Homeless, dignity, photography

[J.Paul]

Thank you for some thoughtful comments.

I would like to get the exploitation issue out of the way.

Jumping on the word 'exploitative' to dismiss photos of homeless people is sad. It shows a mindset that automatically imputes nefarious ulterior motives to the photographer. Something close to the several people who approached me with a suspicious frown, and the question : 'Why are you taking photos?' How dirty must ones mind be, when all one can think of when seeing a photographer, is that he must be some kind of pervert?

Right on point Lukitas. I said this in the other devolved thread. It is a sad thing indeed, when one immediately imputes a foul or evil intention to his fellow photographers based upon his own personal outlook that photographing a particular subject must always be an exercise in destroying another's dignity. It presumes a wicked intent, without any concern as to whether that is the actual reality of the situation.
This is a very unkind and cynical attitude to have about your fellow enthusiasts. Most sincere photographers make images for the love of doing so. Those who would act otherwise, were exploiters long before they picked up a camera or ran into a homeless subject.

Keep shooting as you are Lukitas. I see that you are in some cases enhancing the dignity of these folks. Nice work!

 

[Ranchu]

Yes, I'm sure you'd like to get the 'exploitation issue out of the way'. Giving me this "Aww...such a sad mindset" **** isn't going to do that for you, though.

 

[Cameron]

Yes, I'm sure you'd like to get the 'exploitation issue out of the way'. Giving me this "Aww...such a sad mindset" **** isn't going to do that for you, though.

I haven't seen you provide any clear insight on to why you think photographing the homeless is bad. There can be bad photographs that come of it, yes. But you're just beating out the bush. Spell it out for me.

 

[fireblade]

Yes, I'm sure you'd like to get the 'exploitation issue out of the way'. Giving me this "Aww...such a sad mindset" **** isn't going to do that for you, though.

Sell ALL your possessions and give it to the homeless....remember, it's not the amount you give, but what you own...plenty of hypocrites out there who think just because they give a large amount they are worthy to spew forth holier than thou judgements.

 

[Ranchu]

I haven't seen you provide any clear insight on to why you think photographing the homeless is bad. There can be bad photographs that come of it, yes. But you're just beating out the bush. Spell it out for me.

Here is page 9 of the previous thread.

https://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147841&page=9

Here are some quotes from it.

candids of homeless people, and candids of people with a home. Several times. Other people have made a distiction too. Several times.

I forgot reliance on caste power differences for protection. That's key, I think. I see no empathy, just the indulgence in it. The exploitation of the suffering and powerless for an emotional need.

Because the act of taking photos of a homeless person exploits their vulnerability and powerlessness to manufacture a fetish object for the use of the better situated, for contemplation and reflection at leisure. They are kept from objecting to being used in this manner by the threat of violence by the state. There is an enforced inequality which the photographer is taking advantage of - indulging in, in fact.

It's not. These people can escape to their homes, cars or stores. They can object, they can take your camera with a reasonable expectation of no jail and few consequences. As a photographer, a homeless person is much easier to exploit than people of your class, as they can't object, or fight back as freely. Unless they fight back, and you and they both know they'll be punished for it. So you're taking advantage of their situation for your own needs, when they have nothing and no one. That's not ethical, that's gutless and inhuman. This is not difficult.

It's unethical if it's candid or without permission, because it exploits the fact that homeless people have less power in society than the photographer does. They have nowhere to hide, at the most basic.

I have not been refuted, Joe, just weaseled at and attacked. I had to keep repeating it because no one would answer, just make excuses or deflect attention to some other issue. I consider it proven.

 

[airfrogusmc]

So let me get this straight, Migrant Worker shouldn't have been taken? Evans should have never have photographed those he photographed and neither should have Hines or Riis?

 

[Dan Daniel]

So let me get this straight, Migrant Worker shouldn't have been taken? Evans should have never have photographed those he photographed and neither should have Hines or Riis?

Your use of Evans, Hine, Riis- exploitive of them. They are dead, they cannot go inside and hide, they cannot slam you against a wall, they are powerless and you just put them in your post without any care or concern for them. Stop exploiting them. Your post should heve never been written.

 

[J.Paul]

Yes, I'm sure you'd like to get the 'exploitation issue out of the way'. Giving me this "Aww...such a sad mindset" **** isn't going to do that for you, though.

If one adopts your attitude then objectively, all photography is exploitive. Street photography must be at the top of the list.
If you truly want to eliminate the possibilities of exploitation, then put down the camera and rid yourself of the temptation.

It is a poorly formed conscience which will allow someone to harm another, in any manner, for some material gain. You presume that most photographers are in this state. That is not logical nor, can it be true.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Your use of Evans, Hine, Riis- exploitive of them. They are dead, they cannot go inside and hide, they cannot slam you against a wall, they are powerless and you just put them in your post without any care or concern for them. Stop exploiting them. Your post should heve never been written.

LoL Dan I should be ashamed...

I for one am glad they turned there cameras on the subjects that they did. The world is a better place for it.

 

[lukitas]

Here is page 9 of the previous thread.

https://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147841&page=9

Here are some quotes from it.

candids of homeless people, and candids of people with a home. Several times. Other people have made a distiction too. Several times.

Straw man.

If anybody is vulnerable to my depredations with a camera, it's my friends and colleagues. I keep pointing my camera at them till they give in.

Anecdotal, but worth noting. In '77, my dad went on a trip to New York.
Early spring. He found a beggar, who had covered his arms and legs in plaster casts against the cold. Dad thought he would make an interesting picture, upon which the plastered man jumped up and assaulted him.

Exploitation is a non-issue, vulnerability is an invalid argument, and at what point exactly did I promote a mindset of 'Aw, how sad'?

Homeless people are survivors. Heroes of poverty in a way. People with interesting, if tragic stories, who deserve to be decently portrayed in photographs.

Now you have me suspecting your motives, Ranchu, as the arguments you patiently repeat are not sufficient.

Cheers

 

[Ranchu]

Unlikely, but maybe I'll try to decode that later. I wanted to reiterate, as it was in the other thread that it was clearly stated, that I am specifically talking about candids, or photos taken with the person's knowledge but without their consent. So yes, if you take those kind of pictures of a homeless person, you are exploiting the fact that they are homeless for your own kicks, however angelic you feel your motives are. You really can't avoid it.

Dorothea Lange! Dorothea Lange!

 

[Ranchu]

If one adopts your attitude then objectively, all photography is exploitive. Street photography must be at the top of the list.

From earlier.

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.

 

[Ranchu]

So let me get this straight, Migrant Worker shouldn't have been taken? Evans should have never have photographed those he photographed and neither should have Hines or Riis?

I could do without migrant worker, and evans. Hine or Riis had cameras that took a long time to set up, so I have to assume they had their subject's consent. The Lange may also qualify. If not then yes, then they exploited the situation of their subjects, and exploited them personally for their own kicks. Can you deny it?

It's a craven act, imo. Cowardly and dishonest.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I could do without migrant worker, and evans. Hine or Riis had cameras that took a long time to set up, so I have to assume they had their subject's consent. The Lange may also qualify. If not then yes, then they exploited the situation of their subjects, and exploited them personally for their own kicks. Can you deny it?

It's a craven act, imo. Cowardly and dishonest.

Your "o" is probably far enough from most others' that there is little point in pursuing the argument. "I could do without migrant worker" [presumably "mother"]. Gosh. Well, pity about the rest of us who think it's a brilliant picture and a savage indictment of what aspired to be the richest and most powerful country in the world.

Can I deny that Lange, Evans, Hine and Riis were taking pictures "for their own kicks"? Yes. Fairly easily. Can you deny that you are pursuing substantially indefensible arguments that few will take seriously, just for your own kicks?

Of course some pictures of the homeless are exploitative. But to extend the argument as far as you are attempting to do is hardly defensible.

Cheers,

R.

 

[lukitas]

This is ending up in the classic dance around the meaning of words.

'Candid', as in shooting ladies underwear up the stairs?

Of course that is despicable.

The whole point of this thread was to show that it is possible to make photographs of homeless people without descending into exploitation, indignity and furtive, stolen shots. Thank you for drawing it down to the level of Telephoto lenses at the periphery of nudist beaches.

Myself, I prefer to use the term 'candid', for what is commonly known as 'street'. 'Street' is both too inclusive and not enough. Pictures of people in a landscape or a park can be very streety, whereas cityscapes aren't really 'Street'. For shots of people in unexpected compositions, 'candid' seems perfect.
If you can take your mind off the bikinis at the beach.

Cheers

 

[lukitas]

Someone please put a good photo on this thread.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Here's a guy who exploits the homeless all the time-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNqRqF1E0fc

Well the stores are open
But I ain't got no money
I ain't got no money
Stores are open but I
Ain't got no money
Ain't got no money
Well I ain't

Found an old dog
And he seems to like me
Seems to like me
Well he seems to like me
Found an old dog and he
Seems to like me
Seems to like me
Well he seems

Seen them fellows
with the card board signs
Scrapin up a little $
To buy a bottle of wine
Pregnant women and
The Vietnam vets I say
Beggin on the freeway
Bout as hard as it gets

I LOOK 47 but I'm 24
Well they shooed me away
From here the time before
Turned there their backs
And they locked their doors
I'm watching T.V. in
The window of a furniture store

 

[zauhar]

Hey, this guy couldn't be exploited, he tried to return fire -

 

[Ranchu]

This is ending up in the classic dance around the meaning of words.

I've been very specific about what I mean. I think you get it, don't you?

 

[Ranchu]

Your "o" is probably far enough from most others' that there is little point in pursuing the argument. "I could do without migrant worker" [presumably "mother"]. Gosh. Well, pity about the rest of us who think it's a brilliant picture and a savage indictment of what aspired to be the richest and most powerful country in the world.

What do you want me to do, speak for you? Oh the humanity!

Can I deny that Lange, Evans, Hine and Riis were taking pictures "for their own kicks"? Yes. Fairly easily. Can you deny that you are pursuing substantially indefensible arguments that few will take seriously, just for your own kicks?

You conveniently mischaracterized what I said, "I have to assume they had their subject's consent [...] If not then yes, then they exploited the situation of their subjects, and exploited them personally for their own kicks".