Homeless, dignity, photography

lukitas said:
So how about exploiting working people?
Click to expand...

Right, back to conflating homless people with people who have homes and can escape, or call a cop, or shove you into the wall with the reasonable expectation of avoiding incarceration. Which is what you're taking advantage of when you take a picture of a homeless person, the fact that they're relatively helpless and constrained from resisting. It's easy pathos, and cheap for you.

Dorothea Lang! Dorothea Lange!

:rolleyes:
 
Ranchu said:
Right, back to conflating homless people with people who have homes and can escape, or call a cop, or shove you into the wall with the reasonable expectation of avoiding incarceration. Which is what you're taking advantage of when you take a picture of a homeless person, the fact that they're relatively helpless. It's easy pathos, and cheap for you.

Dorothea Lang! Dorothea Lange!

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Seriously Ranchu,

Its good to see you feel so passionately about helping the homeless. That passion might help you to help the homeless in some way - a good thing indeed.

However, have you considered that publicizing the homeless' plight, like Dorothea Lange, might actually help the homeless just as much, or even more ?

Stephen
 
Ranchu said:
Seems to me, people are pushing their (lack of) morality on homeless people, so why not stick up for them here in our nice little bubble, buddy?
Click to expand...

Again we have the misunderstanding that morality is shared among humans. If it were there would be no poverty, unless it were itself shared by all.
 
Ranchu said:
I find it odd how attached people are to taking photos of homeless people. It's easy, I guess. Its not like they can resist, right?

It's a little adventure, for the artiste.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It isn't easy. It never is. First contact is always difficult. With anyone, not just beggars. You have to intrude, commit the impoliteness of intruding on someones life and asking for their attention. You have to commit a faux-pas of the ilk of declaring your love to someone. An extreme example, but whenever you start talking to someone you don't know, or point at your camera to ask for a picture, you impose on their life. Not something one does lightly.
And anyone can resist, turn away, put their hand in front of the lens, and they do when they want to.
 
CameraQuest said:
However, have you considered that publicizing the homeless' plight, like Dorothea Lange, might actually help the homeless just as much, or even more ?
Click to expand...


It's hard for me to get past the initial (personal) exploitation, to go on to weighing whether the benefit outweighs it. I like to keep my moral judgements based on a personal level. This is where we are. I also think it's easy for people to tell themselves they have a higher purpose so anything they feel like doing is inherently awesome.
 
Ranchu said:
It's hard for me to get past the initial (personal) exploitation, to go on to weighing whether the benefit outweighs it. I like to keep my moral judgements based on a personal level. I also think it's easy for people to tell themselves they have a higher purpose so anying they feel like doing is inherently right.
Click to expand...

I wish you'd expand like this more often rather than go with and leave it at the initial soundbite. Now, regardless of whether I can or will agree or not, I am able to understand your feelings more.
 
Right, you want a bubble where nobody diagrees with you, and what you do isn't challenged. It's not surprising.

Dorothea Lange! Dorothea Lange!
 
So I have the right to push my beliefs and I should be able to tell you what you have the right to turn your lens on? PLEASE

Maybe we should have a show with all the work you disapprove of and call it degenerative oh sorry been done already
 
Cameron said:
Easier than what?
Click to expand...

Here is the distinction again.

"Right, back to conflating homless people with people who have homes and can escape, or call a cop, or shove you into the wall with the reasonable expectation of avoiding incarceration. Which is what you're taking advantage of when you take a picture of a homeless person, the fact that they're relatively helpless and constrained from resisting. It's easy pathos, and cheap for you.

Dorothea Lang! Dorothea Lange!
 
Modern day politically correct sensitivities taken to an extreme would preclude a Dorothea Lange from making images of a migrant farm family.
 
I'm fine with that. People know what homeless people look like, they see them, they don't need a bunch of museum curators to show them.

Dorothea Lange! Dorothea Lange!
 
Ranchu said:
It's hard for me to get past the initial (personal) exploitation, to go on to weighing whether the benefit outweighs it.
Click to expand...

Ok, it is exploitative to shoot ladies underwear from underneath the stairs. However, if you have an understanding with a young lady, and she is willing to be photographed in skimpy wisps of cloth, it's erotic art.
Shooting beggars is the same : it can be done exploitatively, and it can be done with dignity, on both sides of the camera.

Ranchu said:
I like to keep my moral judgements based on a personal level. This is where we are.
Click to expand...

I don't get that.

Ranchu said:
I also think it's easy for people to tell themselves they have a higher purpose so anything they feel like doing is inherently awesome.
Click to expand...

I quite agree. Consciousness is a machine for justifying actions we already committed. So we always embellish the motivations for our actions. It's not too hard to weed them out, if you're a little bit careful about why you're doing the things you are doing. And some of them need to remain embellished, or we'd never submit to wage slavery ;-)
 
Ranchu said:
I

Dorothea Lange! Dorothea Lange!
Click to expand...

And her wonderful photographs wouldn't exist if she would have followed your beliefs

Lewis Hine's photographs helped get child labor laws passed in the US.

Jacob Riis documented the slums and tenements in New York that helped stir public opinion.
 
Homeless

Homeless

I've been "homeless" and was happy not to have been photographed cleaning up in an I-4 restroom or sleeping in my car in the rest area. However, I think if there is any possibility that some understanding could come from examining it more closely, I am for it.
 
Ranchu said:
Here is the distinction again.

"Right, back to conflating homless people with people who have homes and can escape, or call a cop, or shove you into the wall with the reasonable expectation of avoiding incarceration. Which is what you're taking advantage of when you take a picture of a homeless person, the fact that they're relatively helpless and constrained from resisting. It's easy pathos, and cheap for you.

Dorothea Lang! Dorothea Lange!
Click to expand...

Snapping photos of homeless people is easy. Snapping photos of anyone is easy. You're insulting homeless people more than anyone trying to photograph them. You're saying they're easy subjects because of the situation they're in. That's insulting -- none of us are saying that. Do you think lukitas just snapped those photos? I don't. It seems he took the time to speak to them and ask for a photo, which isn't easy to do at all, whether they're without homes are not. People are people. If a person makes an interesting photograph, that's all it is: an interesting person in a photograph. You're tying way too many labels to something that should be just a person in a photograph, with their own stories.
 
Some people are male while others are female. Some are black, some are white. Some are straight, some gay. Some have homes, others do not.

People are people.

edit: emraphoto, it appears we are on the same page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom