Photographing poverty

[sig]

Photographing poor people? Not intentionally, homeless never. Why? I do not want to 'document' people in a situation I would not like others to document me in. The street is their home and I do not want to invade it.

Some photographs might change some things, most not, mine not a damn thing.

 

[robklurfield]

interesting and valid point made with some humor. but, I think sometimes we humans are better at anthropomorphizing animals, especially pets (three dogs and a cat here), than we are at empathizing with members of our own species. there must be some sort of silly evolutionary survival value to that, but I'm not sure what it is.

by the way, I don't photograph birds (usually; and then, being an RF-only guy, only at a great distance); I don't live in a nest (my wife might beg to differ given the condition of my office, but let's not go there), and I don't fly often and never by flapping my appendages. I have been called bird-brained, but never accused of eating like a bird.

anyone here photograph birds?

anyone here live in a nest?

anyone here able to fly?

 

[robklurfield]

if no one photographed the poor and slums, then some people would have an easier time denying that such things exist. ditto the holocaust. sometimes people (not anyone in particular, but the whole race of us) ought to be forced to look at and confront the existence of such things and take some (minute share of) responsibility for the condition of the world (take that, you robber baron bankers awaiting million dollar bonuses).

 

[mgd711]

I'm reminded of the last season of HBO's The Wire. The Baltimore Sun decides to do a report on homelessness in the city, so a journalist for the paper hangs out around a few homeless people for a few hours and produces semi-fabricated melodramatic schmaltz about how he walked among the downtrodden. The paper executives, eager for a Pulitzer, are delighted with it while the other reporters see straight through it. Later on another reporter revisits the subject, focuses on one specific man (a predominant character in the show) and treats the subject with empathy and sensitivity. The report is unapologetic, has the facts, and gets to the heart of the matter. Unfortunately, it goes largely unappreciated.

I think the same can be applied to photography of the less fortunate in how we approach a subject.

I photograph poverty on a regular basis simply because it’s the world outside my front door.
I live in a nice house, nothing too fancy but nice but in this street there are many poor houses and tin shacks with people squatting on the land.
I know these people, I talk to these people, I buy from there makeshift stalls and some off them are friends and have worked for me in the past.
The value of film in my fridge could keep a family for a year.

Does it bother me? Yes but this is the world these people live in and I'm unlikely to change it that much. I help my family, I keep my family safe and if the opportunity comes to help others (I never give to charity) I employ local people to do some odd job's round the place or help out on my father-in-laws farm, which happens to be 30kms from any road, way up in the mountains where there is no electricity or running water. There is hundreds of small farms in the area and again, I've eaten and drank with these people in there humble homes.

I guess it all depends on how you see yourself in relation to 'poorer' people. I see no difference other than I have money and they don't but often I find them happier...

Poverty in refugee camps though is a different matter...

 

[NickTrop]

Not a fan. Not a fan of this at all. If you're running around slums with your $7,000 M9 photographing people sleeping on grates and it's for your "hobby", I find it especially disgusting. If it's your profession, then you're helping to exploit the poor for the most part but if your boss sends you on assignment and that's what you're told to photograph then you go grin and bear it and go off and do it - which is what I'd probably do.

 

[Pablito]

anyone here photograph birds?

anyone here live in a nest?

anyone here able to fly?

How about locking up this thread and throwing out the key?

(it's even worse than the other one...)

 

[Bob Michaels]

Not a fan. Not a fan of this at all. If you're running around slums with your $7,000 M9 photographing people sleeping on grates and it's for your "hobby", I find it especially disgusting. If it's your profession, then you're helping to exploit the poor for the most part but if your boss sends you on assignment and that's what you're told to photograph then you go grin and bear it and go off and do it - which is what I'd probably do.

Nick: I can agree with your problems about photographing poverty stricken people because they are poverty stricken. Hopefully most of us here have moved beyond that point.

But, conversely it is very important not to exclude people simply because they are poverty stricken. There are a multitude of reasons to photograph. If there is a reason , we should not exclude the poor. That is discriminatory.

 

[emraphoto]

Not a fan. Not a fan of this at all. If you're running around slums with your $7,000 M9 photographing people sleeping on grates and it's for your "hobby", I find it especially disgusting. If it's your profession, then you're helping to exploit the poor for the most part but if your boss sends you on assignment and that's what you're told to photograph then you go grin and bear it and go off and do it - which is what I'd probably do.

Once again you have it all packaged up in little packages for us Nick. 'Exploit the poor' is based on a serious lack of understanding in relation to ones motivations.

It's refreshing to know I have at least two (motivations) to choose from.

 

[jan normandale]

anyone here photograph birds?

anyone here live in a nest?

anyone here able to fly?

Joe, I'm in a landscape mode these days.. ornithology is on a back burner.

I do live in a "nest" others might describe it as a jumble

I always wanted to fly Joe. Didn't you? ;D

 

[mgd711]

Disgusting images of poor people

Disgusting images of poor people

 

[israel_alanis]

Hello RFF´s friends, I read this post and it has attracted much attention. First answering the original question. Yes I have taken photographs of poverty, my justification are expressions. I have more than 5 thousand photos of pure expressions from all over the country (Mexico). I think that if I helped or I currently helping the poor is worth comment, because I think that everyone on this forum have helped someone. But I worked hard against poverty and not only that, but also with people with disabilities, my father is one of those people.

A few months ago I made a thread about having problems with people, a lady threw me pee, and a man verbally abused me, they were homeless people, if my photos are not for a Nobel may be because I'm not so good photographer , but I'm trying to be the best I can. But the expressions of the people I feel very strong in me, either happiness or sadness, a good friend of this forum recommended me not to share these pictures, because it could be interpreted as wanting to take advantage of the bad situation of people to want to get a picture, but believe me not.

The reasons of each should be respected, this is a theoretically free world, but I think the photography is that, photography, and his duty is to capture all kinds of picture to have a record of history, We do not need a Ghandi scene to say: Ok this is important, his hungry and silence must be capture in video or photography. All are important. and all deserve respect, of course.

On whether the photograph change the world I think this is true, Ghandi with his finger on his mouth saying: "Silence" made people want to follow his example and change fight to talk or respect. one song, as Imagine by John Lennon, its enough to make the world a lot of people try not to fight and wants world peace, unfortunately we are many in a state, much in a country and not know how in the world, that is why all artistic representations in favor of peace, seeking all the ways to achieve peace, but it is a difficult job.

One photograph change many people, but we are a lot for change entire world with one pic, so, lets take a lot.

The photo must capture all, in my humble opinion, and I agree with those who say that if the photo is used to make fun of someone unfortunate, I also firmly reject it.

Greetings.

 

[bigeye]

...the morality of the artist is irrelevant to the value of the 'thing made'. In other words an evil carpenter can make a beautiful and fully functional chair. So each of us -- particularly if we are from the Western developed economies -- has to come to terms with the destruction and the deprivation on which virtually ALL of our prosperity lies. Each of us is implicated whether we take pictures or not. But this has no affect on the value of the photography or, in my case, writing that we might do. Here, the standards are as they have forever been: the infinite possibilities for beauty, authority, and power when we manage to serve the requirements of form and the requirements of truth.

Firm, but faulty - it's an individual call but I don't accept for myself that "my works can justify my bad actions" or that I am responsible for others suffering. Others certainly do and might.

I spent about a month in Haiti after the quake and saw the spectrum, flying food, Drs and meds around out of PaP, which was the nexus of (early) logistics, hospital care, UN force, 82nd Airborne, Haitian government, and anyone entering or leaving.

Blundering minor US politicians (what are you doing here?), big photo and network people flew in, got in the way for a couple hours and took off before tea. There were no hotel bars left standing and the stocked G-V was already flight-planned back to Miami. See Yaaah!

Their pics and stories ran for 2 weeks w/o much update, but that was all the product that the market needed. Awareness and billions in aid were raised. Success - they did their job. (Must say that we did feel a bit of self-righteous scorn for them.)

There were some volunteers, photographing everything, who did little to nothing else and were labelled "DTs," or disaster tourists. There to gather stories for the other ex-pats on Montparnasse? I don't know (just, please, step over there).

In contrast, the doctors and nurses at the Univ. of Miami hospital at the airport never saw Haiti; they walked off the NASCAR-team donated aircraft and into the operating tent for a week or two, worked to exhaustion, then back onto the plane. Heroic. They inspired everyone to lend a hand at any task and work as hard as they could. (I now want my kids to be doctors.)

But, I came to the conclusion that all I had to do was help 1 person and the effort would be worth it. Any more is gravy. It's an effort of individuals. (We had fun making action poses in the yard where we slept.) - Charlie

 

[Nikon Bob]

Photographing poor people? Not intentionally, homeless never. Why? I do not want to 'document' people in a situation I would not like others to document me in. The street is their home and I do not want to invade it.

Some photographs might change some things, most not, mine not a damn thing.

Well, that pretty much sums up why I don't. Others feel different about it and that is obviously fine too.

Bob

 

[sig]

anyone here photograph birds?

anyone here live in a nest?

anyone here able to fly?

There are some differences between birds and people, e.g. birds are not people. But I agree that there is no way you can expect that only poor photographers with cheap cameras can photograph poverty.....

An easy solution is of course to get a degree in photography and move to Indiana, you will be poor, struggle and be allowed to photograph poverty.

It is a bit 'don't kick somebody who is down' discussion. Kicking up (e.g. Bill Gates,) is good and fun, kicking down not so gracious

And sorry for kicking down on art graduates in Indiana

 

[robklurfield]

should poor people also avoid photographing the well-to-do? at what point does the slope become slippery?

 

[sparrow6224]

I just saw my note copied for reply / remarks and -- horror -- I wrote (typed!) "affect" instead of "effect."
Anyway this notion I put forward -- that the morality of art lies entirely in the qualities of 'the thing made' and not with the motives or moral standing or behavior of the artist -- comes from St. Thomas Aquinas. He defined art thus: "Ars recta ratio factibilium est." Art is the undeviating determination of work to be done.

In the US, where art is largely used decoratively or as a mild social stimulant, it is almost universally believed that art is good for people, that its aim is to make us better and our society better. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's often quite hostile and disturbing and destructive at heart, and often the most committed artists are monsters personally. All we know in the end is that we need it. The photograph has given us a way to stop time, and the best photographers have taught us, through this miraculous framed event, how really to see. This might not be helpful to us; it might frighten us and give us bad dreams. But we need it. And we seek it out. So the question isn't how we feel about taking pictures of the poor -- the writer Flannery O'Connor when asked why she always wrote about the poor replied simply, "As far as I am concerned, we are all The Poor" -- the question is how we feel looking at the pictures. Manipulated? Then it's a bad picture. Stricken? Or elated? Or confused? Then, possibly, it's a good one.

 

[sparrow6224]

Mike the Fiery Scotsman:
Very fine photographs. I love their warmth and their clarity.

 

[robklurfield]

Sparrow6224,
You're right on target as far as I'm concerned. Isn't one of the possible roles and/or duties of art to provoke the viewer into thinking?

Impressed by the way that you managed to work Aquinas (in Latin, no less), O'Connor and Beckett all into less than ten lines of text. A cool parlor trick to say the least.😀What does one do for an encore after that? I'll be following this space to see.

I just saw my note copied for reply / remarks and -- horror -- I wrote (typed!) "affect" instead of "effect."
Anyway this notion I put forward -- that the morality of art lies entirely in the qualities of 'the thing made' and not with the motives or moral standing or behavior of the artist -- comes from St. Thomas Aquinas. He defined art thus: "Ars recta ratio factibilium est." Art is the undeviating determination of work to be done.

In the US, where art is largely used decoratively or as a mild social stimulant, it is almost universally believed that art is good for people, that its aim is to make us better and our society better. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's often quite hostile and disturbing and destructive at heart, and often the most committed artists are monsters personally. All we know in the end is that we need it. The photograph has given us a way to stop time, and the best photographers have taught us, through this miraculous framed event, how really to see. This might not be helpful to us; it might frighten us and give us bad dreams. But we need it. And we seek it out. So the question isn't how we feel about taking pictures of the poor -- the writer Flannery O'Connor when asked why she always wrote about the poor replied simply, "As far as I am concerned, we are all The Poor" -- the question is how we feel looking at the pictures. Manipulated? Then it's a bad picture. Stricken? Or elated? Or confused? Then, possibly, it's a good one.

 

[israel_alanis]

Roger your street photography China is fantastic.
Regards.

 

[Keith]

As long as it's not with a Leica ... the Leica was never intended for this purpose! :angel: