19 Comments

interesting project and use of street view
image 24 looks like its from a UK city...
Joel
2009-10-23 11:38:35

simple idea, like the intrigue and graininess of it
Ashley Pollak
2009-10-23 13:35:21

Am I the only person in the world creeped out by Street View?? The idea that we can be frozen in time like that and tossed up on the Internet for all the world to see forever and ever makes my skin crawl. Horrible.
Katy McDevitt
2009-10-23 13:48:42

@Katy McDevitt

Are you also worried that cameras steal your soul?

I googled your name ... I suspect one of those facebook images is you; is that not creepier than someone accidentally coming accross an image of you and not even realising who you are?
n
2009-10-23 14:25:31

Some gems in there. Love it.
Nirav Patel
2009-10-23 14:48:51

For your reference:
Jon Rafman's 2008 Essay and work on Google Streetview.
http://www.artfagcity.com/2009/08/12/img-mgmt-the-nine-eyes-of-google-street-view/
http://googlestreetviews.com/

Including, in my opinion, a much better rendition of the Parisian couple kissing...
Chris
2009-10-23 16:09:47

Great work, is like a Cartier Breson of the 21 century...
Moustache
2009-10-23 16:41:19

Goodness, n., why so testy?

Images of me exist on the Web. I put them there, of my own choice. That is a very different matter than having someone else make that choice for me and (and to do it without ever obtaining my permission).
Katy McDevitt
2009-10-23 18:47:29

Nope. Doesn't cut it for me. This is 'smoke & mirrors' stuff. At best.

What's so 'GREAT' about lifting supplied imagery, marginally tweeking it by cropping and/or dropping in a supplied existing software pictogram? This is photo chicanery. Stupid stuff.

I am surprised that only one person, thus far, seems to consider this constant 'passive' surveillance' by the Google Corporation as repugnant. Google is charging ahead with this in much the same way they 'expropriated' authors' works from libraries several years ago. Google tried to appease authors/publsihers later with the still heavily contested 'Google Book Settlement'. In short, Google doesn't really care a ratsass about 'the street' or the people in it. They just want to do things THEIR way, using THEIR 'vision of Reality' the rest be damned..

Tangentially, doesn't it seem STRANGE, ODD and vaguely GHOULISH that a Corporation, a business entity, like Google, can lay claim to "OUR" 'visual reality' -? They've done so with that copyright ensign. Yes, it's there, on the bottom of EVERY Google Street View page. The ramifications of THAT are HUGE.

Doesn't it strike anyone else as kinda strange that that ensign is there at all? WHY must Google lay claim to 'copyright' of all this so-called passive imagery? What's to say they won't CLAMP DOWN on Wolf or anyone else who 'uses' THEIR imagery 'without permission or compensation' in ways that may not support Google's mandate or bogus mantra? At the moment, they have the Rights and the LAW on their side. It is all THEIR 'property'.

Understand this. They have THE POWE.

Google is a business, first and foremost. Businesses are busy making profit, that is their Reason to Be. Google is not a 'charity' geared to 'humanity', this is not a 'not for profit for the betterment of the planet, no', this is a very savvy Business Entity aimed at their stock-holders and global money markets for continued venture capital. That's their REAL focus, not Street View. This is just a another little 'gizmo' to further SEDUCE YOU, the thinking citizens of your respective nation states, to ignore the REAL goings on thru the boardrooms of the so-called civilized corporate world.

It is both foolhardy and naive to think that this surveillance is not 'totalitarin' at core. It IS all about CONTROL. And make no mistake, Google Corp is not 'passive' by any stretch ... 'Big Brother' is nearer then you think.

Consider this - every time you STEP OUT OF YOUR HOME you will be WATCHING for it - the CAMERA EYE of GOOGLE. As it gets better known and subsequently entrenched and embedded in 'our thinking', it will become the NORM. Always 'on', always 'watching'. Wake up peeps. This s INSIDIOUS, it is INTRUSIVE, it is INVASIVE and it IS Google Corp.
F.N. Bansky
2009-10-23 18:48:14

p.s. What if an advertising company or a well-known brand wants to use this Google 'owned' imagery?
Let's say Audi sees a great shot with one of their 'products' in it - do you think for one instant they won't PAY Google to use it?

I'd like to hear of ONE company that uses Google 'Street View' in a promotion that is NOT paying residuals to Google Corp.

AND, it is equally as repugnant that the TERMS of USE, as DEFINED by Google, places the onus on the 'captured' person in a shot to 'report' a defaming or damaging 'portrait'. What 'street' person is going to do that? We'd have to WATCH Google's Streetview 24/7 .... Get 'hooked', survey the surveyor.

In other words, how can we PROTECT our continuously diminishing privacy from this seemingly 'benign' visually-consuming Monster-Corporation?
F.N. Bansky
2009-10-23 19:08:01

Everything is logged but little is noticed.
However if someone is defamed for vomitting in the street
or otherwise misbehaving in public view
so be it. In the global village perhaps more sanctions
and taboos will return. Bring it on. But
yes google and others need to be challenged
about ownership of these images. I wonder
if something could actually be done
regarding the randomness of the images.
Ie there is no design of the image and
essentially no author.
No one person has consciously decided
to put together the actual components
of the image the moment is unchosen and the
contents arbitrary. If google
does seek to charge for the use of these
images then the people in the images
and the owner the things and places in the
images may have more right to the
royalties. All providers of content repositories
try this on. What is needed is a
class action perhaps to put them in their place.
But be careful what you wish for because
photographer's and artists rights are already under
attack in London.
Maggie Kennedy
2009-10-26 04:20:07

I like street view as it's useful if you've never been somewhere and need to see what it looks like before you go. I don't like the idea of having people on it, but unless you clear the streets then this is impossible.
Anyway I think this is getting off topic, as far as this 'project' is concerned it's finding pictures on a website and showing it to people - not exactly skillful.
nl
2009-10-26 10:28:33

i hate hippys - banksy your a (deleted by moderator). street view is an excellant new dimension to maps.
stu
2009-10-26 20:18:00

Stu - you hate hippys? well, I hate illiterates.

Not that either of those two 'statements' have anything to do with this article or the intrinsic 'problems' with this new dimension of map making. I don't even know I'd say this IS map making. Rather, It's a form of entitled voyeurism, available only to those who have 'internet access'. For the record, that's less then 1/6th of humanity.

I used Street View to survey an address recently - checked out the street and THOUGHT I knew where I was going - but as it turned out the 'pegman' was off by a good 2 miles. So, kinda useless and eye-opening about 'accuracy'.

Overall, it is this 'blind faith' in Google that I question.
There is nothing wrong with critcism, doubt and challenging the status quo.
Google has made a fortune at this. In like turn, they too SHOULD be challenged.
It keeps them 'honest', encourages competition, and lets them know that they too are being watched ....

Try to look at it all from another angle. Consider, for example, that the fur trade in North America decimated both the buffalo & the beaver for the 'pleasure' of the aspriing middle classes in Europe. Species were driven into near extinction. Likewise, slavery was 'acceptible' until the late 19th century, (and still is in some parts of the world...). These 'acceptable' practices only change because of pressure from those who believe they are 'unjust' and/or 'harmful' to others. And, as I've said, I'm not so convinced that Google is 'benign'. Just because something 'is', doesn't mean it SHOULD be. Question Google, understand it as a BUSINESS FIRST, and as a 'satisfier of your needs' SECOND.

Try to think of the 'bigger picture' & 'the future'
Think how this 'entitled voyeurism' will impact on others, not just 'entertain' you .... if you can.
F.N. Banksy
2009-10-28 00:50:48

Maggie, .... there is a conscious 'mind' behind the imagery.
Someone is driving that van that carries the camera.
They've chosen the day, the time, the place.
Their van is almost an extension of the camera.

They may not have their finger directly on the trigger, so to speak, but they do have 'a visual agenda'. AND, they are obviously getting paid to do this, so they are 'employees' of Google, and thus the imagery is the 'property' of Google.

Tangentially, I'd be interested to know HOW MUCH they are getting paid.
I've not seen a van yet, but I've seen videos of the camera attached to both cars and vans, so maybe it's a kinda of 'freelance' thing supplying pocket change/gas money for the gainful unemployed-? It is hard to imagine that a 'real' photographer would take this 'on assignment'. The drivers seem a rather 'secretive' lot who drive around neighbourhoods when people are least likely to be 'outdoors', unless they are going for 'action packed' urban life ....Again, they make the DECISION when and where to shoot, plus, from what I understand they RESHOOT locales/locations to keep the 'streetscape' current.

Bah. Me no like.
Get off your computers and GO SEE THE WORLD for your Self.
F.N. Banksy
2009-10-30 14:08:54

Absolutely outstanding range of images, thanks for sharing. I especially love number 26.
Simon
2009-11-06 13:00:09

I now walk past this person's work on my way to work each day ... blown up into large billboards. Sorry, imho this is not art just use of software and an enlarging device. Such a shame to showcase this gimmick excuse for art wiith all the talented photographers creating their own images... sorry but I see nothing so special in these images.
Eileen
2010-03-18 21:43:51

I now walk past this person's work on my way to work each day ... blown up into large billboards. Sorry, imho this is not art just use of software and an enlarging device. Such a shame to showcase this gimmick excuse for art wiith all the talented photographers creating their own images... sorry but I see nothing so special in these images.
Eileen
2010-03-18 22:03:43

Some of these pictures are suprisingly good. The one with the young woman in the park looks a little worrying though.
hull surveyor
2010-11-16 22:33:15

Tell us what you think

Your comment: What happens with my feedback?

What happens with my feedback?

We no longer require you to register and have a password in order to comment, simply fill in the form below. All comments are moderated so you may experience a short delay before your comment appears. CR encourages comments to be short and to the point. As a general rule, they should not run longer than the original post. Comments should show a courteous regard for the presence of other voices in the discussion. We reserve the right to edit or delete comments that do not adhere to this standard.

Name: (required)

Title:

e-Mail: (required)

URL