Philip-Lorca di Corcia Thursday April 20, 2006
There’s been an interesting case recently, concerning this photograph by Philip-Lorca diCorcia:
The gentleman in this shot, Erno Nussenzweig, protested against the taking of his image and attempted to sue di Corcia.
It seems to me, there are various issues underlying this. The court ruling stated that di Corcia fits into an established tradition of street photography, begun with people like Evans, Cartier-Bresson, Klein and Robert Frank. In some respects this is correct, but in other respects it fails to recognise the way di Corcia set this up: using hidden equipment into which people unwittingly walked, which is different from walking the streets of Paris with a secreted Leica. di Corcia’s method is perhaps more like surveillance than traditional street photography – although therein lies its interest: the results, and the facial expressions, were different from conventional candid work. I admired his project, although the images I most liked were not that of Nussenzweig, but of the young lady and rain-protected gentleman here:
What this case exposes is the ethics of grabbing an anonymous persons image, for artistic perusal that may possibly have commericial and financial implications. We’ve seen this before, in the famous Dorothea Lange shot Migrant Worker. In the late 1970s the subject, Mrs Thompson, complained that she had not personally benefited from the famous image:
I am pleased about this ruling, because despite the concerns about privacy it protects this tradition of photography. I wonder though, if an unknown person would be treated with the same sympathy. The judge assessed di Corcia on the basis of his professional artistic reputation, which does not in itself mean very much in the sense that an anonymous photobloggger could do something very similar, with a comparable integrity, and yet would probably be regarded very differently.
In 2006, we live in a ‘surveillance world’, very different from the old-school era of people like Cartier-Bresson. I read somewhere that the UK is particularly notable, having the highest density of CCTV technology anywhere in the world. di Corcia’s project was effectively a mini CCTV installation, albeit that it used stills cameras rather than video or moving film. It was thus an apposite piece of work, in relation to our contemporary world. I also wonder about the ethics of the subject-complainant. What were his real motivations, given that the US has a notorious litigation culture where payouts can be substantial. The outcome of his legal action is that his image is now far more famous, even infamous, than it originally was; it began as art photography for the enjoyment of a select few, and is now a world-wide photograph disseminated widely on the internet. As with the famous Che Guevera image, Nussenzweig’s image is now being circulated outside and beyond its original context, thus changing the meaning it initially had. I wonder, if the commercial value of di Corcia’s photo has been changed by this.
Nussenzweig also referred to a religious objection to recorded images, reminiscent of the recent cartoon outrage of world-wide Moslems – which involved terrorism, murder threats, and the deaths of over thirty people on the basis of a dictate that satire and criticism should be prohibited: contrary to the enlightenment free speech values of the secular West. So I am heartened again, that the court ruling rejected what is effectively a theological complaint in a non-theological context (with further questions about what exactly is supposed to be prohibited – normally construed as images of deity or prophets, not believers). If he’d been genuinely concerned about some kind of “religious” dictate (in my opinion, childish nonsense), then he’s responsible for making the situation far worse.
With the internet in particular, and the almost instant and world-wide dissemination of images, we can have legitimate anxieties about public photography. But I’m pleased about this because the judge’s decision affirmed the value and legitimacy of candid photography, and old-school art photography values. It will also help affirm and protect the rights of photographers in the future.
I was inspired by the lighting effect of di Corcia’s project and attempted something similar, when I saw this moment in London:
- although it was a spontaneous shot, technically difficult to achieve, and I admit it possibly works better in black and white, which was not the intention because it’s the colour/lighting that is especially beautiful:
Hi James
I came across your blog whilst searching for some of diCorsia’s work (how do you have so many hits?). I’ve been reading your posts on street photography and finding them very informative, not just on a practical level but also theoretical. I’m currently in the 3rd year of a BA Photography course in Bournemouth and I’m undertaking a project which was inspired by diCorsia’s Streetwork, that combines the two elements of traditional candid chance and quite vigorous staging. I don’t mean to sound rude but I think the example here of you’re image is kind of crappy – the point of the additional light is to make the subject stand out in such a way that it looks hyper real, or uncanny, so that it seems the person photographed has been removed from the environment. I’ve been using a remote trigger device such as a Metz flash with a peanut slave or better still a lighting travel pack, that way you can get a sweet effect without drawing too much attention to yourself. What I do like about this image though is the location. It looks so artificial and anti-street. You made an interesting point about the decline of traditional street photography that I thinks links with this, however, I think that despite how awful it is now, isn’t it better that the situation has changed from Cartier-Bresson’s time; I mean there is something new to work with, something to react against. I read a brilliant essay recently called “The Crimes of the Flaneur” by Tom McDonough, that talks a bit about the theories of Erving Goffman, comparing the paranoiac social situation of the late 1960s/early70s to the situation of street photography today. Alot of people in this country especially seem to be very anxious about having their photo taken, which isn’t surprising in a way because of the constant reminder of terrorism and pedophilia in the media. I think people are generally more nervous about potential threat on the street. Thats part of the reason we have these giant malls, to escape all the ‘undesirble’ elements of the street. Still, street photography can and does still exist – take Martin Parr and Paul Reas for example, both play on these ideas of anti-culture. So anyway, I think I’m done and I hope someone finds this useful…
Jay
— Jay Phillips · Dec 6, 09:32 PM · §
My image, “kind of crappy”? Well that just amuses me! I don’t think it compares to di Corcia’s work at all…his is much better in conceptual, aesthetic, and technical terms – and lets not forget monetary and commercial terms!
If you’re taking portable flash into the streets, emulating the di Corcia effect, that sounds very interesting and I wish you well.
I will try to find that essay – I’ve not heard of it, though I am familiar with both the idea of the flaneur and the ideas of Erving Goffman, which I first encountered many years ago in a sociology context and I more recently cited in my MA in Photography.
As regards the paranoia of street photography etc, check recent news on this Jay: I forget the details, but just recently there’s been a speaker in parliament saying anti terrorism legislation has abused the rights of innocent photographers, and the British Journal of Photography is running a good campaign on this.
— James Lomax · Dec 7, 02:13 AM · §