From the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic Manual -DSM IV-TR: "... The essential feature of Impulse-Control Disorders is the failure to resist an impulse, drive, or temptation to perform an act that is harmful to the person or to others. For most of the disorders in this section, the individual feels an increasing sense of tension or arousal before committing the act and then experiences pleasure, gratification, or relief at the time of committing the act. Following the act there may or may not be regret, self-reproach, or guilt."

From Iverson's website: "I have cautiously and randomly photographed people inside of their homes through [their] windows...witnessing curious behaviors. Surveillance is an important element for me. I fearfully wait for an image to record and to steal the privacy of the subject separated only by a window of glass. These images are motivated by fear. I am afraid to be seen, afraid to watch at the very same moment I determine to when to suspend a stranger's privacy. I feel stimulation from the violation imposed upon the unknowingly compliant subjects. An intense aesthetic/erotic friction occurs. However, I am compelled to make these images and to expose the voyeuristic tendencies inherent in human culture."

Given the comments of others it does not take a mental health professional to identify a (self - identified) voyeur. Photographers are given the right to take picture of people in public places such as streets or public parks, not where an expectation of privacy could be expected.

Do those in first floor apartments have no expectation of privacy unless they cover their windows? With "artists" like Iverson, government agents, Google and curious passers-by, mirrored window glass should be made available to these tenants so they can avoid being subjects of invasion and the invaders can see themselves in the act.

What are we really afraid of?

Does privacy really exist? No. Never did. The word Privacy appeared around 15th century. Did we have no concept of privacy before the 15th century? Is what Michele Iversen doing legal or illegal is not the point. But someone has momentarily broken our sense of privacy and security and the natural reaction to that is defensive posture, some more physical. There are no real boundaries to write into law and to be enforced by paid professionals, yet we do, here and even in other countries. Predominately we respond to emotional feed back than to a rational thought. Michele noted there is a emotional feed back when she is out taking photographs. Is that any different than watching a good movie? If Michele never did what she did, would our sense of privacy and security be any different? When you watch the evening news about a robbery, do you stop everything your doing and arm yourself? My initial respond to this story was defensive and irritation. But Michele has not broken into my house, but only momentarily broken my sense of privacy and security, or at least the story did.

This had to be one of the most interesting and most disquieting segments I've heard on your show.
I'm certain that you are pleased with the response but I have to ask you the real question.
What were you intentions?
I have a great deal of respect for artists, their choices of subjects and media. So was it your intent to show Michele's unsetteling unathorized invasions as an example of how we are all vulnerable to being spied on or was your intent to showcase an artist who is expressing her own paranoid visions by using her art to depict the vulnerability of others?
Either way, I must question your choice to publish this, or the manner in which you prefered to edit it. It was not the art that was so unsettling but the artist's paranoid ramblings that made this segment "creepy".
Either you are desperatly selling sensationalism or you have become too avant-garde to see your audience.

We have known Michele for many years and she is a talented photographer, and a funny, engaging person. Yes this work is raw and worthy of discussion on how we interpret personal space and privacy in an age where the internet, cell phones, etc have virtually made privacy almost non-existent. Anyone can take a picture these days of anyone or anything on their cell phone...and they do.

I too have strong beliefs on personal privacy, and I certainly hear the agonizing emails above. It does spark controversy and discussion, and I congratulate her for opening a very provocative discussion about personal space. She has come along way from her days of shooting high fashion.

I loved listening to your broadcast and have listened to it several times since. I went to the artists web site as well, and what kept coming back to my mind is this...anyone who has a cell phone with a camera in it, or takes videos while outside their home is probably getting someone in the shot that has no idea they are being filmed. I certainly don't expect people to stop me and tell me I am about to end up on youtube or in their family photo album, or in a gallery. This interview was thought provoking and brought up discussions with my friends about privacy and memories of my mother telling me to "close the curtains before I turn on the lights". Just something to remember in the future. I would love to hear more from Ms. Iversen on your show soon.

This is the greatest thing I've ever heard. I love it!

I am responding more to the comments generated by the Inversen interview than to the interview itself. What I find really creepy are the veiled threats of bodily harm and even death, in addition to the personal attacks on the photographer ("sick", "horrible", "disgusting", etc.). The degree of fear and anger generated by the interview and images is indicative of the power of the work. It reminds us all that places we typically think of as private are not necessarily so. We think of our homes as private but if you leave the drapes open and the lights on, they are not. As one respondent says "... my mother told me when I was very young to shut the door and close the drapes if I wanted privacy." The activities captured by Iversen's camera are not scandalous or sensational -- they seem to be everyday events; drinking a cup of coffee or sleeping in a chair. Furthermore, there is nothing illegal about Iversen's work -- if what you are doing can be viewed from a public place (such as the sidewalk in Iversen's case), it is not illegal to document it. It may be debatable as an ethic issue, but it is not illegal. If Iversen's work can generate such fear and anger, I wonder why aren't we all up in arms about the government, corporations, social networking sites, online shopping sites, etc. collecting personal information on us. To me, that's really something to get upset about. Someone should start a grassroots movement to put a stop to it. In the meantime, I'll keep my drapes closed at night.

I, for one, thank Studio 360 for featuring Michele Iverson. Because now we've been warned about her. It's a reminder to close the blinds if you don't want to end up seeing a picture of yourself in a gallery, in ratty underwear, adjusting your wedgie or what have you.

This work, art of not, is predatory and invasive. Everyone arguing for the merit of this work would do well to take a moment to consider how they would feel if they were the subjects of this 'surveillance'.

As Karen points out, we don't know the measure to which our privacy is protected and breached by government and private sources. Michele Iversen is bringing this consideration to our attention with her work. Her art, and it is art, has engendered this thread of comments and I'm sure others as well----and it is exactly what art should do. As far as I'm concerned, my mother told me when I was very young to shut the door and close the drapes if I wanted privacy. Fair game to those that leave the drapes and door open---maybe some people like the idea of being on view and Michele just happened to find them? Also folks, PRI's editors did a great job underscoring Michele's voice with eery night sounds. I don't think those of you so eager to malign her voice as creepy would do so without the aural lead of creepy scoring. Thanks for pushing the boundaries Michele

this is simply horrifying. hated listening to every moment of this piece... i'm so angry right now.

As an artist myself, I have a very broad definition of art. My definition of art is anything that makes an individual feel... anything. Inherent to this definition, would be anything that makes you think! The work of this artist was intended to make the viewer both think and feel. One of my best art teachers always told her students that it is the art that you don't like, and perhaps the art that you have a strong adverse reaction to that is the most important. It is the art that we react strongly to, that is telling us something about ourselves, that we need to explore.

We have our privacy invaded daily in ways that we rarely think about, or that we give away without question. There are hidden cameras, and visible cameras in the stores, on the streets, in parking lots, etc. There are corporate, and government organizations collecting data on us, every time that we shop or go online. In this case, the subject still retains anonymity because we do not really know who we are looking at. They did not know they were being watched, but do any of us know always when we are being watched. This artwork forces the viewer to think about this issue. Even the artist herself, was pushed to think more about the issue, as she went home and closed her drapes. The moment that we open our drapes, or walk out our door, we are in public view. How much of our privacy is real or imagined? Are we really injured when someone takes a peek into our "private" lives? Does it depend upon intention, and if so, who's intention? How much privacy do we really have a "right" to. In over two hundred years, this is a subject that even the U.S. Supreme Court can not agree upon.

Thank you Michele Iversen for creating art that makes us to feel and to think and to ask questions.

Definitely creepy. Not sure about the legality here-- is it illegal? I'm not sure-- but the ethical implications alone of 360 advocating something like this are certainly dire. I don't support it and thought the 360 piece was far too flippantly supportive of this "art" form-- if they covered it at all, it should have been more of an investigation into the implications of such a piece, not a soapbox for the artist to wax poetic about what is ultimately mediocre art.

Thanks for clarifying Studio 360's philosophy on bringing attention to art and artists outside the mainstream. This has raised my interest in this topic. As a photojournalist I thought this crossed a legal or ethical line. However, initial research into trespass, privacy, and voyeur laws did not find any clear violations. Ethical boundaries are even more vague. It's up to the viewer to decide, and many in this section objected and question the validity of this art. In any case her activities are dangerous and could get her hurt or killed by someone who may not know the nuances of law but feels violated nonetheless.

Whatever your opinion this is art. Art that is provocative, disturbing, and troubling. We've had plenty of other examples of art that challenges us and our notion of art. In my earlier response I felt that Studio 360 should have addressed the legal/ethical issue to provide proper balance. No need to get in the weeds but not mentioning it left a hole in the segment.

Studio 360 should be commended for running such a thought provoking
piece.

Iversen's images reinforce a basic human desire: to see what is
normally hidden. Are privacy issues involved? Certainly. Artists have
long explored questionable areas within the culture. The artist Sophie
Calle once took a job as a hotel maid in order to photograph the
belongings of the hotel's guests as a way of exploring their private
lives. Iversen enters a realm of street photography not entirely
dissimilar from the work of Walker Evans, who, in the 1930s,
photographed passengers in the NY subway with a camera hidden under his
coat.

Iversen's images are both engaging AND difficult to view, but that is
what makes them so fascinating. Ultimately, the are timely statements
exploring the culture's obsession with public/private lives.

I am an avid and staunch supporter of art and artistic exploration and believe that "provocative art" is critical to the conversation that our society needs. These pictures, however, cross a critical ethical line and constitute a true invasion of privacy. Analogies to reality shows or even street photography are inaccurate since the photographer/artist is clearly visible. Despite Ms. Siegel's thoughtful response about exposing listeners to new art, I believe that studio 360 exercised extraordinarily poor judgement in not taking responsibility for the exceptional ethical breach that Iverson has perpetrated. I was truly disappointed and ashamed for Studio 360 and felt betrayed by this choice. Please consider your responsibility to not give criminal and unethical behavior a platform next time.

I do believe you should stick to radio and stay out of visual arts curating. This woman is a hack and it pisses me off that she should get attention for this mediocre work. As for getting lawyers involved, please lets not give these silver tongued devils any more power either. How is looking through a window any different from picturing it? No, this is just hackery, thats why its offensive.

Michele Siegel here, a producer at Studio 360. We were struck by lively comment thread this piece generated and wanted to clarify a few things about what we do as a show.

For the last decade, Studio 360 has been committed to telling stories about surprising art and artists we think our listeners might not otherwise encounter. Michele Iversen's photography process and artwork is, without a doubt, provocative. She pushes boundaries of legality and even basic ethics, as she herself acknowledges; she admits that she would not want anyone to take such pictures of her. In our minds, that's what makes it a worthy story to tell.
We are not promoting or condoning Iversen's work. Our goal here -- and always -- is to tell thought-provoking stories about the culture we live in. We left it up to you to make your own judgments on the work, and we're pleased that you shared them here.

Small note – Studio 360 is a production of WNYC and PRI, not NPR as a few commenters noted.

Although this work appears to infringe on people's privacy, I feel the greater good of exposing peoples "real world" outweighs the privacy issue.

What about the Kardashians or Palin's Great Alaskan adventures of killing squirrels or whatever. These reality shows capture the essense of fake reality because they know that they are being viewed. This lady has balls for going on national media knowing so many people despise her work. This anarchy against artistic/ethical boundries is clearly art in my opinion. Let's hear from some real psychologists before the witchhunt.

PRI shouldn't be giving some one like this attention. This is disgusting! People shouldn't have put black paper over all of their windows to keep from showing up in some artist's gallery. Does she return and share the money with the people she spies on when she sells her photos?

The most disgusting thing is she said she goes home and locks her doors and shuts her windows. If she wants to make her living off voyeurism she should have to live in a glass house and deal with her choices.

I'm usually in favor of a person's pursuit of their own quirky artistic interests. This, however, is not art. This is a person indulging her sick voyeuristic tendencies, blatantly violating people's privacy in their own homes, and calling it art as an excuse. Rather than promoting her, someone should stop her and encourage her to seek professional psychiatric help.

I've never commented on an NPR show before, but I just had to come here and see what others were saying about this segment. I too think this is one of the most unnerving things I've ever heard. I agree with mozo that the photographer is feeding her voyeurism, not creating great art. The content of the photographs is not interesting--people sitting around kitchen tables? She looks through windows, violating people's right to privacy, to take pictures of THAT?

And on a somewhat superficial note, her voice and intonation are weird, in a "she has no idea how creepy she is" way.

This woman and her story are seriously creepy; I really disliked hearing it. As I listened to her alien-child voice talking about the very private actions of people in their own homes, she sounded aroused by her voyeurism and as if she were trying to validate her behavior through gallery events and empty explanations. Ugh, beyond inappropriate.

This work is relevant because it raises an important question: What is the border between private and public life? The images are not salacious, as would be expected if the photographer were a voyeur. On the contrary, she depicts everyday moments, thus documenting ordinary life in a fascinating way.

This story was unbelievably disgusting and disquieting. As an artist I am insulted to hear this woman's criminal invasions into people's private lives called "art." I only hope she reads these comments, retreats into her hole with her drawn shades and never comes out again. What a horrible person.

I agree with all the other comments. This woman is sick and probably should be arrested for being a peeping tom. She even acknowledges at the end that she closes her curtain so someone can't do the same to her. One of the real sickos - hardly an artist.

I agree she is creepy, and sound creepy, but I think it was interesting to include her on the show as part of the topic.

This photographer is without a doubt the creepiest thing you've had on Studio 360. I went to her site and saw her slideshow thinking I'd give her the benefit of the doubt. The photos reminded me of a bad high school art project and said nothing. This is not art but someone who is feeding her voyeurism. What a fraud. If she did this in FL she'd get her clock cleaned by the homeowner (possibly shot by the crazier denizens we have here). I don't think the cops would like it, either.

Very interesting topic. As I listened to this story I was troubled that this activity may have exceeded certain boundaries. Some have been expressed in this comments section. Your program covers many interesting topics in detail. While difficult to be certain what was actually wrong here what is unclear, as I found in my queries, is what could be considered clearly illegal. This woman was not physically trespassing but are the home's occupants allowed an "expectation of privacy?" It seems creepy but was this too considered unethical? Don't know and your story was incomplete without this question. Here's a good starting point for this discussion: http://www.rcfp.org/pullouts/photographers/index.php?pg=primer

She is one sick puppy.

Really? Are you serious? I never in my wildest dreams thought NPR would infuriate me. Sure I've been disappointed, or bored with a program. Such is an expected by-product of listening to bleeding heart liberals (myself included). If the idea of the art is "your being watched and you should be freaked out cause what the government is doing is worse", well... DUH. We are all aware that the world is becoming more and more wired for sound and video. I bet Iversen didn't take into account the amount of "artists" out there that are now going to mimic this terrible idea. I prey for their sake they don't come to my house. The next time fundraising come around, I will simply change the station, you guys don't deserve it this year.

I have been listening to NPR for 20+ years and have never written a comment on a story until now. This story made my skin crawl, this woman should be arrested. What were you thinking giving her a platform? I am horrified.

I hope this interview helps her hear herself.

I agree with the others -- it's definitely creepy. As a concept, sure, I get it, but that's really where it should have ended without consent.

"Theater"
"Performance"

This is people's lives, not the other way around -- this is not a representation of people's lives that she's photographing.

As a photographer myself who has worked with people in private sessions, where I have created portraits of people in their homes, if I spent that much time watching them without photographing, I'd have been shut down a long time ago. She should realize that what she's doing lacks art and profession.

This is far worse than rummaging through someone's trash. This woman should be hounded mercilessly. Can she publish these without getting a release form signed by the victims of her attention? A lawyer should get involved here.

This woman is creepy. Her voice is creepy. Her comments were creepy. I think she would gag a maggot. If she was a man she would called a pervert and be under arrest for being a peeping Tom. I need to take dramamine.

I stared at my computer with disbelief as I heard this story being aired. It was basically the confessions of a peeping tom with a camera. What's worse, she displays her photos so that others are sucked into becoming implicit in the violation of privacy. That is not art, that is a crime. It is not freeing or progressive and I see no good in it. I was shocked at PRI/NPR for cheerily ending this creepy segment with "and you can see her pictures at Studio360.org."

This is not even art!These photographs are dull and weak. Her talent is mediocre at best. Why choosing her for your show?

I am sickened and now paranoid about the story produced. I cannot believe this person has not been arrested. She has gallery shows! This is not freedom of speech; this is infringement upon a person's right to privacy. I am goint to check with my representatives from the city council to the state's attorney office to see if this person is allowed to be on the streets. Although I don't like that she gets a free ad of her sick pictures on NPR (I refuse to even watch them), I think you are accomplise to thes awful way of molesting the innocent subjects of her "unart".

This was one of the creepiest things I ever heard. An unbelievable invasion of privacy - and it's the victim's fault?? It just seems like sick art to me.