Subject: Fwd:  Bleu's letter : Drawing Distinctions

--- In burningcorn@y..., Joseph Dunphy wrote:

Bleu wrote :
                
> This has been discussed over and over on the Burning Man list.

later adding that

> It's had to *not* capture naked people at Burning Man, even if 
> you're taking a picture of something else entirely!

which is exactly the point. The Burning Man is an altogether different
situation. It would not be practical to ask every person who was 
captured naked on film for his or her permission. But, one would be so 
lost in the multitude of equally naked people, that this would be unlikely 
to create any awkward social consequences for anybody, or really be that 
embarassing for anybody, no matter where that film ended up. "Blink and 
you'll miss me", as the saying goes. So, there's little reason to ask, I 
would say. Some will disagree.

Were there anything like that crowd scene at Burning Corn, the same
argument would apply, and I doubt that anybody would have even raised 
this as an issue. But, in actuality, as you acknowledge, Bleu,

> And, on the one hand -- it was a small event, and you were easy to 
> spot, it wouldn't have been hard to ask you.

Indeed, it wouldn't have been, not in the least. A grand total of 
three people, including myself, got undressed, and I was the only one of 
the three to appear on this site. On a personal level, that translates 
into a higher level of exposure for me, which is why it was even possible 
for this to become an issue for me. Which brings us to a point that people
don't seem to want to hear, on this list. It wasn't just that, that 
set me off. It was that in combination with a number of things.

For example ... I appeared nude in two of the photos for this list, 
one in which I am fanning the flames, and another in which I am on the far 
side of the burn. Note that I did not make an issue of the second picture. 
Nor would I, even if I was clearly recognizable in it. Nor would I ask the
artist to blur the picture in any way, to make me less recognizable, 
or even want him to. What's the difference ? Intent. He's just shooting a
picture of the burn, and I just happen to get in the picture. This is 
not the same thing as zooming in on me. I'm not the subject of the 
picture, and it is a picture of something that I agree, is well worth 
recording.

I'm not about to suggest that I should have veto power over a photo 
like that. That would be ridiculous. My apologies if it sounded like that 
was what I was saying. No, unless I heard otherwise, I would assume that
somebody would be photographing the burn, itself, and that I would
probably end up in one of the shots. I'm OK with that.

In fact, it's not even a matter of my necessarily objecting to 
intentional shots. If the shot is for, as somebody put it, private memory 
albums, it's good form to ask when the person is nude, and is certainly 
established custom that you should do so. But, to borrow a little Catholic
terminology, I would tend to view this as being a venial, instead of a
mortal sin. :) Such photos don't tend to travel, so there doesn't 
tend to be much damage done, regardless. If somebody had asked me if they 
could shoot my photo for such an album, part of me would be thinking "what 
a waste of perfectly good film", but I would be flattered by the request,
and happy to say "yes". I think that you'll find that most people, in 
the same situation, will feel likewise.

In fact, my complaint isn't even that I was shot without my knowledge,
really. I would agree that there are times when the photographer 
shouldn't give advance notice that he is shooting, especially with video. 
Having taken a few acting classes, when I was in a mood to escape my 
studies, I know just how hard it can be to "act natural", when one knows 
that one is being watched. Many people think they have, and then they see 
themselves on tape, and are amazed at how stilted they seem.

So, yes, I can understand why somebody who is shooting a photo or video
might want to do so in a candid fashion - the results look more natural.
One might say, one is borrowing a little consent from the person, for 
the sake of a better picture. If such is the case, though, it is only 
ethical, after the fact, to 'pay back what one has borrowed', and ask the 
person taped or photographed if they would mind the pictures being used, 
or retained. This, I think that people will agree, is good enough, 
because it leaves the choice in the hands of the subject. Freedom of 
choice isdelayed, not denied.

Naturally, for reasons already given, things are a lot different if 
one has a crowd scene, with a lot of people going nude.

> On the other hand, I know you, and when I looked at the picture, it 
> was blurred enough that I wasn't positive if that was you or the other 
> naked guy (who was also tall with dark hair). So if I was the one posting 
> the picture, I probably would have felt that it was obscure enough that 
> no one would really recognize you.

Except that when I did object, it was like pulling teeth, to get that
photo taken down. Very clearly, Phil did not care about how I felt 
about this, which is one of the main reasons I wanted to see that photo 
gone. It's a matter of the spirit in which this was done.

When somebody asks me to take part in a "performance piece", and 
makes use of my eagerness to help somebody out, to set up a photo without 
my knowledge, that's the beginning of a problem. If he does that zoom 
picture out of the dark, with me right up against the fire, where somebody 
with even good night vision won't be able to see him, because one's eyes
adjust to the brightness of the flame - that makes matters worse. If 
he then doesn't even bother to ask me whether I'm OK with this or not, 
after the fact, I'm going to be left feeling really used. That is an 
utterly disrespectful thing to do. It's an abuse of my kindness.

To then lie, as Phil did in response to Paul's initial letter, and say
that he had given people a chance to back out of being photographed, 
is to compound the offense. To get belligerent when called on that lie - 
that's bad. That's really bad, and that's why I blew up the way I did. Too 
many nasty surprises hitting at the same time, at a time when I was still
feeling tired from the trip.

If Phil was not being himself, lately, because he was hung over from 
the lack of sleep, I guess I can understand that. If so, I'll be happy to
forget that this ever happened. I've seen no reason to think that,
so far, but I am open to being surprised.


                                                 Joe
--- End forwarded message ---