Alice Arnold, Fulbright Fellow, Filmmaking, 2007
Another serious ramification of these proposed rules changes is to the
very idea of culture itself. If the state becomes the determinator of who
can utilize city streets to make images, how will this effect our
collective cultural image bank? Would Robert Frank have been able to take
the photographs that led to his searingly influential book “The Americans”
if he had to apply for a permit every time he went out to make images of
urban life and urban experiences?
The Mayor’s Office for Film, Theater and Broadcasting (MOFTB) was
established in the 1960s to help facilitate filmmaking, broadcasting and
theater production in New York City. One of their main functions is to
issue permits so that filmmakers and photographers can work on city
streets. These permit rules are currently under review. The new proposed
permit rules would severely limit the ability of photographers, media
artists and independent producers from using city streets and public
spaces to create work. A fuller description of the proposed rule changes
can be found in a 29 June 2007 New York Times article by Ray Rivera (link:
http://tinyurl.com/2scoog).
These proposed rule changes, which effectively control who can legally
make images in public spaces, are one of the many ways since 9-11 that the
city is using as a mechanism to control activities in the streets. In this
respect this is a civil liberties issue that all citizens, not just images
makers, need to be concerned and active about.
Another serious ramification of these proposed rules changes is to the
very idea of culture itself. If the state becomes the determinator of who
can utilize city streets to make images, how will this effect our
collective cultural image bank? Would Robert Frank have been able to take
the photographs that led to his searingly influential book “The Americans”
if he had to apply for a permit every time he went out to make images of
urban life and urban experiences? It is hardly likely because for one,
when shooting in a reportage style one often doesn’t know where one will
be shooting the next day; secondly, the time it takes to get a permit is
prohibitive to independent artists and filmmakers; and thirdly, the
insurance costs needed to secure the permits are often higher than the
total production costs of the project. So in addition to policing people’s
activities in the public domain, the proposed permit changes also function
as a cultural controller. This is at odds with the City’s desire to foster
cultural capitalism and be a competitive world city.
The MOFTB was set up to foster the film, broadcasting, theatrical and
photography industries in New York City. This was and is a smart
investment for the city and it is a model that many cities around the
world have copied. Not only do these industries add to the economy of
their cities, in terms of well paying jobs and the support of local
businesses, but the images of the city that are produced, by individual
artists and independent filmmakers as well as by large-scale film and
television productions, are an investment in the city itself - a form of
cultural capitalism. The value of these independently produced images can
even outstrip the latest blockbuster’s opening weekend numbers. Certainly
in monetary values – think of all the photographic images of New York that
are highly sought by collectors – but more importantly, there is value in
culture. Culture is priceless because it is a generator of creativity and
of ideas; it is a bank of knowledge, memories, and of history; and it is
an active force in the shaping of new expressions, new forms, and new
meanings. But culture and creativity does not flourish under censorship.
Culture is created when individuals ask questions, take risks, explore new
territories, and turn their lenses on themselves and on the world outside
their doorsteps.
Alice Arnold
Fulbright Fellow, Filmmaking, 2007
- posted Tue., Jul 24, 2007 at 1:00am
- filed in Public Comments
- [4] Comments
July 30th, 2007 at 10:37 am
In a city where there are many large and pressing problems: shortage of affordable housing, growing population of homeless people, lack of funding for social service agencies, etc., somebody decided to come up with the completely useless and idiotic idea that a law needs to be passed that will sanction harassing photographers/film makers, etc., in NYC.
Lawmakers need to take a good look at this and ask themselves, “what good purpose would this serve?”
People have been photographing this city since photography was invented; to curb everybody’s right to do so is tantamount to violating our civil liberties and setting the city up for more costs and stupid aggrevation for police and courts to deal with as hundreds of thousands of innocent people become caught in the “legal system” for nothing more than taking snapshots of their kids standing in front of the Staten Island Ferry Terminal or some other innocuous place. That, and the population of local jails will certainly take on an entirely new patina as thousands of us creative types join the usual suspects….hopefully, somebody will decide to make those drab grey or screaming orange jumpsuits more palatable in anticipation….
July 31st, 2007 at 11:44 am
In recent years New York City — which was once the world’s center for art practice — has become a place where artists are having an increasingly difficult time to live and work. Many artists have left, and more are sure to follow. There are many reasons for this (and many of those reasons are listed in other letters), but one would hope that this great city wouldn’t actually begin to legislate directly against it’s artists going on about their business — which is what this law will do.
I know (to give just one example) a German photographer who has been coming here for years to document NYC architecture. Her needs and requirements are not always predictable, indeed her visits to the city may be opportunistic and may well last only a matter of days. She often doesn’t know exactly when she will be able to photograph because much depends on the light and the weather. She requires a tripod, ladder, and often must patiently wait until the light is just right and various passers by have moved on. Her work will eventually make for a very important historical document of this city, without even considering it’s value as art. I fail to see why she should have to continually deal with the city bureaucracy which, as we all know, can be a time-consuming and exhausting procedure.
Spontaneity, and the the need to catch the moment, has resulted in many of this city’s most iconic photographs. If a photographer felt the urge to go out at night in a snow storm in order to photograph the Brooklyn Bridge or the Flatiron Building is it reasonable to expect him/her to have had the foresight to have both a permit and insurance in hand? Many of the world’s best photographers are travelers and may only be in the city for a brief period of time. Many photographers (including myself — I work in a variety of media) photograph at unpredictable times and in unpredictable circumstances.
For those of us who live here, this is OUR city … and we are over-regulated as it is. The streets of New York serve as both subject matter and studio, and as artists we expect to be free to practice our various crafts without unreasonable interference.
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
A few years ago a collection of my photographs were published called REGARDING MANHATTAN. The photographs were taken spontaneously. One day I felt like wandering around Tompkins Square, the next day Fifth Avenue. The point of the work is that the city gives itself up to you if you give yourself up to the city. The idea of licensing image-making is a catastrophic assault on art itself, or at least on one of the true modalities of the kind of art-making that guided the careers of Robert Frank, Cartier-Bresson, and Andre Kertesz. Imagine the police arresting Kertesz in his apartment high above Washington Square as he so delicately delineated the seasonal changes in the Park below. We must protect ourselves from people who dream of an absolutely risk-free world. The amount of safety we gain by such foolish licensing is miniscule and ridiculous. Terrorist would quickly learn to use hidden cameras, unless of course a new law would have us all frisked as we leave our homes.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:16 am
The right to take photographs and record audio/video in any city across America ought not be dertermined by the legal concept of “personal use / commerical use.” Today the Internet provides a way to publish photos and videos on Mac Web Galleries, the Kodak Gallery, BlipTV, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace and other media Internet sites. The concept of “personal us / commercial use” is a wrong headed holdover from the old Disney vs. Sony Betamax U.S. Supreme Court decision [464 U.S. 417 (1984)].