Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen | solitude.dk

The rights to photograph in public has been increasingly threatened in recent years, most often by ill-meaning security guards who are trying to prohibit photography of building facades. On Tuesday Andy Carvin was quote-unquote “almost arrested” as he was taking 20-minute panorama photographs inside the main hall of Union Station in Washington D.C. Despite Andy’s wish to play the victim and mentions at both BoingBoing and Thomas Hawk (who often post legitimate stories of photographers being harassed for no reason) I believe that he broke the first rule of photography: Don’t be an asshole.

I have experienced photographers who break this rule, and I’ve broken the rule myself unintentionally a couple of times. It’s the dude with the giant camera who kept pushing hard into my back at the Hot Chip concert because he felt he was entitled plow his way to the front of the stage to take pictures all night with no regard for the people who paid to dance. It’s also the moron who completely blocked the bike path on the freeway overpass with his tripod forcing me into a heavily trafficked road at night.

Andy was a mild version of those guys on Tuesday. Photography is generally okay for non-commercial purposes in train stations, but don’t obstruct the flow of traffic*. He was not just using a small travel tripod, but a giant motorized monster tripod for 20 minute recordings. The legal issues are irrelevant compared to the humbleness photographers with entitlement issues seem to lack sorely. Photographers need to be mindful of the environment they are trying to capture. If you are going to spend long amounts of time taking photograph with space shuttle equipment, just ask for permission. That’s called common courtesy.

Moreover, when the employees who manage a space ask you to leave, just leave. Don’t tie up the time of four employees and create an even bigger disruption of the traffic flow. I don’t care how entitled you think you are: Don’t be the asshole photographer with the giant tripod or the complex camera system. You’re calmly being asked to stop. Go somewhere else and take pictures there instead—or in Andy’s case, test your new equipment elsewhere.

To better illustrate my point you can replace “Union Station” with “local church during service” and “security guards” with “choir boys” in Andy’s post. The Church is most definitely a public space and you are within your legal rights to take pictures there. But when you do it with a motorized tripod during service you’re still an asshole and when the choir boys ask you to leave because you’re disrupting service you don’t insist on hearing it personally from the bishop. It’s not about what rights you have. It’s about respecting the people around you.

And what’s with the Twittering? Has it really come to this? Do we really need instant validation of our actions from people on a website? Is this about standing up for your rights or about acting out to impress your internet friends?

The picture at the top is from last month when Brittany and I were quote-unquote “almost arrested”. I tried to photograph some silos by the river. We were on a private road (we got lost) and the silos were most likely classified as Sensitive Security Information. The Everett police was keeping an eye on the place and they did not appreciate cameras—not even vintage cameras from the 1970s. The photo is taken from the Andrew P. McArdle bridge which connects Chelsea and East Boston. It’s from the same trip, but obviously I have no photos of the silos. When we were asked to leave, we got in the car and drove away.

* The MBTA here in Boston revised their photo policy last summer to allow any non-commercial photography as long as you don’t use a tripod, monopod or other equipment that impedes the flow of traffic.

While talking about the recent breakdown of Justin Hall, Jay mentions that video is the fly on the wall that shows situations objectively, while writing forces choice on you:

I say this because text blogging forces you to have judgement. If i decribe a moment between us, i am forced to color it with feelings…if I am to be honest or interesting. But with video, you let the viewer choose what to think. “This happened…no denying it. What do you think?” Words force choices on you.

And I disagree very much with this thought of video existing only as a fly on the wall that represents the situation objectively. In Rasmus Dahl's article “Disctinctions in Documentary Television” (in “The Aesthetics of Television”, Aalborg University Press, 2001) it is discussed among other things three types of intervention in documentaries. I've simplified the article a bit because I'm just trying to prove a point.

Scripting/organisation

Not everything is filmable. As Rasmus Dahl says: Going from the muddy, baffling field of reality, or realities, to the focused and limited space of the pro-filmic — the events observable by camera and microphone — involves necessarily a sort of transformation, and the nature of this transformation is dependent upon the decisions made by the producing agency.

Shooting

A more visual form of intervention takes place when you shoot the video. You can't film everything, you have to choose when to turn on your camera, and since you can't encompass a whole situation you have to choose what to film as well. In the same vein perspective plays in, moving the camera up or down from eye level makes a distinct difference for the viewer for example.

Editing

The way you attach clips in order to create the story is the last type of intervention. Additional material like music, graphics and sound effects also have an effect on the level of intervention here.

There are rich possibilities for doing intervention in video. In fact I think the amount of choices are on the same level as written accounts, if not higher. You can make a video open for interpretation, or you can make it closed — just as you can with a written text! The problem lies in the fact that people have a tendency not to think about video as a subjective work of intervention because it can easily appear to be a mirror of realities. Thus video is more effective as a tool of deception for the author, because the viewer doesn't expect intervention to have the impact that it does.

One last somewhat related thing I want to point out. Jay suggests that Justin should be videoblogging instead of text blogging, because that way he wouldn't have alienated himself from the world around him. But taping video instead of writing won't solve his problems. Justin needs to edit himself, whenever you insist on making everything that happens to you public it doesn't matter if you're writing or filming.

The problem is that you are “recording” situations that partcipants don't want recorded. A lot of situations aren't meant for public consumption, and it would seem Justin lived in a fantasy world where this wasn't true. If he can't or won't accept that he will continue to alienate the world around him.