Long Beach Police Trained To Detain Photogs Not Producing Photos of "Esthetic Value"

August 14, 2011 @ 10:42PM

Long Beach Police Trained To Detain Photogs Not Producing Photos of "Esthetic Value"

Topics
News

We know that police in this country are receiving absolutely no training in how to deal with citizens who videotape or photograph them in public, much less on how to judge a photo for its esthetic value.

So it’s a little discomforting when he hear the Long Beach (California) Police Chief acknowledging that his officers are trained to detain photographers who are taking pictures “with no apparent esthetic value,” according to the Long Beach Post.

But it’s not surprising.

Especially after Long Beach police detained a man for photographing a refinery last month.

The truth is, even the most arrogant photo critics are not necessarily the best judges of a photo’s esthetic value.

Hell, we can’t even agree how to spell the word esthetic. I would normally spell it aesthetic, but now that I’m quoting from the Long Beach Post, I’m using esthetic for consistency.

I’ve covered Art Basel on Miami Beach for years and have been dismayed on how many blurry and crappy photos – photos that I would delete immediately from my camera – are selling for more than a $100,000.

Take the above photo for example. Personally, I don’t see any esthetic value to it. I wouldn’t give it a second glance, unless it was hanging in an art gallery selling for more than a $100,00, then I would bitch about it.

But Sander Roscoe Wolff, who took the photo, saw something artistic about it.

He also took the photo below, which is a little more interesting, in my opinion, but still wouldn’t win any prizes. And in fairness, these are just two photos. I have not seen the rest of his portfolio.

But those are the photographs that got him detained last month.

I know many photographers whom I respect who would completely rave about the esthetic value of these photos.

They would go on about the peeled paint in the second photo while I would point out the distracting crane-like object in the bottom right-hand corner.

The point is, the esthetic value of a photo is purely subjective.

And we really don’t need subjective when it comes to enforcing the law.

You either broke the law or you did not. You either did something that makes you reasonable suspicious or you did not. You either did something that gives police probable cause or you did not.

Taking a photo in public, whether it’s esthetic or not, does not fall into any of the above categories, unless you’re shooting upskirts or child pornography or into somebody’s bedroom window through closed curtains where they have an expectation of privacy.

And even then, many people would argue that those illegal photos are of esthetic value.

The Long Beach Post article is the third part of a series by Greggory Moore, who began writing about the issue after he was detained for photographing a courthouse in June.

"If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery," says (Long Beach Police Chief) McDonnell, "it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual." McDonnell went on to say that whether said contact becomes detainment depends on the circumstances the officer encounters.

McDonnell says that while there is no police training specific to determining whether a photographer's subject has "apparent esthetic value," officers make such judgments "based on their overall training and experience" and will generally approach photographers not engaging in "regular tourist behavior."

So what is regular tourist behavior?

We’ve learned that police officers throughout the country believe that photographing trains is illegal and dangerous and contains no esthetic value.

But we also know there is a huge subculture of railfans who get orgasmic photographing trains. And many of these could easily be tourists.

Personally, I prefer to photograph people in a photojournalistic sense. That’s just my style and background.

Of course, that can get me in trouble if I happen to photograph a kid or police. I tend not to photograph kids because I hate the stigma that comes with it.

But here are a couple of photos that I took a few years ago of kids I did not know personally.

The above photo I took during an immigration rally in downtown Miami a few years ago. I loved how the kid was wearing a Honduran soccer jersey but was waving an American flag, wearing an American flag bandanna and standing in front of an American flag.

To me, that photo summed up the immigration protests by confirming that many of us come from different backgrounds, but in the end, we’re all American.

miami_beach_street_performer_photo_by_carlos_miller.jpg

The above photo was taken on Miami Beach. I wish I would have not cropped off the feet of the performer and kid, but it was very spontaneous shot and I did not exactly have a whole lot of time to compose it perfectly.

But I love the sheer naturalness of it.

Were those photos legal? Of course they were.

Did I ask persmission from the parents? No, the moment would have been lost (but I would have been happy to share the photos with them had they confronted me).

Could they have gotten me detained? We’ve seen that it can.

And do they contain esthetic value? That’s just a matter of opinion.

But whether you agree that it does or not, it should not get me detained. And neither should Wolff's photos of the refinery.

Comments

Stan47

9 months ago

It's only a short step from police patrolmen judging the aesthetic value of someone's photographs to an official government decree that certain subjects (which would be listed) are considered "Degenerate Art."

History does repeat itself.

Glyph

9 months ago

The police have no authority to determine whether a photographic subject has any value or not.

Josh Mitchell

9 months ago

First off why can't we spell out "photographer" now? Photog sounds ridiculous in an article on such a serious topic, and this isn't Twitter so there is no need to chop the word off. Second, what is dangerous to society about photographing a refinery? They are completely exposed facilities.

Carlos Miller -...

Pixiq Expert

9 months ago

The headline is already three lines. I don't want it to go to four lines. That's pretty much it.

Shawn Wright

9 months ago

No department should be using that criteria, even if a majority of the force who went to college were art majors. Aesthetic value is highly subjective.

manbehindthecurtain

9 months ago

Shawn, I don't think you have to worry about that. I am the only one on my police force with a BFA and a minor in art history. If there was such a force, trust me anything would be allowed to go as long as it wasn't and child porn or invasion of the subjects own right of privacy (IE upskirting). Aesthetic value or any other type of value which is placed upon any work or object is only what is projected upon it by the viewer.

Kol. Klink

9 months ago

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Detention shall issue, but upon probable dearth of Aesthetic Value, supported by Officer authoritative artistic critique."

That's the way mine reads.

And Ayn Rand determined photography was not a genre of art, so you're pretty much screwed with Objectivist Officers.

kc2idf

9 months ago

I agree that the crane in the corner of the second photo is distracting, and I'm not that intrigued by the peeling paint. I do, however, really like the first photo.

You mentioned trains. When I was in university, I did a photo essay for a class that was all various industrial topics, but it ended up being about 50% trains because there was a rail line through the town that was mostly used by a soap factory (which also got part of my attention). And yes, I am one of those railfans :)

For the last part, those photos of the kids are cute as all get-out. However, like you, I don't just try to avoid photographing kids, but I also try to avoid even being around them if they aren't related to me. The paranoia that people display is just scary.

discarted

9 months ago

"...into somebody’s bedroom window where they have an expectation of privacy."

I was under the impression if a person (naked or clothed) is inside their house (bedroom or another room) and they can be seen from public space you can photograph them.

Some pap and New York cityscape photos are examples of this.

Carlos Miller -...

Pixiq Expert

9 months ago

There's a fine line here. If they are standing in front of the window naked where it's obvious from the street, then they are fair game.

I was talking more like a peeping Tom type photo.

discarted

9 months ago

Just wanted to clarify. For instance, Michael Wolf's Transparent City photo essay is completely legal.

http://www.photomichaelwolf.com/transparent_city/

There's quite a few photos in there of people in their apartments and offices.

DanGrossman

9 months ago

I guess it's a good thing Margaret Bourke-White didn't have to worry about this.

DrCos

9 months ago

"Among the non-criminal behaviors 'which shall be reported...' are asking about an establishment's hours of operation"
Seriously? I'm a suspicious individual because I want to know how late I can get a pizza now?

"and taking notes."
So reporters are suspect. Also, how do they know what exactly I'm taking notes about?

"(city attorney) Anderson stated, "I'm not going to get into the officer's subjective state of mind at this point. … That's attorney-client privilege."

But they're expecting police to get into the photographers subjective state of mind. So again, police are a different level than the rest of us.

Just more quasi-legal bullshit to promote a sense of 'safety' and 'security' by harassing people. Keep the Fatherland safe!

John Meadows

9 months ago

Are we getting to a point where taking any photos other than snapshots will make a photographer suspicious in the eyes of authority?

JdL

9 months ago

I think we're there.

SteelToad

9 months ago

It would be interesting to ask the chief how much of his budget was being spent to send every officer to an art appreciation course to get a background on th aesthetic value of photography

Jude

9 months ago

Cops have to do it all these days: protector, direction-giver, tire-changer and now art critic! I applaud their effort to be a jack-of-all-trades and know it must be truly difficult for them!

Guy Fawkes

9 months ago

Great, now piggly wiggly's an art critic. Personally I prefer the Joker http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-puODOEp44n4/TacSLeDuuAI/AAAAAAAAABg/wpAVR2WQyI...

remorse

9 months ago

"I'm only laughing on the outside. My smile is just skin deep. If you could see inside I'm really crying. You might join me for a weep."

Rich

9 months ago

If I see a photographer on the street I have a right to go up and ask him questions. If I see a policeman on the street I have a right to go up and ask him questions. If I see a baker on the street I have a right to go ask him questions too. If any of these people are not aware of there right to remain silent then tough luck.
So the point your all making is that photographers have special rights, to not be talked to while in public. Well im sorry you don't.
IF a officer detains you that's a different story. Then it would be your duty to file a complaint and KNOW your right to remain silent. When did the chief say anything about his officers detaining people? I do not think he did. HE said officers will engage in a legal activity that every American enjoys going and talking to people on the street.IN this country it is the masters duty to know and uphold his rights, the servant is under no obligation to tell him what his rights are . IF you leave your house without knowing them you do not have them tough luck, your F(*cked. The case when the officer allegedly did detain someone, well we will never know because that person did not posses the Balls to file a complaint. Too bad.
Cops have always had the authority to approach and make conversation with people. Photographers are no better then anyone else.

Guy Fawkes

9 months ago

"If I see a policeman on the street I have a right to go up and ask him questions."
Sure, see how far that gets you if your not another cop. Probably arrested on some "contempt of cop" charge such as interfering with an officer if the cop doesn't like your questions. Some of the puffed up roid boys may even throw you a beating first. Yeah Rich, I guess not knowing your rights around cops can be bad for your health. It was "tough luck" as you put it for this guy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019225/Kelly-Thomas-Police-beat...

Rich

9 months ago

I didn't say it was a good idea, I said we had a right to do it. Would you address why it is that photographers should have special rights. If you think police should not be allowed to engage in constitutionally protected free speech well that is your right. If you feel that police are lower on the caste system then everyone else. It would explain why you feel photographers are higher in your caste system then everyone else. IS that the case?

Lets try and stick to the topic, the murder of this poor man has nothing at all to do with the topic. He was a mentally ill homeless man who was on the cusp of society and to the predators who allegedly murdered him easy game. Not a photographer with some money and some social power capable of asserting his rights. Lets keep things reality based.

Guy Fawkes

9 months ago

Actually photographers want the same rights as everyone else has which is NOT to be treated as terrorist suspects by cops while pursuing their legal hobby. They are not asking for special rights, just what everyone else wants which is to be left alone by authority figures if they are not breaking any laws. If I drive too fast, yeah, I expect there is a possibility I'll be having a conversation with an officer, I broke the law. Being questioned because some cop thinks the building I took a picture of has no artistic value is just absurd.
BTW having taken pictures of trains
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150261071474794.349851.696074...
Water Towers
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=7119450&l=d5f2898074&id=696074793
And (drumroll here) ugly ass buildings
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=7303724&l=e1419a70b1&id=696074793
I do resent certain dim bulbs in government for regarding that as terrorist activity.
Ohhh nooo, don't take me to Gitmoooo!!!

hhamlet

9 months ago

Exactly GF.

We aren't asking for "special rights". We don't need them whatever they are. Rich sure likes to make them up though.

We already have the Constitution. Which gives us the 1st Amendment. It doesn't get any more "special" than that in my book.

What we are asking is that our Government, our idiot fellow citizens, and the Fuzz cease and desist from twisting photography and the Constitution into something supposedly evil. From turning our daily activities into "suspicious acts". From turning this country into even more of an Orwellian nightmare.

You wouldn't think that would be such a hard concept to grasp. And yet...

Rich

9 months ago

Hhamlet the first amendment has been limited more then any other by the courts and people like you who abuse it constantly are the number one reason why everyone rights are now limited. Thanks for Helping them.

hhamlet

9 months ago

BS. Ever heard of the 2nd Amendment? Didn't think so or you wouldn't have posted that idiotic statement.

And please explain to the class how engaging in something you like to do, that is not illegal, is "abusing" anything at all. Especially the Constitution. 'Cuase I think you have it backwards there Buckwheat.

Sad little man... Insisting those of us who live life are somehow a threat to you. Insisting that we sacrifice our freedom yet again even though we do nothing wrong. Just who do you work for anyway? Homeland Security or the TSA?

Rich

9 months ago

A quick friendly conversation might just determine if you intend to jump in front of the train, or jump off the water tower. There are many many people with distorted views of reality. In my area people jump in front of trains frequently. Off of bridges more frequently. Who can blame them really so many people out their who think the world is worse then it actually is.

hhamlet

9 months ago

"There are many many people with distorted views of reality. In my area people jump in front of trains frequently."

HAhahahahahahahahahahahah!

You said it, and we can only hope.

Rich

9 months ago

NO actually You should not use WE. most of the other posters here would not wish death on another human being simply because they disagreed with them. Most of the other posters here are not Morally bankrupt. That is why every word from your mouth is fruit from a poisoned tree. I would not wish you death. I hope that every one of your wishes comes true.

hhamlet

9 months ago

Oh the drama. And you are still here. I guess that wish didn't come true... And I CAN use "we". I have a mouse in my pocket.

Nice try at the old smoke screen though. Too bad it didn't work.

The truth is you can't back up a single thing you spout out of your pie hole. The only morally corrupt one is you and your campaign against our rights. So if you aren't gonna jump in front of a train how about off a bridge?

Rusty Carr

9 months ago

Hey now c'mon Guy. Think about OFFICER SAFETY will ya?!!

remorse

9 months ago

I dream of a day I can go about my own business without having to see, hear, smell or even deal with a fucking PIG.

Judging art in the name of public safety?!

PIGS, take your sovereign immunity and shove it up your ass.

"Tiny cameras, panning left and right, surveying traffic and pedestrians, observing everything in open view."

remorse

9 months ago

I dream of a day I can go about my own business without having to see, hear, smell or even deal with a fucking PIG.

Judging art in the name of public safety?!

PIGS, take your sovereign immunity and shove it up your ass.

"Tiny cameras, panning left and right, surveying traffic and pedestrians, observing everything in open view."

Paul Miller

9 months ago

Your article takes a slant that the LBPD is out being art critics. The truth is that the Long Beach AND Los Angeles PDs are very wary of any photographers around the refinerys, storage tanks and ports. Even though the economy stinks, the ports are the world's second or third busiest. Before 9/11 you could head down and meet a merchant ship at dock. Now you have to apply for a twics card and pass a background check. I've never seen cops giving people a hassle at the touristy areas. But at the refinerys and ports, oh yeah - they will come check you out and shoo you away.
PS - Cool pix at the top of the page.

Steven A. Egger

8 months ago

Obviously the Long Beach PD Police Chief is an ASS!!!

Steven A. Egger

8 months ago

Obviously the Long Beach PD Police Chief is an ASS!!!

Steven A. Egger

8 months ago

Obviously the Long Beach PD Police Chief is an ASS!!!

Steven A. Egger

8 months ago

Obviously the Long Beach PD Police Chief is an ASS!!!