So far in my project, I have not talked about ethical considerations when taking and using my photographs. Ethics is a big part of my other subjects, psychology and sociology and it a huge part of the style of photography that I am doing. Taking pictures of people without asking for permission is obviously not a good thing, for example today you have to have written consent for this especially with the rise of social media. 

Street photography features incidences and unmediated encounters that occur within the public domain. The 'holy grail' of street photographers, using some examples such as Dianne Levitt, Henri Cartier-Bresson and Robert Frank have all face the discord between the photographer and the photographed, which leads me to explain why in application to my project, I have chosen to carry on with this kind of photography despite the ethics.

Firstly, I think starting with what the law says is important in this debate. In England and the parts of England that I have photographed, there are no laws that talk about photographing people, even children, on the street as long as it is made on public land and not private land. According to the law in these areas (and in many around the world) it is completely legal to photograph people without their consent or permission. I would say it being legal has a huge part of why it is okay, however I would not argue that because it is legal it is also ethical. Something could be unethical but legal, and vice versa which is why I have not just considered what is in my rights to do in terms of the law on the street.

The right of freedom of expression is also a factor that has been debated on. From the perspective of contemporary street photographers, privacy should not be a factor that limits creative freedom as most creativity (especially this genre of photography) is fed mostly from what others would call private. Freedom of expression compared to ethics is a hard thing to debate in this style of photography, as by photographing the street you naturally form photographs that could be called controversial and unethical . For example, Martin Parr's work has been criticised for this many times as his work could be construed as harsh and cruel towards some people, especially in the last resort directed at the working class. However, can we take our creative freedom if we are simply photographing what we see? I would contrast against this with the idea that you should take an objective view of the street and purely photograph the truth, which is what Parr has also said he does, as he likes to keep his images opinion free which could discount the ethical issues involved.

Furthermore, are we not also constantly surveyed in todays society without consent? This is an important question to ask as, without our knowledge, we are being watched, recorded, etc through apps on our phone, CCTV cameras and other technological factors such as the internet. It is a given in today's society to be observed 24/7, so I would argue about the difference taking photos for the purpose of a photobook about our ethnography compared to being recorded in data form for businesses and other corporations personal gain.

Looking candid or not is another part of this discussion, as it is commonly thought that if you ask for permission, the photograph cannot be candid and therefore is not a true representation of what and who you are photographing. This was the biggest factor in debating ethics for my project as the images I wanted to create from the start were ones that represented out ethnography as people, and I don't think this can be achieved in the way I want it to be via not being candid. I always wanted to obtain shots that accurately reflect what its like to live in 2021/22 through the street, and in my opinion the candid shots without the subject matter knowing or not expecting it are alway the best and most representative. Despite this, you could also argue that candid shots are important for street photography for example in Diane Arbus’ ‘Kid With Grenade’ the subject has been guided by the photographer over a number of frames. Furthermore, William Klein’s famous photograph ‘Kid With Gun’ is of several photographs where the photographer actually directed the subject to ‘look tough’.

To conclude, permission is very important when it comes to photography, however I think when I apply it to my project it isn't harmful to the subject matter as I am not using the images for negative reasons, which is the crooks of the argument. If you use the images in a way that the subject matter and the people viewing the photograph would see as taken in a negative way, that is where I would draw the line at making the photograph. However, I am making the photographs perspective-free similarly to Parr so I personally don't think my images are ethically adverse.