Bad news for streetshooters...
- Thread starter Andy K
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 39
- Views 3K
rool
Well-known
Honestly, I don't think it is such bad news. There are many more different subjects to shoot in the street.
I've always find it lame for street shooters to always shoot the homeless because it is so easy... there are other people in the streets!
Anyway it is just a photographic ban and they never refrained me to shoot.
I've always find it lame for street shooters to always shoot the homeless because it is so easy... there are other people in the streets!
Anyway it is just a photographic ban and they never refrained me to shoot.
BJ Bignell
Je n'aurai plus peur
Interesting article... it makes some good points, and had me agreeing on some points, but I do have to point out that the article is accompanied by a "Satire Alert"! 😀
robert blu
quiet photographer
As photographer I would be disturbed by this news, but homeless are human being and have to be respected. Probably too much intrusion in their (not easy) lives without respect brought to this decision. Could have been a not appropriate behaviour from some photographers, or photo-students looking for the "drama" at any cost.
Andy K
Well-known
BJ Bignell said:
I do know this... 😉
MinorTones
Well-known
A quote from the article:
"It's gone far enough," said the President of the Association of Nearly Perfectly Useless Degrees, Bob (formerly Barbara) Cady-Stanton, in New York City. "People think it's 'concerned photography' or 'socially relevant.' Actually it's just faux photojournalism of something handy that can't fend for itself. It's harder to take pictures of squirrels."
Its a joke article. EDIT: oops I see you saw that 🙄
But anyway take pictures of what you want, imo. I am a little tired of seeing those hip shots of the homeless though. Photos are made not taken.
-Mitch
"It's gone far enough," said the President of the Association of Nearly Perfectly Useless Degrees, Bob (formerly Barbara) Cady-Stanton, in New York City. "People think it's 'concerned photography' or 'socially relevant.' Actually it's just faux photojournalism of something handy that can't fend for itself. It's harder to take pictures of squirrels."
Its a joke article. EDIT: oops I see you saw that 🙄
But anyway take pictures of what you want, imo. I am a little tired of seeing those hip shots of the homeless though. Photos are made not taken.
-Mitch
kmack
do your job, then let go
This is Commandment 7 of The PLUG's 10 Commandments of Leica Photography
Move along, there is nothing to see here... 🙂
Move along, there is nothing to see here... 🙂
aterlecki
Established
Cruel, very cruel. Every time I see announcements like this I get incensed and my blood pressure goes through the roof. Now I've read the article I've calmed down 😀 but I swear you lot will give me a heart attack one day!Andy K said:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Trojan horses are trojan horses.
And take this anonymous response (taken from the posting):
The way it's presented, it's a silly ban IMO. Let's also ban photos of war atrocities, traffic accidents and all other nasty things that happen in life, and pretend they don't exist. Maybe they will then go away on their own.
BTW, what the heck is "The feckless simianity discordances the rotomontade hapness of beagle fever"? I am not a native speaker, all my searches in dictionaries to identify a verb in this sentence failed. I couldn't find the word "simianity" either.
And take this anonymous response (taken from the posting):
The way it's presented, it's a silly ban IMO. Let's also ban photos of war atrocities, traffic accidents and all other nasty things that happen in life, and pretend they don't exist. Maybe they will then go away on their own.
BTW, what the heck is "The feckless simianity discordances the rotomontade hapness of beagle fever"? I am not a native speaker, all my searches in dictionaries to identify a verb in this sentence failed. I couldn't find the word "simianity" either.
W
wtl
Guest
A fundamental fraud in common belief is that photographing homeless is to humiliate them. Many (most) photographers photographing them for the reason to inprove the situation. That voice is constantly lost in the argument.
sockeyed
Well-known
I realize that this is a satirical piece, and it makes a good point about how some people feel entitled to take pictures of the homeless. Done right, it can serve to raise awareness and challenge us; done wrong, it can simply be exploitative.
At the same time, I feel that this piece lacks empathy for the homeless. In my mind, good satire would show them more as articulate and thoughtful people, as many of them are. Unfortunately this article portrays them as deranged and deviant. I find this unfortunate.
At the same time, I feel that this piece lacks empathy for the homeless. In my mind, good satire would show them more as articulate and thoughtful people, as many of them are. Unfortunately this article portrays them as deranged and deviant. I find this unfortunate.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
kmack said:
I've seen this one before Kmack.. it's great. As is your appropriate quote from Officer Barberry. Love 'em both!
Andy K
Well-known
sockeyed said:
The article is spot on. It satirises the view held of the homeless by that 'type of opportunist photographer'.
"...said the President of the Association of Nearly Perfectly Useless Degrees, Bob (formerly Barbara) Cady-Stanton."
Hehehe 😀
Last edited:
JohnL
Very confused
Obviously a spoof, as many have already observed. Jay Bill, the well-known critic, is an obvious allusion to Bill Jay, who did actually write in one of his books of his distaste for yet more pictures of "derelicts in dorrways", and I'd heartily agree with him, but (if it were serious) I'd be strongly against the idea of banning it. That's the sort of thing we'd exoect from the Taliban ...
Sonnar Brian
Established
But it's still okay to take pictures of homely people?
MCTuomey
Veteran
gabrielma said:
My guesses, Gabriel -
"simianity" = all ape-kind, in the same way that humanity refers to human-kind
likely predicate of quoted sentence = "discordances" (which brutalizes the noun discord or discordance into a verb)
I could go on, but it's best to stop. As Faulkner put it, "Sound and fury, signifying nothing" as it's just the satirist's indiscriminate filet knife in action.
JimG
dogzen
If there were ever any laws passed to restrict what people photograph in public places would it mean the end of those omnipresent security cameras used by police and businesses?
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I've been given quite a few reminders about my momma by a few. Others don't mind. Who knows...Brian Sweeney said:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
MCTuomey said:
Thanks, Mike, for the clarification --- but to disclose again, it's not me, I quoted "Anonymous" from that post.
Anonymous is so prolific -- and must be over 5000 years old! Very wise ma...err...person.
bmattock
Veteran
It has been said that most Americans are but one paycheck away from being homeless, meaning that we have very little set aside for emergencies. This being the case, taking a photograph of anyone is presuming an awful lot - by the time it reaches publication, that person could well be living under a bridge somewhere. So I think we should just ban photography of people altogether, on the theory that we're all PH (Potentially Homeless).
Besides, I tend not to think of people as 'homeless'. Rather, I think of them as 'alternative habitat enabled'. By boldly rejecting the dictums of society that people actually live indoors in inclement weather, they are reclaiming our heritage and making a real statement about the materialism that infects our societies. Their discomfort should be our own, as we go about exploiting the Earth and bending nature to our own ends. What price, steel? Where is the reason for concrete? Did you sell your soul for that sofa, brother?
We must emulate these heroes. We must go and live under bridges, wash car windshields with greasy rags, quaff muscatel by the gallon. This is not a poverty of a person, this is a poverty of a nation's spirit - our souls! Take their pictures? We should be building statues to them!
Or, um, not. Whatever works.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Besides, I tend not to think of people as 'homeless'. Rather, I think of them as 'alternative habitat enabled'. By boldly rejecting the dictums of society that people actually live indoors in inclement weather, they are reclaiming our heritage and making a real statement about the materialism that infects our societies. Their discomfort should be our own, as we go about exploiting the Earth and bending nature to our own ends. What price, steel? Where is the reason for concrete? Did you sell your soul for that sofa, brother?
We must emulate these heroes. We must go and live under bridges, wash car windshields with greasy rags, quaff muscatel by the gallon. This is not a poverty of a person, this is a poverty of a nation's spirit - our souls! Take their pictures? We should be building statues to them!
Or, um, not. Whatever works.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
