Bad news for streetshooters...

[ch1]

There are a lot of people in NYC who are "homeless" but have cell phones. Rents are so high here that not all homeless folks are unemployed etd.

So if I am homeless but have a digicam - does this mean I cannot take self-portraits? :bang:

 

[Sonnar Brian]

If a photographer takes a Photograph,

does a phone take a Phonograph?

 

[bmattock]

If a photographer takes a Photograph,

does a phone take a Phonograph?

I had read a long time ago that photographs should correctly be called photograms. Dunno, never gave it much thought.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[nwcanonman]

Babs,
Yo, it's preternaturally homogenious ~ ; - )

 

[dazedgonebye]

Can the homeless take pictures of the homeless?
Is it ok to strap radio location devices and and video cameras on them...you know, like in that penguin movie?

 

[ywenz]

why would you want to see pics of homeless?

 

[sockeyed]

Can the homeless take pictures of the homeless?

Indeed they can. Have a look at this project:

Hope in Shadows

Exhibit Catalogue

This is a very interesting project by the activist Pivot Legal Society in Vancouver. Every year they give out single-use B&W cameras to low-income (not necessarily homeless) people in the Downtown Eastside neighbourhood of Vancouver and have a photo contest and exhibition of the results. The results can be very impressive: touching, funny, sad and beautiful.

 

[celluloidprop]

I've been waiting for this for years.

Next up: a ban on art student self-portraits ripping off Nan Goldin and/or Cindy Sherman

 

[bmattock]

This is a very interesting project by the activist Pivot Legal Society in Vancouver.

I can't speak for Vancouver, but my visits to Montreal have been less than entertaining, what with the 'street people' whom I presume are homeless. I love Montreal, but I doubt I'll be back - the college-aged kids who look perfectly healthy to me who refuse to work, but hang out on St Catherine loudly demanding money and shoving their baseball caps in my face is a bit off-putting. I'll take a photo of them anytime, though - I feel no compunction if someone doesn't feel like they are particularly obliged to have a job. Sorry, hanging out and playing hacky-sack all day is not worthy of sympathy.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

PS - Miss the good beer and Poutine, though.

 

[sf]

Photographing the homeless is to be banned.

My opinion is that shooting pictures of the homeless is somewhat disrespectful. Sort of inhumane. But, from a purely objective standpoint, there really is no reason why it should be illegal.

I suppose if someone was homeless, but wanted to remain anonymous about it, or didn't want to have that situation posted all over the place, it would be very harmful to be photographed - defaming, more or less. And defamation is illegal in most cases.

Of course, it is going to be hard for the law to prove that you were taking a picture of the homeless person and not the door he was sitting beside. Where are they going to draw the line? Will it be illegal to print and sell a cityscape that shows street people? I have a large panoramic of Paris that does that, but my subject was certainly NOT the homeless, but rather the river. Will the law force me to crop out that section of the image or airbrush it out?

I have a feeling that photography is going to become an increasingly underground art - pretty soon, shooting with film will define you as being part of some secretive artist cult.

 

[bmattock]

Bill, Vancouver is still extremely laid back compared with Montreal and other large Canadian cities.

Very glad to hear that. I was there once, doing some work for Nokia. Nice place. I don't think I ever saw so many ethnic restaurants (is it still OK to say ethnic restaurants?) of nations I had never taken note of before. I mean, Bangladeshi cuisine? Seriously, so many restaurants! Took Ann-Marie to the park, had lunch at the Russian Tea House, dinner at Monk's. Wowzer. And cheap!

Yeah, now that I think back, I loved Vancouver. Thanks for reminding me!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Andy K]

My opinion is that shooting pictures of the homeless is somewhat disrespectful. Sort of inhumane. But, from a purely objective standpoint, there really is no reason why it should be illegal.

I suppose if someone was homeless, but wanted to remain anonymous about it, or didn't want to have that situation posted all over the place, it would be very harmful to be photographed - defaming, more or less. And defamation is illegal in most cases.

Of course, it is going to be hard for the law to prove that you were taking a picture of the homeless person and not the door he was sitting beside. Where are they going to draw the line? Will it be illegal to print and sell a cityscape that shows street people? I have a large panoramic of Paris that does that, but my subject was certainly NOT the homeless, but rather the river. Will the law force me to crop out that section of the image or airbrush it out?

I have a feeling that photography is going to become an increasingly underground art - pretty soon, shooting with film will define you as being part of some secretive artist cult.

The article is satirical. It isn't really going to happen.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I have to agree with Sockeyed and Frank Granovski. I realize the piece is satire but it does make you wonder. I refrain from taking such photos as I know it would not help the subjects in a material way and leave them with even less dignity than before. That is a personal choice and others are free to do what they like.

Nikon Bob

 

[sf]

Andy K :

Sort of sad that I believed it, then. . . kind of a sign of how things are nowadays. But, I don't doubt that something of similar sort will become reality in the near future.

 

[ch1]

I'm not sure why there is any sentiment amongst most of us to NOT shoot the homeless.

Yes, I understand that the "good impulse" stems from a desire to not exploit their status.

But I think there is a darker side to such an attitude that is behind this concept. In these relatively prosperous times, perhaps those that would have us believe that all of us are "doing well" are the ones behind the "don't shoot the homeless" concept?

Why was it okay to photograph poverty in the past? It was so, because the idea was to "afflict the comfortable, and comfort the afflicted"!

By not shooting the homeless, the less-fortunate, the needful etc. you are conspiring to hide them from the comfortable and self-satisfied.

"Do not shoot the homeless" is a command to ignore them and their status.

That is wrong! 😡

 

[Andy K]

George, the article is satirical. Surely the "President of the Association of Granters and Holders of Nearly Perfectly Useless Degrees, Bob (formerly Barbara) Cady-Stanton" line gave you a clue?

 

[rover]

A satirical article but it has stirred a discussion. George has posted a new thread to carry the conversation.

 

[celluloidprop]

But I think there is a darker side to such an attitude that is behind this concept. In these relatively prosperous times, perhaps those that would have us believe that all of us are "doing well" are the ones behind the "don't shoot the homeless" concept?

Why was it okay to photograph poverty in the past? It was so, because the idea was to "afflict the comfortable, and comfort the afflicted"!

By not shooting the homeless, the less-fortunate, the needful etc. you are conspiring to hide them from the comfortable and self-satisfied.

There's a big difference between Mary Ellen Mark befriending and documenting a young girl on the street, interacting and following her for 25 years and a hobbyist with a Leica snapping away as on holiday. (Other valid examples - a Eugene Richards documenting the conditions in mental hospitals around the world, a Salgado charging himself with documenting the untouchables of the world, etc.)

If a photographer wishes to dedicate himself or herself to a project with worthy/noble goals, treating the subjects with dignity, then I have no issue with someone photographing the homeless. It's when we begin to treat human beings like nothing else but decaying buildings (that other bastion of Photo 101 subject matter) that questions of proriety have to come up.

It's when another individual's poverty or disability becomes 'misery tourism' that I get pissed.

 

[ch1]

There's a big difference between Mary Ellen Mark befriending and documenting a young girl on the street, interacting and following her for 25 years and a hobbyist with a Leica snapping away as on holiday. (Other valid examples - a Eugene Richards documenting the conditions in mental hospitals around the world, a Salgado charging himself with documenting the untouchables of the world, etc.)

If a photographer wishes to dedicate himself or herself to a project with worthy/noble goals, treating the subjects with dignity, then I have no issue with someone photographing the homeless. It's when we begin to treat human beings like nothing else but decaying buildings (that other bastion of Photo 101 subject matter) that questions of proriety have to come up.

It's when another individual's poverty or disability becomes 'misery tourism' that I get pissed.

FROM MY POST ON THE OTHER THREAD:

Uh...Uh...

No politics.

But I live in and walk to work every day through midtown Manhattan. And I encounter some of the most diginfied and proud people imaginable - and some of them are wealthy and some of them are homeless.

I don't take photos of "the homeless" by and large because I don't have a message to send by doing so.

But these folks are my neighbors.

So I just object to someone saying I should not "shoot" them but it's okay if I shoot the young ingenue or austere "suit" as a street shot instead.

The homeless and the tycoon are a regular part of my daily life- are they part of yours?

I don't want to have any subject "excluded" because of their status - whatever that is.

That's the only point.

 

[Memnon]

having a camera one should shoot whatever interesting (own standards) things come up in front of your lens.
If this is homeless people, so be it, if you can justify it to yourself then I don't see any problem at all, self sensorship is probably worse than sensorship in general.

You can shoot bees, flowers. dogs, cats and other sh*t of no interest what so ever for the rest of your life