So to create art I just need to do what, in the writing world, would amount to at best plagiarism and at worst/most current series (i.e. random photos in black and white and the infamous “The Neighbors” series) lacking in any semblance of creativity, method (apart from post-production apologies), or even remote interest (apart from those who would call anything “art” without distinguishing Rembrandt from an amateur photographer who learned photoshop and random camera settings and got lucky enough to find an attorney who believes ALL photos are speech, presumably even child pornography). Not everything is art, not everyone with a camera is an artist, and even if he had produced either, not all art or any type of speech is supposed to be protected without some common sense restrictions (which unfortunately the court failed to provide).
Thus no crying “FIRE” in a crowded theater or producing work that is neither original or ethically created (e.g. he could have easily walked across the road and asked for permission, the fact that he avoided even thinking this way, i.e. that his “subjects” were people with their own rights and that he was surprised there was controversy over a man peeping through his window to take photos without so much as the common decency to talk to these Neighbors he was purportedly so “fascinated” by, is indicative of his knowledge that he could not get permission so he would just take what he wanted and call it art, AKA theft with a nice big loophole). Even his most “creative” series, “Faggots”, is inconsistent with his thought process in that he DID feel the need to get permission for these photos but not from the families of the criminals he reproduced (presumably a delightful experience for them to have this family history republished in the digital age, so it can now be accessible to all).
In short, when you can be easily classified as a peeping tom, your most labor intensive work is photographing what other people actually DID create (i.e. photographing other people’s forensic work, which were it possible to copyright such work would be illegal plagiarism; as it stands it is simply clearly plagiarized work) or even photographing men in suits (save the money, Walmart will do the same thing cheaper), you are surprised people objected to you doing what you had the courtesy to do in a couple of previous works that were relevant, and you have the remarkable ability to convince people that third rate amateur photography of things that require no special skills, equipment (using a $20 camera I was able to produce a black and white photo of a man in a suit that gave more clarity than his displayed work, in under 10 seconds), conveys no meaning at all on its face (look at “Madonna and Child” and the meaning is clear instantly), or are even interesting until you are told why you SHOULD be impressed, you are indeed an artist. A Con Artist.
An Aside- The attorney and her arguments in court for Svenson are as equally artistic as his work (i.e. she weaseled her way around he law by solely utilizing the loophole of a lack of a clear definition of what “art” is and ensuring her arguments relied solely on the letter, not both the letter and spirit of the law, AKA she got paid quite a bit to fight against those who desire some at least partial privacy, misconstrued words in both case law where she was losing due to the Supreme Court’s rulings against most of her arguments, and statutory tort law which is so ambiguous as to be laughable, a practical joke can be considered a tort). Come on people, not EVERYTHING is art and photography has to be pretty unique to ever qualify as art (the viewer interprets, the artist should never have to explain beyond basic principles of what style used, not meaning. No sane person would fathom a world where the artist, not the participant, defines what is and what isn’t art. The alternative is to equate the people that produce child pornography, this article (cute how the interview gives little in way of useful information, is extremely biased, and requires the reader to investigate every swath of this man’s work), and the poems of every 3rd grader as art, just as meaningful and artistic as Michelangelo, John Locke, and Robert Frost.
“hdc77494” you are absolutely right. Street Photography CAN be artistic; his work was neither Street Photography nor could any rational person (“Faggots” apparently was an amateur and vastly useless, unless producing the Sears or JCPenny catalogue, piece of sociological pseudo-experiment which he was neither qualified to perform or draw ANY conclusions from) think he is an artist unless they have been swayed by his claims and his attorney’s assertion that he really is an artist, so he should be allowed to take pictures which any corporation would have mountains of paperwork to fill out just to look at regular people, with no restrictions, no retractions, no apologies, not even a nod that he had done anything wrong by doing “Neighbors”, just a well-funded lawyer against a family that, because they don’t print pictures of random objects and have no flowery words to describe it as “art” when they photograph other people’s work (in black and white, and for some reason it’s art?) while reaping the monetary benefits thereof, are only modestly represented. Clean and simple, this is not art, it took no skill (by his own admission), it violated privacy unnecessarily and continued to do so, most of it is plagiarism, and his hiring of an attorney who doesn’t have the legal knowledge to make a statement that doesn’t patently say, “I support any photography as art, even highly unethical and/or illegal photography. Oh, and by the way I intend to use this case to make no distinction between Picasso and John Wayne Gayce’s work.” to the press and all of America. So good show both of you, you have taken freedom of speech and turned it into an absolute right, no matter who it infringes upon or who it hurts! By the way, a decent artist would have gotten permission from his NEIGHBORS or at least removed the photos when he found out that his unethical action was causing severe distress due not to morality, but a common set of decent human standards.
Addendum- the argument has been raised that no identifiable faces were shown. The entire exhibit does show profile faces but faces aren’t the ONLY way we identify people. Clothing, the clear picture of the dog, the general knowledge of Svenson’s apartment location, the photos of the particular style of apartment, precedence (Supreme Court ruled numerous times that what happens in one’s own apartment/house/trailer is afforded to the occupant and that invasion by any means, without probable cause or a warrant, is a violation of one’s right to privacy. Reading through the court documents, it is clear that Svenson could afford a more well known and better quality attorney due to his higher income. In other words, the “Neighbors” never really stood a chance against him, thus no further appeal, they cost money!), furnishings, actions commonly performed and the familiarity of the neighborhood (apart from Svenson), and many other factors can easily identify without a face. The names of the neighbors are also a matter of public record due to the suit (minor) and the Svenson generated media attention (major source). Besides, reason would say that one should never capture another’s image, voice, writing, etc. without permission. ALL of that is Intellectual Property and just as one would not want their car used without permission (physical property) and it is a crime to do so; so to would someone want to protect what they and they alone can produce (Intellectual Property). The difference is the laws governing Intellectual property and modern technology are several decades behind the laws governing physical property.
Ref: Svenson Interview
The Valeyard 