Tribeca residents furious over being secretly photographed for new Chelsea art exhibit

[Are_grits_groceries]

Residents of a luxury Tribeca building are furious over a new photo exhibit in a Chelsea art gallery — because they had no idea they were the subjects on display.

From his second-floor apartment across the street, artist Arne Svenson secretly took photos of his neighbors through their oversized windows as they engaged in such personal things as bending over cleaning, taking naps and carrying sleeping kids to bed.

The shots — which don’t show full faces — are now being sold for up to $7,500 each at the Julie Saul Gallery in an exhibition called “The Neighbors,” which opened Saturday.

Photographer Arne Svenson lives at this building at 125 Watt St. and takes pictures from his window, like this unflattering shot of a neighbor in 475 Greenwich St..

Photographer Arne Svenson (above) lives at this building at 125 Watt St. and takes pictures from his window, like this unflattering shot of a neighbor in 475 Greenwich St.
The largest print on display is 5 feet by 2 feet.
<snip>
http://www.nypost.com/Page/Uuid/74e54866-bde6-11e2-8dae-7b0478cdbe04

I have a problem with this no matter what neighborhood it is.

[CBGLuthier]

1. People should learn to close their blinds.

He took these photos from across the street. Should pointing a camera out your window and photographing what is freely available be a crime?

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. I knew this would come up.

I believe people have a reasonable right to privacy without having to turn their homes into caves.

[pnwest]

3. Did you forget the sarcasm thingie?

You can't possibly be serious

[zerosumgame0005]

6. yes

it's called being a peeping tom

[treestar]

4. Hi Tech peeping Tom

I guess he has a point. If the windows are open, he can see in without going up to the window.

[Blue_Tires]

5. At least the photographer wasn't looking to shoot salacious, tawdry stuff...

I seriously hope that as an act of goodwill the photog cuts the neighbors 15% of the sales...

[IdaBriggs]

7. He is a Peeping Tom. They are not in public.

The expectation of privacy - and the fact they didn't sign consent - guarantees a lawsuit.

I hope he gets prosecuted as a stalker. CREEPY GUY.

[ScreamingMeemie]

8. While I think it's an invasion of privacy, the photograph of the expectant

couple at the breakfast table is beautiful (IMO). I don't know why, and I wouldn't buy it (if I had the money and knowing that they were photographed unaware), but I really like it.

[KittyWampus]

9. My issue- he could have not disclosed WHERE these were taken & let photos stand on their own.

Rather, he makes the location and his voyeurism part of the 'package'.

If these are good photos that stand on their own merit then we don't need to know where they were taken or the fact he was looking through the window.

[closeupready]

10. Big deal. Close the blinds.

Problem solved.

[geek tragedy]

11. Peeping Tomism and commercial exploitation of these people

and their bodies and their homes without permission.

Sue his ass, get an injunction.

[Nye Bevan]

12. If someone parades around naked in their apartment with their shades open,

and their lights on, they really only have themselves to blame if someone takes a picture of them.

[RebelOne]

13. I would be totally pissed off and consulting with an attorney. n/t