As I am the only person that called this artist a pervert, I'll take Helene's comment as partially directed at me. I checked out the link and I'll admit that the posted images were tastefully done.
How-ever, my opinion has not changed. Does anyone here think that he only took one image of each window? Or did he take an extensive series so he could choose from among a large lot for his art project?
Now his "neighbors" no longer can enjoy the nightime view of their city because this perv is probably spying on them.
This person collects images of people without their knowledge or consent and calls it art.
To me, it's an invasion of privacy.
As photographers we are taught to respect the rights of others and to leave only footprints behind.
This guy is leaving others privacy shattered.
BWTHDIK?
Pete
For those of you who may not know, Pete and I joined Nikonites within a minute of each other and we've grown to be wonderful friends. We are a prime example of two people being on opposite sides of the fence and still loving each other. But he always has valid points and so helps me clarify my own stance on issues.
1. I think that the first statement in bold is a moot point. We all do this as photographers. Do we show EVERY shot of the bride? How do they know we did or did not delete the ones where the boogers in her nose are visible or too much cleavage is showing?
2. The second statement in bold depends on whether and when photography is defined as "art".
As a photographer, I personally try to respect the rights and privacy of others. If I lived in the city and this were my project, I would have posted a notice in the lobby of the apartment buildings letting residents know that between certain hours I would be photographing "neighbors' windows" and if they did not want to be part of the art project, to draw their blinds during these hours on these specific days. I would post the links to my portfolio so they could see that my work was legitimate. I would also state what would be off-limits. But that would be in an ideal world. Who knows what the situation was or could have been. There are sub-atomic particles that change behavior solely because they were observed. As photographers we know that some of our best shots of people are those taken at unexpected moments. Had he done things with advance notice, he most likely would have ended up with a very different project. The neighbors might still have been unhappy and he might still have been sued or been tied up in "injunction related" battles. By doing the "right thing" he might have opened up a whole different can of worms, and the adage, "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" can be applied here.
9/11 forever changed this country. We lost much of our openness and "innocence", and gave up a lot of our privacy for the sake of national security. Yes, there are bad people in the world. But not every photographer who points the camera at a child or beautiful woman is a child molester or pornographer. It's sad that we have to feel that we need to come from a place of such fear and suspicion.
So I do support this photographer because I believe that photography can be art, and I believe in artistic freedom. If someone had been harmed, I would feel differently. But as I see it, this is just a photographer who "documented" the life of "faceless" neighbors in his community. I don't see him as a "pervert" with a stash of pornography in his portfolio. But, I tend to be an optimist and give people the benefit of doubt until they prove me otherwise.