Please your thought on ethics in this story

[Andrea Taurisano]

Most of us are comfortable with photographing strangers. Some do that at a distance, some right in their subjects’ faces. Some the candid way, some even exchanging a few words to them. Often we share street people photos on forums and our own websites. No model release is needed for non-commercial use of pictures, as long as the content of those images is not such that a recognizable subject could be offended or somehow humiliated by it.

Yesterday I came across a series of photos of a man I met a few years ago in the most touristic area of an African capital.

I saw him first walking a bit unsteady and trying to establish a contact with other tourists, who just avoided him. Then he came to the bench where I was sitting and talked to me.

He had rather worn out clothes and carried a half full plastic bottle. From his first words, it became clear to me that he was drunk-ish, but not so that he couldn’t tell his story. He also told me I could take photos of him, which I did.

He bore a beautiful old Italian name, little in use today, like a grandfather’s name. He was in fact partly of Italian origin, emigrated as young boy to find fortune working out at sea. While telling his story he kept drinking strong spirit from his bottle and within minutes became less and less clear in his speech and even unsteadier in his sitting posture. But he did manage to mention a woman, long before in his life, and that he now was staying at a homeless care center. He was clearly very lonely, so carefully avoided by the crowds.

I couldn’t do much more for him than give him attention and finally ask two police officers to drive him back to his center as tourists now were starting to laugh at his deteriorating state. And I never published those strong portraits of him together with his story.

Probably I should have tried to contact him later on, sober, to ask for a release for both pictures and story, but I didn’t. So I assume that, even though well meant, the publishing of this “photo story” wouldn’t be nice reading to him or his family. So I’ve refrained from publishing it.

But I have also often thought that the non-commercial publishing of such a photo story could make someone else think of him and the many less lucky people our cities are full of. Does that mean helping them, you may ask? Don’t know.

What do you think?

 

[dct]

That is a difficult question you ask, Andrea. It really depends how you would publish. My opinion is you may post his story - more like a blog than only an image caption - with a not so specific image. That way you would do exactly what you are proposing: Telling his story with respect and showing a decent image of his live's failure to the normally indifferent public.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

The dilemma is a personal one for you. "Street" photography is legitimate, does not require releases but can sometimes be seen as invasive and as you have so well described your encounter with this man I think the question you have to answer for yourself is whether he gave you the opportunity thinking you might give him some money, but was too far "gone" to complete the transaction, or did he really see you as a person to be trusted - in which case publication could seem like a betrayal of that trust. Only you were there and only you can answer that question. The opinions you ask for will probably reflect the bias of those who respond. And none of us were present.
But he did give you permission to take the photos, and apparently did it without bargaining for payment so in one sense I think your conscience can be clear.
My question to you is, how can you publish the work, or part of it in a way that does not diminish him further and that does not conflict with your own sense of what is proper and sympathetic? If it simply results in him appearing as a spectacle then I don't think it's such a good idea - for him, or for you.

 

[fireblade]

i would like to see them, but that's me.....you have to make a decision based on your conscience...which you are struggling with?

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

Thanks for your thoughts so far. I know that the answer to such questions is merely personal. One may be criticized for his/her choice, but as long as one stands for the belief behind that choice... And in a way, I did make my mind on this story (from 2005), not publishing it complete with photos. One can always mature another view with time, of course..

My question to you is, how can you publish the work, or part of it in a way that does not diminish him further and that does not conflict with your own sense of what is proper and sympathetic? If it simply results in him appearing as a spectacle then I don't think it's such a good idea - for him, or for you.

Yeah, exactly. I know how much empathy I felt and feel for that man, but I admit that those sweet and well meant portraits, where he stares straight inside the camera with a drunk man's eyes, can be perceived by many as diminshing or even as expoitation of his misery. However, while I took those pictures, anyone else around us indifferently continued to enjoy a nice summer day eating ice creams and buying souvenirs.. Some even insulted him and myself for wasting time with such fellows like him! Which is why I often get doubts and ask myself whether contributing to indifferency is a more respectful approach than making his story known on a forum or on my blog.. Difficult questions indeed..

 

[Jamie123]

While I don't think it would be terribly unethical to publish the photos I also don't think you'd be doing anything 'noble' by it or helping any cause.

So you sat on a bench next to a drunk homeless guy and took some photos of him. While he may have told you his story, I doubt that the photos tell a story. For that you'd have to spend more time with him and follow him around. It is just very unlikely that a few portraits of a homeless guy on a bench will make people think about the less fortunate. We all see drunk homeless people sitting on benches. That is the part that everyone knows. It's the rest of their everyday lives that we may not see.

You also say that they are very strong portraits. I have not see them so I cannot say whether I agree or not. However, keep in mind that old and rundown things (and people) are a bit of a cliché. Whether it's a abandoned building or an old wrinkly face, it always seems appealing to photograph ruins. Ask yourself the question, are the photos really as strong as you'd like them to be?

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

While he may have told you his story, I doubt that the photos tell a story. For that you'd have to spend more time with him and follow him around. It is just very unlikely that a few portraits of a homeless guy on a bench will make people think about the less fortunate. We all see drunk homeless people sitting on benches. That is the part that everyone knows. It's the rest of their everyday lives that we may not see.

You also say that they are very strong portraits. I have not see them so I cannot say whether I agree or not. However, keep in mind that old and rundown things (and people) are a bit of a cliché. Whether it's a abandoned building or an old wrinkly face, it always seems appealing to photograph ruins. Ask yourself the question, are the photos really as strong as you'd like them to be?

Thanks Jamie. Very good points. No, those street portraits certainly do not tell his story, but only what he was like when I met him. Actually the whole story could barely be told in pictures by following him around a few days, as the result would still only tell what his life is like today, not how and why it became so. That's why stories are most commonly told by photos AND words.

I agree that we all see drunken homeless around. However, I constantly hear people say things like "most of them chose to live like that" or even suggest that many may own more than they show. So, yes, we all see drunk homeless people, but sometimes just talking to them and hear a bit of their stories may make us think, with or without pictures being taken. But good points, as I said. Thanks

 

[Eric T]

Publish it. Increasing awareness of the downtrodden is always a good thing.
Eric

 

[willie_901]

Why did you make those photographs is sharing them is wrong?

In my view your instinct to make the images means you also knew, at the time, publishing them has merit.

Don't over think this... share your art.

 

[River Dog]

Not everywhere, fortunately. Not in my village, for a start. Do not project urban life in the affluent west onto all of us.

Cheers,

R.

When I lived in a remote Andalusian village I could see my house, my terrace and my car quite clearly on Google Earth but we didn't need surveillance; everyone knew what everyone else was up to anyway.

 

[I Love Film]

Andrea, the photos on your home page are pretty good.

Let's see some photos of the drunk. Don't worry about it, there are plenty of other things to worry about. There's a good chance he might already be dead, anyway.

 

[celluloidprop]

As part of a more comprehensive project, either your own or as part of another (homelessness awareness, etc.), I'd say publishing them would be perfectly ethical.

Without a context that has a probable benefit to mankind, I'd be wary if I were in your shoes.

 

[I Love Film]

Most dilettante "street photographers" photograph drunks and the homeless because the homeless sit still, are semi-conscious and are not intimidating to the photographer.

If you look at these so-called "photographer's" photos, you will see many photos of the back of attractive women, fuzzy grab shots, or photos of girls from a great distance, because they lack the guts to go up to the girls and ask them or take their photos.

But you will see hundreds of photos of drooling derelicts with "dignity" or of third rate "street performers", because the "photographer" didn't have to be afraid to photograph those.

I don't see anything interesting about endless photos of homeless drugged up drunks shot with $3000 lenses.

 

[zauhar]

Here's a thought - I bet most street performers, drug addicts and drunks will be happy to sign a models release for a couple of bucks. Moral dilemma solved! Then you can also feel free to direct them - "just do what you were doing, don't look at the camera, be natural!"

(To be honest, I have done that a few times already, but without the formal model release.)

I think the OP should have just given the poor guy a handout in exchange for his photo and story, I think a verbal agreement on his part would have been enough. Not to sound callous, but the world is chock full of lost souls like this, and in our heartless world their number swells every day. I would not agonize over one poor guy who may already be dead. If you have strong portraits of him, I would not worry about showing them.

Randy

 

[Leigh Youdale]

I can only repeat what I wrote originally -
"The opinions you ask for will probably reflect the bias of those who respond. And none of us were present."

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

Very different points of view and suggestions, as expected. Just to be clear, I didn't really want to hear from you whether I should post those pictures here (or elsewere) or not. I rather wanted to hear how other (amateur and pro) street photographers see this kind of questions, where they put the comfort line, or their boundary between ethical and unethical. And it is being interesting to read your comments.

Most dilettante "street photographers" photograph drunks and the homeless because the homeless sit still, are semi-conscious and are not intimidating to the photographer.

If you look at these so-called "photographer's" photos, you will see many photos of the back of attractive women, fuzzy grab shots, or photos of girls from a great distance, because they lack the guts to go up to the girls and ask them or take their photos.

But you will see hundreds of photos of drooling derelicts with "dignity" or of third rate "street performers", because the "photographer" didn't have to be afraid to photograph those.

I don't see anything interesting about endless photos of homeless drugged up drunks shot with $3000 lenses.

What you wrote here is true. I see that too. I guess most of this wasn't meant to my work, cause I have no lenses longer than 50 mm and generally try to get as close and direct as possible. The specific photos of the drunk homeless were in fact taken with X-Pan, from closest range, while he was talking to me. But I do see the point that stealing photos of homeless people begging for money or drunk men on the sidewalk doesn't really help their cause, and it's photographically speaking pretty easy catch.

 

[Haigh]

I would not know what to do but I am impressed with the question posted and also the many replies.

 

[seakayaker1]

It did sound like your interaction with the man was genuine and displayed compassion. While others avoided contact you sat and talked and listened. Whatever his state, he was most likely happy in that moment in time.

Your a photographer and did ask to take his picture, if you want to post them, write an article, blog or whatever I would not see a problem or believe that you would be breaking any ethical boundary.

 

[jsrockit]

I don't see anything interesting about endless photos of homeless drugged up drunks shot with $3000 lenses.

But what if they were done with film and a holga? 😉

 

[zauhar]

Not everywhere, fortunately. Not in my village, for a start. Do not project urban life in the affluent west onto all of us.

Cheers,

R.

Roger that must be one tiny village you inhabit. Not one representative of the corporate world ? Not even a British equivalent of a 7/11 store? No petrol station ? No bank outlet?

Forgive me, but I would not be suprised to find a security camera in the middle of the Amazon.

Randy