if you’ve ever been to a Scottish wedding you’ll understand why.

Not only have I been to one, I got married at two of them.
I was appropriately dressed on both occasions.

geetee1972 – Member

A photographer repeatedly photographs women’s bare legs as a subject matter of interest. He photographs them with a long lens and without knowledge or consent (which is entirely legal) and then posts the results on a public forum. The images are relatively harmless in themselves but there is a consistent pattern of behaviour being demonstrated.

if it is public then you don’t need permission but if you request for the person to stop taking pics then they should stop (Scotland – it would be disturbing the peace to continue). if the legs are not in clear view then that would be considered voyeurism in Scotland I believe.

is there any actual artistic merit in these pictures or are they just snaps of legs.

is there any actual artistic merit in these pictures or are they just snaps of legs.

Eye of the beholder and all that…the inefable commun, conunn, question, innit?

Bet he lives with his mum and can’t fold his pyjamas.
Not even with a cricket bat.

user-removed – Member
I left a forum which was a large part of my life because there was a guy posting photos of bottoms taken in a similar fashion and the owner / mods seemed to think it was ok.

How is Simon these days?

I was thinking similarly 🙂 (or maybe that should be 🙁 – when I last checked the news wasn’t all that positive) – though to be fair I think Simon’s pics were of people he knew, and they were presumably aware of the pics!

You do the same with old, decrepit and falling down people Geetee

Eh? Are you sure you’re thinking of me and not Bruce Gilden? Or perhaps you’ve confused me with Nan Goldin, Diane Arbus, Don McCullin etc.

First off, we’re all broken, you, me, everyone. We’re all carrying the shrapnel from some earlier trauma; some of us have more of it than others.

I do photograph some people that might fall under the description you offer here, but that’s not the point of the photograph and it’s certainly not objectification.

I give copies of everyone I photograph to those people; I share my own trauma with them as part of that process (because part of this for me is therapy; I still carry a lot of shrapnel from my time at primary school). I take time with everyone I photograph and only a few of them are what you (rather disparingly) call ‘broken’.

If they are broken, and I’m taking time to talk to them and listen to them, does that make me a good person or a bad person? And if I photograph them, it’s only after that engagement and with consent.

I would be very interested to hear the views of others on this subject but part of me can’t help but wonder whether your view of my work has less to do with my work and more to do with me.

Oh and Andy’s work is sunblime and if you take a moment to view his website you’ll see a lot of portraits of people on there that are a lot like mine.

What may be voyeurism to one, may not be to an other, shirley?

It rather sounds like the OP has received short shrift from another forum and he’s popped over to this one to get some moral support or, more likely, to try to induce a similar response here.

I find your questions interesting Mr geetee, however, they never appear to be genuine as you already appear to have your own indefatigable answer / opinion already locked and loaded, even when your understanding is different from the norm ( please do look up the definition of emotional intelligence, from your previous thread, I didn’t pull you on that because ICBA, but I clearly can now). Which in itself, is an interesting approach, especially on this forum, for a number of reasons. None of which make me believe you’re as intelligent as you try to make out. Sorry, possibly a bit harsh, but I can put a smiley in here to lighten the load if you like?

No judgement, just an observation. 😆

Surely that would have prevented most of the greatest photographic art of the 20th Century?

Seems to me that this conversation is very much going down the line of “one mans art is another mans pornography”. Are we seriously suggesting that we begin to censor art because we suspect the motives rather than the actions of the artist?

Jebus, our society really is ****ed

This, basically.

Last time I looked fetshism isn’t illegal or immoral. I take photos of people in public – not very good ones, it’s true, but the process entertains me. I don’t require permissison, though sometimes I ask for it. I don’t go home and **** myself silly looking at the pics, but if I did, so what?

I take time with everyone I photograph and only a few of them are what you (rather disparingly) call ‘broken’.

I didn’t use the word ‘broken’ and yet you put it in quotes. Please don’t misquote me. Only the people themselves know if they feel broken. I used the word ‘pitiful’ because the images provoke pity when I look at them – it’s my reaction not their state, that’s covered in the description. I’m just going on the images you’ve posted that have remained in my memory. Change the selection you post here and my impressions will change.

I think the problem these days is that people are being conditioned by the media to look for more sinister motives to mostly innocent past times.
Whilst the photographer is perhaps choosing a subject which people ascribe more sleazy values, the photographer may just be looking at legs as a photographic subject, in much the same way as I like to photograph say, chimney pots.
People are too quick to look to the perverts behind the lens.
I’ve been called a paedo on FB for trying to explain that you don’t need to get parental permission to photograph someone’s child, unwise it may be, but perfectly legal as long as you’re not going to harass them or cause upset etc. Because somehow I was defending the paedophiles, innit.