English Speaking Practise: How to improve your English Speaking and Flue...

'Was' and 'Were' - English Grammar Lessons by 2 Min English

This is the page where I got this lesson from:

right to privacy x artistic expression

I read on this Sunday paper that an American photographer has been sued by having taken pictures of his neighbors and displaying them in an exhibition entitled "The Neighbors".

This event raises the debate over privacy X artistic freedom.

But first you should see the work itself. If you are going to judge anything you must have information about it. So, please take a look at the photos, read the texts and make up your mind:

http://arnesvenson.com/theneighbors.html

The Telegraph, an English newspaper seems to understand that the artist, Arne Svenson was only satisfying an urge. The English paper doesn't seem to consider the work of the photographer offensive. See below an extract of the article from The Telegraph:

One New York photographer, feeling the urge to document the lives of his unknown neighbours, took out a 500mm lens and snapped shots of lives across the street from his Tribeca apartment. Arne Svenson selected the best shots – the back of a napping young man, the knees and dressing-gown tails of a breakfasting couple, a silhouetted young woman fiddling with her hair – and displayed them in the nearby Julie Saul gallery, calling his series “The Neighbors.”

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/expat/sophiepitman/10151613/windows-on-the-soul-of-the-city/ 

Now, The Guardian, another British newspaper, starts out its article giving you the impression they are against the judge's ruling. However, as you read on, you see that The Guardian points out to the anonimity of the subjects in the photos, thus concluding that what Arn Svenson is really doing is called art:

Svenson's images are not as sensational as they first seem. The identities of his neighbours, who are rendered with a soft, painterly effect, are obscured, and the choice of framing also leaves a sense of mystery. They are truthful, artistic representations of life which possess a subtle theatricality (a characteristic evident throughout his practice).

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/photography-blog/2013/aug/19/art-peeping-photography-privacy-arne-svenson 

The Guardian moves toward a comparison between Arn Svenson's work and other photographers who produced analogous works.

Now, thirdly, a blog called "Digital Trends" spreads the story in a sarcastical tone, but gives the warning at the end:

So, there you have it. If you decide to be “that guy” and take “rear window” photos of your neighbors without their consent, just make sure you call it art. But, unless you’re a legit artist, good luck proving that to the cops.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/should-you-get-caught-snooping-around-with-a-camera-call-on-your-rights-as-an-artist/ 

And what about you? How do you feel about this debate? Should an artist be allowed to take pictures of you, your house and family, exhibit them even without your consent?

And if these images do not allow anyone to recongize you? Would you think differently about them?