madras. They know that abject poverty exists, and that people live/work/play/eat/defecate on streets. They are all, I think, mature individuals with taste, education and sensitivity. I don’t think it is necessary for me to teach them not to take photos that would impinge somebody else’s privacy. (What level of privacy do people living on streets have is another question and one I am not going to go into here.)
Personally, I haven’t yet taken a photo of people on the streets unless they specifically asked me to. I don’t shoot people sleeping/eating on the streets, nor do I make a big fuss about such a situation. If there exists a good photo op in such a situation I specifically ask these people if I can take a photo. Go through my photostream on flickr and tell me if I have invaded the privacy of folks in any photo.
The problem with a photowalk is that it is still a novel thing in India, especially Chennai. And there is an age-old distrust+curiosity about the camera. Hence people react to it, sometimes, adversely. I cannot, and do not want to, do anything about it.
The Chennai Photowalks so far have been driven by one overpowering aim – to document the city’s heritage and beauty. That is the only sensitisation I choose to give the walkers. And that, in my not-so-humble opinion, is ALL the sensitisation I need to give.
RSS/XML
June 16th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
For me it is a personal experience, I know when I am crossing the line and breaching the other persons privacy. (I think I haven’t erred yet)
Meanwhile, best thing is to search for what others think about it in places like www.photo.net and other photography sites.
Starting with this two threads..
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001vdZ
http://photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00DbJ1
June 16th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Holla
!
extremely well answered. i think this is mature and legally sound as well.it remains a fundamental right to have peaceful assemblies for anything constitutional.
Thumbs up to you for the answer.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
personally I feel that everyone have their own way of taking things ….. And all of us are sensible enough that we do not invade privacy of others ….
June 16th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Totally hafta agree with you CG!
Right to photography!
June 16th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Sensitisation? That sounds like an Indian government of the pre 80s thing to do.
I liked your response, but would have been better if you had reordered it to have the “self-sensitisation” part first, and then the legal aspect of it.
The first few lines, and I was wondering, why is this guy trying to make things difficult for so many other hobbyists?
June 17th, 2009 at 3:51 am
WOW!
The Chennai Photowalks so far have been driven by one overpowering aim – to document the city’s heritage and beauty.
Amen.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:35 am
C, the answers are pretty clear though you started saying that you did not have a clear answer.
I think anybody would agree that not just your photostream, but the entire stream [http://www.flickr.com/groups/chennaiphotowalk/pool/] can talk about what the photowalk is all about and its ‘sensitivity’.
June 17th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
That person who raised a question has a point and you have not addressed that.
I would not like 30 photographers on my street, taking pictures of my house or the street pavement. Or, me just casually chatting with some stranger on the street. Or, even my neighbor’s dog. The law may not be on my side, but it is common courtesy to inform those in the street. And ask if its okay.
The stakes for such privacy, as Respect rightly contends, is much higher for those living in slums or houses that afford very little shielding.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Nilu:
That person who raised a question has a point and you have not addressed that.
I have.
I would not like 30 photographers on my street, taking pictures of my house or the street pavement. Or, me just casually chatting with some stranger on the street. Or, even my neighbor’s dog. The law may not be on my side, but it is common courtesy to inform those in the street. And ask if its okay.
Asking if it is okay is courtesy. Not law. The street, whether or not you like it, is public space and is open to all to do what they want. I can take photos on the street and you can sit and chat with a random stranger. Just as you don’t have to ask permission from the other road/street users to chat with a stranger, I needn’t ask permission to shoot subjects on the street.
The stakes for such privacy, as Respect rightly contends, is much higher for those living in slums or houses that afford very little shielding
Remember, those living on the streets are using public space. They do not have greater ownership over that space to require me to respect their privacy. That I nonetheless do is my personal code and one I cannot impose on others. I do not and am not required to teach others my ethics.
June 17th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
C, It is likely that people, do get uncomfortable at seeing large number of photographers clicking at them and their nearby. Just as they would be annoyed by some 30 odd members coming in the streets and start shouting/singing, even though there is no law which prevents them doing so.
To me it’s the photographer who needs to break the ice first with complete strangers, to some people this comes naturally, others have to struggle, meanwhile giving the subject ample time to become suspicious.
On a lighter note, people may allow 30 photographers to shoot if they carried really bigger camera.
June 17th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
That is true, Karthi. But why should I tell the walkers/sensitise them to this? My purpose as a PhotoWalk organiser is purely to showcase Chennai and its history. If I had to spend time telling folks about ethics/courtesy and about privacy of people on the streets, I’d have to run a workshop every month before the photowalk.
C
June 17th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Umm, what kind of a reply is “I have” to a judgment I made otherwise? So, no you did not.
And where did I claim it’s a law? It’s merely an equivalent of all those dumbfucks who honk and drive rashly in rush hour traffic.
And by saying what’s on a street is mine to shoot, you just equated yourself with a paparazzi. The French may have a law, the rest of the world merely looks down upon such behavior.
Forget a man living on the street. Consider a young teenage couple from a lower middle class Madras neighborhood. It’s just impolite and lacks any class whatsoever to tell them they are subjects of your lens by default.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
@Nilu: I appreciate the thoughts you have on the rights of a person sitting inside his/her home. You can see the group pool, there wouldn’t be any photograph taken that would suggest that the photowalkers are Papparazzis. We do take permission from most people before we shoot, but sometimes precious moments are lost while seeking a permission.
If the question is about sensitivity towards the slum-dwellers, I can assure you they are the most forthcoming to pose for photographs. The kids are the ones that make street photography even more precious. Unbridled enthusiasm. So are most of the elderly people. Always ready with a smile if you look at them.
It is people like us, in between, that have got too drawn in to the thinking that every person with a camera has a leer inside him. Its just the world we build and allow to exist.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Sudhamshu,
It’s not about what you actually do. I am least concerned about that. In fact, I’d violate all courtesy myself. But that is besides the point.
June 18th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
At the risk of sounding too trite, I think this is one of those issues where you follow your instincts on what is the acceptable limits of privacy vs intrusion and what is not and that entirely depends on the situation, the environment, the photographer’s own value system and the judgement of those around.
However, as to the law points debated here, I wouldn’t be too sure. I am a Law student myself and I won’t make any blanket legal statements without looking it up first.
However, there is such a thing as “unlawful assembly” and when ANY large group of people get together in common purpose in any public place, even with peaceable, non-criminal intent, there might be occasions when such groups will be viewed with suspicion and their intentions misconstrued resulting in tension and possibly even minor scuffles.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:40 am
CCG, you started off so well by saying that you don’t have a clear answer and then on you seem to be clearly adamant that what you all are doing is right. You have every right to photograph my street, my house, and people if we happen to be outside house and publish it to the whole world. So if I don’t want obnoxious know it all s photographing me and uploading it for the world then I should stay indoors? If people are out that then gives the photowalkers the explicit right to photograph anyone?
In all fairness, I’ve never come across a photograph taken by you which has made me feel uncomfortable, but you cannot put your hand on your heart and say that everyone in your group has the same principles as you. For example there was a picture of a muslim girl with what I felt was rude comments uploaded onto flickr by one of the photowalkers, to me that is wrong. There is no two ways about it.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:45 am
CCG, you started off so well by saying that you don’t have a clear answer and then on you seem to be clearly adamant that what you all are doing is right. You have every right to photograph my street, my house, and people if we happen to be outside house and publish it to the whole world. So if I don’t want obnoxious know it all s photographing me and uploading it for the world then I should stay indoors? If people are out that then gives the photowalkers the explicit right to photograph anyone?
In all fairness, I’ve never come across a photograph taken by you which has made me feel uncomfortable, but you cannot put your hand on your heart and say that everyone in your group has the same principles as you. For example there was a picture of a muslim girl with what I felt was rude comments uploaded onto flickr by one of the photowalkers, to me that is wrong. There is no two ways about it.
If you are still adamant that without any doubt whatsoever that the right to photograph is a given, I shall spend an hour or so on flickr and pick out the ones which make me feel uneasy and I am sure you would agree too that not every single person in the group will have same ethics and principles.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:30 am
WA:
I am not saying that everybody has the same ethics and principles. I said it was never my duty, as a photowalk organiser, to “sensitize” or teach others my ethics. My ethics are my own and I do not wish to impose them on others, willing or otherwise.
The original question, as I have quoted, is “what sensitisation, if any” I give the photowalkers. My answer is – no. I do not have to give any sensitisation for the walkers all know that people live and eat on the roads in India. I cannot also tell them not to photograph something because that would be me restricting their freedom of expression. If the subject of a photograph doesn’t want it, he/she can fight it out with the photographer in question. I do not need to mediate.
The second point is, if people have the right to live/eat/sleep on the road I have the right to photograph the same. They are claiming ownership of a public space. I believe I can do the same. That I won’t do is my personal code like I told Nilu.
You cannot claim your privacy is violated when you are out in the street. You have your personal space – about a feet in all directions around you – but that’s about all.
Again, what I am saying is principles. Not that I will exploit it to take photographs that might offend/impinge somebody’s privacy. As long as you do not argue that those living on the streets have a greater right than I who work there, we are in agreement.
June 26th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Thanks for addressing this in a separate post.
The legal issues are, in this case, irrelevant: no one doubts that you – and anyone else in our free independent country – legally have a right to etc etc.
‘WA’ had brought up the issue of others in your group who do not seem to share the same principles – to which you seem to be washing your hands off it, saying in essence that that is their call. You do realize that you are the one who is giving them this platform – essentially the anonymity of being in a crowd of 45 photographers, so that they can click without discretion (or with lesser discretion than they perhaps should employ) and self-consciousness?
And saying “if people have the right to live/eat/sleep on the road I have the right to photograph the same. They are claiming ownership of a public space. I believe I can do the same.” seems incredibly insensitive, to say the least. Let’s agree, hypothetically, with this statement of yours: “You cannot claim your privacy is violated when you are out in the street. You have your personal space – about a feet in all directions around you – but that’s about all.”—> In my opinion a clicked picture most certainly violates these terms; it penetrates far deeper than to a feet from you.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Well answered CG!!
Infact i would encourage that the person who has raised the question and others with issues with our photowalks, to come along with the group for a walk and see what it is all about!!
The only kind of queries i’ve faced in the walks i’ve been on are -—Are you from the press? will our photo come in the paper? [ with the tinge of excitement in their voice]—- During our Harris road walk, one man came upto me and asked me to take a shot of a building that was falling apart.. he said it was one of the oldest buildings in chennai, but now is crumbling and no one has noticed it.. so he wanted me to take a picture, send it to the paper or our govt and get them to do something abt it!!
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Have you read Sec 151 of the IPC?
Any assembly of 5 or more persons, whether unlawful or not, can be commanded by a competent authority to disperse if they are likely to cause a breach of public peace – and not doing so can get you up to 6 months in prison.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Competent authority: means any police officer in charge of a police station or a magistrate.
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
CG, An interesting question raised and interesting discussion!
I never had any doubts that you are a sensitive person and that the reason behind your photowalking is the most aesthetic one!
I even felt bad everytime I see an announcement for a photowalk that I am so far away that I cannot join one!
But… I am sure that you are aware that there is only a very fine line always dividing the extremities… with your adamant anwers (or rather arguments) that you are right and the other photowalkers insistance that they are right, I somehow feel that you have crossed it already without knowing it.
your arguments like….
“if people have the right to live/eat/sleep on the road I have the right to photograph the same. They are claiming ownership of a public space. I believe I can do the same.”
“You cannot claim your privacy is violated when you are out in the street. You have your personal space – about a feet in all directions around you – but that’s about all.”
...left me cold! So everytime I step out of my house into a public place I should be ready to be violated as a person?! Does that not question the notion of a “civilised society”?!
Do I not step out of my private house into the public street hoping that I am living in a highly sophisticated and civilized society and everyone will respect my person and privacy?!
And I do repeat that your statement about the people who are forced to live on the streets highly insensitive…instead of feeling compassionate for them, you are instead claiming that you would use them since they are out there!
And laws are made by human beings when and where necessary… if it becomes necessary then a law could be passed tommorrow making it illegal to shoot pixs of people… so please don’t aruge that there is no law as such so you can do whatever you want!
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Ela:
But… I am sure that you are aware that there is only a very fine line always dividing the extremities… with your adamant anwers (or rather arguments) that you are right and the other photowalkers insistance that they are right, I somehow feel that you have crossed it already without knowing it.
All I am saying is that I don’t think it is my job to teach people ethics. I am merely someone who organises a photowalk. I do not lead a global/national/local debate about civic rights. Nor do I intend to.
your arguments like….
“if people have the right to live/eat/sleep on the road I have the right to photograph the same. They are claiming ownership of a public space. I believe I can do the same.”
“You cannot claim your privacy is violated when you are out in the street. You have your personal space – about a feet in all directions around you – but that’s about all.”
...left me cold! So everytime I step out of my house into a public place I should be ready to be violated as a person?! Does that not question the notion of a “civilised society”?!
I didn’t say that you should be prepared to be violated. I said that if you are out on the streets, you have the same rights as other people there. You cannot dictate what he/she does any more than he/she can dictate your actions. You cannot stop him/her from photographing you, nor can he/she stop you from taking offense at photographing you and taking action to stop it.
Do I not step out of my private house into the public street hoping that I am living in a highly sophisticated and civilized society and everyone will respect my person and privacy?!
And I do repeat that your statement about the people who are forced to live on the streets highly insensitive…instead of feeling compassionate for them, you are instead claiming that you would use them since they are out there!
Why should I feel compassionate for them? I didn’t bring them to that state. Nor did I exploit them to live in a house. I live my life, they theirs.
Why should I automatically feel compassionate for people on the streets? Please do answer the question. I am not saying you or I aren’t compassionate. But why should we be?
And laws are made by human beings when and where necessary… if it becomes necessary then a law could be passed tommorrow making it illegal to shoot pixs of people… so please don’t aruge that there is no law as such so you can do whatever you want!
If the law does get ratified, then I will fight it in my own way.
Till then, I will use what freedom I have to behave my way.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Hi ,
I am a casual observer of your very interesting blog and enjoy all the observations and comments being made here but I think it is high time you closed comments for this post else it will go in the direction of Chennai Vs Bangalore, Malayalee Vs Tamils, Thengalai Vs Vadakalai, etc.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Very interesting discussion going on here… The way I see it, some people are over protective of things.
I’ve been on a couple of photowalks with CG, and I should state that everyone I’ve met has always shown respect for the law, fellow citizens (and their requests for privacy, or to be photographed), and everything inbetween.
Yes, it is important to be sensitive to people’s need for privacy / anonymity even in a public space, and I think all the photowalkers here are aware of that. However, as has been pointed out, legally that is not a must.
C has only been pointing out that everyone in the group is free to do as he/she wants within the scope of the law, and their own ethical / moral code.
He explains his own code:
.... which I think is quite OK, and takes into account every individual’s need for privacy.
He is also right about not imposing his code on others. I’d be quite ticked off if he asked me not to photograph something that I was intent on capturing.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Very well answered CG.
@Hari: Usually 151 is only effective on curfews, days prior to election etc, mostly govt. officials make special announcements b4 enforcing section 151.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:27 am
Interesting and intelligent post but entirely defeated by the your own comments under the post. I admired the way you constructed your answers, your ‘sensitivity’ to the person who raised the question, your understanding of photography..
But you undo all the good work by
a. hiding behind legality
b. washing your hands off the actions of participants in your photowalk.
c. I’m not responsible for their situation
Much as I admire good photography, I sometimes wonder what the photographer was thinking when he was clicking some of the pictures. If you see a person injured, would you take a picture first or rush to help the person? Legally you are not required to help the person. You did not injure the person. You did not ask the person to be there either. So extending your argument (for argument’s sake, because I know your actions would be different in this case), you can just keep taking pictures till help arrives or the person dies. BUT, isn’t there something called photo ethics?
Also, you saying that you don’t need to sensitize people in your photowalk is pretty lame. As another commenter said, you give them platform. They look to you for guidance. If I take a friend to a party with me, I am partially responsible for the friend’s action. I cannot tell the host that although I brought the person with me I am not accountable for what he says or does.
You can continue to believe in what you think is right, but you need to see that it is not a black or white issue and that there CAN be another point of view and whatever maybe the reason, we respect it..