Photographer Profiting from Homeless??

i often find the 'protectionism' surrounding the homeless and down on their luck folks funny, in a hey something is wrong here sort of way.

i am sure they (homeless etc) would be happy to know someone has their back.
 
I think all of this is very complicated. I don't see any of the issues in black and white, as I always enjoyed less contrasty gray areas myself.

The discussion isn't pointless, as issues of representation and exploitation are very real. Aaron Huey, who Frank Petronio turned me on to, has done some stunning, heart-rending work on the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota. One of the hearts rendered was his own, and mine both looking at his images and hearing his words. One of the things clear from his talks about this work is the complex relationship between the photographer and subject. He talked about people being angry at him for some of the work he published, and then later thanking him, and by no means does one get the sense that it always ends happily. It's push and pull--complex.

That the photographer in question spends time with his subjects shows that he embraces the complexity of it. He doesn't shoot and run, he doesn't simply pay for images, he's thought through some of the moral issues and has tried to wind a path that respects the people but also allows him to make his art.
 
I take greater exception to the article that the photos. Instead of talking about the people in the photos, the article focuses on the photographer. CNN is exploiting the homeless.

With regard to the photos, though, I think they are overly-processed, and are a little too close to Don McCullin's work. Still, I don't have to buy the book, do I?
 
Snacks said:
I take greater exception to the article that the photos. Instead of talking about the people in the photos, the article focuses on the photographer.
Click to expand...

Right, I bet the book focuses on the guy's work more than the people as well. However, that is hard to avoid when the focus of the book is the person's work. :)
 
Roger Hicks said:
Possibly, but only when 'profit' is a place-holder for 'exploitation'. The two are far from synonymous, but they are at least equally as far from mutually exclusive.

Why "Arts" in quotation marks?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Roger, as I see no exploitation here.

As to why "Arts" in quotation marks: I didn't want to imply strictly visual arts. In addition some well-known members of the arts community have their own agendas be it political or otherwise and tend to berate the business side that's needed to afford the ability to produce the "Art" in the first place. That is where I was coming from.

My best to you & Frances!

Dave
 
Snacks said:
I take greater exception to the article that the photos. Instead of talking about the people in the photos, the article focuses on the photographer. CNN is exploiting the homeless.

With regard to the photos, though, I think they are overly-processed, and are a little too close to Don McCullin's work. Still, I don't have to buy the book, do I?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comparison to Don McCullin. I'm not familiar with many renowned photographers. It caused me to look him up.
This link is to an interview he made. Awesome and relevant to the discussion, I think.

http://www.horvatland.com/pages/entrevues/06-mccullin-en_en.htm
 
Jack, thank you for the horvat/mccullin link. as a long, long-time newspaperman, i can say it is one of the finest interviews i have ever read.
 
Jack Conrad said:
This link is to an interview he made. Awesome and relevant to the discussion, I think.

http://www.horvatland.com/pages/entrevues/06-mccullin-en_en.htm
Click to expand...

Interesting:

"One difference is that the pictures in the magazines involve exploitation. The reader is exploited, the people who are photographed are exploited, the photographer is exploited, as I was by the publishers who allowed me to risk my life. When I came back to the office and showed the pictures, they would say : "God, that's terrible : make it a double page spread!" or : "That's awful, it's a good cover!". And I didn't mind, because it gave me an opportunity to go to the next war. I was like on a high."
 
I see nothing contentious here. He is open with his subjects about what he is doing, is respectful by the sound of it, and has (at worst) drawn attention to the real people hiding inside the bodies of 'those people.' I see a sensitivity in his work that suggests he is not a predator, but very possibly did experience and epiphany.

If his goal was not one of 'saving them all' but instead one of simple exploration of empathy and human understanding, then is it all bad? I'd say not. The more people give a damn and recognise the people behind the situation, the better off we all are.
 
Something bugs me about those portraits. Every single one of them looks 'in control' yet we are supposed get all choked up because they are 'abandoned'.

They never work yet we feel sorry for them but somebody into paying the service bills for their home but receiving unemployment is a 'scrounger'.

To me the pics are street dwellers working the punter, in this case a photographer.
 
jm51 said:
Something bugs me about those portraits. Every single one of them looks 'in control' yet we are supposed get all choked up because they are 'abandoned'.

They never work yet we feel sorry for them but somebody into paying the service bills for their home but receiving unemployment is a 'scrounger'.

To me the pics are street dwellers working the punter, in this case a photographer.
Click to expand...


Perhaps the photographer (see LJ 's first post above) would like to understand why you think he is being worked instead of him working through a project with all the artistic ability he posseses to produce a fine body of work.:)

From a philosophical standpoint (not my specialty), are you saying that your experience leads you to believe these people are living on the street by choice? That they would not better themselves if given a chance? With my limited experience with the homeless in my area, I cannot fully understand what you mean but, of course, that is my problem for a lack of understanding and would like to know more about what you mean.
 
I cannot possibly say that you are wrong, but I will say that your comment does not stack up against my own experiences dealing with homeless addicts and others in similar predicaments. It is usually a catastrophic loss of control that puts them in that position, either as a result of addiction, psychiatric problems or a cacophony of 'bad luck' events that ruin their lives. Some see no way out because they have given up; some can't because they do not have the faculties to make one. Some are 'odd' but few appear to be 'scroungers benefiting from soft hearted punters' to me.

Sure, there are those that want a free ride, but I would suggest that you will find them elsewhere and not on the street. The street is not a place many people would choose because it is easier....

jm51 said:
Something bugs me about those portraits. Every single one of them looks 'in control' yet we are supposed get all choked up because they are 'abandoned'.

They never work yet we feel sorry for them but somebody into paying the service bills for their home but receiving unemployment is a 'scrounger'.

To me the pics are street dwellers working the punter, in this case a photographer.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom