This lady is to photography what Jeffrey Dahmer was to cooking.

The art itself is interesting to think about. We're all a tad voyeuristic to some degree. However, I was very creeped out listening to her talk about it. She seemed to get such satisfaction from watching people do private, slightly humiliating things. She talked about catching people popping zits and licking plates and binge eating. It's just so so odd, and as many others have said...what if this was someone's hobby without it being labeled "art"? Wouldn't we just consider her/him a peeping Tom at best and a pervert at worst?

Art? are you kidding? this is TOTALLY CREEPY. sounds more like a pathetic desperate attempt to get attention.
Great story reporting though.

This interview took me back to the days when I worked on a crisis hotline and had to field calls from the fetishists whose aim in discussing what they did was to recall the vicarious thrill of it and further intensify it by involving another witness -- me. It didn't matter what the fetish was,each caller's voice contained the same barely surpressed sense of glee and sexual excitement that I heard in Ms. Iverson's.

Missing from the interview were the reactions of those who had been unwittingly photographed. The closest we got to the other side of Ms.Iverson's self-involved endeavor was the man tapping on her car window when she was caught in the act. She was genuinely afraid and he was genuinely outraged. This real emotion was a welcome break in the story. Her voice briefly lost its quality of self-satisfied reverie. She should have used the opportunity to question the ethics of her project.

Outrageous. Not "art"; not everything that prompts outraged conversation is art.

Was a victim, myself, of a peeping tom over a year ago. Horrifying. Still not been resolved in court. Still don't feel sense of safety and privacy in my own home. Which has blinds and curtains, thank you.

Laws are made to protect people. PLENTY of opportunities to pursue controversial art with the consent of your subjects. Wanna be a stalker criminal? Knock yourself out, just don't insult legitimate artists, of whom I know many, by calling this criminal surveillance "art".

Guess it's cool for Studio 360 to explore such things, but it all left me cold...

I love this. I wish to see the strangers and their private activities. What a great idea. Being from the farmland of America this is just a creative criticism/comparison of bewildering human existence day to day. thanks truly.sunrizon

As a photographer myself I have no problem with the subject matter --or the approach. I'm just disappointed by the quality of the work from what I see. Sorry, Michele.

More than my clothes or my walls, my face, my body & my actions--and images of them--are MINE. *I* am the one with the right to display/sell interesting images of my life, via memoir, photos or paintings--or to refrain. What she does is not art. It is taking what is MINE, without permission. The usual word for taking what is mine, against my wishes, is STEALING.

This woman is a real sicko and needs professional help. As so many others have pointed out she is nothing but a run of the mill peeping tom who justifies who immoral and illegal actions by claiming she is producing art.

I too was creeped out at first, listening to her almost fetishize the lives she was watching but more because we think of our homea as a fortress when in reality, most of the time, it's just a box with glass to see out of and into. What difference does it make if she catches someone eating or looking out the window. Is that not what we see everyday on the streets we live on. There's nothing obscene or vulgar here. Don't we all capture little images and tell ourselves stories in our headss as we glance into windows on our walk or ride home. This artist just shows us what we already do. I say leave your shades open and you're theatre.

OMG.. That was incredibly creepy. That is a violation and an invasion into a person's home.

Pervert- I was appalled by this, 1) NPR- really? I am a devout listener and now, studio 360 is not in my listening rotation... 2) This perv who was retelling her story. Imagine this story with a male behind the lens/talking and watch how fast the police come knocking at the door. I was mortified at the notion that this was even real. 3) You have ruined my Saturday you disgusting little troll.

Dear @JtheO,

To me, you are as sanctimoniously creepy as the gentleman who believes that the only purpose of the first amendment is to protect the free exercise of the Christian religion—Damn the Jew! Damn the Mormon! Damn the Muslim! Damn the Buddhist!— or the gentlemen who believe that the rules of law, whether national or international, don't apply in matters of National security.

This is the creepiest thing I have heard on any arts show in a long time. I am horrified and I will not even look at these photos. This woman is not an artist -- she is a violator of others' personal dignity. No better than any other "peeping Tom" out there; just more brazen because she further violates people by exhibiting the photos. I felt sick to my stomach when I heard this story while driving my car.

Oh....my god Iverson has a photo of me holding a pencil...oh MY GAWD. I will sue here for.....what?.....um, just a minute I'll think of something. But a PENCIL!! in my own home. Think of it!!! Such blasphemy. We should whip her until she bleeds, then we will feel Christian and right and patriotic again. Won't we?

The creepy people are all you who invoke "the Law" with your self righteousness and your attorneys and your sense of entitlement. I would much, MUCH, rather have dinner with ms. inverson than any of you creeeeps.

Iverson is at least present, real, introspective, and genuine. The rest of you "rule of law" creeps can worm your way back into the Republican agenda and gag on your doctrine.

Flame on.........

Astonishing how many people here are all riled up about "the law" and "privacy" and themselves come here to Studio 360 for what? Not art! Guaranteed, they want not to have the shock of the new, as the great art critic at Time magazine, Robert Hughes referred to art. They want pretty little pictures that disturb no one, that pander to Dick Cheney, that cut their bridle on "the law" whatever that is. Not one of them can expound on the nature of art in our or any society. They come and express their outrage, that "their rights" are in jeopordy or that Ms. Iverson has violated some law. Maybe so, but then so has George Bush, so has so many including themselves....where were their voices then? These people whining about Ms. Inverson's work show up more as proper little dandies of the establishment with their attitudes and definitions written in republican blood.

Everyone seems so ready to pronounce Iverson either not an artist or certainly not a "good artist". Oh, what a relief they must feel. So self righteous over proclaiming Iverson in violation of <fill in the blank>.

Studio 360 I applaud you for your bravery, and your art spirit.

I can't believe enough people have an interest in her "work" for her to make any money. I personally find it creepy and don't have any interest in her photos.

@alvin - this is getting me riled. Americans do have a right to privacy in their private homes! I believe that that Ms. Iverson, who according to her website, appears to reside in California, has breached the law.

Having said that, the most she would probably be charged with is disorderly conduct. For the sake of her "art," I gather that she finds the rewards far outflank the risks of a minor court appearance. Until that is, somebody in one of these photos recognizes herself, and sues Ms. Iverson (but hopefully not Sudio 360) out of the gazoo.)

article retrieved from Lexis/Nexs
(c) 1997 McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific Pacific Law Journal, Spring, 1997

REVIEW OF SELECTED 1996 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION: Crimes: Peeping Tom Crimes
. . .Under existing law. . . anyone who looks through an opening or otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, the interior of any area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. . . is guilty of disorderly conduct.

Article One of the California Constitution has been interpreted to allow private parties to bring an invasion of privacy action against other parties. ... .
The tort of intrusion is comprised of three basic elements. First, there must be an intrusion. Second, the intrusion must be highly offensive to a reasonable person. And third, the thing intruded upon must be private, in other words, the plaintiff must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the situation. Several examples of early cases in which courts have allowed recovery for intrusion include an instance where one looked into windows through elevated railways, and also one in which a detective spied into windows. With growing technology came an increasing problem in video surveillance and subsequent intrusion through videotaping and photographing. Despite this new problem, most courts today are reluctant to acknowledge these videotaping and photographing cases as intrusions as long as they occur in a public place.This is because of the long-standing notion that one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. This notion is exemplified in numerous cases involving employee surveillance by employers. Of course, when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, courts will hold that an intrusion has occurred. Thus, where a TV news crew rushed into a woman's home to film her husband as he was having a heart attack and later aired the segment, the court held that the woman could recover for intrusion. In another case, several models who were videotaped in their dressing area during a fashion show were deemed to have a cause of action also, even though they were not taped in a state of undress. In Miller v. Willis, a woman who discovered she was being videotaped while using a tanning bed recovered punitive damages against the voyeur. These cases demonstrate how courts have allowed plaintiffs to recover when they are in a private area.

People, this is why they make windows shades. If you have your windows open at night and you are doing something in front of that windows. You have no rights of privacy to people walking by, cars passing by, or people taking photos of you. In fact, if you are doing something inappropriate then you can be charge with indecent exposure.

I've wanted to exhibit a show of all the people I've shot on the subway, but without their permission, I believe I would be sued. How is this legal?

@doug - I would like to know Studio 360's counsel's opinion of this. If I were the lady licking the plate and I saw my photo published here, the only moment of reflection I'd spend is figuring out who the best lawyer is.

I am only an armchair (make that laptop) lawyer, however, my sense is that this is courtroom fodder, and I would prefer my public radio donations not going to the defense of what may or may not be frivolous lawsuits.

From the case of, Furman v. Sheppard,
(from Maryland): "an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy reaches its zenith in the home." cited: www.photoattorney.com/2008/09/reasonable-expectation-of-privacy.html

From the link I posted earlier:

It's Called Private Property for a Reason
There are also restrictions on videotaping and photographing on private property. . .:

. . . a photograph of a window framing a couple in an intimate pose in a bedroom gives the appearance of an invasion of privacy."

Get a grip, people.

Consider the context of the program that Studio 360 aired-- "surveillance". This is an entirely appropriate topic for them. It's an interesting question why we find this behavior so offensive, yet aren't nearly as disturbed by public video streaming of people at work. Let's step back and consider our emotional response and what's driving it. Getting us to reflect on the ethics of surveillance is the whole point of this program. A little more reflection and a little less outrage is in order, I think.

Where does she live? - I have a camera - oh wait - what am I thinking - I have scruples -

The pictures themselves aren't so creepy or shocking; it's the idea behind them and Iversen's defense of them that appalls me. She has referred to her subjects as "unknowingly compliant subjects." (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/oct/14/photographer-invades-privacy-her-art/)
Does she even realize what she's saying? How can an unknowing subject be compliant?

Studio 360 should offer her victims a chance to sound off.

extremely creepy

extremely creepy

I applaud her fearlessness and willingness to push the limits of our understandings. This is art. It makes you question, it makes you uncomfortable. We allow corporations and television into our lives with full access. Corporations are treated as individuals and TV supposedly shows us "reality" and we allow it because we don't know how to fight back or who to fight back against. One person, a single individual, does the same thing on a much smaller scale and we scream bloody murder. How is what she is doing any different. Choice? But do we really have a choice? If we choose to let TV and corporations in then why not let her in? Lets face it, we have all become voyeurs, or we all feel like we are being violated. Its that mirror showing us something we don't want to see. Thats what I want from my artist! Thank you

Holy smokes. This woman needs to be stopped. She askes the question, "would I be mad if someone did this to me?" Her answer is "probably"! Heck woman, you ARE mad! Perhaps this isn't a copyright issue but it certainly is a privacy and ethical issue, and you, my dear Ms Iverson, have no ethics.

I have to say that this piece really interested me when I heard it and I was excited to get online and see the pictures. I have always been fascinated with the view of people living their lives through the window at night. Whenever I am the passenger in a car at night, I will look for opportunities to see people and I create stories for every image.
Sadly, I was disappointed by Ms. Iverson's photographs. She somehow managed to strip the mystery from her subjects and instead made herself appear voyeuristic and invasive. Not only does she seem to be profitizing off of her subjects, but from us as well. These photos were more intriguing in my mind in the moment I saw them when I walked past an open window at night, then they are through Ms. Iverson's point of view. I would however, be interested to see them in color rather than the black and white.

@mike from inwood... Yes, you report on the holocaust, but you don't give Hitler air time to tell you how and why it is exciting for him to slaughter people. I am taking exception with the editorial decision to air her personal pitch for her product. On any given day, there would be millions of voices more worthy of precious air time. I don't think she was put on a podium, but I do know she was given one adn that is very unfortunate.

Not to mention that if I saw my photo here, I'd sue Studio 360 too.

All I can say is, after this broadcast, Ms. Iverson had better get herself a good lawyer.

http://communications-media.lawyers.com/privacy-law/Photography-or-Video-Taping-Consent.html

One word for this person: Creepy.
I feel both sorry and repulsed by her.

@Allisa: How would you rather broach the topic of whether these photographs are art? On TV or in a gallery where the images would all be presented or on a radio show where, if your mind weren't already made up, you'd have to seek the images out to decide?

@B. Flowers from Saint Louis: No insult was intended. There are a lot of people in this country and around the world (the leaders of Iran comes to mind) who think that everything in the 'news' should merely confirm what they already believe. Acknowledging this is not an insult, it just is. Neither I nor Studio360 claim that she is an artist. My previous posts explicitly deny that she is. (Inwood is a neighborhood in NYC and I am ‘Mike from NYC’, too.) Studio360 certainly questioned whether she is, too, almost to the point of denying she is. After all, what was the focus of their coverage? Exploring every nook and crany of experiencing the creepiness through her art or questioning whether the creepiness was art? In any event, many people DO believe that she's an artist. Some of them have posted here. Galleries exhibit her photographs and some people pay money for them. If any sizable number of people believe she is an artist, she becomes newsworthy in a program about art, whether you, I or Studio360 like or choose this. To not report on it as though it did not exist would not make it go away and, in my opinion, would be censorship. Your most recent post still, to my ears, seems to conflate support for her as an artist, belief that her photographs ARE art and the editorial judgment of Studio360 in reporting on conflict within the art world.

I've just listened to this segment, and I find myself disturbed more, I think, by Studio 360's decision to feature it. Is there not another way we can spark a discussion of the intersection between public, private, personal and art?

As another person commented: 360"s choice to air this piece makes me question the show's intentions.
The idea that Iverson would take these pictures is disturbing. The idea that she would then make them public as art is horrible, I think. I would feel incredibly violated if a picture of me doing anything in my own home were placed in a gallery as a part of someone else's "work". What in the world does her theft of my privacy make art? Wow! Like I said, this makes me question my decision to listen to 360.

As a professional artist and a fairly freaky person myself, this story made me feel queasy. Exhibiting these photos is just another step in the transgressions this woman commits against innocent, unsuspecting people. The most telling line to me was at the end, when she said she had been watching a house for a while, and thought she would also like to shot some photos (actually I think she said she would HAVE to shot some photos.) Lurk around my place with a camera and you will get some very interesting shots.

@DiMango from Inwood, NYC

I couldn't agree more.

To Mike from Inwood, there’s no need for you to be insulting (“let me suggest Fox news”). You were the one who implied that choosing to do a story on this alleged artist was the same as reporting on Bush - as though Studio 360 had no editorial choice about whether to report on her. I agree with you that making an editorial choice to give her a forum to speak about her actions did not imply support; but it did imply legitimacy simply by the fact that they referred to her as an artist. If you don’t believe that the program lent her legitimacy, then why don’t you ask her?
You and I have a difference of opinion. You, and the producers of Studio 360, believe that this report was newsworthy. I, and many others who made comments, believe that the actions of the subject should not have been reported on radio, but to the police. This does not make us oppressors of art or of anyone’s right to free speech.
After all, why should this woman’s right to practice her “art” supersede the right of her victims to privacy? And the right of free speech by a broadcast organization comes with many responsibilities - one of which is not to lend legitimacy to someone who cruelly victimizes innocent strangers in such a personal manner. I listen to and support NPR because I expect a higher standard from them, regardless of the focus of any program. As a listener and supporter of NPR, I have a right and responsibility to communicate with them when I believe they have crossed the line.

And of course, for all my bluster, I won't stop supporting NPR even if they do exercise occasional poor judgment with pieces such as this because, in this day and age, we need NPR more than ever.

Personally, I like the work. I won't call it brilliant but there is an unguarded truth to it that I can appreciate. I can understand peoples concerns over privacy but I see no risqué bedroom shots in this series, what are people really doing in their kitchen that they are so concerned about? If we as a society want to encourage creativity, maybe we can sacrifice a little privacy for our artists. Through this voyeurism we get at very least an honest look at ourselves when we are alone and there is a certain naked truth to that which is rare.

Everything about this woman, including her voice would gag a blue bottle fly maggot.

!DISGUSTING! Until now I have been an avid fan of the content and quality of Studio 360 programming. Airing the Michelle Iverson piece felt akin to perpetuating this disturbing perverse and crimminal behavior. Where are your ethics? and integrity? She has crossed to many lines, and in giving her airtime so have you. She sounded really creepy and over the edge. I hope Michelle Iverson gets the treatment she needs for mental illness and Studio 360 gets back to the world of creativity and art.

@dealer: "You have to know that reporting on such behavior is going to at least partially legitimize it"? Respectfully, I disagree. Reporting on the Holocaust in no way legitimizes it. I never got the impression that NPR legitimized Iversen's so-called art. In fact, it explicitly questioned whether it was art. So I ask you: Did Studio360 put her on a podium or pillory her? Really, to its credit, neither. Syudio360 let the audience decide, as it should. And look at all the comments; the audience has decided. What art should be discussed regarding whether it really is art? Any art that some people would claim is art. Look back through the comments. Not all denied this was art. In my opinion. those people have a screw loose, but that's just my opinion. So I would answer "No" to your question about whether there are limits to what art should be reported on or talked about. All art that IS talked about should be reported on. And people were talking about this art before you were aware of it. Not talking about it won't make it go away. I believe that censorship is inherently un-American and that very little can justify censorship.

I was appalled by this person's work. I am an artist also and would be hesitant to totally condemn someone's practice, but this is totally unethical and I suspect illegal. There has been much discussion about the relationship between the artist and his or her subject, and the ways that can be exploitative- but this is utter exploitation of people in her community. It is also unbelievably cowardly that when the artist is occasionally confronted by her subject, she flees the scene, and then sells the images that she has stolen. It is a craven and despicable occupation, and her justification that it was her neighbor's fault for having their windows open just made it worse.

As the artist said herself, she wouldn't want it done to her. Shame on her for ignoring the common courtesy of privacy.

Iverson's practice if not illegal is certainly immoral. Get a talent release! I do hope she is at least sued although I think she should be put in jail.

I was uncomfortably bothered to hear and then further disturbed by NPR's decision to air this program. I felt complicit in her act just by listening to her description of each photograph. As a photographer myself, I often find it difficult and imposing to take certain "people photographs" while in public places, although well within legal boundaries. The idea that Michelle calls herself a photographer is a disgrace to the profession.

@mike from inwood.... One question: Is there no limit to what should be reported on as "controversial art"? You have to know that reporting on such behavior is going to at least partially legitimize it. Every time a selfish and destructive behavior is given such attention it undermines the community. Trust and sense of community is weak enough in this nation. It's one thing to report on a deviant behavior, it's another to give a person air time to promote what they call the "artistic inspiration" for their behavior. This isn't art, so it shouldn't reported on as such. This woman should never have a podium such as she had on Studio 360. Lastly, please let us not make the mistake of calling this art because it wound up in any studio.

I was so offended by this person's art I cam in from the garage and registered with 360 just to comment. I am an artist myself and I have a very broad view on what art is (to me). I actually believe that what she is doing is art - but I also STRONGLY disagree with her doing it and the public condoning it. While a right to privacy isn't written into our constitution, it is implied. And, in CA, "peeping" is illegal. At the very minimum, it is considered disorderly conduct under CA penal code section 647, a misdemeanor. On an emotional level, peeping is a violation, period. Freezing your victims on film and then presenting them to the world is unconscionable. For this person to state that her violation of our privacy is our fault for leaving our widows open is the same as stating a rape victim is at fault for leaving his or her door unlocked.

As a child I was taught that someone is always watching. Window shades were pulled down and curtains closed before any interior lighting was put on in the evening. Snooping and spying with a camera, then calling it art, is creepy and sad. Sure she feels uncomfortable - what she's doing is wrong and she knows it. And, I don't want to see the pictures!!!

This woman is a criminal. Isn't being a Peeping Tom against the law. Even the most primitive people give other people privacy when doing personal things. Looking away while someone dresses etc. Having the window open and breathing air is not an invitation to have someone stop in front of your home and take pictures. She should be imprisoned or at the very least sued.

There will always be misguided deviants such as this woman who are willing to selfishly undermine community harmony for attention. It can't be stated too strongly how much of a mistake it was to give her media attention. All people who support NPR deserve an appology for this ultimately disappointing lapse in judgement.

@Sandra Stark from Jamaica Plain,MA.:

Why is it more 'interesting' to see how people choose to pose themselves?

@B. Flowers from Saint Louis: No; YOUR reasoning is flawed. The approach of this artist is obviously controversial. This is a show about art and artists and, because the artist’s approach is so controversial, it IS newsworthy. Studio360 may not have covered any of Bush’s state of the Nation addresses. This is not because the addresses were not newsworthy, but because they do not fit into the focus of this show. If you do not like the focus of this show, or prefer news, on whatever topic, that only agrees with your point of view, let me suggest FOX News. For all others, listen here. As for your donations, if they were to knuckle under to demands like yours, they would not receive mine. For all others, listen here.

@B. Flowers from Saint Louis: No; YOUR reasoning is flawed. The approach of this artist is obviously controversial. This is a show about art and artists and, because the artist’s approach is so controversial, it IS newsworthy. Studio360 may not have covered any of Bush’s state of the Nation addresses. This is not because the addresses were not newsworthy, but because they do not fit into the focus of this show. If you do not like the focus of this show, or prefer news, on whatever topic, that only agrees with your point of view, let me suggest FOX. For all others, listen here.

A far more interesting photographer dealing with photo surveillance (after Erich Salomon,who used a hidden camera to photograph important WW11 summits) is Shizuka Yokomizo who through a letter invitation, invited strangers to stand in their windows at night at an appointed hour. If they didn't agree to be photographed they were to shut the windows. There was no interaction between the photographer and subject.

To Mike from Inwood, your reasoning is flawed. A responsible news organization is required to report on a sitting president. It is not required to report on any random sick person or criminal calling herself an artist.

Along with others who have commented, I believe it was poor judgment for Studio 360 to broadcast this feature and by doing so, attempt to legitimize the predatory and possibly criminal behavior of this person.

To Studio 360: Don't interpret the controversy over this story as incentive to do more of the same. I donate regularly to NPR, but a feature such as this one will make me think twice next time. Very bad call on your part.

Michele Iversen is photographing people in the privacy of their homes, then publishing and exhibiting them in galleries and on the internet without their knowledge or permission. It is an invasion of privacy and is illegal. I hope Iversen is sued by every single person whose image she has shared without permission. I would also strongly urge Cal State Fullerton and Grossmont Colleges to terminate her position as a photography instructor, as she is employing illegal tactics in her work and may be influencing her students to do the same.

I have read every comment published so far. They are unanimously disapproving of the content of this story and and your choice to air it; we assume you met with legal counsel before doing so. If you did, indeed, meet with counsel, you should have gotten a second opinion. No nationally aired (Public Radio) program with even a modicum of decency would given an obvious pervert a minute of airtime. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

This is really creepy... and I think that is is illegal. In your house you have a reasonable expectation of privacy - even if your curtains are open. I don't know what's worse, the "artist's' lame justifications, or S360 broadcasting this Peeping Tom. Is this sweeps week?

@W. Nardin from St. Louis: Incorrect inference; public radio does NOT support it. It reports it. Public radio reported on George W. Bush, but do you think public radio supported Bush?

This woman is hiding her invasive, probably illegal, behavior behind the cloak of "art."
In my opinion she deserves jail time for than air time.

@pam from brooklyn: Like Iversen, being a Peeping Tom appeals to you. OK. you realize that you have criminal tendencies. But just because you find it fascinating doesn't make it right.

Iverson puts the shoe on the other foot and asks, "If it were done to me would I be mad? Yes Is it my own fault? Yes. I shouldn't have left the window open." I say NO. Not everyone has air conditioning. The ancient wiring in my NYC apartment building could not support air conditioners. I have to keep the windows open during the summer. You are not entitled to peep in and take pictures. I would not come out and tap on your car window. I'd come out with a knife and you'd probably know of my presence as I was slashing your second tire. You would NOT drive away.

Are these photos supposed to be art? I do not see it. Although this is a shocking story I do appreciate her candor and suppose that admitting this places her in a slightly less creepy catagory. Think she should find a more honest way to spend her time. Interesting story.

Mediocre photos at such a large price. I always felt that exposure was more precious when the vulnerable were willing- that is the moment we want to see.

What you catch is more tied to what you need.

This person's behavior is completely outside social norms, ...yet public radio supports it.

Most anyone else caught doing the same thing would find themselves in jail for the night or more, or worse. Here are her own words hinting at much deeper problems in the personality of this TEACHER. Those that support this type of behavior are naive at best, ...duplicitous at worst.

"The process is exhilarating, frightening and makes me anxious and excited. I feel like people are watching me watch them. I am afraid to watch because we are socially conditioned to give people their privacy and not stare at them, sneak around or spy. I feel I am in violation of our social norms. It feels like I am naughty or rebellious.

When I get a good image and no one has spotted or chased me, it reinforces my focus and motivates me to go shoot another one.

These images are definitely motivated by fear. I am afraid to be seen, afraid to watch - and, at the very same moment, I determine when to suspend a strangers’ privacy."

Does this program receive public funds to support this type of behavior? What's next?

I hope this is not legal, but if it is, I think it's only fair that someone photographs Michele Iversen in an embarrassingly personal pose in her own home and posts it online for millions to view. Perhaps the reason no one has displayed a collection like this in a gallery before is that they had a conscience and knew it was WRONG! That she is a teacher of photography does not excuse the shamefulness of this concept. Academia overflows with "one liners" and weak ideas.
*** My heart breaks for her subjects, who felt safe but were not.

That feeling of being "uncomfortable" which Michele Iverson has - it's whatever remains of her conscience. She obviously knows that what she's doing is wrong, but either can't or won't stop. This means she needs either psychological help or incarceration, where she would come to understand what it is to have her privacy violated as she has so viciously done to others.

I listened in fascination to this photographer's rationale for her photos. The reason so many people find this "creepy" or invasive and it makes them uncomfortable is because they recognize themselves. That's the way art is, no matter whether you like it or not. It is supposed to make you ask questions and look at yourself. We are all voyeurs, we all look at each other, either openly or covertly. She raises issues of legality, perversion, etc. but she is honest about it. Granted, there may be an underlying compulsion here, but we all have them; we just don't act on them. It seems she is questioning herself, too, and that is good - it separates her from the deluded.

This so-called art is unethical at best, and illegal at worst.

The photographs are compelling--the mystery and verite are almost irresistible. But come on. The teenaged guy who used to look into our neighbors' bedrooms when I was a kid was sent to a juvenile treatment center.
Michele Inverson should find another fetish to make up for her lack of imagination.

I am outraged by the interview with Michele Iversen and her photography, featured on Studio 360 today. Though some may considered her spy photos ART (and I generally embrace and support the rights of artists) I think her photos are INVASIVE, INSENSITIVE, and DISRESPECTFUL. After shooting these photographs Michele Iversen describes going home and "closing everything" -- evidence of her own shame, guilt, and fear of experiencing this same violation she has perpetrated on others. Her words, as she hesitantly attempted to explain what she was doing, "I am a photographer and I photograph people in their homes" to a man who had CAUGHT HER photographing him, echo in my mind and make me want to carefully cover all my windows and create a fortress. I enjoyed the other stories in today's program and I generally appreciate PRI for the variety of insights and experiences shared, yet this story rankles me! I'll let others debate the legal arguments around the privacy issues raised, but I am certain we have enough surveillance in our lives without unauthorized persons "capturing" us in the alleged privacy and safety of our own homes.
I hope Michele Iversen is not rewarded as a result of the controversy over her work, which was created at such a precious cost paid by OTHERS who were afforded no voice. Surely an apology is due to all the victims.

Creepy, nothing but a glorified peeping Tom. I suppose "art" can become the excuse for anything. People like her keep me from enjoying the view outside of my home- curtains stay closed!

I found listening to Ms Iverson totally disturbing. The idea that she can intrude on the privacy and sanctity of other people is not art, it is an excuse for her to get excitement from being the worst kind of "peeping Tom".

It is certainly not art!

It used to be called being a "peeping-tom" or a stalker.

So, I guess when you do it on the sly and talk about it and then show the images in a gallery you're now an artist. I'm surprised she hasn't been sued yet.

Wouldn't want her to be my neighbor.

If you want to show it. It is legal
I like it. It is very personal, that's what makes it so interesting.

I am confused as to; why this is legal, why this is interesting enough to feature and why Michele Iverson is not committed.
Not only is her work sub par in terms of photography, it is un-interesting. She has a handful of poor quality photos of these window shots and people in bandages in her own e-gallery. Rubbish.

Most definitely as creepy as hotel workers who photograph paying customers without their clothes or their knowledge. It should be illegal, if it's not. I don't care if it's art. If I were on the jury of someone who phyically harmed her in retaliation, I might not convict them, no matter what the instrcutions from the judge regarding the law.

Peeping Tom!

Most definitely creepy. I am an artist and have been my entire life. I am tired of bad behavior being draped in a veil of "artistic expression". The behavior of your guest is reprehensible and the fact that the artist does not see it (or chooses not to) is even more disturbing.

As an amateur photographer, this story brings up a question I sometimes struggle with - when does someone need a model release for the subject of a photo? It is my understanding that, generally speaking, one needs a release (a signed agreement giving the photographer rights to use the image) only if one is going to use the image for marketing, advertising, or commercial purposes.

From the American Society of Media Photographers website (http://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html), "Although the laws of the 50 states vary, all states recognize that individuals have a right to be let alone in their daily lives and that harm (in the form of embarrassment, scorn or loss of status) can result if that right is violated."

I think the fact that the artist is not comfortable enough with the images she has shot to walk up to the subject's door and request a model release speaks volumes to me. If this is such great 'art', then why such shame that she has to skulk off?

To those who say that this is acceptable/OK/brilliant, my question is - where's the line? If it is acceptable for this artist to photograph a person in their home, is it OK for someone to put a camera in a bag and photograph up my skirt when I'm walking on a public street? After all, I didn't seal off the bottom of my skirt. Is it OK for my employer to monitor my every move by turning on the webcam on my company-provided laptop? It is company equipment, after all.

I think a course in ethics ought to be required of all art majors.There's definitely a disconnect here. Most members of the animal kingdom require a little privacy to be healthy and to develop respect for others privacy boundaries. Try stalking a silver-back gorilla for a photo and see if there are any natural consequences. When people/animals are in their personal space (like a home!), I don't think we belong there without consent. Voyeurism, I'm pretty sure it's inappropriate at every level.

Although these people did leave their curtains open, i'm sure they didn't expect and women to be stalking them from her car outside to photograph them. Then blow up the image to "window size" and be put in an art gallery. I appreciate her creativeness and the I'm very sure interesting project, but none the less it's creepy. And a violation to those who never expected their private moments at night, in their home, captured forever.

Ummmm....Dorothy's entry is passionate, and simultaneously irrelevant. Who, who is alive and curious over life, really cares, whether you lick a plate or preen over your mate.............there is a plethora of the mundane CONFUSED with privacy. I KNOW you write with a pencil and I've a photo of you using a pencil!! Damning for those privacy mavens but in the inner life we have the equivalent of a database of those who drink chocolate milkshakes. Go look, I mean really look at Picasso's work........then ask yourself whether some "artist" took a photograph of you licking a plate, makes one scintilla of an impact on the life of the awake. Fox news is the epitome of those outraged that broomsticks are sold in in hardware stores.

Ummmm....Dorothy's entry is passionate, and simultaneously irrelevant. Who, who is alive and curious over life, really cares, whether you lick a plate or preen over your mate.............there is a plethora of the mundane CONFUSED with privacy. I KNOW you write with a pencil and I've a photo of you using a pencil!! Damning for those privacy mavens but in the inner life we have the equivalent of a database of those who drink chocolate milkshakes. Go look, I mean really look at Picasso's work........then ask yourself whether some "artist" took a photograph of you licking a plate, makes one scintilla of an impact on the life of the awake.

It seems that the story itself bothered more people than the photographs! The pictures are tamer than the reaction to them.

Amazing photographs. Not creepy at all. We are all voyeurs, we all look into windows at night as we pass by. These are intimate but they don't give enough info to be intursive. They are snapshots of humanness.

Michele Iversen is sick. I am shocked that Studio 360 would put her on the radio, as this is passively condoning her "habit". To call this art is a farce. There are Peeking Tom laws for these types of people.

Devan fr: Denton,TX You happen to say in "PUBLIC"PLACES" last time I checked "Public" as appose to "Private "like in the comfort of your own home are two distinctly different realities,also have you made "YOUR" pictures public?????so much for brilliant

What a Brilliant Idea! All you people boo hooing are ridiculous! If I had a dime for every picture I have of oblivious people in public places, (embarrassing, every one) I'd be rich, and you could relax....

As I listened to 360 today,I could not beleive the sheer ease at which this women described her purely deviant and perverted use of "ART" as justification for something she clearly stated as being a sense of excitement to her. While also blaming the subjects(VICTIMS) of her sickness,even her voice sounded perverted. Not only is this blurring the lines of ethical behavior and absolute"INVASION OF PRIVACY"totally ignoring our 4th ammendment rights to continue to do so with such Impunity boggles the mind. There are many whom would welcome her into their private moments simply because of exhibitionism being a part of who they are,would serve her better in the name of "ART" than intruding on un-suspecting people who should sue the HELL out of her,and reclaim any profit she has made without their consent.

To Beth Terry: We don't have the right to expect privacy when we are at home, if we stand in front of the window when the curtains are open.

One more thought: . When we say we have a sort of Constitutional right to privacy, it is mostly dealing with a different type of privacy than having a private individual take a photo of you. Though his branch of American legal thought has lost most of this line of argument, the famous Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment.
These sorts of decisons are far cry from not bothering to pull your drapes at night and then feeling violated to learn that someone quietly, and with no apparent prurient interest, snapped a shot of you. Those of us who spend much time out and about must have been photographed hundreds of times almost entirely without our knowledge by well-meaning others, and have suffered very little or not at all because of it. Finding out a stranger deliberately took a pic thru your living room window catches you off guard, but I don't think it does a whole lot beyond that.

Since I'm one of few "this is probably okay" commentators, let me say that I say her taking the photos is likely to be legal, but if she displays them without permissions of the subjects she needs a good lawyer, which she is likely to have since a story ran on her in 2010.
Also if she went onto a private road, and these are common in developments, she may not have the same legal protection that standing on public ground gives her.
And I concede the "creepy" claim. That she is drawn to this over and over . . . hmmm.

Our sense of dire need for privacy has struck me for years as one of the most exaggerated, semi- or fully neurotic facets of modern society. Those of us who have ancestors from Europe come from a heritage where many people slept in large common rooms for their whole durned lives. In ancient Athens they often slept outdoors in front of the house because it was uncomfortable, hot inside. Today, healthy mostly younger people routinely walk Nearly Naked at pools, beaches, sometimes lounging in parks.
I concede Michelle needs to be careful, but she can't take a photo of anyone who bothers to close the drape. Feeling invaded is natural, but if she is standing on public ground, the road, what she is doing is probably both legal and ethical, even if uncomfortable.

If I ever find her sitting in front of my house I will have her arrested. What an invasion of privacy! Her squirming, because it makes her uncomfortable and she would not like the tables turned, shows she knows quite well that it is morally wrong.

Totally unethical. I am surprised she has not been arrested for this activity.

To JC from DC~So if murder is worse than rape does that makes rape OK..I think not. I hope your bathroom has secret camera's in it..Your just as sick as her!

Art is no excuse for unethical behavior. Michelle Iverson freely admits that she'd hate to have someone do to her what she deliberately does (and profits from doing) to others. That's just despicable.

I have no doubt that if tried to take pictures like these and have them published, no matter what I said about them, I would be arrested. Among other things, because I'm a man.

I hope the attention from this show puts her in legal trouble. If she ends up profiting at all from your exposure, that should lie on your conscience.

Iversen is a predator and contrary to her statement, she does not know what she is doing because she justifies invading others privacy by blaming her victims. Not only does she need to be confronted by her victims and prosecuted by them as well and then be registered as an offender.

I agree with the other commentors and find this 'artist's' behaviour creepy, intrusive and sick. To allow her to show her work or profit from it is as bad if not worse.

As I was listening to the program, the interview of Iverson, I became quite angry with

We have our public selves and our private selves. And we are entitled to our privacy.

As I listened to the interview, and her describing what she was doing and her own feelings about, I came to see her work not as art, rather as a compulsive act of aggression that manifests an underlying pathology.

I think the photos confirm this. They are not extraordinary, just somewhat prosaic. It is not the photo, it is the act of violating someone's privacy that exited her, and revolts most of us.

This isn't right nor do I consider it art and using art as an excuse to hide behind 'peeping tom' behavior is angering to me as a fellow artist. An open window in a person's residence is not there for your viewing pleasure.

Blaming the victims for leaving the windows open is a simple cop out. Take responsibility for your own actions and find willing volunteers for your 'art' who are well aware of what you do.

As a new listener to 'Studio 360' I found this segment very disheartening and I question the intentions of the station for airing such an interview.

Does she get releases from the people before she publishes the pictures? There is a lot about this that troubles me. If she were found standing on her tiptoes outside the window looking in she would be arrested. Is she using the private image of a person for her own profit? Is that legal or does she need to compensate the subject or at least get a release? I need convincing that this is not wrong.

As another commenter said, I found myself getting more and more angry as I listened to this story. I'm angry at Iversen, and I'm angry at Studio 360 for publishing these photos of unsuspecting individuals in the privacy of their homes. Did Iversen's "subjects" give permission to be part of her art piece? Did they give permission for her to PROFIT from their private moments? Did they agree to allow their personal lives to be viewed publicly? How would you feel if you went to one of Iversen's shows and found a photo of you, unsuspecting, in your home displayed on the gallery wall? Or of someone you know?

Photographing strangers on the street is one thing: we all expect to be seen by others when we leave the house, and we adjust our behavior accordingly. But we have a right to expect that what we do inside our homes is private. Iversen's work is not just creepy; it's unacceptable.

I am not surprised that some might find the Artist's actions as 'crossing the line' and 'inappropriate', but in context, there are much greater public exposures and transgressions into privacy that are constantly occurring with our tacit approval. I wonder what these same critics say or do about these? Iversen's work - at least in the examples shown online - are pretty benign - showing people in pretty ordinary situations, and 'intent' is pretty important to me in this tenuous debate about 'appropriatness'. In the end, I think I see Iversen's work as social critique, forcing us to consider our notions of privacy in our contemporary digital context by way of these more 'traditional' voyeur techniques.

I understand the artist's interest in her subjects and the process of her art BUT I still think it is unethical. She says that she would not want someone to do this to her so why do it to someone else? She seems to think that by admitting to doing this that it is acceptable. It's not.

Michelle, the choice to not draw your curtains is not an invitation or license to photographers to snap away. What you're doing is illegal, and the reason you feel bad is because it's a bad thing to do.

At very least, you and the galleries that show your work should seek the written permission of the subjects before they are displayed. And good luck with that. But maybe the subjects will never know, and you'll never get sued, and we will all get a kick out of looking at a woman licking a plate in her kitchen.

PS. to the producer, Jonathan Mitchell: you have made a controversial piece, but not a good piece of work. most listeners will not join this online conversation, and will only be creeped out by the creepy voice, creepy music and creepy material. it's an emotional, not a well-rounded intellectual experience.

creepy. and maybe illegal? Definitely raises questions of right to privacy and even what's right.

Very immoral. Notice how she blames the victim. Victims are "asking for it" by leaving their windows uncurtained. Not worth any coverage by NPR. Shame on you.

Fascinating. Most of us don't want to admit that we have a little bit of voyeur in us. I find the internet more "invasive" than her work.

Very very creepy - & very very cool!

CREEPY. What ever happened to the moral creed, 'Do for others what you would want done for you'?

I find her behavior very creepy, deviant and inexcusable. That she is an artist does not give her any right to invade people's privacy and then display it to anyone who chooses to look at it. While listening to the description of her behavior I became more and more upset. I was sufficiently upset that I have come to the website to register this comment. I was glad to hear that she felt discomfort. I am sorry that she opted to publish the photos nonetheless.

I find this terribly creepy!!!... She definitely has crossed the line!... "Big Brother" is bad enough.. now we have to be concerned about "little sister" too!??... I wonder what other pictures she has that has not been revealed as "art"!... and how many more people are doing this?!.. they would be prosecuted if known...

I'm befuddled why it seems okay for a peeper behind a camera to be sanctioned as an artist because she has been published (like a street artist who defaces property for the sake of art), but if she acted on her voyeurism without publishing or even without "camera" she'd likely be labeled deviant. Seems too much like a difference without a difference for my liking and that she is good at her craft also does not excuse the behavior.

All are entitled to only so much privacy. Street photography is fine and jurisdictions have even had problems pressing cases against "upskirt" photographers. When you're in a public place, you're fair game. On your own property, however, you're expected to be granted a certain amount of privacy. The Supreme Court ruled against a photographer who photographed a woman on her porch wearing a bathrobe and curlers. No matter how much Iversen uses her art school justifications, she is violating others' privacy. If she were a man, she'd be a registered offender.

This is an invasion of the privacy the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives every citizen whether born or naturalized. This is the big right that we are not given in this generation. I was born here not by choice but when I was, I was given the right to privacy in my own home. Invasion should be punished by the law. Somehow the right has been removed by gradualism of this country's laws being violated. The patriot act removed all vestige of this right. Should she be given the right to take pictures of me in my home. NO by fourth amendment of the Constitution. Even as a preditor should not take pictures in a public bathroom. They go to jail.