Street photography panic / Fuji hysteria

[barefoot_dp]

1 hour ago, Mokara said:

An unwritten social law is that you don't do stuff that might revert society to a bunch of screaming apes ripping strangers apart who happen to wander into their territory.

I tend to agree with you here - and worse still, it's people flaunting the loose laws that will ruin it for everyone. Sooner or later, Governments will realise that technology has evolved and the old laws are not sufficient, so they'll simply ban photography in many public spaces (ie without permits or consent).

Now, I'm not saying this guy is not allowed to create his "art", I'm just saying that it'll be perfectly understandable when someone punches him in the face and police become involved, followed by media hysteria, followed by introduction of new laws. I certainly wouldn't want to be remembered as the artist who ruined it for everyone.

Putting aside the art debate entirely, I do wonder about the use of his images in the Fuji video. Without a release form, how could they possibly expect to use those images in a commercial video?

[trifin]

This guy’s works is excellent. Thanks a lot for sharing.

Anyone who has a problem with him or his work has a problem. Seriously, step back, chill out. If I really let myself be a prick then every little invasion of my personal space pisses me off. Really pisses me off. But that’s because I’m being an idiot.

This little guy with his curious manners isn’t doing any harm but he is creating something awesome.

 

Edit: this guy is a genius...

[Django]

Street photography has been around for ages:

.. YouTube just wasn’t around to document the photogs in action.

Sure, Suzuki’s style is a little more in your face, but I’ve seen other street photographers get away with it as well. 

I think the fact the guy looks and acts a little creepy is what gets him those protective reactions. Especially within the context of Japan, so I’d say dude is clearly playing with peoples comfort zones, which is interesting & ballsy.

The X100 series, which are heavily inspired from Leica rangefinders, is  the obvious choice for such photography and it makes perfect sense to have a skilled street photographer in the promos. But I guess it backfired for obvious reasons. 

All these “privacy” laws etc surely are killing this particular genre of shooting.

[thebrothersthre3]

You'd get knocked out doing that in some places lol. Sure its legal but yeah its definitely weird, especially his close up style. Of course his odd looks don't help. Do I give a damn, not at all. I do understand why Fuji pulled the ad of course. But anyways good for him 

[User]

On 2/7/2020 at 7:57 AM, Andrew Reid said:

 

That's strange, I always thought that a philistine was a 'real dirty person.'
 

 

[Andrew Reid]

9 hours ago, trifin said:

This little guy with his curious manners isn’t doing any harm but he is creating something awesome.

Edit: this guy is a genius...

Curious enough to look and observe people... While all around him, they look inwards at their own feelings and personal privileges.

He gets my vote.

And fuck the people who want to introduce a legal aspect or red-tape to an art as important as photography.

[mercer]

He invades and exploits people's personal space, even forcing scared women to run around him and then charges between 300 to 2500 euros for a print... hahaha.

art...

[User]

On 2/7/2020 at 4:20 PM, barefoot_dp said:

it'll be perfectly understandable when someone punches him in the face.

It's Japan, and he knows that everyone is to polite/ restrained to do anything.

I work like this in many places and rarely have issues. A wink and a smile goes a long way.

[Django]

This is plain wrong if true:

Fujifilm Removes Tatsuo Suzuki from X Photographer Program after his Controversial Street Photography Shooting Style in X100V Video

[Ty Harper]

He's totally free to push the limits of people's personal boundaries within public spaces for the sake of his art. By the same token he better be totally ok with the potential repercussions of his actions. Matter of fact, I'm sure he instinctively picks his subjects/victims based on how much of an immediate threat they might pose to him, which speaks to the predatory nature of his behavior... and that's regardless of whether his end goal is art, creepy kicks, or both. But to me the scarier people are those who can't just acknowledge that all these things are equally legitimate factors worth acknowledging when deciding whether what he is doing is actually worth it, for the sake of art... or whether there might actually be a way for him to do his art, while respecting the boundaries of his subjects (what, too hard of a proposition to wrap his boundary-pushing artist head around?).

Personally I have way more respect for the artist that cares about that part as much as they do their precious art.

 

[User]

10 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

or whether there might actually be a way for him to do his art, while respecting the boundaries of his subjects

Of course you realize that the candid nature of this type of street photography doesn't work if one has to ask for permission, right?

As far as 'respecting the boundaries' of his subjects, who of us is entitled to determine where a stranger's boundries should be? Could that be disrespectful?

You see where this can lead?

[User]

*Edit. 

[barefoot_dp]

23 hours ago, Django said:

This is plain wrong if true:

Fujifilm Removes Tatsuo Suzuki from X Photographer Program after his Controversial Street Photography Shooting Style in X100V Video

How is it wrong? They're not preventing him from creating his art, they're just deciding not to publicly support him for it anymore (if true). Companies will always do what they think is best for the bottom line and any artist with an ambassador role needs to understand that.

You could argue that the only thing that's wrong about it was the mixture of art and commerce/advertising in the first place.

I think the guy is more of a performance artist, to be honest. It's about the process and the interactions, and the social commentary that comes from that. He's provoking a reaction intentionally, and the fallout is all part of that process and reaction.

[Andrew Reid]

12 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

He's totally free to push the limits of people's personal boundaries within public spaces for the sake of his art. By the same token he better be totally ok with the potential repercussions of his actions. Matter of fact, I'm sure he instinctively picks his subjects/victims based on how much of an immediate threat they might pose to him, which speaks to the predatory nature of his behavior... and that's regardless of whether his end goal is art, creepy kicks, or both. But to me the scarier people are those who can't just acknowledge that all these things are equally legitimate factors worth acknowledging when deciding whether what he is doing is actually worth it, for the sake of art... or whether there might actually be a way for him to do his art, while respecting the boundaries of his subjects (what, too hard of a proposition to wrap his boundary-pushing artist head around?).

Personally I have way more respect for the artist that cares about that part as much as they do their precious art.

Hysterical, just a bit.

"Predator"... There's nothing to suggest he photographs non-threatening subjects and if he is eventually unlucky enough to encounter somebody who is prepared to violently physically attack a photographer because he briefly invaded his personal space it speaks more about their values than his quite frankly.

"Scary"... I don't think it's scary having your picture taken. Surprising maybe.

"Victims"... For me it would be a privilege to be in a piece of art. They're not victims. Some of the people may even be looked back on in many years time as famed examples of life in this era of history, like the famous subjects in Henri Cartier Bresson's shots.

Not everything has to be safe and not every space a safe space for your individual rule.

If people tried to understand one-another's actions better, shared the streets and weren't so insufferably selfish and sensitive, street photography wouldn't be seen as the borderline criminal offence it is today. It's a huge loss to us as filmmakers and photographers.

[Django]

56 minutes ago, barefoot_dp said:

How is it wrong? They're not preventing him from creating his art, they're just deciding not to publicly support him for it anymore (if true). Companies will always do what they think is best for the bottom line and any artist with an ambassador role needs to understand that.

You could argue that the only thing that's wrong about it was the mixture of art and commerce/advertising in the first place.

I think the guy is more of a performance artist, to be honest. It's about the process and the interactions, and the social commentary that comes from that. He's provoking a reaction intentionally, and the fallout is all part of that process and reaction.

It doesn't really matter how you perceive this artist.. I  just find it really lame that Fuji aren't standing behind their ambassador. 

They know Suzuki's style. They edited the video, proofed it, released it with their logo.

Now because of a few comments and polarising opinions on the internet, they pull the plug on him.

Not just the video, they remove his entire page/history from their website!

It's not like there is a Harvey Weinstein scandal here FFS...

I guess it's the time we live in.. where YouTube commenters and like buttons have the power to destroy someone's career.

There are a lot more controversial artists out there than Suzuki by the way.. I guess the bottom line is indeed to be weary of any kind of endorsement deal.. the added exposure to a mainstream audience that may not understand/accept what you're doing could be fatal.

[barefoot_dp]

20 minutes ago, Django said:

It doesn't really matter how you perceive this artist.. I  just find it really lame that Fuji aren't standing behind their ambassador.

Exactly... it doesn't matter what I think. All that matters is how Fuji thinks it will effect their bottom line. If they perceive that a partnership or endeavor is no longer in their best interests, they can and will terminate it to whatever extent legally possible (according to the original contracts). It happens all the time with brands.

You ever seen how much marketing content gets pulled early or left on the cutting room floor of big companies? Projects, partnerships and initiatives get started and cut-off midway all the time. It's their prerogative as a commercial enterprise to control their marketing and PR however they decide. Every project has a kill-switch that they can hit if they think something is not having the desired outcomes.

 

[Andrew Reid]

2 hours ago, Django said:

It doesn't really matter how you perceive this artist.. I  just find it really lame that Fuji aren't standing behind their ambassador. 

They know Suzuki's style. They edited the video, proofed it, released it with their logo.

Now because of a few comments and polarising opinions on the internet, they pull the plug on him.

Not just the video, they remove his entire page/history from their website!

It's not like there is a Harvey Weinstein scandal here FFS...

I guess it's the time we live in.. where YouTube commenters and like buttons have the power to destroy someone's career.

There are a lot more controversial artists out there than Suzuki by the way.. I guess the bottom line is indeed to be weary of any kind of endorsement deal.. the added exposure to a mainstream audience that may not understand/accept what you're doing could be fatal.

Exactly. Fuji are wrong. The whole thing is a travesty. They are dragging his name through the internet outrage machine, too scared to defend him in case they lose a few camera sales.

If they really stood up for artists, rather than abusing them for profit, Fuji would defend him. As usual it tells us far more about Fuji's marketing men than it does about Suzuki's supposed "predatory" behaviour.

Again we see, sadly someone (@barefoot_dp) stating the obvious and because they consider it normal, it is somehow justified. Sure, companies can do whatever they like for profit. That's not news. Is it right? If they perceive edgy art to be a PR gaff all of a sudden is it ok to chuck one of your best known Japanese street photographers under a bus? When will you people get it, christ fucking wept.

1 hour ago, barefoot_dp said:

Every project has a kill-switch that they can hit if they think something is not having the desired outcomes.

In reality is not a kill-switch controlled by the company at their advantage, it is a reactionary hysterical kill switch controlled by a few outraged idiots on the internet.

Companies need to get a fucking GRIP IMO.

[Django]

1 hour ago, barefoot_dp said:

Exactly... it doesn't matter what I think. All that matters is how Fuji thinks it will effect their bottom line. If they perceive that a partnership or endeavor is no longer in their best interests, they can and will terminate it to whatever extent legally possible (according to the original contracts). It happens all the time with brands.

You ever seen how much marketing content gets pulled early or left on the cutting room floor of big companies? Projects, partnerships and initiatives get started and cut-off midway all the time. It's their prerogative as a commercial enterprise to control their marketing and PR however they decide. Every project has a kill-switch that they can hit if they think something is not having the desired outcomes.

 

Having worked in the corporate video field for close to a decade, I am sadly well too aware of such situations. 

I've had my own share of cool projects that were green lit only to be later butchered by the PC police or worst: shelved during or after completion.

I know its games risk but the motives are often so ridiculous, and results in a total waste of time, money, creative talent & energy.

You would honestly expect in the creative field that a company like Fuji would stand behind their ambassador amidst such a ridiculous controversy, or at the very least issue a statement.. but just plain dropping him like that because of a few wild comments saying he should get punched in the face is vile imho.

[Andrew Reid]

Dropping him justifies the hatred, and adds the weight of a famous company behind a barmy army, whose PC philistine views the media seems to love so much. Witch hunt, huh?

[User]

Fuji may be back at the table with some interesting options, but you sure wouldn't want to party with them.
If I were Suzuki, I'd consider training my lens on Fuji's senior PR department people. Problem is, the images would be completely flat... unless of course it was after hours and the team was back in fleshpots again.