Turtle
Veteran
I think CC and emraphoto have very good examples of where photography of those in unfortunate situations can change events by bringing things to the attention of a wider audience. I think those that argue against this tote an argument along the following lines:
I think this argument is flawed from start to finish. My counter argument would go something like this:
Some other issues:
I fundamentally believe that to be a better human being you have to understand things. You have to truly understand to be able to empathise otherwise it is just a cheap empty gesture without substance. Our understanding alters our ethical perspective and stance, which alters our politics, which alters our policies. It is impossible to begin to understand anything beyond your own personal experiences without some form of reporting. We are not born into this world with an inherent understanding of the planet and everything in it. We learn and some of the critics here perhaps take their own understanding for granted; an understanding which is a product of the very things they now condemn.
- I still see poor people and wars.
- Therefore nothing has changed
- Therefore photography of this kind contributes nothing
- Therefore it is exploitative because the victims as not benefiting and so it is not right that the photographer 'gets something' from it. Like a living.
I think this argument is flawed from start to finish. My counter argument would go something like this:
- Poverty is still with us. Of course it is and it always will be. did anyone seriously expect the eradication of these things?
- There are very clear examples of where photography and other forms of reporting have forced change. I can think of one in Afghanistan at one of the sites I have photographed for years where documentaries embarrassed the govt of Afghanistan so they put hundreds of drug addicts through rehab programs and improved foreign donations to rehab programs (but there is still more to be done). There must be thousands more examples. It does contribute to the debates that sometimes bring change.
- There is this assumption that in all cases the 'victims' benefit nothing. In many cases print and image sales lead directly to charitable contributions. They are also used for fundraising. This does improve lives because I have seen it with my own eyes on a daily basis. Many photographic subjects are glad to have a voice and be listened to. They are glad someone gives a damn. You might ridicule this but it does seem to matter to people.... many photographers actually do contribute directly by giving food, water, money etc where appropriate, or by directly helping (like getting medical assistance)... and indirectly by hiring people in the local economy to drive them, interpret, fix for them etc
- If the status quo is maintained even with documentary photography, has anyone asked what would happen if coverage stopped tomorrow. What evil and selfish acts WOULD be perpetrated on an increasing basis because the eye of the camera need not be feared. I would argue that the status quo is partly a product of the positive contribution of documentary work, whether visual or literary. Remove that counterbalance and duck for cover!
Some other issues:
- If its OK to photograph these issues when a pro, because thats serious and a 'real cause' then how to non-pros develop the skills needed to do such issues justice. They have to start somewhere.
- Poverty is every bit as much of the human condition as wealth and everything in between. You will not improve anything by hiding it 'out of respect.' IMHO thats quite patronising to those so affected because it is one step away from treating everyone with equal respect. It reinforces a lesser status somehow and for those who harp on about not photographing poverty, I suspect very few actively engage the people they claim to be protecting and do something to improve their situation.
I fundamentally believe that to be a better human being you have to understand things. You have to truly understand to be able to empathise otherwise it is just a cheap empty gesture without substance. Our understanding alters our ethical perspective and stance, which alters our politics, which alters our policies. It is impossible to begin to understand anything beyond your own personal experiences without some form of reporting. We are not born into this world with an inherent understanding of the planet and everything in it. We learn and some of the critics here perhaps take their own understanding for granted; an understanding which is a product of the very things they now condemn.
Last edited:
robklurfield
eclipse
I do know, from having corresponded with Frank a little bit, that some of these young ladies indeed do come from difficult backgrounds and many of them do have tough stories to tell. As to drugs and whatnot, you'd have to ask Frank himself. I suspect that the fact these women are working with Frank often suggestions that they are on an upward trend in their lives from whatever troubles might be in their pasts. He can tell you more. I do know from what he says that most of them have ambition. Drugs and other abuses that life deals out generally don't discriminate on the basis of socio-economics, so I suppose that these gals are just as susceptible to those problems as anyone else. I do know that abuses of that sort do prey more easily on the weak and disadvantaged, but as Paul rightly observed, poverty can exist quite apart from moneyed wealth in the form of impoverished souls.
If you really want to know more about these ladies, do write to Frank, as I've always found him to be quite willing to share on topics ranging far and wide from mere technique and gear talk (though, he's really great about that). Also, Frank has a tremendous sense of humor.
If you really want to know more about these ladies, do write to Frank, as I've always found him to be quite willing to share on topics ranging far and wide from mere technique and gear talk (though, he's really great about that). Also, Frank has a tremendous sense of humor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emraphoto
Misuse and drug addiction? How did we arrive at that? Do you know any of them?
No! I don't know any of them, just going by what I have read what Frank said about a few of the girls he has gotten to know. Rob summed up my point very nicely! I was afraid I wouldn't get my point across but Rob understood. All I was wishing to point out like Paul stated above is that poverty is not restricted to just living conditions alone. I believe many of the rich & famous live impovershed lives, Just look at Charlie Sheen's wasted life right now. Sure he's got millions in the bank but his drunkeness as of late shows he is a very unhappy person. I guess we see poverty in a different manor!
__________________
Greg
flickr
NickTrop
Veteran
Know what else? Golden Rule. That's what it comes down to... "Do unto others..." right? If you were in such a state, health issues, starving, psychological issues, perhaps substance abuse issues... that you've fallen so far as you're living on the streets, sleeping on a grate - often in your own urine, on a busy city street... Would you want some wuss with a camera taking your picture, posting it on RFF or Flickr for their pals to comment on, evaluate - what have you?
I'll answer for you. No. No, you wouldn't. Which is why I'll never do it, and why you shouldn't do it. Golden rule - as corny as that sounds. And you shoot the homeless, often, for the same reason you shoot statues and mannequins. You're a coward. And your homeless pics are about as interesting as your statue and mannequin pictures. Worse than being a sh--ty photographer - amateur or otherwise, you have no humanity or soul.
I'll answer for you. No. No, you wouldn't. Which is why I'll never do it, and why you shouldn't do it. Golden rule - as corny as that sounds. And you shoot the homeless, often, for the same reason you shoot statues and mannequins. You're a coward. And your homeless pics are about as interesting as your statue and mannequin pictures. Worse than being a sh--ty photographer - amateur or otherwise, you have no humanity or soul.
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
That doesn't sound corny to me, Nick. You give a good reason for your stance.
robklurfield
eclipse
Nick, the human race contains people with all levels of moral awareness and action. Cameras and pictures aren't the problem. They're just tools, symbols and symptoms. Photography does have the possibility of making people confront hard facts that they would otherwise wish to avoid. Does that mean that it's never exploitative and that it always confers some positive moral value? No, of course, not. But, it also doesn't mean that it never does. The camera (even, an expensive, and, if you like, crass object of conspicuous consumption, such an M9, doesn't really have a inherent moral dimension. The moral, ethic value derives from the user and the viewer. There's nothing inherent in the act of making or viewing an image that carries moral weight. The value comes in how the image was made, the interaction of the maker with his/her subjects and the reaction (or sometimes, lack thereof) by the audience. Taking pictures of bodies stacked like cord wood outside of liberated concentration camps at the end of WWII was merely reportage. It did, for many people I hope, have the impact of startling and disgusting them to realize what one group of humans had committed on another. That's important. Not looking away and confronting what we're capable of as species is also important. Did those images help sell magazines or newspapers? Probably. Is that wrong? I don't think so. The message was too important not to be delivered. And, I think it's important for we humans to always be reminding each other of these things so they can be avoided in the future. Anyway, I do fully respect your opinion and I don't think it's wrong. It's just simply not the whole story. And, I'll defend your right to share it even when I don't fully agree with it.
FrankS
Registered User
Two points:
a) the interaction with the subject - If you spend some time talking with the subject, that provides them with a bit of human dignity, the knowledge that they are not invisible.
b) the audience of the image - If you intend to show the image to others upon whom it may have an effect, then there is some purpose to it beyond collecting in a pile of keepers just for the photographer's own pleasure.
a) the interaction with the subject - If you spend some time talking with the subject, that provides them with a bit of human dignity, the knowledge that they are not invisible.
b) the audience of the image - If you intend to show the image to others upon whom it may have an effect, then there is some purpose to it beyond collecting in a pile of keepers just for the photographer's own pleasure.
robklurfield
eclipse
Nick, I'll agree with FrankS that you've made a strong case here. But, I don't think it's the only case one can make.
My image early in this thread, for example, of the fellow laying in the street with someone stepping around him as if he were a pile of garbage might have an element of exploitation to it. I can't say I feel good about having not picked up and taken him home to repair all that ailed him. On the other hand, the image has power for me because it documented a time during Reagan's first term when the number of indigent and homeless on NYC's streets was exploding. I thought it important to document the utter heartlessness of the times. I think a lot of people didn't realize what our politics and policies were doing to real people. Without a visual record of that, people might be able to deny it was happening or justify by somehow saying the sufferers were getting what they deserved for not having jobs or whatever. I think we all owe our fellow humans something and taking and preserving that image was one of the ways I was able to record my thoughts and kind of protest against the whole trend towards ignoring our responsibilities. I fear that this country is tilting very serious back in that direction and think the photo, apart from whatever artist merits it probably lacks, still has something to say about our culture and our times.
How do I deal with the guilt at having not been able to fix that man's troubles? For one, I probably don't do enough of what I ought to, of what I preach here. On the other hand, I can volunteer (and ought to do more of it) at a local soup kitchen to help other folks not end up unconscious and starved on a corner. I know I can't fix everyone, but there's not a reason under the sun to prevent me from starting somewhere. The morals of this, in other words, go far beyond the single act of making an image. They really bear on how we conduct our whole lives. I'm not defending myself here, as I know in my own heart that I ought to do more. I'm just pointing out that making a picture isn't the whole story.
Like I said earlier, though, I very much respect your viewpoint and think it's good that your point of view makes me challenge and question my own thinking and acting. None of us should go through life without having our fundamental philosophic assumptions challenged on a regular basis.
My image early in this thread, for example, of the fellow laying in the street with someone stepping around him as if he were a pile of garbage might have an element of exploitation to it. I can't say I feel good about having not picked up and taken him home to repair all that ailed him. On the other hand, the image has power for me because it documented a time during Reagan's first term when the number of indigent and homeless on NYC's streets was exploding. I thought it important to document the utter heartlessness of the times. I think a lot of people didn't realize what our politics and policies were doing to real people. Without a visual record of that, people might be able to deny it was happening or justify by somehow saying the sufferers were getting what they deserved for not having jobs or whatever. I think we all owe our fellow humans something and taking and preserving that image was one of the ways I was able to record my thoughts and kind of protest against the whole trend towards ignoring our responsibilities. I fear that this country is tilting very serious back in that direction and think the photo, apart from whatever artist merits it probably lacks, still has something to say about our culture and our times.
How do I deal with the guilt at having not been able to fix that man's troubles? For one, I probably don't do enough of what I ought to, of what I preach here. On the other hand, I can volunteer (and ought to do more of it) at a local soup kitchen to help other folks not end up unconscious and starved on a corner. I know I can't fix everyone, but there's not a reason under the sun to prevent me from starting somewhere. The morals of this, in other words, go far beyond the single act of making an image. They really bear on how we conduct our whole lives. I'm not defending myself here, as I know in my own heart that I ought to do more. I'm just pointing out that making a picture isn't the whole story.
Like I said earlier, though, I very much respect your viewpoint and think it's good that your point of view makes me challenge and question my own thinking and acting. None of us should go through life without having our fundamental philosophic assumptions challenged on a regular basis.
robklurfield
eclipse
I have the conundrum when confronted with panhandlers of deciding whether I'm enabling their worst, most destructive habits by giving them money or whether I'm actually helping them. I usually lean toward the former. The good thing about something like a soup kitchen, is when I serve people there, I never have any doubt that I'm doing a good thing. I can see the food making their lives better and the appreciation they give for the help (mixed, as one might expect, with a very high level of shame; no one really wants to need that kind of help). I always hate the thought that I'm giving someone money that they'll use to make their situation worse.
Many years ago, however, a down-on-his-luck fellow confronted me in the middle of Sixth Avenue in downtown Manhattan on a New Year's Eve, asking, "Can you spare five bucks for a bottle of wine?" Feeling generous and appreciating his creative and, I have to admit, humorous pitch, I gave him something, though probably not the five he asked for, but not before saying, "You know, you can't get a decent bottle of wine in this town for five bucks anymore." I did not take his picture.
I had a friend who gave the same panhandler the same donation every day for months. Then, one day, my friend asked the panhandler for essentially the same amount as his daily donation and the panhandler quite graciously handed over a donation of his own. Broadway and West 10th Street in the 1980's. Moral transactions can go bi-directional.
Many years ago, however, a down-on-his-luck fellow confronted me in the middle of Sixth Avenue in downtown Manhattan on a New Year's Eve, asking, "Can you spare five bucks for a bottle of wine?" Feeling generous and appreciating his creative and, I have to admit, humorous pitch, I gave him something, though probably not the five he asked for, but not before saying, "You know, you can't get a decent bottle of wine in this town for five bucks anymore." I did not take his picture.
I had a friend who gave the same panhandler the same donation every day for months. Then, one day, my friend asked the panhandler for essentially the same amount as his daily donation and the panhandler quite graciously handed over a donation of his own. Broadway and West 10th Street in the 1980's. Moral transactions can go bi-directional.
Turtle
Veteran
Nick,
Thats an understandable response, but what makes you so sure you speak for everyone who is actually in that position? My experiences have shown me that your response is rarely theirs. Have you had these experiences yourself or are you making assumptions and prepared top cast powerful judgments from a position of ignorance? I do find it quite worrying when others are prepared to so emphatically state what other people 'would want' after searching only their own hearts.
Perhaps you should break your own golden rule but only in part. perhaps you should go out and engage people without a camera. Talk to them and see how they respond. After all, this is what some photojournalists do, only the photos are the final component of a much more comprehensive and respectful interaction.
I would agree that taking 'cool pics' of poor people is in bad taste, but I do not agree that taking photos of poor people is always in bad taste. You imply that it is and there is a huge difference. The latter leads to the 'lets ban it' mentality and the former accepts that liberties will always be abused by some, but the preservation of those liberties is fundamentally much more important (otherwise we would prevent freedom of speech on the basis that some say horrendously harmful things and are protected by the law). It does seem that you are taking a very superficial emotional view on something with very wide ramifications. You seem to be looking no further than your own personal repugnance. Its a good job judges don't do that....
Thats an understandable response, but what makes you so sure you speak for everyone who is actually in that position? My experiences have shown me that your response is rarely theirs. Have you had these experiences yourself or are you making assumptions and prepared top cast powerful judgments from a position of ignorance? I do find it quite worrying when others are prepared to so emphatically state what other people 'would want' after searching only their own hearts.
Perhaps you should break your own golden rule but only in part. perhaps you should go out and engage people without a camera. Talk to them and see how they respond. After all, this is what some photojournalists do, only the photos are the final component of a much more comprehensive and respectful interaction.
I would agree that taking 'cool pics' of poor people is in bad taste, but I do not agree that taking photos of poor people is always in bad taste. You imply that it is and there is a huge difference. The latter leads to the 'lets ban it' mentality and the former accepts that liberties will always be abused by some, but the preservation of those liberties is fundamentally much more important (otherwise we would prevent freedom of speech on the basis that some say horrendously harmful things and are protected by the law). It does seem that you are taking a very superficial emotional view on something with very wide ramifications. You seem to be looking no further than your own personal repugnance. Its a good job judges don't do that....
antiquark
Derek Ross
Jesus made it pretty clear how we should deal with the poor. His advice will also miraculously cure GAS. 
gb hill
Veteran
Jesus made it pretty clear how we should deal with the poor. His advice will also miraculously cure GAS.
True, but Jesus told that guy to sell all while that man was under the old covenant!(law) I'm now under the new covenant which means I can give to the poor & take their photo too without feeling guilty about it! It's called Grace!!!
RichL
Well-known
Nick be careful with your assumptions buddy. I was homeless and more to the point a "street person" for a while and couldn't have cared less if someone took my picture. It did however tick me off that they felt they could afford the price of a roll of film but not the price of a buck or a smile and a "thank's" to use me as a model
As for the poor ya there are a lot of different kinds. I live well below the poverty level and all that means to me is that I have to scrimp more than some for a roll of film or chemistry....so it goes.John Lawrence
Well-known
I find it interesting how many of those in favour have also included descriptions of the good deeds they have done for the poor.
John
John
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
I share with everyone I know.... regardless of monetary status, education or class
and usually try and have a smile on my Face
Good Cheer can be Contagious....
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
i have worked with the 'disadvantaged' since the 70's...i photograph what i please and feel no moral compunction otherwise.
robklurfield
eclipse
gb hill
Veteran
I think that it's perhaps their way of expressing that they are not your typical bunch of paparazzi type of shooters. They, like myself enjoy every aspect of photography which includes photographing as well as helping the less fortunate. I don't photograph the less fortunate to post another photo in the gallery or on flickr. I photograph because I count everyone I meet as a friend & it's my way of keeping memories of those I meet alive. It's nice to share what others are doing to help those in need. Shows they have compassion! Everyone should listen to this song by Matthew West & get out of their "Own Little World"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvSwcMp9vU4
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Rob: I used to have a semi-friend, Tim, whose deal was to stand in downtown Orlando with a sign saying "why lie? I need a beer" I learned he lived in a nice solitary camp in the woods with most of the conveniences of home, made a adequate living, worked 3-4 6 hour days every week, and was basically happy. He once said he was ready to quit for the day and offered to buy me a beer at a local pub. I learned he was reasonably educated, well traveled, and had chosen his life. He said he was thankful he was not like most people he saw as they were stressed about job or money.
Tim reinforced my belief not to judge people's situation by our own personal sense of values. Others have their own value metrics and may be doing better regarding theirs than we are vis-a-vis ours. My trips to Cuba currently reinforce that. Not to say there are some who are doing poorly by any metric as their situation is life threatening. But very few in this thread have referenced them.
gb hill
Veteran
Bob, I have met several folks like this & to them poverty is a state of mind. They don't see themselves living impoverished lives. MOF like you mentioned live a more stress free life than most 9 to 5'ers at the moment struggling to survive making payments & hoping their job doesn't wind up down the toilet.
wgerrard
Veteran
The poor know they are poor and don't need fretful photographers to remind them. So, I see nothing wrong with taking pictures of poor people. Like taking pictures of people anywhere, much depends on how other people will react to the photos, and that's something the photographer cannot control.
If a photographer thinks he or she is being exploitive or condescending or arrogant, or is wracked with guilt, when taking pictures of poor people, that is a personal issue for the photographer to contend with. I wouldn't imagine someone's feelings about photographing poor people would differ very much from his feelings just in seeing poor people. I know I often feel dismay and anger when I come across endemic poverty.
Also, street photographers usually have no idea at all abut the lives of the people they photograph.
It's interesting. I have a book by Jillian Edelstein of black and white portraits of people involved in South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation hearings. It's almost entirely stark images of apartheid's abused and abusers, standing alone against a neutral wall. The photos carry powerful emotive content for me because I was there in the years immediately before the collapse of the apartheid regime, and because I know the stories told at the hearings. Certainly, many of those depicted are poor. But, many are not. However, other people, people with only a passing notion of what has happened in South Africa, typically react in two ways. First, they find the photos boring. Just people looking at a camera. Second, they almost invariably make some soothing comment about "the poor" people. I think this is because most of the photos depict black people and most Americans assume that if you are black and an African you are poor.
I wouldn't express it in religious terms, but the poor will, indeed, always with us. That's because poverty is a relative thing, expressed differently in different societies. If you make $20,000 in the U.S., you're poor. But, $20,000 is more than 10 times the average income in many countries. In the future, even if all people have homes, food to eat, and medical care, the rich will still acquire things to distinguish themselves from the people they designate as poor.
If a photographer thinks he or she is being exploitive or condescending or arrogant, or is wracked with guilt, when taking pictures of poor people, that is a personal issue for the photographer to contend with. I wouldn't imagine someone's feelings about photographing poor people would differ very much from his feelings just in seeing poor people. I know I often feel dismay and anger when I come across endemic poverty.
Also, street photographers usually have no idea at all abut the lives of the people they photograph.
It's interesting. I have a book by Jillian Edelstein of black and white portraits of people involved in South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation hearings. It's almost entirely stark images of apartheid's abused and abusers, standing alone against a neutral wall. The photos carry powerful emotive content for me because I was there in the years immediately before the collapse of the apartheid regime, and because I know the stories told at the hearings. Certainly, many of those depicted are poor. But, many are not. However, other people, people with only a passing notion of what has happened in South Africa, typically react in two ways. First, they find the photos boring. Just people looking at a camera. Second, they almost invariably make some soothing comment about "the poor" people. I think this is because most of the photos depict black people and most Americans assume that if you are black and an African you are poor.
I wouldn't express it in religious terms, but the poor will, indeed, always with us. That's because poverty is a relative thing, expressed differently in different societies. If you make $20,000 in the U.S., you're poor. But, $20,000 is more than 10 times the average income in many countries. In the future, even if all people have homes, food to eat, and medical care, the rich will still acquire things to distinguish themselves from the people they designate as poor.
Last edited: