Re: [Leica] Princesses and Trees

[dannyg1 <dannyg1@IDT.NET>]

Pete,

> My comments were used as an illustration to a point
> on how silly it is to need to get a permit to shoot in a National Park when we
> live in a society that allows people's privacy to be invaded in the name of
> 'news'.

There can be no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place (or view). When 
you're in public, you can't undress, copulate or even safely excavate your proboscis. 
The antimony between the contrasting concepts of public and private is what's 
being challenged here. 

There are good reasons why public is public and private is private. I don't think 
accepting a royal classe of privileged people, with rights of 'public privacy' would be 
good and giving everyman a 'privacy zone' in public would only legitimize a 
growing belief that violence is an acceptable response to having your photo snapped 
without expressed 'permission' (which would spell the end of candid and news 
photography).

When you're in a civil country, photographing in public is not poor behavior. I'm 
sorry to say that by the populist vision, neither is beating on a photographer (I use 
the A. Baldwin case in example). We're being marginalized and prepared for a more 
universal disdain. 

>  to assert that my belief
> is "Hard Copy" based is hardly fair nor do I think it reflects in the facts.

Celebrities money in pocket is based on exciting the public interest while excluding 
their participation. This, understandably, results in voyeurism. Creating (or 
allowing the perpetuation of) this monster comes at both a price and a profit. People 
who can do this are usually very rich and do hold the publics interest long after their 
accomplishments warrant much interest at all. They also cannot freely participate 
with the public, in its everyday life. 

It's a choice they make for themselves; in some ways, it's sad, but in most ways, it's 
happily made.

'Hard Copy', and like TV shows play on effects of celebrity by presenting themselves 
as insiders with access to the hidden world of the celebrated while subtly directing 
outrage at issues du jour.  They're dangerous as arbiters of much-anything because 
they're playing to the more base habits of the public (jealousy, group-think anger 
and simplistic assumption) while encouraging snap judgement by the audience, in 
the interest of affirming group-righteousness. They do not invite thorough analysis 
of any subject, preferring instead to direct how it is you're to react for you.

It is that machine that is bearing down on photography now and the effects are 
being felt by photographers everywhere. Whether your personal conclusion is 
'based' on 'Hard Copy' or not was not my point. My point was that you share the 
populist view they created and encourage. 

Danny Gonzalez