Condescending Hippies

[Marmot]

I had a totally magical time, but there was one low point. In the spirit of "less spectating, more participation", I only shot two roles of film this year. However, one of the best photo ops I didn't get the chance to shoot. Even tho I employed what I thought to be proper playa etiquette in asking the man involved if I could shoot his picture, his girlfriend responded like I just asked if it was OK to fuck him up the ass or something. She started ranting something like "oh no, another photo casualty" and "oh you want to TAKE something???". I totally respect someone's desire to not be photographed, but fer crissakes, why not a polite no thanks instead of insulting my intelligence like I don't even know I am being made fun of.

[III]

>Even tho I employed what I thought to be proper playa etiquette in asking

you did, although some people get so bombarded with photo requests that it impinges on their experience, and the get a little grumpy.

would it help to mention that you still wouldn't have gotten the picture if they had given you a simple "no"?

[Rob the Wop]

Wash the patchouli offem' and they taste like chicken. Just remember this fact when you run out of snackables out there and a hippie annoys you.

[Julie]

That's extremely insulting for her to say such a thing to you. Unfortunately, certain people live in a delusional reality where inconsiderate relations reign.

If the man was not naked, you had every right to take his picture, even without consent. It's called excercising your intellectual property rights. And anyone that gives you shit about it obviously has no clue about how the law works IN the photographers favor.

I realize Burning Man puts a very strong emphasis to ask to take someone's picture, and rightly so if the person is naked or in suggestive clothing. It's a wholehearted attempt to protect participants privacy and their own asses. However, when photographing anyone else, you certaintly don't have to ask them to take their picture, it's courteous and nice to do so, but definitely not a requirement.

In the *real world* photographers do not have to ask people on the street, bus, or subway if they want their picture taken. When photographs are used for your private collection, the same holds true to participants at Burning Man.

As a photographer, I asked as many people as possible if I could take their picture in good faith...but realizing at the same time that the spontenaity of the event makes for spontaneous photography, and that more-often-than-not, I cannot be bogged down with a quick, "Hi, can I take your picture?" The moment would then be lost.

I'm all for being courteous of people's privacy, very much so...But I am not down for asking every single person if I can take their photograph. And I personally don't understand why people are offended to have thier picture taken, but to each their own I suppose.

[III]

>I'm all for being courteous of people's privacy, very much so.

liarhead.

[bgirl]

[quote="Marmot"] She started ranting something like "oh no, another photo casualty" and "oh you want to TAKE something???". You could've/should've ranted back ,"NO,I want to GIVE you something.........a COMPLIMENT,you are both so beautiful I just had to have your photo!!!!!!" UH huh ,yeah.................. Maybe the love child would recant her earlier judgement of you? Ya never know. Save the Van. island Marmots!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kinetic]

That's extremely insulting for her to say such a thing to you. Unfortunately, certain people live in a delusional reality where inconsiderate relations reign.

If the man was not naked, you had every right to take his picture, even without consent. It's called excercising your intellectual property rights. And anyone that gives you shit about it obviously has no clue about how the law works IN the photographers favor.

I realize Burning Man puts a very strong emphasis to ask to take someone's picture, and rightly so if the person is naked or in suggestive clothing. It's a wholehearted attempt to protect participants privacy and their own asses. However, when photographing anyone else, you certaintly don't have to ask them to take their picture, it's courteous and nice to do so, but definitely not a requirement.

In the *real world* photographers do not have to ask people on the street, bus, or subway if they want their picture taken. When photographs are used for your private collection, the same holds true to participants at Burning Man.

As a photographer, I asked as many people as possible if I could take their picture in good faith...but realizing at the same time that the spontenaity of the event makes for spontaneous photography, and that more-often-than-not, I cannot be bogged down with a quick, "Hi, can I take your picture?" The moment would then be lost.

I'm all for being courteous of people's privacy, very much so...But I am not down for asking every single person if I can take their photograph. And I personally don't understand why people are offended to have thier picture taken, but to each their own I suppose.

This disturbs me a little. One thing the ORG wants to do is allow people to come to BM and truly express themselves without fear of repercussions once they leave the gate. It doesn't matter about intellectual property rights or the law, there's a chance that when you snap that picture and 3 weeks later post it, you could wreck someone's career, lifestyle, or worse. I haven't spoken with anyone this has happened to but I've heard it discussed in certain circles so I consider it a valid possiblity.

I understand the need to get that spontaneous shot sometimes but really consider where your at and who's being photographed and if you can ask! There were times that I liked having the pro cameras around, there were other times I didn't. I hope the photogs and video people out there develop finely tuned senses on this so we continue to have the fine balance that exists today. It might not be a requirement now, but if it becomes a problem, BM is not a democracy, it's run by the org and petitioners can lobby the org to ban cameras outright. It might not happen but some serious pressure can be built up to make photogs uncomfortable out there. I hope it never comes to that though.

[PetsUntilEaten]

Julie -

Though I agree that there's no reason to be rude. You're off on the details a bit.

If the man was not naked, you had every right to take his picture, even without consent. It's called excercising your intellectual property rights. And anyone that gives you shit about it obviously has no clue about how the law works IN the photographers favor.

Media guide (which includes personal photography & participants rights in regards to all photography):

"You have the right to ask someone to stop taking a picture of you, recording your image or recording your voice in any way. However, keep in mind the nature of radical self-expression, capturing expression is a form of self-expression.

You have the responsibility to be respectful to people you wish to record and to seek permission from them before recording their likeness or voice.
You may use any images that you obtained at the event only for personal use. No commercial use whatsoever may be made of any such images."

I realize Burning Man puts a very strong emphasis to ask to take someone's picture, and rightly so if the person is naked or in suggestive clothing. It's a wholehearted attempt to protect participants privacy and their own asses. However, when photographing anyone else, you certaintly don't have to ask them to take their picture, it's courteous and nice to do so, but definitely not a requirement.

In the *real world* photographers do not have to ask people on the street, bus, or subway if they want their picture taken. When photographs are used for your private collection, the same holds true to participants at Burning Man.

Not quite true.

As a photographer, I asked as many people as possible if I could take their picture in good faith...but realizing at the same time that the spontenaity of the event makes for spontaneous photography, and that more-often-than-not, I cannot be bogged down with a quick, "Hi, can I take your picture?" The moment would then be lost.

I agree.

I'm all for being courteous of people's privacy, very much so...But I am not down for asking every single person if I can take their photograph. And I personally don't understand why people are offended to have thier picture taken, but to each their own I suppose.

If you feature someone in a photo (say with a zoom lense from afar) - but you can't be bothered to interact with them - I'd say that situation sounds selfish - but I doubt that's what you're talking about.

I realize that you are probably very respectful - as was the guy who started this thread. Sure, in the *real world* photographers don't have to ask permission in public - but they also get their asses kicked in the *real world* for that behavior (and don't even get me started on Lady Di!) - how do you think people might respond in a place where photographers don't actually have the "right of way" in the situation - nudity or not.

With the Voyeur Video suit - burners have a real reason to be cautious and even aggressive about cameras that don't ask for permission.

I schooled a few people with video cameras shooting our camp without permission - they were oblivious that they needed to do anything more than get their camera tagged - or so they said. But I was nice & they stopped - so thats fine.

Marmot - sorry that your courtesy wasn't repaid by courtesy.

[Julie]

This disturbs me a little. One thing the ORG wants to do is allow people to come to BM and truly express themselves without fear of repercussions once they leave the gate. It doesn't matter about intellectual property rights or the law, there's a chance that when you snap that picture and 3 weeks later post it, you could wreck someone's career, lifestyle, or worse. I haven't spoken with anyone this has happened to but I've heard it discussed in certain circles so I consider it a valid possiblity.

I don't believe that photographers are wrecking someone's career or lifestayle by taking a candid photograph of them at Burning Man. That's kind of outlandish, don't you think? So you believe that by taking a candid photo of a person, NOT NAKED or doing anything obscene, you are somehow causing them harm? Ummm don't think so.

Also, what do you mean by "posting it?" Do you mean on a website or in a printed magazine? I'm kind of lost on that one.

The first year I was at Burning Man, I actually wanted to take pictures and post them on an underground music website. It's just basically and culture site with listing of events, art, photographs etc. It was a very lax, nothing but a community of friends that gathered to converse, yet it was a public site. So of course I went through all the necesarry steps at the media mecca to do so.

Secondly, I'd like to say that I am not a media photographer. I'm an artist.

I understand the need to get that spontaneous shot sometimes but really consider where your at and who's being photographed and if you can ask!

I would like to think that *most* photographers at Burning Man are understanding of people's privacy, as am I. Of course, not everyone, but all photographers I encountered were courteous. Also understand that asking every single person to take their picture is not necessary and extremely burdensome to a photographer who's main objective whether in career or hobby is to capture the moment. I'd bet a million dollars that a good majority of the pictures you see on the Burning Man website are momentary shots, not posed, and were not given permission to take them. It's just how the nature of photography works.

There were times that I liked having the p
ro cameras around, there were other times I didn't. I hope the photogs and video people out there develop finely tuned senses on this so we continue to have the fine balance that exists today. It might not be a requirement now, but if it becomes a problem, BM is not a democracy, it's run by the org and petitioners can lobby the org to ban cameras outright...

I find it hightly doubtful that the org would ban cameras outright. In a community devoted to radical self-expression, such a restriction on expressing oneself would be unheard of.

[TestesInSac]

I find it hightly doubtful that the org would ban cameras outright. In a community devoted to radical self-expression, such a restriction on expressing oneself would be unheard of.

Perhaps, but be careful of your assumptions, especially when they're predicated on rational thinking.

[Julie]

Media guide (which includes personal photography & participants rights in regards to all photography):

"You have the right to ask someone to stop taking a picture of you, recording your image or recording your voice in any way. However, keep in mind the nature of radical self-expression, capturing expression is a form of self-expression.

You have the responsibility to be respectful to people you wish to record and to seek permission from them before recording their likeness or voice.
You may use any images that you obtained at the event only for personal use. No commercial use whatsoever may be made of any such images."

Yes, I was very aware of this. In 2002, I entered one of my Burning Man photographs into a national student art contest. I got a spot in the show! It was very exciting seeing as how it was my 1st exhibit of any kind. It was a picture of a young man sitting under the man, gazing out into the city. I loved the shot more than anything. It was inconspicuous and unless you had been to Burning Man in the past, you wouldn't have been albe to tell it was taken there. Well I contacted Burning Man to make sure everything was kosher. If I were to win the contest, the picture became the sole property of the organization sponsering the contest, thus making it a commercial photograph, or so I thought.

I wanted to make sure I wouldn't get sued or anything of the matter by Burning Man, so I contacted them.

Not only did Burning Man take a whopping 3 weeks to get back to me via e-mail, when I said it was pertinent that I needed a response within a week, but the also said they were sketchy on the details of the contest and wanted all of the contact info, who was running it, names, etc etc. I felt they were sticking their nose a little too far into my artwork. They also said that it's highly encouraged that I donate 10%, if I won the contest, to the Burning Man organization, and that *most* photographers who make money off of their prints donate 10% to the organization.

I would have no problem with donating money if I were a professional photographer, but I clearly stated that I am a student, entering a student art show. It seemed a little greedy of Burning Man to ask me to donate. Sorry, that just kind of irked me.

Sorry if I sound like a comlete bitch. I'm actually very courteous of people and would always ask to take their picture if I was close enough. But in certain situations, if things or people were in motion, it's just impossible. And you're right, I didn't have a zoom lens or anything like that.

[Kinetic]

There are people at BM who don't want to be photographed being there...a case in point would be the United States Senator who passed through this year, I also know of 2 midwestern religious leaders who attended and had a blast that if caught on film would have been doing a lot of explaining back home...or as one of them said, he would likely lose his position. So there are cases where even a simple pic can cause harm.

Yet to give your points credit, they knew that going in, they accepted the risk, but they tried to mitigate the risk too.

Forgive me if my reply is out of sync, it's late and I'm going without caffeine again.

I know you can't ask permission on every shot...I wouldn't expect that. All I would ask for is some sensitivity...and for the most part it's there. It's just the first read of your post had me thinking you were going to take the shot regardless and that hit me wrong.

Posting it....meant putting the images on the web.

I reread your post again, I overreacted so I apologize for that. About my comment on banning cameras, my point there was while it's doubtful they would ever do it, the ORG does have final control over what's allowed and what's not...if a Video Voyeur group come in and kept giving them grief every year a total ban might have a shot at reality. I was just letting the ideas come out when I wrote that...with BM you never know.

This whole photography thing has me thinking about Katherine Lampman...she was a photographer too, and now that she's no longer with us, her view of the world is lost forever. It's really a shame.

[III]

>Sorry if I sound like a comlete bitch.

you sound like you have no appreciation at all for the people that you depend on for your "art". take them out of your pictures, and you've got nothing. saying that they have no say in how they get used is self centered and disrespectful.

there are three choices, really.

a) you realize that your subjects are vital to your composition, and treat them with respect.

b) the subjects aren't vital to your composition, and you take pictures of trees and rocks.

c) you are self centered and uncaring, and ignore requests from both the community and the organization putting on the event where you get to indulge your ego.

*you* are the one choosing which of those three categories you fall into. i'll warn you that "i'm a bitch" is unlikely to win you a lot of friends, and i can't really feel sorry for whatever void you'll have in your life as a result.

[PetsUntilEaten]

julie -

not to beat a dead horse :

but isn't complaing about how hard it is to ask permission for a photo (which is your art) - a little ironic when you consider what most artists of burningman do to create their art that you photograph? even when that art is their self & how they look & conduct themselves?

[Flux]

not to beat a dead horse

Anyone wanna hear one of my favorite jokes? Nah, I didn't think so. Well, too bad!

I used to be into sadism, necrophilia, and bestiality.
Then I realized I was just flogging a dead horse.

[Julie]

you sound like you have no appreciation at all for the people that you depend on for your "art". take them out of your pictures, and you've got nothing. saying that they have no say in how they get used is self centered and disrespectful.

You must have not taken to heart what I said earlier. I ask nearly everyone I come into contact with if I can take their picture, whether it is in the real world or at Burning Man. In certain circumstances, I cannot. That is the nature of photography. And to call me celf centered and disrespectful is out of left-field seeing as how we have never met. I take pride in being a very caring and respectful person. It's too bad that you have construed what I've said to fit your own definition of who I am, not knowing anything about me other than what I have posted.

a) you realize that your subjects are vital to your composition, and treat them with respect.

b) the subjects aren't vital to your composition, and you take pictures of trees and rocks.

I treat everyone with respect. Also, people can be part of your composition without having them be the focul point.

I'd like to show you a few of the pictures I took at Burning Man since it seems you think I'm disrespectful. The 1st one is the one that I entered into the art show. Click Portfolio http://www.msmc.la.edu/Student_Life/Stu ... index.html

c) you are self centered and uncaring, and ignore requests from both the community and the organization putting on the event where you get to indulge your ego.[/quote]

What requests did I ignore from the community and organization? Please, I'd like for you to elaborate. I do not take pictures of naked people, ever. I ask virtually everyone if I can take their picture. My photography usually centers around quiet situations anyway, in every respect. At Burning Man I like to capture moments that are not in the thick of the craziness.

In regards to Burning Man getting back to me on my picture in the student art show, it was resolved that if my print was to win the show, it could be sold to the non-profit Catholic organization that was sponsering it. It didn't win anyway.

*you* are the one choosing which of those three categories you fall into. i'll warn you that "i'm a bitch" is unlikely to win you a lot of friends, and i can't really feel sorry for whatever void you'll have in your life as a result.

I'm sorry. I was just trying to be nice by saying, "Sorry if I sound like a bitch." Perhaps it would have been better worded, "Sorry if I sound too harsh, that's not my intention."

[bradDaDad]

Time and again i come up with the question, are people inherently good or evil. The hippies don't seem inherently good, ie Charles Manson killed the movement IMO. To me people are a mixture of something abhorrently bad and completely good. I lean toward the theory of relativity, which leads to karma... Conclusion. Perhaps she was a <b>Trustafarian</b> full of righteousness and fear of her parents.

There are no answers, just gray areas.

[III]

>It's too bad that you have construed what I've said to fit your own definition of who I am, not knowing anything about me other than what I have posted.

what you posted, first time around (if i may paraphrase) was:

"i can take pictures of whatever i want, whether i ask or not, and you can't stop me."

you followed that with (once again paraphrased):

"the media team didn't cater to my immediate needs, and when they finally did talk to me, i thought their suggestions for how to appropriately comport myself within the community were lame."

expecting us to not form an opinion about you because you can't communicate your true position is unrealistic.

[Angry Butterfly]

I take it as a compliment when people ask to take my picture. Or even if they take it without asking. And I HATE to look at pictures of myself. When I saw flashbulbs going off when the fire props I built for a friend were lit, My heart soared. It made me know that the 50 odd hours of work I put in were worth it because it was something that people wanted to remember and share.

[Julie]

It's not even worth my time to debate you anymore.

It's obvious that you cannot paraphrase.

You butchered what I said.

And I'm sorry but anyone with half a brain could see that.

It's too bad really because I love debating people who are intelligent.

[Badger]

It's not even worth my time to debate you anymore.

The choice is yours

It's too bad really because I love debating people who are intelligent.

As is the loss.

[Flux]

There are no answers, just gray areas.

Isn't that fucking annoying? Took me many years to come to grips with. Now I love it, but man did I rage against the gray. No wonder the words "young" and "stupid" find themselves in the same neighborhood so often.

[Zane5100]

So what am I doing wrong that I haven't pissed anyone off with my photography?

Maybe next year I'll try something different...

[TestesInSac]

So what am I doing wrong that I haven't pissed anyone off with my photography?

Maybe next year I'll try something different...

Something involving veterinary medicine, perhaps?

[Zane5100]

So what am I doing wrong that I haven't pissed anyone off with my photography?

Maybe next year I'll try something different...

Something involving veterinary medicine, perhaps?

Sure, if you're playing the cow...

[precipitate]

> It's too bad really because I love debating people who are intelligent.

<snort>

[The Key Man]

When I drive down the boulevard in my local neighborhood I see driveways one after the other piled with playa dust, bicycle mud chunks and playa crust from old hippy busses. The median altitude (and perhaps attitude) is falling annually. What's YOUR excuse?

This all tells me that Burners are moving undue amounts of playa dust from BRC to their hometowns, thus jeopardizing the ancient playan ecosystem. No doubt playan altitude is decreasing annyually...invitation to eco-tragedy?

Help offset this trend. Let's create a PDRC, playa dust return center. Otherwise we're all each of us destroying the playa...a gram at a time.

The Key Man

[PJ]

Burners are moving undue amounts of playa dust from BRC to their hometowns, thus jeopardizing the ancient playan ecosystem.

Since that dust goes down hundreds to thousands of feet and there's thousands of square miles of it, I think it's about as worrisome as the Apollo astronauts' depletion of the moon.

Somebody else can run the numbers, but I suspect that the entire population of the planet could get their car, tent, and shoes dusty out there for a week over a thousand year span without dropping the Playa's elevation a micron.

[Kinetic]

Sorry, but I happen to love my playa dust, and it will not be returning to BRC. I travelled 3600 miles to get it here. And I'll bring more home next year. Didn't you know that it's really pixie dust? Sprinkle some on top of you and count to 11 and it can do some amazing things!

Man, this is scary...I'm actually looking for an old school bus to convert over, does this make me a hippie if I get it?

[nymphgonebad]

no, it just makes you a big dweeb, is all.