Homeless. Post your photographs.

[Tim Murphy]

No disrespect intended

No disrespect intended

Hi Tim but think if some photographers like Dorothia Lange, Walker Evans, Margaret Bourke-White and many others had not turned their cameras on homeless or the very poor.

Dear airfrogusmc,

I take your response to mean that without photographic proof those people would not exist? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but that is how I read what you said.

Help me out here. Where is the line drawn and why?

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA 🙂

 

[Bob Michaels]

Dear airfrogusmc,

I take your response to mean that without photographic proof those people would not exist? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but that is how I read what you said.

Help me out here. Where is the line drawn and why?

The FSA photographers that airfrogusmc mentioned were given the explicit goal of documenting the plight of farmers in the dust bowl and other impacted places so that documentation could be used to garner public support for government programs to aid them. That effort was quite successful and resulted in the passage of the programs in Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" where the Federal government took an active and financial role in programs to end the great depression.

It is acknowledged by historians that this body of work is the greatest example of documentary photography causing major social change.

So no lines drawn. Their photography had a clear objective and they helped achieve that goal.

All of which loops back to what objective do people have to photograph homeless people?

 

[Liam Maloney]

Posting snapshots of disadvantaged people in vulnerable situations on a forum mostly populated by camera fetishists seems like weird trophy-hunting at best. If you seriously think your photographs can have a positive impact on homelessness, I hope you are heavily invested in it, have a distribution plan for your work and have specific policy-changing objectives in mind. Otherwise, put your expensive camera down and make a real human connection. Buy them a meal, learn something about the people who live in your city and the issues they contend with. Dignity is often the first casualty when a person lives on the street. Your photo of a man sleeping rough will not change anything, but your empathy and compassion might make a difference in their day. The fact that they are homeless is probably the least interesting thing about them, and photographs that present that cold, singular truth ignore the complexities and layered histories of marginalized people. Those are stories that are too often left untold.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Tim where did you get that? What I am saying without people like those photographers turning their cameras on those people those photographs like migrant worker wouldn't exists and those documents would't exist.

Bob your post is right on the money.....

 

[Keith]

Posting snapshots of disadvantaged people in vulnerable situations on a forum mostly populated by camera fetishists seems like weird trophy-hunting at best. If you seriously think your photographs can have a positive impact on homelessness, I hope you are heavily invested in it, have a distribution plan for your work and have specific policy-changing objectives in mind. Otherwise, put your expensive camera down and make a real human connection. Buy them a meal, learn something about the people who live in your city and the issues they contend with. Dignity is often the first casualty when a person lives on the street. Your photo of a man sleeping rough will not change anything, but your empathy and compassion might make a difference in their day. The fact that they are homeless is probably the least interesting thing about them, and photographs that present that cold, singular truth ignore the complexities and layered histories of marginalized people. Those are stories that are too often left untold.

Great post. 🙂

 

[Tim Murphy]

I apologize Bob Michaels explained your post

I apologize Bob Michaels explained your post

Tim where did you get that? What I am saying without people like those photographers turning their cameras on those people those photographs like migrant worker wouldn't exists and those documents would't exist.

Dear airfrogusmc,

I am not well versed in the history of photography. Mr. Michaels explained your post and it called to mind many photographs that I saw 40 or 50 years ago and I understood what you meant. But those were different times.

Miraculously, between Bob's post and yours, Mr. Liam Maloney said what I really wanted to say in regards to today's photographic documentation of the plight of the homeless.

Different strokes for different folks I reckon?

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA 🙂

 

[Liam Maloney]

This is the trouble with "concerned photography" as an aesthetic pursuit.

I would argue that photographs of the homeless are less about the subjects than about the people behind the camera. A kind of social currency. A status symbol.

"I saw passers-by step over this man, so I made a picture, because that is a testament to my intellectual reflexes, my wit and my privilege."

I can understand and relate to the desire as a photographer to embrace the tropes that permeate documentary photography, from Riis to Lange to Salgado. Are they helpful today? I'm not convinced they are.

I should add that as a documentary photographer, I have taken many photographs of people in humiliating, alienating and undignified situations. I'm not immune to criticism. I think this is a worthwhile conversation to have.

 

[bushwick1234]

This is the trouble with "concerned photography" as an aesthetic pursuit.

I would argue that photographs of the homeless are less about the subjects than about the people behind the camera. A kind of social currency. A status symbol.

"I saw passers-by step over this man, so I made a picture, because that is a testament to my intellectual reflexes, my wit and my privilege."

I can understand and relate to the desire as a photographer to embrace the tropes that permeate documentary photography, from Riis to Lange to Salgado. Are they helpful today? I'm not convinced they are.

I should add that as a documentary photographer, I have taken many photographs of people in humiliating, alienating and undignified situations. I'm not immune to criticism. I think this is a worthwhile conversation to have.

That what you describe, Liam, is an actual global tendency on how to approach social issues (race, gender, disabilities, veterans, aging, poverty, immigration, war, you name it). Ignoring works best. The photographer Rineke Dijkstra refers to the power of the images (and we may include moving images here as well) when they "don't pass judgement, and leave space for interpretation." Btw, she just won the 2017 Hasselblad Award!

 

[airfrogusmc]

Tim, I think Bob also stated in a previous post and aluded to how important a body of work can become. But having said that those photographers also caught some of the same heat in their day that you are saying now and if they or the bigger cause had been swayed by those detractors and had not taken those images at the time we wouldn't have that record. I see a lot of things that I might not have taken but I would rather have it out there than to censor in any way or discourage anyone. Time has a way of sorting it all out and the cream in many cases will rise.

Liam I think exactly the same thing was said in the day about the FSA photographers and later Diane Arbus, Robert Frank etc.

In fact some would say what DeCarava said "You should be able to look at me and see my work. You should be able to look at my work and see me." - Roy DeCarava
So isn't the act of creating usually as much about the creator as it is about the creation? Adams once said something like a great photograph is an honest representation about how the photographer feels about the world.

 

[BuzzyOne]

Please don't censor me or pass some moral judgement upon my work. I will abide you the same courtesy.

Thank you.

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

One can fly a drone with $100 bill attached to it around a homeless camp for all I care.

That was touching. And these: 😱

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyBzg4daHHw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KGDj0bDxN4
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...475/Drone-drops-burgers-for-the-homeless.html

 

[steveyork]

Posting snapshots of disadvantaged people in vulnerable situations on a forum mostly populated by camera fetishists seems like weird trophy-hunting at best. If you seriously think your photographs can have a positive impact on homelessness, I hope you are heavily invested in it, have a distribution plan for your work and have specific policy-changing objectives in mind. Otherwise, put your expensive camera down and make a real human connection. Buy them a meal, learn something about the people who live in your city and the issues they contend with. Dignity is often the first casualty when a person lives on the street. Your photo of a man sleeping rough will not change anything, but your empathy and compassion might make a difference in their day. The fact that they are homeless is probably the least interesting thing about them, and photographs that present that cold, singular truth ignore the complexities and layered histories of marginalized people. Those are stories that are too often left untold.

Tend to agree. Think the LUG once had a rule -- no homeless, no dogs.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I guess it boils down to what gives anyone the right to tell others what they should create? If it's something that you don't like just go somewhere else and look. Take care of your own work and let others do as they see fit. Lotsa room to move around in the visual arts. So focus on your own back yard and get that squared away before worrying about the neighbors.

One person's moral compass certainly shouldn't be the compass for all. Slippery slope and all that. Let us not forget Degenerative Art and those insane times.

 

[BlackXList]

Dear airfrogusmc,

I take your response to mean that without photographic proof those people would not exist? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but that is how I read what you said.

Help me out here. Where is the line drawn and why?

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA 🙂

My personal take on this issue is that I'm not going to help people ignore these other humans by excluding them from photographs.

I feel like it's too easy for so many people to ignore, and sorry, I can't contribute to making that easier by turning my face or my camera away from what I see.

 

[BlackXList]

This is the trouble with "concerned photography" as an aesthetic pursuit.

I would argue that photographs of the homeless are less about the subjects than about the people behind the camera. A kind of social currency. A status symbol.

"I saw passers-by step over this man, so I made a picture, because that is a testament to my intellectual reflexes, my wit and my privilege."

I can understand and relate to the desire as a photographer to embrace the tropes that permeate documentary photography, from Riis to Lange to Salgado. Are they helpful today? I'm not convinced they are.

I should add that as a documentary photographer, I have taken many photographs of people in humiliating, alienating and undignified situations. I'm not immune to criticism. I think this is a worthwhile conversation to have.

I'm not going to post anything that I did for a person in a photograph, that feels much more problematic to me.

It doesn't add "validity" to a photograph, it feels very self congratulatory and "I bought this person lunch and spent time with them" as a boast, or some kind of patting myself on the back, it makes it more about me than the person in the photograph, and that's the opposite of what I'd want.

For me the reaction to seeing someone ignored isn't to try and congratulate myself for my intellectual reflexes, it's a much more internal visceral response than that, that I don't like seeing it, and I can take a couple of seconds out of a few people who look at my work's day and as well as the other stuff I shoot, shove a bit of uncomfortable reality in there so it's harder to ignore.

That is alongside, and seperate to any actions I take in either those specific people's cases or a charity or political arena.

 

[maggieo]

Posting snapshots of disadvantaged people in vulnerable situations on a forum mostly populated by camera fetishists seems like weird trophy-hunting at best. If you seriously think your photographs can have a positive impact on homelessness, I hope you are heavily invested in it, have a distribution plan for your work and have specific policy-changing objectives in mind. Otherwise, put your expensive camera down and make a real human connection. Buy them a meal, learn something about the people who live in your city and the issues they contend with. Dignity is often the first casualty when a person lives on the street. Your photo of a man sleeping rough will not change anything, but your empathy and compassion might make a difference in their day. The fact that they are homeless is probably the least interesting thing about them, and photographs that present that cold, singular truth ignore the complexities and layered histories of marginalized people. Those are stories that are too often left untold.

I'll second Keith's comment that this is a great post.

I think, for me, the most problematic thing about many, but not all, photographs of homeless people is that there is no human connection between photographer and subject. It's this void of connection that turns someone sleeping (which, let's be honest, make up the majority of "homeless photos" on the web) on the street from a human being to an object or an abstract.

Too often I see a lack of engagement on the part of the photographer- a quick snap or two are taken at a distance (either physical or spiritual) and then, instead of waiting or engaging with the subject, the photographer moves on, looking for another body to photograph.

Take your initial snap, but then introduce yourself to your subject, or just make eye contact, letting them know that you have seen them and acknowledged your shared humanity. Then, make another photograph. 9/10, that will be the one that has the real power.

Dorthea Lange's famous and moving photograph of the migrant mother was made after Lange and her partner had spent some time speaking with her, learning her story and explaining their own work. They didn't treat her as an object nor as an abstract visual concept; she was treated as a fellow human being.

And the photo Lange made is all the stronger and more iconic for that connection.


"Migrant Mother, Nipomo, California" by National Media Museum, on Flickr

 

[bushwick1234]

I'll second Keith's comment that this is a great post.

I think, for me, the most problematic thing about many, but not all, photographs of homeless people is that there is no human connection between photographer and subject. It's this void of connection that turns someone sleeping (which, let's be honest, make up the majority of "homeless photos" on the web) on the street from a human being to an object or an abstract.

Too often I see a lack of engagement on the part of the photographer- a quick snap or two are taken at a distance (either physical or spiritual) and then, instead of waiting or engaging with the subject, the photographer moves on, looking for another body to photograph.

Take your initial snap, but then introduce yourself to your subject, or just make eye contact, letting them know that you have seen them and acknowledged your shared humanity. Then, make another photograph. 9/10, that will be the one that has the real power.

Dorthea Lange's famous and moving photograph of the migrant mother was made after Lange and her partner had spent some time speaking with her, learning her story and explaining their own work. They didn't treat her as an object nor as an abstract visual concept; she was treated as a fellow human being.

And the photo Lange made is all the stronger and more iconic for that connection.

"Migrant Mother, Nipomo, California" by National Media Museum, on Flickr

And you believe everything that is being told? The subject is not even having any eye contact with the photographer.... Besides, with or without the back story the image is exactly the same image. Nothing changes. No weaker, no stronger.
If making eye contact and show the subject this way "your shared humanity" means something, that is your individual, personal experience of shooting, but you can't make that to an universal law for all photographers.

 

[bushwick1234]

 

[bushwick1234]

My personal take on this issue is that I'm not going to help people ignore these other humans by excluding them from photographs.

I feel like it's too easy for so many people to ignore, and sorry, I can't contribute to making that easier by turning my face or my camera away from what I see.

Exactly. Looking away from social issues and ignoring poverty is being made to a philosophy of photographing nowadays. I hear way too often "I don't shoot homeless people." My personal motto is shoot whatever you see, don't limit yourself.

 

[newsgrunt]

I'm not going to post anything that I did for a person in a photograph, that feels much more problematic to me.

It doesn't add "validity" to a photograph, it feels very self congratulatory and "I bought this person lunch and spent time with them" as a boast, or some kind of patting myself on the back, it makes it more about me than the person in the photograph, and that's the opposite of what I'd want.

For me the reaction to seeing someone ignored isn't to try and congratulate myself for my intellectual reflexes, it's a much more internal visceral response than that, that I don't like seeing it, and I can take a couple of seconds out of a few people who look at my work's day and as well as the other stuff I shoot, shove a bit of uncomfortable reality in there so it's harder to ignore.

That is alongside, and seperate to any actions I take in either those specific people's cases or a charity or political arena.

I'm sure if you met or knew Liam and the work he's produced, you'd reconsider your post.