Continuing thoughts from yesterday, this morning I’ve provided my site subscribers with an index to such “erotic” photos as I have there, including the entire set of edgy (well, really, sexually-charged) photos that include the one accepted by The Kinsey Institute. Whereas I alert subscribers weekly as to new “normal” galleries added to the site, I’d decided it was about time they all learned what was available on the erotic side (regarding additions to which I don’t alert), at least for those who might be interested.
At times I’d prefer to just post those links here. It would certainly simplify things. Like a number of other photographers, however, I consider access to my entire work product to be a privilege, not a right, and therefore access is via subscription and not just for everyone. It also compensates me in a small way (a very small way) for the effort of doing this photography over the past seven years, processing the images, and building the site.
In addition, these “erotic” series complicate matters: while there is no way to guarantee that my subscribers are in fact old enough to “legally” view the material, putting edgier work behind a subscription barrier (which generally requires a PayPal account) at least increases the probability.
The photo discussed yesterday — the one accepted for The Kinsey Institute show — is one of a series of twelve. Now the Institute has requested that I donate the entire series for their permanent collection, which is a really nice development and made my day yesterday.
If you live in Great Britain, or for that matter in the U.S. where paranoia regarding street photography is occasionally severe, too, you will want to view the video found at The Online Photographer, and then read the comments (especially the comment below this link). When I travel, children often are my street photography subjects, as here in Florence
Yet I am forever cognizant that this subject is always suspect and dangerous. So far, I’ve managed to pursue these photos with impunity — sooner or later my luck will change, I am sure. (Photographing children “in the street” is a major discussion during my “Travel Photography” class.)
A large problem for the general street photographer is police ignorance regarding what is permissible — which usually means they want to prohibit photography that is entirely legal and proper. In the U.S., the general rule is that if you are standing in a public place and not obstructing traffic, you can take a photograph of anything or anyone who is also in public. The exceptions are very, very few, but police seem to think that things like courthouses, police headquarters, bridges, and public transit are off limits. While in NYC last week I witnessed a transit cop telling a young woman she couldn’t photograph in the subway, even though the NYC Transit rules clearly state that photography is permitted.
And people seem to think that you must ask their permission to photograph them. Not so, even though it is sometimes the polite thing to do.
Interested in reading more, much more? Read this. (And, if you’re not familiar with it, there’s the significant decision of the NY Supreme Court in Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia, discussed in a Wikipedia article, that clearly establishes the “artistic” quality of street photography and the right to photography anyone “in the street,” at least in New York.)
Ouch! About six inches of new snow since noon yesterday. Oh! When will it ever end! I’ll escape it all momentarily, going to watch the tribulations of an Irish lass kidnapped to marry a Welsh king but falling in love with a man of Brittany, to their ultimate undoing.