Why did the author mostly creepshot women and children?
Why does a candid photo of a woman or child have to be considered a creepshot in your mind?
As a guy the Japanese police will not be happy if you take candids of women or kids
That's true. There is a lot of fear, prejudice and prudery around gender and age in the arts.
That doesn't mean we should stop thinking: It's crucial to assess for ourselves whether a picture appears to us as offensive as we are confronted with it.
Otherwise the criticism is just meaningless, recycled fear.
That's an interesting thought. Do you think photographers should have a moral responsibility? A famous example I can think of is the controversy surrounding "The vulture and the little girl" by Kevin Carter.
In terms of street photography, is it OK to "creep" or invade someone's privacy, especially that of children? There is certainly a line between telling a story and trashy exploitation, the question is where is it?
I personally believe that morality lies not in the document, but in the context it is created or displayed in.
If, for example, the intention appears to me to be dishonest, exploitative or outright cruel, I'd want to criticize the person responsible for putting this document into this context. Whether this is done by creating the document or changing its context doesn't appear as relevant to me.
Regarding the declarative line you mention, I think I'm pretty much a pragmatist: I do not need to know where exactly the border is between India and China to know that Delhi is in India.
...but I'm open to a more rule based approach as well. I just don't know one.
I implied that the author was the photographer when I asked why she chose to creepshot mostly women and children.
Additionally, the implication in my comment was that if she had done the same thing to a man, it would also be a creepshot.
My definition of creepshot is a photo taken of someone without their knowledge. You, charitably, call them candid photos.
From the Wikipedia article on candid photos:
"Thus, the candid character of a photo is unrelated to the subject's knowledge about or consent to the fact that photos are being taken, and unrelated to the subject's permission for further usage and distribution. The crucial factor is the actual absence of posing. However, if the subject is absolutely unaware of being photographed and does not even expect it, then such photography is secret photography, which is a special case of candid photography."
So while you are technically right to call them that, I think the fact that they are the specific subset of candid photography known as secret photography is relevant.
Never mind the photographer being herself a woman.
Everybody that dares to cast an eye on us (man or woman as you added), without knowing us in advance (or even then) without some kind of formal consent, is suddenly "a creep". It's a sign that we forgot how to function and co-exist in a society -- with other people all around us. Everything is about our little personal space boxes...
At the same time, we publicly exhibit more and more of our bodies and lives every day on several platforms (including of our kids and pets and inanimate possessions), and at the same time we protest more than any other time when someone mind consider us a worthy subject for street photography while in public view...
We have a word for this in my country, which roughly translates as "a person who can't stand to have any intra-personal/social interaction, and on such an occasion acts as if they were bitten by a fly". The dictionary translates it as "touchy", but doesn't capture the full richness of it. In any case, everybody is extra touchy nowadays.
Speak for yourself. There isn't a single image of me anywhere on the internet. Am I not entitled to keep it that way?
I speak of the general population. I don't understand why people who want to contest general statements with personal counter-examples.
Do they feel that a statement like "we publicly exhibit more and more of our bodies and lives every day on several platforms" means "ABSOLUTELY EVERY ONE OF US WITH NO EXCEPTIONS DOES THAT", and in all caps at that?
>Am I not entitled to keep it that way?
No. There are no special laws and protections about photography of people in public for example. Or against your friends posting a photo that happens to have you in it on the internet.
So at best you are entitled to not upload it yourself.
Yes there are, for example in France [1]: "Before any public diffusion of a photo through newspaper or any other media (including internet), the Publisher has to obtain the autorisation from the people on which the picture is focused"
This law would apply to all the pictures in the article where the people are the focus of the picture
[1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_%C3%A0_l%27image_des_per...
Except that we're (we in a general terms, I've stopped posting photos on social media years ago) choosing which pictures we're posting, where and with what filters (public or friends only).
For me the creep will be the person who keep looking at the same person, not just taking a look.
I have lived in Japan. While I was there, there was a law that cellphones had to make a loud shutter sound whenever a picture was taken. Hence, those of you claiming that the concept of creepshots is a western puritanical idea are dead wrong.
I believe that the photographer chose to photograph women and children because, if they were to become upset with her for taking them, there is less risk of physical harm or intimidation.
It's possible that she was just more interested in capturing the lives of women and children for whatever reason. But, to answer your question (finally), the reason I feel this way about this subject is because I am a woman and I hate people taking my picture without my knowledge. I have hated it my whole life. I have the experience of being both the powerless child and the unintimidating woman.
Imagining someone taking a photo of me without my knowledge or consent, and then publishing it and gaining fame or fortune from it is extremely upsetting.
I hope this has helped you understand my perspective.
These pictures look like they're at least 25 years old.. pretty much before internet and digital camera.
I think people may have felt more comfortable with photographer taking picture back then... I'm guessing.
9-22 years old. some of them were well within the internet era.
I looked up more info on the shutter sound accompanying photographs taken on smartphones. This has been in effect since 2001. But I was wrong about it being a law. It looks like all the cell phone carriers in Japan self-regulated and made it a requirement themselves.
Because we're social animals and most people don't have the ability to simply ignore harsh/insulting/whatever words directed at us.
It may well be possible to develop the ability to ignore such words, but if it is, that's an ability that would take a fair bit of time to develop, so is out of the reach of most people right at the present moment.
Slurs are used by people who have structural power in society, directed at those who do not. It's punching down, not punching across or up. That's what is meant by taking offense to someone's words.
Forgive me If I question whether or not a man, which is quite a privileged identity, is truly being punched down upon from someone more powerful by the word "creepshot".