Photographer Profiting from Homeless??

if you want to get really, really cynical, you could say that paying a homeless person to pose for a photo is the same as a reporter paying for a news tip: the results are biased by cash. or one could say, you get what you pay for ... :)
 
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...
You are sure, you say. How so?
 
Samouraï said:
Who said anything about censorship?
Click to expand...

Me. And this subject, in a round about kind of way.
Lets not be pedantic - the question of "is this suitable", payment or otherwise is obviously going to be broached at some point. Thats what we're asking. Should he have paid them? Is it okay to post the images if he has? If he gives them money, what are they going to be spending it on? Food? Drink? Drugs? What are the ethical ramifications of such subject matter, blah, blah...
So there you go - I've put it out there.
 
@Ezzie. Yes its a presumption that the photographer comes from a privileged position with bourgeois attitudes. I doubt Im wrong though, that is unfortunately often the case.
This is not about censorship or privacy laws its a question of journalistic ethics which are in very short supply these days, and I feel that this work has crossed the line into exploitation for personal gain.
@Sparrow. "You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs" another fine quote from Uncle Joe. ;-)
 
sdotkling said:
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.
Click to expand...

How dare people ruminate on the ethics of their artform/craft!
 
red snapper said:
@Ezzie. Yes its a presumption that the photographer comes from a privileged position with bourgeois attitudes. I doubt Im wrong though, that is unfortunately often the case.
This is not about censorship or privacy laws its a question of journalistic ethics which are in very short supply these days, and I feel that this work has crossed the line into exploitation for personal gain.
@Sparrow. "You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs" another fine quote from Uncle Joe. ;-)
Click to expand...

... then how do you suggest we inform the proletariat of capitalism's inequities if you consider even an amateur photographer to be morally degenerate? perhaps we should simply wait for the riots to start and then photograph them?

I think uncle Joe meant to say "You can’t make an omelette without breaking the Ukraine" :D
 
Black said:
Me. And this subject, in a round about kind of way.
Lets not be pedantic - the question of "is this suitable", payment or otherwise is obviously going to be broached at some point. Thats what we're asking. Should he have paid them? Is it okay to post the images if he has? If he gives them money, what are they going to be spending it on? Food? Drink? Drugs? What are the ethical ramifications of such subject matter, blah, blah...
So there you go - I've put it out there.
Click to expand...

Good question. A Norwegian journalist got prosecuted, and convicted of financing a drug addict's habits by way of paying for a tip-off. The reasoning being that he/she had to know what the money would be used for.
 
I applaud his effort and all his hard work. I would have done the same had I came up w/the idea first. I'm sure he could have gotten the images w/out even spending time talking w/them or even giving them a little cash. The way I see it,this is his way of telling His story and making a little cash for it. These things doesn't make him a bad person in my eyes.
Nelson
 
photo4ls said:
I'm sure he could have gotten the images w/out even spending time talking w/them
Click to expand...

Unlike you, I'm sure that the pictures he could possibly get without talking to them and getting their trust wouldn't have come close to those excellent and intime portraits. They'd have turned out like street shots that most of us here do.
 
.... love it. Wish I could shoot portraits like that. I love photos that cause controversy. All he did was take a picture and make it into something even more in post.... He did nothing wrong. If someone wants to pay him for his work, get angry at them.... Its just some photos of real life manipulated to stir emotion. I don't see the issues of morality.
 
The accompanying story talks about one of his subjects injecting heroin and smoking crack. The second to last picture shows one subject holding a syringe. I know people who use intravenous drugs, and it is very hard to inject into a vein with an insulin syringe like that man is holding. I think perhaps the guy is diabetic, but it makes better copy to talk about heroin. Then when people see the syringe, they jump to a conclusion.

Larry Clark he's not.
 
red snapper said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing any "pretty" here. None of these look pretty. Seems quite the opposite. This is art in the service of humanity. He is making and publishing powerful portraits of people who would otherwise go seen. He is certainly saying something about their awful reality.

Does it change anything? Well, he is trying, and there is a chance his work may influence people and help people. The more powerful the work, the better the chance.

They are very stylized portraits, but the photographer is very talented at that. He could pour the same talent for pictures into selling products and no one would question him, but there are more than enough people doing that already.

jsrockit said:
I don't buy the tears part though...
Click to expand...

I actually do believe the tears part 100%. That is the most natural reaction for the photographer to have.
 
Wonderful pictures. I think photographing down-and-out people in general is a common thing because they already have the character look and the expression on their faces.
But in those photos I really can feel the photographer's hard work to create a relationship in order to achieve that excellency and perfection presented. It is so beautiful I would think the photographer has dived in to those people's pain and cried with them while depressing the shutter.
 
Posted by Andrea Taurisano

Unlike you, I'm sure that the pictures he could possibly get without talking to them and getting their trust wouldn't have come close to those excellent and intime portraits.

Whats the" Unlike you" thing about. Do we know each other?:confused:
Nelson
 
If you will forgive my indulgence,

This work is most definitely NOT photojournalism.
Nor is it intended as portraiture.

It's religious or spiritual iconography.
It's powerful stuff.

Jeffries gave these people something more than personal dignity.
He gave them a light in their eyes that depicts transcendence, a glimmer of light at the gates of Eden, so to speak. The clarity in their eyes is awesome to behold, as if God is somewhere in there.

He has made these people into more than poor old broken homeless people lazily waiting for a handout from some urbane and thoughtful corporate agent. He infused them with light, not darkness.

Even the blind guy has light pouring from his sightless eyes.

I think Jeffries intended his art to honor these people, not pity them. He honors those people by giving their likenesses a greater meaning. He gives them a religious spiritual significance. He imbues them with the iconic soul of humanity.

I think that's what he was trying to do, at least to some degree thereof.
 
No matter what you think, his images will sell and garner him tons of accolades, press, and make his career. He will befriend Brad and Angelina, Bono, and the Queen will bestow on him - a knighthood.

Certain subjects always attract surefire attention - the destitute, sex, and celebrities. People want to view the supposed lowest and highest denominators in life. What they want, what they desire, and what they could become. Is it real? Is it true? Is it life? Have we become numb?

"I like a look of Agony, because I know it's true -- men do not sham Convulsion, nor simulate, a Throe --"

Dickinson, Emily

Is this true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom