The photos in the linked article suck. I saw a few more on the news this afternoon and some of them weren’t bad. But I guess that’s beside the point.
Assuming you are one of the neighbors, are you creeped out by this? Outraged? Meh? Keep in mind no identifying markers are photographed. So people browsing your photos aren’t going to know it’s you.
Poll to follow.
Other: while not illegal and thus neither legally wrong, nor apparently morally wrong in this case, it would have been better ethics to obtain the subjects’ consent before displaying the art they unwittingly served to help create.
On one hand, they’re literally living in a “glass house.” On he other hand, no one expects their neighbor across the way to have a high-quality professional telephoto lens and to lie in wait in a darkened apartment to photograph them. (Maybe people should expect it. Ew.)
This would be illegal in Finland, for what it is worth. Personally I wouldn’t be able to muster a lot of outrage, though.
It’s at least mildly creepy.
And artistically, not really as provocative as the photographer likely thinks they are.
Putting aside whether it’s art or not, yes, it’s very creepy. If it doesn’t violate the letter of the relevant privacy laws it certainly violates their spirit, and in this case that’s sort of the point of the exercise. The whole concept was that it was done without the consent of the people who were photographed. Most of us don’t expect a neighbor to do this to us when we’re at home, do we?
I like the photos enough to purchase a couple and find them very provocative and…vulnerable? Having said that, I’d be creeped out if I were the subject, anonymous or not. I live in the country on acreage because I value my privacy, but if I lived in a busy city I’d keep my blinds closed if for no other reason than I’ve seen enough telescopes on balconies to remind me that not everyone is an amateur astronomer.
meh.
People that don’t close their curtains have nothing to complain about. At least the photos kept them anonymous.
People in their own home have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The fact that it’s possible for somebody to spy on them doesn’t make it morally right - or legal.
Not that it makes much difference but some of the photos were taken through (translucent) curtains. And yeah, people should close their curtains - I’m pretty vigilant about it. But you still don’t expect someone to go to the trouble of not only watching you through the windows, but setting up a studio, taking pictures, and exhibiting them without your consent. These people were not in public, and if you’re in an apartment building far from street level, you don’t expect anybody to see through your window even if the curtain isn’t shut.
Most people don’t feel the need to close the curtains if all they’re doing is washing clothes, doing work on their computer or petting the dog. They also don’t expect they’ll be photographed either and then their daily home life exposed and sold to profit someone else.
I think the societal standard for respecting privacy in ones home shouldn’t require me to block out nice natural light because someone might photograph me with a telephoto lens.
I don’t think this should be illegal, and it’s rapidly becoming something technologically unpreventable, but I’ll join the crowd who thinks this guy was being a jerk.
I went with option 4, but not for your stated reason. It’s not that it’s cool they were in the picture, but that it’s cool art. What cinched it was the lack of faces. Without a face, you are essentially private. That’s why people often blur faces.
Otherwise, I’d have a problem with showing them in public unless there was a more compelling reason for doing so or you had permission. So I’d pick number 2.
It’s definitely not an outrage either way.
There are plenty of faces in these pictures. They’re all partly obscured, but they’re not cut out or cropped out. I find it kind of hard to buy into the argument that he photographed these people through their windows without their knowledge but their privacy wasn’t violated because you can’t see their whole faces. It’s interesting photography, sure, but it’s certainly invasive of their privacy.
CNN just posted a nice interview with the artist:
"I am not photographing the residents as specific, identifiable individuals, but as representations of humankind. In fact, I take great care in not revealing their identity; the strength of the imagery comes from us seeing ourselves in the anonymous figures of “The Neighbors.”
“In New York, people are masters of being both the observer and the observed. We live so densely packed that contact is inevitable – even our homes are stacked facing each other. It is no wonder that street photography was born in this city, and some of the best subjects and most famous works are the results of those who didn’t know they were being photographed or painted.”
Entire article here: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/17/opinion/svenson-photo-controversy/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
I’m not going to speak to whether it’s “wrong” because I don’t know. I do know that I like them. The one of the couple in bathrobes was my favorite.
I think he’s a big fat jerk.
I went with other because there are conflicting interests in this problem. On one side is the absolute right to photograph, on the other is the absolute right to privacy in one’s home.
Man I just finished writing about this in another thread.
Then what really muddies the water is the question: does the photographer intend to make a profit from this photo? Then, depending on the jurisdiction, he may be required to get permission and pay certain fees not otherwise required by private citizens or journalists.
Sadly I would have to say this: a person can only reasonably expect privacy if in fact they make an effort to be private. A man standing in a place he has a legal and reasonable right to be in taking a photo has done a legal act. He may not use a crane to get above a privacy fence, or use an x-ray vision camera (if there were such a thing) to see through the wall. Stuff like that often requires a warrant.
Moral? That’s another debate.
If you happen to live in a glass fronted building and you don’t draw the curtains when you wish privacy, you are not protecting yourself, and things like this can happen.
I thought the photos were compelling, and tastefully done. By a photographer with less skill and discretion, it would be creepy. It already is a little creepy, but I think that adds to it.
Art? Or wrong?
How about not mutually exclusive? Though in this case, with the faces obscured, I’m not sure. It’s murky ground.