Photographer Profiting from Homeless??

No issue with the photographs, they all appear to be willing participants.

What defines homelessness?

My initial understanding of the word is someone who is down on their luck and put into a position where they can not make a living and pay rent.

Over the years, my own observations, is that there is a section of the population which are homeless and actively pursue a way out of the situation. Then there are people who make an active decision to live on the street. Some have addiction issues and others have mental health issues beyond addiction and there are some who have neither but make a personal decision to drop out.

What ethical boundaries separate the 'homeless' when taking photographs of other people with homes but live in povety? . . . . . when taking photographs of the middle class? . . . . . . when taking photographs of the wealthy?


Is it not the intention of the photographer when taking the photograph? Is it art, is it news, is it practice to improve a skill, is the intent to help or is it to expoit a person or a situation?


Ethics, often a slippery slope and when one steps out . . . . .
 
Pablito said:
CNN profiting from the photographer?

"profiting" made me laugh. anyone who does this sort of work knows there is no money in it.

beyond that, I find the images skilfull but a little sentimental and overly dramatic. Heavy-handed postprocessing objectifies the subjects a bit. They become archetypes rather than people.
Click to expand...

I would agree wholeheartedly. The pictures seem a bit exploitative and disingenuous to me (but then again, the sort of sentiment portrayed in these photos, regardless of artistic medium, has never been my cup of tea).
 
If anything, it seems to me that Jeffries' intention was the exact opposite of exploitation.

I'm moved by these photos. They depict not dignity so much, but a sort of spiritual transcendence. As if these people know their position, yet embrace the personal humility, and suffer for the sake of humanities' soul.

Metaphorical and iconic. Really wonderful.

If the point of art is an attempt to show the sacred, to give meaning to our human condition, our existence, then Jeffries is quite an artist. :)
 
Jack Conrad said:
If anything, it seems to me that Jeffries' intention was the exact opposite of exploitation.
Click to expand...

I realize what his intentions were, or what they appear to be, but it still smacks of Hollywoodism. Good storytellers or artists tend to use melodrama to either control an audience or subvert an audience--neither of which, I consciously enjoy.

I thought the photos struck a chord with me upon first laying eyes, but after a little digestion, I can't say I care for the technique (which I recognize as impressive photography and subject directing).
 
Jesus, what a bunch of guilt-ridden crybabies. The photos are awesome, the photographer shows great skill, and the stories the photos tell enrich all of mankind. Period. If you can't take the heat, gentlemen, get out of the darkroom. And please get out of the way.
 
Hardly any portrait suffers from lack of direction I would have thought. Can't see that as a no no.
 
Disempowering unequal relationship. Best way to document poverty, homelessness, etc. is to enable those who are in that situation to do it for themselves. Not questioning the technical/artistic ability of the photographer, but TBH I really have problems with this kind of work. May look pretty but the reality for these people is far form that. Would any of you want to be photographed in your most vulnerable state with snot dribbling form your nose or clutching a syringe for profit and prestige? Does it change anything? No it doesn't.
 
"An ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory" V.I. Lenin.
Does the photographer know what its like to be in that situation? Is he doing this from a position of privilege? Am sure he has a comfortable home and lifestyle to go back to after. His "subjects" don't have that luxury and I very much doubt they will be invited to any private views nor get to see how they have been portrayed, their opinions don't really figure. I have a problem with that. If you really have to take photos of homeless people go cover a demonstration where they are fighting for their rights, dignity and resources to help them off the streets, that is empowering. Poverty porn no matter how good it is, is just camera fodder to be manipulated and profited from.
 
Pablito said:
CNN profiting from the photographer?

"profiting" made me laugh. anyone who does this sort of work knows there is no money in it.

beyond that, I find the images skilfull but a little sentimental and overly dramatic. Heavy-handed postprocessing objectifies the subjects a bit. They become archetypes rather than people.
Click to expand...


@Pablito, if I ever do a decent Pic you may judge it. I find your comment spot on.

Here a link to a Belgian Photog who uses less post, the funny dof is because he uses an SL66.

http://www.stephanvanfleteren.com/gallery_portraits/
 
red snapper said:
"An ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory" V.I. Lenin.
Does the photographer know what its like to be in that situation? Is he doing this from a position of privilege? Am sure he has a comfortable home and lifestyle to go back to after. His "subjects" don't have that luxury and I very much doubt they will be invited to any private views nor get to see how they have been portrayed, their opinions don't really figure. I have a problem with that. If you really have to take photos of homeless people go cover a demonstration where they are fighting for their rights, dignity and resources to help them off the streets, that is empowering. Poverty porn no matter how good it is, is just camera fodder to be manipulated and profited from.
Click to expand...

... "one death is a tragedy, a thousand is a statistic" is another good one :D
 
Care to explain how?
Click to expand...

This is getting perilously close to "what is art." How does the Mona Lisa enrich mankind? Michelangelo's David? What's a soup can got to do with the human condition? Why show human suffering? What purpose does a symphony have? Aren't we exploiting sharecroppers when we play the blues? Allow me to roll my eyes at these questions.
 
Forgive my intemperate remarks. Maybe the safer things to debate are the imaginary benefits of the 1.8 versus the 1.5, and the like....
 
sdotkling said:
This is getting perilously close to "what is art." How does the Mona Lisa enrich mankind? Michelangelo's David? What's a soup can got to do with the human condition? Why show human suffering? What purpose does a symphony have? Aren't we exploiting sharecroppers when we play the blues? Allow me to roll my eyes at these questions.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see... ignorance is bliss! :D
 
Last image in that excellent set is stunning. I feel that if the photographer is comfortable documenting the subject matter and is totally transparent with their subjects and the subjects are equally comfortable, then this is essentially a none issue.

Its fine debating such things, but what we're ultimately discussing is censorship - and we're all a fan of that, aren't we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom