These are really interesting. My favorite is this one because the guy looks like he's freaking out. I also like the fact that he kept this one and this one right next to each other.
(sorry for the double post... the previous one had a messed-up link)
Some brief observations after viewing a couple of the Boston and Tokyo animations, more from Paris, and 20 each from London and Sweden:
Invasive, a bit? He does seem to focus more on the young and female. Gender theorists have had their say on the flaneur and the male gaze; but this medium makes his private staring available worldwide.
Maybe women are less likely to punch him out. I have a slightly earlier version of the same camera and it's neither small nor unobtrusive. Just taking pictures of buildings and signs outdoors, I've had a sheriff called on me, a security guard arrive in a hurry, and someone give me the one-fingered salute when they thought I was taking a photo of them (they couldn't understand the photo was of a stop sign for found_objects.
I found the surroundings as interesting as the people. The Telegraph of London has frequently complained about the crowding on the Tube but it's never mentioned the level of graffiti.
Yeah, I don't know how I'd feel about a stranger taking my picture, especially if the context doesn't explain a photographer's presence, as is the case in an everyday subway ride. I know I definitely avoid photographing people, when I take pictures in public.
(I wish I could use the verb "shooting" without people making dumb jokes about it. I learned the verb in the newsroom, and can be much more convenient than "taking a picture of" or "photographing". But people without news experience go "?!" whenever I offhandedly mention shooting people or things, so I avoid it now. Alas)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
prog![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-09 09:25 pm (UTC)(sorry for the double post... the previous one had a messed-up link)
no subject
Date: 2004-01-11 12:56 am (UTC)Invasive, a bit? He does seem to focus more on the young and female. Gender theorists have had their say on the flaneur and the male gaze; but this medium makes his private staring available worldwide.
Maybe women are less likely to punch him out. I have a slightly earlier version of the same camera and it's neither small nor unobtrusive. Just taking pictures of buildings and signs outdoors, I've had a sheriff called on me, a security guard arrive in a hurry, and someone give me the one-fingered salute when they thought I was taking a photo of them (they couldn't understand the photo was of a stop sign for
I found the surroundings as interesting as the people. The Telegraph of London has frequently complained about the crowding on the Tube but it's never mentioned the level of graffiti.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-11 06:10 am (UTC)(I wish I could use the verb "shooting" without people making dumb jokes about it. I learned the verb in the newsroom, and can be much more convenient than "taking a picture of" or "photographing". But people without news experience go "?!" whenever I offhandedly mention shooting people or things, so I avoid it now. Alas)