Another book which was recommended to me which has given me so much inspiration due to a few essays and photographers.
‘We cannot blame the camera for what it has done to us; nevertheless, it has made certain human predilections much easier to satisfy. True, the elders in the biblical story did not need special equipment to spy on the unknowing Susannah—they simply concealed themselves and peeked at her as she undressed for a pleasant bath. Today, however, they would use cell phones to grab a picture of a young woman in a compromised position and send it to friends, having located her garden through Google Earth. Human hunger for seeing the forbidden has not changed.’ (Phillips, S., Exposed, Surveillance in the Camera, 2010, pp.11)
I have always related to the idea of whatever has been forbidden to me, I have wanted more. A lot of things were not allowed when I was a child; I wasn’t allowed to mix with other English (Growing up in France), I was told to stay away from certain people, (so of course, I fell in love with someone under a forbidden family name, on multiple occasions), I was never allowed to invite my father to my school plays, I wasn’t allowed to wear makeup to school etc…. We had very strict rules and if we disobeyed them, we would get in a lot of trouble, although this idea of the forbidden feels so exciting. I couldn’t agree more with this statement due to these feelings. If we do something that is considered bad, but we get away with it, it can make us feel so powerful! Getting a picture of someone or something that is not meant to be done due to the situation they are in or if that something is protected, it can feel so empowering because it is not meant to be done. Even if it is not morally correct.
‘Indeed, many of these early cameras, and the later "spy" cameras of the 1950s, were designed more as toys than as useful instruments. It is probably significant that few negatives from them survive. Among the most practical was the early "vest pocket" camera designed to be worn on a man's chest: the lens was located in place of the stick pin, leaving the hands relatively free (usually there was a shutter-release cable that extended from the body of the camera down a sleeve into the operator's hand, where it was inconspicuous). Such a camera was used by an amateur in rural Pennsylvania named Horace Engle.’
(Phillips, S., Exposed, Surveillance in the Camera, 2010, pp.13)
I found this statement within the essay to be rather interesting, mostly because it states that this ‘vest camera’ was designed to be worn on a ‘man’s’ chest.. Anyway, I suppose that is off topic. I do however find it interesting how not that long after the invention of photography, these ‘spy’ cameras were invented as toys, but I find it almost impossible that when the idea came to the inventors head, that they were merely thinking about creating toys from these. I guess my question is, how would this be used as a toy without breaching someone’s privacy? During these times, there was no mobile phones or technology which could potentially spy on people, so they didn’t really have to worry so much about them being seen with the evidence of a photograph, obviously it is just a bit of fun to go out and photograph people when they are unaware of it, and it has got that that element of innocence to it when this is all that is going on, but I suppose someone somewhere must have realised just how easy it would be to actually spy on people when in their own space, where they wouldn’t necessarily feel the fear of being watched, and to have picture evidence of it.
This photographer Horacle Engle, clearly did not mean any harm when photographing people, he seemed to photograph the ‘upper class’, I suppose this allows those who wouldn’t necessarily see these scenes to be able to, so he is creating evidence of the atmospheres that he is a part of.
‘Another amateur, Paul Martin, a British illustrator, made many of his early photographs with a camera disguised as a package (the Facile, by Fallowfield). His joyous, sometimes guileless pictures are rich with the pleasures of seeing what was considered simply ordinary, like a group of people listening to a concert, unaware of his presence. Martin also watched Victorian ladies in cumbersome bathing costumes with obvious glee and spied on couples in private conversation on the beach. ‘
(Phillips, S., Exposed, Surveillance in the Camera, 2010, pp.13)
‘Shizuka Yokomizo's richly unsettling photographs investigate the idea of voyeuristic seeing with the subject's consent. She makes pictures of people looking out of their windows into the night: they have received the photographer's written invitation to appear thereat an appointed time, and have had no other contact with her (those who do not accept close their blinds). She sees them, but they see only her shadowy presence outside their window (pls. 155–56].’
I found this body of work to be absolutely fascinating and stunning! I absolutely love how the photographer sent out letters to these people with a time and date of when to stand by the window, I really think this is great! There are so many mixed emotions about the project and that’s why it’s so fantastic. The subjects have no idea who this photographer is, and yet she is photographing them in their homes, with their consent to do so. All they can see if the shadow of the photographer whilst she can see the subject very clearly and softly. Is it voyeurism if the person on the other side of the camera has agreed to it? This project asked so many questions which is what makes it so interesting. The pictures themselves are very romantic as the subject is just standing straight looking out of their window into the camera without questioning the intent of the photographer.
‘In 1946 Life magazine photographer Yael Joel used a one-way mirror to trick people into posing for him (pls. 148, 150]—a kind of static version of the television series that would shortly become popular called Candid Camera, where a hidden camera would photograph people's amusing mistakes.
(Unknown, Exposed, Surveillance in the Camera, 2010, pp. 143)
This is another project which I adore! I really would love to try this, in a way this is capturing people at their most vulnerable as the last thing you would expect is to have someone watching you through a mirror, this is where most people will just double/triple check they look suitable for their occasion, checking their shirts and tucked in, their hates are on properly, there makeup is good, they haven’t got any food on the face or in their teeth, etc… These people are completely unaware that they are being photographed yet they are just pulling the perfect poses and faces for the camera! Funnily enough, if you asked them to do the same thing actually in front of the camera, without the mirror, the chances of them being able to recreate these exact looks are almost impossible, because the camera being in front of you, creates that feeling of being watched, which is proving, through this project, to have a much bigger effect on people than I first realised.
‘Sophie Calle has used the camera to explore surveillance with tenacity and originality and has made the inversion of public and private spaces her special territory. While her work of photographing people at their most vulnerable—asleep—was anticipated in the (very obscure) work of Ted Spagna (pl. 146], Calle has devoted a great deal of her creative energy to exploring the idea of voyeurism and its implications. She followed an unsuspecting man to Venice and trailed his activities; she requested that her mother hire a detective to follow her and documented that experience; and most notably and aggressively, she served as a maid in a fashionable Venetian hotel, opening up the guests' luggage, photographing the contents, and divining their lives from the evidence she found [pl. 154).’ (Unknown, Exposed, Surveillance in the Camera, 2010, pp. 143)
Sophie Calle has clearly dedicated a large amount of her time to explore this sense of surveillance, but the body of work she produced through photographing other people’s possessions is the one that interests me the most, this is a whole other sense of voyeurism, these people probably had no idea she was photographing their private items, and through this, she was able to imagine the sort of life and characters these people were, I found this so interesting as we live in a world where your clothes or the brands you wear have a massive impact on how society sees you, and so if you have expensive items, it is stereotypically thought that you must be of an upper class and have higher standards. I absolutely love how she did this, I think it’s very interesting, although I am sure if the people knew she was, they would not necessarily be happy.
‘These early portable cameras were soon given a name: "detectives."4 The detective was used not by police (who were much more interested in seeing the physical traces, the "evidence," in a crime scene) but by the amateur. The design of detective cameras was usually more fanciful than useful-one was designed as a stack of books, another, a parcel; one fit into a cane, another, an umbrella head or the heel of a man's shoe (fig. 2). An improbable invention was a camera disguised as a revolver; while this made accurate sighting easier, we can imagine the swift escape it’
(Phillips,S., Exposed, Surveillance in the Camera, 2010, pp. 13)
It’s so interesting to see all of the possibilities of where the camera’s can be hidden, a cane is so unusual as well as a parcel, but these just go to show how easy it is to hide cameras in these small places.