Arne Svenson, Neighbors #1, 2012
Last summer, the photographer Arne Svenson exhibited his Neighbors series at the Julie Saul Gallery in New York City. His photographs created an uproar when his real-world neighbors learned that they were the subjects of his photographs. Using a telephoto lens, Svenson trained his camera across the street on residents who lived in a glass-enclosed building. Critics of Svenson have accused the photographer of pushing the limits of voyeurism; supporters suggest he has crafted a beautifully aesthetic response to a new age of surveillance. A couple seen in Svenson’s photographs sued the photographer, however, a New York judge declared the photographs were protected as artistic expression under the First Amendment. As you read the news article on the ruling and look at the photographs on Svenson’s website, be reminded that New York City is undergoing a lot of development with an increase in residential glass towers. What do you think of Svenson’s Neighbors series? Are the photographs an invasion of privacy?
Art Newspaper article on Arne Svenson ruling
Arne Svenson’s Neighbors series
The DUE DATE to submit your blog posts for this topic is Sunday, December 15th.
I do believe in freedom of press but it levels to it. I think he should have been sued because he was spying on his neighbors. it would have been different if the neighbors knew about his work and how they were the subjects and its a creepy thought of how long has he really watching them for. to me he is in the same boat as a peeping Tom. what if he something he wasnt suppose such as a naked lady,child or man.
I think his series is good, but it is wrong. What he could’ve done right is asked his neighbors first. People do like their privacy and this is evasion of privacy. You can’t just take pictures of people who ever they are to you without their consent. I think he should be sued.
The definition of art is different to every person. In Svenson’s Neighbors series, he uses telephoto lens to capture someone without notify the target person which is a problem. In this case, the purpose of the photographer may just want to create artistic photograph. But in the neighbors point of view, those pictures are not artistic works. It is hard to tell those photographs are art or not. Although the constitution gives people rights, but some people abuse the rights.
I believe Svenson’s neighbors series are just really creepy. Something you would actually see in a horror movie but I mean it wasn’t really like showing anything personal it was just his view of I guess was art to him. It wouldn’t be right to take pictures of someone without them being informed but I mean there are two different points of views with the photographer and the neighbors. Overall I believe its Svnesons photographs of his neighbors are a violation of their privacy and he had no right to take photos. It all depends on what type of person you are, others would probably be honored if they were being photographed by a photographer.
I do think he has the right to take pictures, but there is a limit to what he is doing. The pictures he took with people without their consent is wrong. If he had asked them or informed them he took their pictures it would not be invasion of privacy. He does have the right to take the pictures he want, but the people should also have the right not to be photographed by him without their consent so the photographs in my opinion is an invasion of privacy.
I wasn’t too impressed with the photos taken by Arne Svenson, unlike photos taking by Walker Evans of people he didn’t know invading their lives Arne’s photos attacked an environment that was much more personal. He did capture people unfiltered and natural but the end result of his execution was a little creepy and strange. The element of kids being involved poked at something that is already delicate, making the protectors feel that their children and themselves are vulnerable. I feel as though the photos are an invasion of privacy. Such an intimate place like your home being invaded by an anonymous camera trapping images for production takes away from that place of solitude and introduces people to your private escape from the outside world without permission. The neighbors pet dog did not seemed to be fooled he was catching on to Svenson.
Arne Svenson’s photography is all about shapes and compositions and can be call as an art. But this is creepy subjects to pick on, keeping a telephoto lens on someone’s life is not a gentle thing even though his intension might have been different. If someone is really concern about their privacy they wouldn’t have live in a glass house. But this is totally wrong to take picture of someone’s everyday life. This is like a moment when you think that there is someone watching over you, which is a creepy feeling. Its against the law to take someone’s picture without informing them, specially someone’s personal life. Overall i think this series of his photography of neighbors were absurd, i didn’t like his choice of subject to make photography. I would have sued him like the neighbors did, doesn’t matter what great intension he had. So this is definitely invasion of privacy.