Homeless. Post your photographs.

Let me suggest that these are just people, not defined by where they live, just people.

Some people are male, some are female. Some people are black, some are white. Some are gay, some are straight. Some have homes, some don't.

This is Joe, I photographed him because he is male.
This is Joe. I photographed him because he is black.
This is Joe. I photographed him because he is gay.
The is Joe. I photographed him because he is homeless.

Steven-Queen-&-Janet-Memphi.jpg


This is Steve, Queen, and Janet in Memphis. Does it make any difference they are homeless?
 
Photography of conflict zones is to bear witness.
As should photography of the homeless. Bearing witness doesn't simply mean to shoot a photo from the hip or subversively or whatnot. It means to tell a story and to engage both the subject and the viewer. Not what some people call "parachute journalism."
When I was shooting (photos) in Iraq while in the US Navy, I both was envious of and hated the civilian press. Why? Because most got to come in to the city (Fallujah) for a few days, shoot some photos and video reel, get audio clips, take a few shots of dead insurgents and wounded Marines then leave. Leave. Granted, I volunteered for that gig but just because I was reporting from hell doesn't mean I didn't want to leave it.
I always treated my subjects not only like they were humans but that their stories mattered. Not simply snapping an image of a person who was powerless to stop me from taking an image and walking on. If I wanted to take a photo of an Iraqi, I always addressed them in the formal Arabic, politely requesting a photograph.
They have names and lives. Those things matter to them.
It is exactly the same for the homeless or any person is in a position of lesser power. They are first human beings. If they are homeless, don't just hurreidly shoot a photo with your camera kit that cost more than those people have seen in several years and move on. Respectfully find out who they are, spend some time and learn from them.

Phil Forrest
 
Keith said:
This thread was always going to be like this (contentious) ... that should have been obvious to the OP and the people choosing to post in it. I've spent time photographing a group of homeless people and didn't have issue with photographing them but personally I have never felt that a thread devoted to the subject would be appropriate here.
Click to expand...

Why actually not appropriate? You don't give any reasons, Keith.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Photography of conflict zones is to bear witness.
As should photography of the homeless. Bearing witness doesn't simply mean to shoot a photo from the hip or subversively or whatnot. It means to tell a story and to engage both the subject and the viewer. Not what some people call "parachute journalism."
When I was shooting (photos) in Iraq while in the US Navy, I both was envious of and hated the civilian press. Why? Because most got to come in to the city (Fallujah) for a few days, shoot some photos and video reel, get audio clips, take a few shots of dead insurgents and wounded Marines then leave. Leave. Granted, I volunteered for that gig but just because I was reporting from hell doesn't mean I didn't want to leave it.
I always treated my subjects not only like they were humans but that their stories mattered. Not simply snapping an image of a person who was powerless to stop me from taking an image and walking on. If I wanted to take a photo of an Iraqi, I always addressed them in the formal Arabic, politely requesting a photograph.
They have names and lives. Those things matter to them.
It is exactly the same for the homeless or any person is in a position of lesser power. If they are homeless, don't just hurreidly shoot a photo with your camera kit that cost more than those people have seen in several years and move on. Respectfully find out who they are, spend some time and learn from them.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

You have your own recipe that works for you, congrats. But your way to shoot is not universal.
And isn't any person you photograph in the street powerless, "vulnerable?"
 
Unless we interact and speak with the subjects, how can we honestly know that these people are homeless ? Posting photos here does nothing, imo, to help alleviate the situation of those who are without homes.

I make every effort to ask someone who I think might be without a home, if I can take their photograph. This is usually preceded by talking to them about whatever they want to talk about, how their day is, do they have a place to stay. If they're ok with photos, fine. If not, that's fine as well. We need to treat people not just as something in our viewfinder but as human beings. My cameras are hanging in plain view the whole time. ymmv obviously
 
Bob Michaels said:
Let me suggest that these are just people, not defined by where they live, just people.

Some people are male, some are female. Some people are black, some are white. Some are gay, some are straight. Some have homes, some don't.

This is Joe, I photographed him because he is male.
This is Joe. I photographed him because he is black.
This is Joe. I photographed him because he is gay.
The is Joe. I photographed him because he is homeless.

Steven-Queen-&-Janet-Memphi.jpg


This is Steve, Queen, and Janet in Memphis. Does it make any difference they are homeless?
Click to expand...

Great point, Bob!
 
bushwick1234 said:
You have your own recipe that works for you, congrats. But your way to shoot is not universal.
And isn't any person you photograph in the street powerless, "vulnerable?"
Click to expand...

No, my way is respectful of people. I've been homeless.
Feel free to ramble on about the semantics of "vulnerable" or whatnot but there is definitely a difference and you know it.
It's ok though because I held in the groan I was going to let out when I first saw this thread until now. You just want to stir the pot with your own entitlement and self-aggrandizement. Enjoy your contentious thread. You got what you came for. I'm out.

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
No, my way is respectful of people. I've been homeless.
Feel free to ramble on about the semantics of "vulnerable" or whatnot but there is definitely a difference and you know it.
It's ok though because I held in the groan I was going to let out when I first saw this thread until now. You just want to stir the pot with your own entitlement and self-aggrandizement. Enjoy your contentious thread. You got what you came for. I'm out.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

I'm definitely out of this thread.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
No, my way is respectful of people. I've been homeless.
Feel free to ramble on about the semantics of "vulnerable" or whatnot but there is definitely a difference and you know it.
It's ok though because I held in the groan I was going to let out when I first saw this thread until now. You just want to stir the pot with your own entitlement and self-aggrandizement. Enjoy your contentious thread. You got what you came for. I'm out.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

How this is disrespectful!
 
I very rarely take photos of homeless people, and only if I had a longer conversation with them to learn about their lives, and after the person has given me permission to take photos. Before I leave, I either give them $5 or ask them if I can do something for them. I would never take a picture of a homeless without asking.

Here is one of the few photos I took of a homeless person. I saw him in front of a soup kitchen and was wondering how such a young and healthy looking guy can be homeless. So I sat down with him and we talked for about 10-15 minutes. After that, I asked whether I can take a picture. Just one. I know his name, his life's story, and the photo means something to me.

2016-06-26-0004_2.jpg
 
giganova said:
I very rarely take photos of homeless people, and only if I had a longer conversation with them to learn about their lives, and after the person has given me permission to take photos. Before I leave, I either give them $5 or ask them if I can do something for them. I would never take a picture of a homeless without asking.

Here is one of the few photos I took of a homeless person. I saw him in front of a soup kitchen and was wondering how such a young and healthy looking guy can be homeless. So I sat down with him and we talked for about 10-15 minutes. After that, I asked whether I can take a picture. Just one. I know his name, his life's story, and the photo means something to me.
Click to expand...

Great shot.
 
Pay tribute to the poor, the ignored, the rejected, the ones left behind by a cruel, greedy world.
Click to expand...

don't forget racist, ableist, classist, homophobic and transphobic!
 
bushwick1234 said:
Of course, it is easier just to ignore homelessness, but a first step to help out is to show reality as it is.
War photojournalism helped actually out to stop some wars in the past. That is the reason why now war atrocities since 911 are being hidden from the public...
Click to expand...

So you say when a bunch of hobby snappist post photos of homeless on a website this might ease the situation of homeless people?

Your statement get's a place on the list of the most ridiculous statements taken from this forum.
 
in response to the whole "is photographing the homeless necessarily useless and self-serving" issue, i think this episode of "on the media" brings up a pretty important distinction between empathy and compassion:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/poverty-tour (around the 20 minute mark)

BROOKE GLADSTONE: This is the first of a five-part series and I’m a little nervous because when the people I met in Ohio tell you their stories in the next few weeks, how will you respond, with empathy? Maybe that's not such a good idea.

PROFESSOR PAUL BLOOM: If what you mean by empathic is caring and kind and understanding, absolutely. But if what you mean by empathic is they should put themselves into our shoes, they should feel what we feel, definitely not. This sort of empathic engagement leads to burnout, at least to suffering and pain.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Paul Bloom, Yale professor of psychology and cognitive science, at last year's Aspen Ideas Festival.

PROFESSOR PAUL BLOOM: There’s a wonderful collaboration between Tania Singer, a neuroscientist, and Matthieu Ricard, a Buddhist monk and biologist, where they trained people to feel empathy, to engage in empathic contact with other people, Then they trained another group to be compassionate, to care about other people but not necessarily engage in the same way. What they found was the empathic group, they suffered more and they helped less. The compassionate group felt good and they helped more. So, if you took away empathy, what would you replace it with? A sort of rather cold-blooded rational cost-benefit analysis. Go not after what gives you the buzz, but what really helps other people.

And then the second thing is we need some sort of emotional push, but the push need not come from empathy. The push can come from love, from caring, from compassion, from more distant emotions that don't swallow us up in the suffering of others.

[MUSIC UP & UNDER]

BROOKE GLADSTONE: So, how to tell the story? The playwright Berthold Brecht soundly rejected empathy. When he depicted injustice, he did not want us to say, yes, I felt like that too, it’s only natural, it’ll never change. The sufferings of this man appall me because they are inescapable. No, Brecht worked willfully to undermine our empathetic tears, so we could see more clearly, so instead we’d say, that’s not right, that’s unbelievable. It’s got to stop. The sufferings of this man appall me because they are unnecessary.

As for me, I just figure if Jack Frech is still trying to shine a light, just because, and you listen, just because, and, if, as Matthew Desmond argues in Evicted, the inhuman trap that is poverty is not so great as it once was, then maybe sustaining our gaze does work, if we can discern that what is appalling is, in fact, unnecessary.

Next week, we dissect the notion that success in life hinges on personal responsibility, the work ethic and all that.
Click to expand...
 
vytasn said:
Does anyone not know what homelessness is? These pictures are not informing anyone about homelessness, they are simply exploiting the most vulnerable people in society for your viewing pleasure. They do not belong in this forum just as pornography doesn't belong here. We are better than this.
Click to expand...


Wait, wait, wait.

You've once stated that Michael Ackerman is your favourite photographer.

But: There exist Michael Ackerman photographs of homeless people — is Michael Ackerman an exploiter of «the most vulnerable people in society for your viewing pleasure» then?
 
U27021I1262180002.SEQ.0.jpg

Times can be tough in the lucky country, but at least this bushie had his two mates for company. I stopped to chat and I asked if it was OK to pat his dogs (it was) and then I asked if I could take some portraits and he was happy to let me. This was the one I liked the best. Did I give him some money? Only he and I know that answer to that, and it's no-one else's business. I sleep well at night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom