Touring the U.S. Male

[pardes]

I only clocked 3 miles yesterday. There was lead in my bike pants so I set up camp on the deck of Klondike Kate's restaurant.

[maillotpois]

Well done! Very funny!

[KnottedYet]

How lucky you were able to get every single one of those people's permission to post their pictures on the internet! Well done!

[pardes]

I was so concerned about getting legal music, I forgot to think of model releases.

I'll remove the video from TE.

[Eden]

I was so concerned about getting legal music, I forgot to think of model releases.

I'll remove the video from TE.

Ummmm I did not see the video, so I don't know exactly how it fits in, but as a photographer this is how I understand the need for a model release. If the person is in a public place - say at the park or on the sidewalk and the images are used not used to sell a product then you do not need a model release to take and use the photos (or video). Now there have been some editorial uses of imagery that have come into question. There were some photos of random people in a park used in conjunction with a news article on some sort of communicable disease (I think it may have been herpes ) that were not model released and understandably the people in them became upset. I think the newspaper had to print an apology... otherwise news story photos, photo essays, art photos, etc. are often not model released and it is not required that they be.

(btw - I work in the medical industry and to be in accordance with HIPPA we always have a release for our photos - its actually written right into the consent for treatment - but of course anything that has to do with your medical records is covered by special rules)

[maillotpois]

In an age of Google street view capturing god knows what without anyone's permission, I highly doubt that a not for profit (well sequenced and footnoted) home video should be considered offensive, illegal or otherwise "not OK".

[Trek420]

Imagine our reaction if it were a man who posted video of teenaged girls and made comments about their sexuality.

[maillotpois]

I did not get references to homosexuality out of that video - and I'm sure that wasn't the intention. These were clearly all a bunch of "dudes" handing out and being "cool" - too "cool" for a real handshake. There was definitely some poking fun at priorities, etc. Maybe it's easier (and less tasteless) for cool dudes to blatantly ogle the hot car than the pretty girl. I'm frankly okay with that. It was all very lighthearted, and the Margaret Mead allusions were funny.

I'm hoping that this commotion over something intended to be completely innocent hasn't driven away a very creative and fun to read poster.

[mimitabby]

nah, I think Pardes is way bigger than that. She'll be back, at least I hope so.

[snapdragen]

I'm hoping that this commotion over something intended to be completely innocent hasn't driven away a very creative and fun to read poster.

I missed the video dammit. Color me disappointed on many levels.

+ a zillion MP, but it wouldn't be the first time now, would it.

[Trek420]

I did not get references to homosexuality out of that video - and I'm sure that wasn't the intention.

I did and frankly I was shocked and insulted. But I'm an adult and can deal with it. When I saw that the comments about their "girly" handshakes were about boys I felt incensed, angry and more important protective..

As a fellow artist I realize sometimes one does not think these things through. It's like the corporate identity project I once did with the shirt design and the logo is right smack on the bQQbs. Oooopsie.

So I hope she will return, and continue to post and create.

[Tri Girl]

Geez, I sure missed something I suppose.

I just hope Pardes comes back to tell us more about her adventures. We've enjoyed them so much so far. I can't imagine that she would intentionally be offensive. Her other posts have always been so poetic and interesting- very artistic. We all make mistakes- it's how we become who we are.
Come back, Pardes.

[pardes]

Actually the video was an experiment in perception.

I removed it from TE when I realized I didn't have a model release from "Black Shirt." I have model releases in my camera bag but it started raining while I was filming and I forgot about them.

I will be going back to the barber shop to get a signed released, and now that the video is done, to show it to Black Shirt. Hopefully by then I'll know his first name and to confirm as I thought that he is not a teenager. I will also very much enjoy the conversation I will have with him about the video and life in general.

I also want to tell him how very charming I thought him to be and how much he reminded me of the young men of my youth.

Editorial comment added to a video is covered by the first amendment as long as it does not reveal private information about a subject. (unless of course they are public figures and then all bets are off.)

The video showed young men in one particular moment of their life to be more interested in a hot car than a preetty girl walking by. Stop the presses! Now there's some information we never knew.

The video also played on the preconceived notions of the viewpoint character, a 62 year old woman past her prime observing these things and trying to formulate concepts about the differences in the sexes. In her cases, she opted out for the standard patter of "boys will be boys and girls will be girls."

As the videographer, that was my aim... to demonstrate how easy it is to gloss over the reality of a situation, to dismiss something as merely amusing and to not examine the characters as individuals.

One of the few people who viewed the video made the same mistake and assumed it was gay-bashing, insulting to males and females, and downright offensive.

Others who didn't see the video agreed that it must be a terrible violation on several areas. Hearsay rules.

I'm fairly astonished by this. There seems to be a lot more energy in the claims about and against the video than are warranted by the video or the number of people who saw it.

It never occured to me in a million years that the sweet Black Shirt or his friend White Shirt were gay. Why would anyone assume they were? Because one of them was a hairdresser? Because, during one 3 minute time period in their life they weren't particularly interested in eyeing girls and were more interested in talking to one another and ooohhh and ahhhhing over a friend's new car? Now who is making broad sweeping assumptions without the facts being in evidence?

Whether or not the video should be considered editorial, creative, artistic, or just a bad piece of video is a personal matter between videographer and viewer.

I am extremely curious about the world and the people populating it. I am fascinated with untested views and opinions I've held in my life and wish to examine them for validity. I do this with writing, photography, personal observation, contemplation, and talking to everyone I meet.

I only have a few decades left to accomplish this. It's an grand aventure and experiment.

It's an experiment that will be full of failures as well as successes.

The video, the story behind the video, the visit to Black Shirt will be posted on my blog....unless of course, in the meantime soemthing more interesting captures my attention.

[KnottedYet]

Pardes, in your blog you mention wanting to take a picture of a young woman, but not doing so because you thought it would be an invasion of her privacy.

Twice now you have posted pictures and stories of unsuspecting and unconsenting teenaged boys. Perhaps you would consider the privacy of the boy crying for help at the bus stop and of the boys standing out side the barbershop to be just as valuable in the future.

It isn't "gay-bashing", and no-one thought they were gay; it's privacy of these innocents that is the issue.

[pardes]

Let's drop this thread. It's not appropriate for TE. If anyone wishes to continue the discussion, send an email.