| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/08/2007 07:30:52 AM · #101 |
| And now we have Urban Landscape. I guess Langdon wants this issue to come to a head. |
|
|
|
08/08/2007 07:54:19 AM · #102 |
I really don't care what other people shoot, if I like it, I'll look at it, if not, I won't waste my time.
When I look at images of the less fortunate, I have mixed feelings about the images and what I'm really seeing. The image that stand out are the ones where it's obvious the subject is at least somewhat aware of the camera. The shots from 100yds away with a 300mm lens stink of disengagement and fear. I also question the photographer's motives for creating them image before me. Are they part of a sincere effort to draw attention to the plight of the subject in order to help these people, i.e. a small part of a noble cause? Or, are they simply done to document a curiousity, a subject that in a photograph can be brought into the photographer's life as an image and displayed for all to gawk at?
The proliferation of "homeless images" does much to communicate the reality of their situation, yet at the same time, it also desensitizes us to their suffering.
My own choice not to photograph these types of subjects is mostly due to my conviction that to do so in a moral and ethical way, my work needs to be a part of a larger effort. |
|
|
|
08/08/2007 08:40:20 AM · #103 |
 
It took me three years to figure out why I took those images and others like them. Not one was taken as Spazmo says "with a sincere effort to draw attention to the plight of the subject".
They were all quite "self-serving" in fact. Having a camera in my hand I was drawn to trying my hand at taking a "socially concious" image but the subject was almost irrelevant...homeless were easy pickins. Maybe it was Photographic phase...like a "right of passage"?
A Jacob Riis phase, maybe??? After seeing so many if his images over the years, how could I pass up my opportunities?
A little soul searching here but I'm mostly beating myself up here by calling a Spade a Spade...as I see it.
dupehil posted...
"Make me ponder as to why I am so blessed when I certainly don't deserve it. Show me to be thankful for the simple things that I have and not envious of the material things that I do not. Teach me to have pity on those who are far less fortunate. Remind me that I have no right to say, "Why me God?". Make me cry. Help me be a better man."
After seeing my first few thousand homeless images I may have paused for split seconds and moved right along but now these images are more like M&M's...their stock value has plummeted. Do they actually have any effect? I'm beyond desensitized. And do people actually look at the number of these images that have flooded the Challenges and say to themselves "how fortunate or blessed, am I" with each view?
Outside of that I was simply questioning my own motives and now I'm asking people to question theirs. One thing I found was that I was learning, which is good but at their expense.
As I think of the "Why" statements and the fact that these images automatically qualify as being socially poignant, most of the time they are posted as more of a hackneyed response, to something else and NOT of the greater ideal.
Message edited by author 2007-08-08 10:08:09. |
|
|
|
08/08/2007 09:41:59 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
dupehil posted...
"Make me ponder as to why I am so blessed when I certainly don't deserve it. Show me to be thankful for the simple things that I have and not envious of the material things that I do not. Teach me to have pity on those who are far less fortunate. Remind me that I have no right to say, "Why me God?". Make me cry. Help me be a better man."
After seeing my first few thousand homeless images I may have paused for split seconds and moved right along but now these images are more like M&M's...their stock value has plummeted. Do they actually have any effect? I'm beyond desensitized. And do people actually look at the number of these images that have flooded the Challenges and say to themselves "how fortunate or blessed, am I" with each view?
|
Not every sunset shot makes me say, "wow" - nor every portrait makes me say, "stunning"; therefore, not every shot of the homeless makes me say, "I am blessed".
Frankly, this shot doesn't because you'd never know he was homeless unless you read your title. He could've as easily been a cab driver or just someone walking out of the market. I hate to keep kicking up Joey's stuff but even if I look beyond the processing I'll find that I can readily say, "I am blessed".
Because not every image hits me in that way and I am learning life lessons at their "expense", most homeless photography should be disallowed or "self disallowed" I should say? To me, their visual stories should be everywhere. Maybe more would be done for them while humbling ourselves in the process.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2007 09:54:57 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
And now we have Urban Landscape. I guess Langdon wants this issue to come to a head. |
I don't think so, I think this emphasizes space and architecture rather than candids.
Anyhow, Pawdrix, I respect your opinion on the matter, and it is food for thought. It also brings up though other issues of exploitation, mainly, is shooting anyone without their knowledge exploitation? How about old people? Are we exploiting their lined faces?
For now, rather than make any rules or pronouncements about photographing the homeless or voting on such photos, I think I'll take it on a case by case basis. |
|
|
|
08/08/2007 10:05:28 AM · #106 |
Maybe I'll just summarise the main point in my overlong post.
Photography is generally allowed in public spaces. Most people have private spaces in which they can live without being photographed. Homeless people don't.
I would say that morality dictates that you should give more respect to the privacy of homeless people than normal passers by who have chosen when, where and how to place themselves in a public space.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2007 10:19:50 AM · #107 |
| I'm with the OP. I don't think many of the homeless shots are social consciousness raisers. I think there is an appalling picturesqueness in other people's suffering. I am not sure that the emotions raised are more than superficial. Photojournalism is great - exploiting an emotional response to get points is not, it is parasitic. I feel the same about natioanl flags, sad looking children, people from the third world dressed in ragged clothes. I am not saying people sjould stop taking these shots, or that there should be a rule against them, just that I personally wish they cropped up less in challenges. |
|
|
|
08/08/2007 10:33:59 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
I feel the same about natioanl flags, sad looking children, people from the third world dressed in ragged clothes. I am not saying people sjould stop taking these shots, or that there should be a rule against them, just that I personally wish they cropped up less in challenges. |
This coveres some more ground that I'm on board with. Shoot away....exploit away...it's all good but be honest about it. If you're learning, then learn. If you really have something to say, then say it. No one should stop shooting anything but stop and maybe think of what you are shooting and the reason you are shooting.
Again, seeing so many these images nowadays, they appear to be more like a 6th Grade Science Fair, project. The homeless images began popping up with greater frequency than "The Baking Soda Volcano" which is sort of how they are coming off to my eye. Maybe a learning experience but not all that deep.
Message edited by author 2007-08-08 10:48:14. |
|
|
|
08/08/2007 11:07:11 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Again, seeing so many these images nowadays, they appear to be more like a 6th Grade Science Fair, project. The homeless images began popping up with greater frequency than "The Baking Soda Volcano" which is sort of how they are coming off to my eye. Maybe a learning experience but not all that deep. |
I just wish that voters would get sick of them and realise that they are not that deep, and deal with them appropriately. If there is a demand, there will be a ready supply. In the same way I am quite tired of these "Liquid X in Glass Y" type shots that are all the rage here again. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 08:38:31 AM · #110 |
*edit* nevermind, i'll just fall in line. So how about that local sports team?
Message edited by author 2007-08-09 08:54:31. |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 08:40:22 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by craigester:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Again, seeing so many these images nowadays, they appear to be more like a 6th Grade Science Fair, project. The homeless images began popping up with greater frequency than "The Baking Soda Volcano" which is sort of how they are coming off to my eye. Maybe a learning experience but not all that deep. |
I just wish that voters would get sick of them and realise that they are not that deep, and deal with them appropriately. If there is a demand, there will be a ready supply. In the same way I am quite tired of these "Liquid X in Glass Y" type shots that are all the rage here again. |
It will never happen, its social/political correctness to vote any image with a "cause" at least a 5, any less than that is unamerican! |
|
|
|
08/09/2007 10:17:00 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Maybe I'll just summarise the main point in my overlong post.
Photography is generally allowed in public spaces. Most people have private spaces in which they can live without being photographed. Homeless people don't.
I would say that morality dictates that you should give more respect to the privacy of homeless people than normal passers by who have chosen when, where and how to place themselves in a public space. |
I disagree...
Morality is in the mind of each individual as to where the line is drawn in the sand.
I don't generally take shots of the homeless 'cause it isn't something I'm very good at doing.
As far as homeless people being unable to avoid the eye and/or lens of the photographer, neither do they necessarily have same said chance to avoid the abuse and violence of people who prey on them for their own twisted motives.
Not that this rationale excuses any legitimate harassment, but the interpretation of what we do as abuse or invasion doesn't cut any more ice with me than Sean Penn attacking photographers because he thinks he's more priviliged than the next guy who walks down the street.
It *IS* legal and within all realms of reasonable to take pictures of what you see in public. Period.
In most cases, people will not take the time to spend a few moments with them, buy them a meal, ask, and take interest in their story, so we won't even know why they're where they are in the first place.
I would probably do so if I were to get into shooting the homeless as Joey has done, but it's an element of society that does make me uncomfortable, so *my* morality states to me that if I won't help, don't be invasive.
They can and do hide if they choose to make themselves unavailable....and there are ways to change your circumstances in many cases, so I don't spend an awful lot of time worrying about people whose situation I don't personally know. There are people who are indigent due to choices, and though the numbers are smaller, some choose the simplicity of what to us seems to be an unacceptable way to live.
To me, this is much the same as crashes, destroyed homes, and many other circumstances that can, and will be perceived as unfortunate or catastrophic.
But I'm sure as heck not going to throw down the morality gloves on someone else who chooses to take the shot, whatever his/her intentions may be.
All that said, I took this shot in our nation's capitol of this gentleman who appeared to be basking and relaxed.
Did I ask his permission? No.
Is that invasive? Maybe.
He was sitting in the sun on this bench off to the side of a courtyard in the center of a group of heavy traffic office buildings.....so I stopped briefly, took two shots and moved on. I figured if the shots were meant to be, they'd come out okay.
Now this next guy on the other hand, was standing in the middle of the sidewalk accosting people, trying to get his point across for his cause. Is that less invasive than someone who stands back and takes a photograph? Does he have any more or less right than I to interrupt someone's life? I talked to him and he was articulate, enthusiastic, and polite. But he STILL stopped me.
As he did this woman in front of me.
As an aside......this lady really read him the riot act....it was hilarious; I almost felt sorry for him!
One last thing......if you've ever been around Skip, THAT'S invasive photography!!! LOL!!!
Message edited by author 2007-08-09 10:20:53.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 11:10:20 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
As far as homeless people being unable to avoid the eye and/or lens of the photographer, neither do they necessarily have same said chance to avoid the abuse and violence of people who prey on them for their own twisted motives. |
This isn’t a very good example. Homeless people have the same rights as you and me not to be violently abused, irregardless of their homeless status.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It *IS* legal and within all realms of reasonable to take pictures of what you see in public. Period. |
We are talking about morality rather than legality. Just because it is legal, does not make it reasonable or morally appropriate.
For example, would it be reasonable to climb onto a wall in order to see through a window into toilets or a changing room and take photos of people getting changed? To pap people leaving alcoholics anonymous or drugs rehab in order to post the images on the internet, or to sell to the papers? Attaching a camera to your shoe in order to take “upskirt” photographs of strangers?
As an aside, there are also common legal limitations: in many countries you may not take photos of people when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I am not sure what your grounds are for assuming that most homeless people choose that way of life (personally, I think it quite terrifying how easily with one or two bad choices one could end up destitute and penniless on the street) – but regardless, for people who do not have the realistic or easy option of avoiding the public arena, then the justification “people should have limited or no expectation of privacy when they put themselves in public space” does not work as well.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Now this next guy on the other hand, was standing in the middle of the sidewalk accosting people, trying to get his point across for his cause. Is that less invasive than someone who stands back and takes a photograph? Does he have any more or less right than I to interrupt someone's life? I talked to him and he was articulate, enthusiastic, and polite. But he STILL stopped me. |
This is an adjunct to my point: you put yourself the public arena. If someone talks to you, that is not an invasion of your privacy.
Taking a photograph is not an interruption to someone’s life, but the creation of a permanent record of them, their appearance and activity at a point of time, for your personal use and gain. When dealing with people who have limited or no means to move to a space where you are prevented from doing so, is it morally acceptable to record any and every moment of that person’s life against their will?
|
|
|
|
08/09/2007 09:26:58 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
As far as homeless people being unable to avoid the eye and/or lens of the photographer, neither do they necessarily have same said chance to avoid the abuse and violence of people who prey on them for their own twisted motives. |
Originally posted by Matthew:
This isn’t a very good example. Homeless people have the same rights as you and me not to be violently abused, irregardless of their homeless status. |
Long ranting diatribe, jettison now if you don't wanna hear it!
Sir, please do not twist what I say, take it out of context, or give ridiculing, exaggerated examples under the pretext of making what I stated sound so immoral and outrageous.
Your analogous example of my shot of the man on the bench to climbing a wall to peep in a bathroom or the shoe camera is reprehensible, and you know it.
You apparently didn't even read my very first statement correctly or you would have realized that what I was saying was that all too often these same people who are unfortunate enough to be thrust into a situation where any photographer can take their picture have no escape from the twisted type of people who seek them out to harass and abuse them. READ WHAT I WROTE!
Oh, and PLEASE show me where I said that MOST homeless people choose that way of life.
What I said was this:" They can and do hide if they choose to make themselves unavailable....and there are ways to change your circumstances in many cases, so I don't spend an awful lot of time worrying about people whose situation I don't personally know. There are people who are indigent due to choices, and though the numbers are smaller, some choose the simplicity of what to us seems to be an unacceptable way to live."
If I must make it simpler and break it down for you......
I know many places in the city where I live that there are homeless that have gone out of their way to avoid attention and discovery.
I know of a whole segment of this area's indigent that make a circuit of various shelters and facilities set up for their care and "work" that system to a very modest but tolerable survival.
There are also a certain percentage who are in-your-face raving lunatics who make you need to cross the street.
Gee, what a surprise!
Different types of people in this segment of the population just like you and me, and thank God I'm different than you.
Having lived two decades longer than you and having seen a lot more grief and loss PERSONALLY, I'm wagering; I know of what I speak.
That means that I have personal knowledge of bad choices, and it takes a lot more than one or two to have your life collapse.
Yes, there are people that have a tenuous grip on life, but all too often it's a long series of bad luck, bad choices, and an unwillingness to accept accountability for your choices and actions.
I think you'd be surprised at how many people in dire straits own their own situations, truth be told.
That doesn't make them any less miserable, but I am a lot less sympathetic than I used to be having at one point pretty much flushed my own life down the drain.
Of my own volition, if not a wholly conscious choice.
I guess one of the funniest things about this whole thing is how many people I've been involved with that I was able to help make a difference with due to my own actions, if for no other reason being able to demonstrate by firsthand experience that you can make it back from Hell if you're willing to do the work. Not through anything I did other than to finally take a look at my life and make the decision to no longer make all the wrong choices.
I wasn't able to do it alone, but I had to be willing to do the work.
Because of this, I do not make any assumptions or judgements about anyone else's lot 'til I hear it from them and get a feel for the way they interpret their position.
The only way you can help someone is if they want to be helped and are willing......hence my comment about choices.
There is a very fine, but distinct, line between being a victim; or a volunteer.
So....I really do not seek out the homeless, or the downtrodden, the people who have not had it good......but I won't turn my back on anyone who has his hand out for help, either as long as his desire to change his lot is genuine.
So I will never take a shot of a homeless person in any other situation than that one in my previous post in those kind of circumstances.
I sincerely hope that gives anyone who has read this journey to my soapbox a new appreciation for the skill, integrity, and compassion of Joey Lawrence.
ETA: IRREGARDLESS
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
Message edited by author 2007-08-09 21:31:41.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2008 10:09:21 AM · #115 |
| There are times that it can be good. Sometimes the homeless may in fact like their picture taken, the interaction, etc. But remember to treat them as you would anyone else. Ask their permission. Treat them as human beings. Talk with them... |
|
|
|
05/07/2008 10:29:39 AM · #116 |
I have taken photos of homeless and submitted one in a challenge. Being new to photography I think I'm going through a phase most have. I'm struggling with this...as well. I took a pic the other day of someone passed out and deleted it because I thought of the things Pawdrix brings up in the thread starter and the obvious. There are others floating around I've been contemplating removing... There are, however a couple of I took of a guy who is homeless and takes care of strays. We spoke for a while and he asked me if I take pictures, a said I did and snapped a few. These I don't have qualms about...
talks to the animals
A Good man
Message edited by author 2008-05-07 10:30:37. |
|
|
|
05/07/2008 10:54:12 AM · #117 |
| Is it forum thread resurrection day? |
|
|
|
05/07/2008 10:56:28 AM · #118 |
I think its a bit extreme to label photographing homeless as unethical.
The way I see it is that its the same as photographing anyone else.
Is it wrong to take a photo of a stranger on the street? someone at his store? a bus driver?
If you think that is wrong, then ok, i can see why you would think photographing a homeless person is wrong.
A homeless person on a street corner, is what a sole flower in a barren plain is. He is there, in his element, in his pain or whatever drove him to be there. There is noting wrong with capturing that.
Even if the phtogs reason for taking the shot is to gain a 'wow' effect or to somehow take advantage of the homeless oerson situation, he is still taking a photo of something that exists and is around us, and that we should all be aware of.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2008 11:16:44 AM · #119 |
| Isn't the real problem when you shoot from a distance? I mean, if you create an image with a true purpose - and engage with the subject, maybe even PAY him/her, than maybe you have done something positive. |
|
|
|
05/07/2008 11:19:42 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by metatate:
Isn't the real problem when you shoot from a distance? I mean, if you create an image with a true purpose - and engage with the subject, maybe even PAY him/her, than maybe you have done something positive. |
I dunno, say you want to take photos of a parade. Do you take photos and then go around finding people in parade and hand them out money?
Like I said, for me there no difference taking a photo of a homeless person and a non-homeless person |
|
|
|
05/07/2008 11:34:38 AM · #121 |
I find photos of homeless people disturbing, I do not like to look at them. However, I believe they should be seen. They are a record of the failings of a social system imho. I, was close to being homeless a few times many years ago, living out of a van and close to living on a park bench, I'll skip the details if that is alright with everyone.
Anyway, such photos obviously remind me of what happened to myself, and what is happening to others every day. It is very sad and it should be, it should tear your heart out.
Ever since my brush with such a life, I have wanted to photograph it, I have wanted to dig it up from the shadows and make it seen to everyone, especially those who don't want to see it, who try to forget about it. That has always been the true cost of being homeless, being forgotten, being pushed into the darkest corners and painted over while people walk by complaining that their mcdonalds french fries weren't fresh enough.
I'm probably guilty of the same things to be honest, I guess it is part of being human. I have yet to take such a photograph, the idea of it. It seems so very rude to me, to add to their suffering by making a show out of them, at the same time I think it is a problem that needs to be seen. However I'm not sure they would understand my motives, and in the end I think I would be too emotionally attached to such photos that any criticism would probably crush me.
But in the end, it is as simple as life not being perfect. Life has all kinds of ups and downs. Without bad times none of us would ever know the good times. However most photographers don't seem to share that view with me for some reason.
Sorry didn't mean to rant at all of you, my apologies. |
|
|
|
05/07/2008 11:42:37 AM · #122 |
The purpose of a parade is to be a "show" for the public. Homeless people are on public property because they (arguably) have nowhere else to go.
I don't disagree with your point though, but if I am taking pictures of homeless people and I am benefiting from using them as "models" - Why not give them a piece of fruit or a few dollars for their cooperation and/or time?
Originally posted by kolasi:
Originally posted by metatate:
Isn't the real problem when you shoot from a distance? I mean, if you create an image with a true purpose - and engage with the subject, maybe even PAY him/her, than maybe you have done something positive. |
I dunno, say you want to take photos of a parade. Do you take photos and then go around finding people in parade and hand them out money?
Like I said, for me there no difference taking a photo of a homeless person and a non-homeless person |
|
|
|
|
05/07/2008 12:00:19 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by mk:
What is the deal with people wanting to control everything everyone else shoots? I just don't get it. Just because we share a common hobby doesn't mean our interests, goals, pursuits, etc. are the same. So you're above and beyond shooting bugs, macros, flowers and homeless people? Bully for you, then don't do it. Don't want to see other people's shots of the same? Then look elsewhere or keep gazing at your own navels. But encouraging other people to stop shooting something because you stopped or never had any interest to start is crap and I just don't understand these constant requests for it. |
It's called progressive liberalism. Whatever is fashionable becomes the law. Whatever is unfashionable is outlawed. And they're always right, both before and after they change their minds. |
|
|
|
05/07/2008 12:09:24 PM · #124 |
You had some great points in that post. I get the feeling that homeless people fall into many categories but is it fair to assume that many are: veterans, people with a criminal record, or mentally troubled?
I really have to commend businesses that hire former criminals and people who might be red-flagged in society - giving jobs to people like that and forming a trust with them is an honorable thing. Most people will succeed when truly given a second chance.
Originally posted by togtog:
But in the end, it is as simple as life not being perfect. Life has all kinds of ups and downs. Without bad times none of us would ever know the good times. However most photographers don't seem to share that view with me for some reason.
Sorry didn't mean to rant at all of you, my apologies. |
|
|
|
|
05/07/2008 12:11:57 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by metatate:
......Most people will succeed when truly given a second chance. |
Or just rape more children...
:-/
|
|
