Comments on: Everyone is crossing a line

Everyone is crossing a line

spock — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:45:03 -0800

"What is so striking about the work is that EVERYONE is crossing a line: The couples who are engaged in sex in public, the Peeping Toms who trespass on that intimacy, the photographer who has betrayed his acquaintance's trust, and of course US -- so willing to look at what was not meant for us to see." See also: NYTimes slideshow Layers of Voyeurism (Via boingboing) SFW, IMHO

By: spock

spock — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:49:35 -0800

Link to NYTimes slideshow

By: nasreddin

nasreddin — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:53:37 -0800

Wow, interesting. Reminds me of the whole gay-Republican brouhaha.

By: Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese

Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:53:44 -0800

Wow, those are really striking images. They make me feel dirty just looking at them, like I'm one of they voyeurs. Incredible that the couples rarely knew the voyeurs were there -- imagine looking up and seeing yourself surrounded by Peeping Toms!

By: DU

DU — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:57:03 -0800

He noticed a couple on the ground, with a small but growing ring of men crawling towards them. Then the couple covers the eggs in sand and creeps back into to the sea, never to see their offspring hatch.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:04:21 -0800

Get a room. All of 'em.

By: rob511

rob511 — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:15:41 -0800

It's like watching a morphing animation, with Dian Fossey as the first keyframe, and Bob Fosse as the last.

By: Maias

Maias — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:01:25 -0800

this looks like the couples were exhibitionists and expecting the toms... they aren't exactly subtle! maybe it's like that thing that hit the UK media a while back, "dogging" where some watch but some join in and the couples expect this if they go to these particular spots and invite the toms to join in if they want to "play"?

By: setanor

setanor — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:03:15 -0800

oh, give me a break. "and of course US -- so willing to look at what was not meant for us to see." if it's presented as a "work", of course we're expected to - and will - look at it.

By: spock

spock — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:11:30 -0800

Well, that means the photographer wanted others to see it. Those farther up the chain? Not so sure about that.

By: spock

spock — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:28:47 -0800

Were we discussing their "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the U.S., certainly the Open Fields Doctrine would apply here, eh? It is interesting/disturbing how technology is bringing the question of what constitutes a "reasonable expectation of privacy" out into the public: For example as it applies upskirt and other voyeuristic photography.

By: nasreddin

nasreddin — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:50:16 -0800

Michael Warner's "Sex in Public" is a relevant essay in this context (purely coincidentally happened to be reading it..)

By: strawberryviagra

strawberryviagra — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:19:36 -0800

I was quite comfortable checking it out, being an Australian - until I realised that US didn't mean United States. Now I feel dirty.

By: quin

quin — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:43:33 -0800

Exhibitionists vs. Peeping Toms is the new Pirates vs. Ninjas. And I say this as an exhibitionist ninja. It's a problem. I'm working on it.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:02:56 -0800

Where doggers unite! (NSFW!)

By: Mike D

Mike D — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 04:31:18 -0800

OK, I looked, but I didn't inhale.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 06:09:53 -0800

Fascinating. Thanks for the post. if it's presented as a "work", of course we're expected to - and will - look at it. Methinks you're missing the point.

By: kimota

kimota — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 06:27:24 -0800

Mise en abyme, anyone?

By: philfromhavelock

philfromhavelock — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:44:54 -0800

Thanks. Excellent post.

By: setanor

setanor — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:18:06 -0800

Methinks you're missing the point. No, I don't think so. The couple, photographer and the peeping toms are clearly crossing the line, but "US"? I know it's nice to be comprehensive, but that's not valid.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:34:46 -0800

I wonder if you'd feel the same way if you were in one of those photos.