Photographing poverty

when i was a kid there was a comic who used to say that while growing up during the depression his family had no money but that they weren't poor...
 
And of course there's land-poor, lots of inherited land that is no longer commercially viable, and all but impossible to sell. Many people let it go for taxes. Hard to imagine for many of us, but far from unknown in the rural United States.

Cheers,

R.
 
img399a.jpg


You can help if you want to.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Have you ever done it? Why?

The question is prompted by something ebino said: Could you possibly photograph slum duelers [sic] in India effectively and know how they feel, when you just had lunch in a fancy restaurant and the gear in your camera bag would provide them food and shelter for a year?

I'm not quite sure what he meant, but when I was working for the Tibetan Government in Exile, yes, I certainly photographed some very poor people. How about a one-roomed house, no toilet, nearest running water a standpipe outside, roof repaired with tar-paper, walls papered with magazines to keep out the Himalayan cold? It was for a propaganda book, Hidden Tibet. A decade or so after I last photographed her, Pema Yangzom died there. Her daughter told me that she maintained to the end that it was only temporary: she had a house in Tibet.

How much good would it have done if I'd given up eating? (Not that 'fancy restaurant' meant much in Dharamsala in the 1980s.) And if I'd given away my cameras, I could hardly have taken pictures.

Also, what's a 'slum'? To me, it's a filthy hovel. There have been a few Tibetans and Indians I've known (well enough to eat and drink with, not just casual acquaintances or photo-subjects) who have lived in real poverty (unable to afford to send their kids to school, unable to replace the glass in the windows), but their single-room dwellings were cleaner and tidier than some middle-class houses I've seen in the USA, UK and France.

What do others think?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I think ebino's premis is all wrong...

First off, if you are a photographing environmental [candid] images, that's what you are doing. If you would rather sell all your gear, and not take any images, go sell your camera, and give them the money. (it probably won't do any good in the long haul). Because, these areas are 3rd world, and the community is very poor. and what they need (as a country), is a TON of MONEY and a way to provide a stable growing economic country. If you sell your stuff, and could help 1 family, what about the family's that live next door? and the whole town?.... NO, it is better to give to large organizations that can handle this kind of aid. Your Photography can help educate others, that can in turn make those newly educated ones to GIVE to larger organizations for aid.

Now as far as local poor or street people, I see no difference. But, it is easier to give a few bucks to them.
 
Really making a difference: Caution, this goes beyond poverty and documents the relationship of Tutsi mothers and their children born of rape by the Hutu during the Rwanda genocide of 1994. This is Jonathan Torgovnik's photo essay and accompanying interviews. Not for those of weak stomachs.

read at

or better, watch the 11 minute video "epilogue, an unspoken language"

I have driven 60 miles, one way to see this exhibit twice in the last month. I also own the book. Joanthan Torgovnik was a no-show at the artist's talk as he left to go on assignment. Seeing this work, I understood his priorities.

This is probably the best example I have seen of someone photographing to make a difference.
 
Bob Thank you for the link. Unlike the pictures I referred to earlier (Compassion fatigue) these mean something. They and the information with them tell the story of ongoing lives and conflicts, something more than just what I classify as 'isn't that sad' pablum pictures. This type of journalism can indeed make a difference, particularly when seen by idealists that are of an age and energy level to grab the problem by the horns and wrestle with it. It's even effective in getting some of us fatigued type to donate to the cause.
 
Last edited:
This thread has been a very interesting read, thanks for all the contributions -- especially those that I don't agree with it ;) I appreciated the insights regarding multiple dimensions of poverty as well...

Like the Fiery Scotsman, I am currently living in the Philippines, and consequently avoiding taking photos of poor people would come close to not taking pictures of people at all. The stories of poor people are at least as worthwhile to tell as those of better-off ones, and just because they happen to be poor, I wouldn't want to avert my eyes, or my camera.

From a series on small scale miners in Dinagat Islands, Philippines, toiling in the heat for a few dollars a day:








 
Maenju, I think we all have been struck by your photos of these hard-working people. Here in the USA, we call such people the working poor. They pull their own load, and do not ask for a dime. Half of the USA was like that during the great depression. The generations that experienced that era are almost gone. My dad is one. My mom is one. Each came away from the experience with entirely different attitudes about the intervening years of relative comfort - and about the poor of today. This is not the place to describe them (it would take thousands of words). Suffice to say, their attitudes profoundly affected mine ...
 
I think there is a difference between photographing povery and photographing poor people. For me, photographing poverty is about trying to reveal the injustice that created this situation. That is where the photographer really can make a difference. When photographing poor people, the challenge is to reveal their strength and dignity, and the ways in which they cope with their situation and the suffering it involves.
I too live in a comfortable environment, but not far away from poverty, and deal with poor people every day.
 
To, me, Photographing poor people would need to be an envronmental portraits like "maenju" and "Bob Michaels" have posted a few posts up.
Images of a strong people, that just happen to live in areas that don't offer what many here are not used to living in. They are doing the best they can, with what they have. And to capture these folks as regular folks in their environment is just like any other candid environmental portrait in less poverty stricken areas.

We don't choose what country we are born in.
And, we can only make the best of it in life, no matter where we are born.

If you can't stomach or feel guilty photographing poor folk, don't.
And in some areas. like "Chris", as mentioned (poor folk in Ft. Wayne, IN) you'd do better to avoid them altogether as far as photographing them... Wisdom with your surroundings is always a consideration.
 
Last edited:
On re-readng the whole thread, I see the fundamental flaw in ebino's original premise.

Most of us don't photograph 'rich people' and 'poor people'. We just photograph people. The dichotomy between the 'rich photographer' and the 'slum dweller' is essentially false (manufactured?), but the quote was couched in such accusatory terms that I failed to see where the problem lay.

Thanks to everyone for clarifying my thinking, and (I hope) others' thinking on the same subject -- though there were clearly those who saw through the whole thing more immediately than I.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Most of us don't photograph 'rich people' and 'poor people'. We just photograph people. The dichotomy between the 'rich photographer' and the 'slum dweller' is essentially false (manufactured?), but the quote was couched in such accusatory terms that I failed to see where the problem lay.
R.
Click to expand...

Agree. When I go out and photograph around me, I do not make distinctions between people, I suppose that the distinction are make by each of us according to our prejudices, because if I do not offended a picture of poverty or poor people, maybe other photographs may offends me.
Regards.
 
We do not know the financial qualifications of anyone we photograph. We make assumptions if they are in an obviously poverty stricken locale, but those assumptions can be wrong.

I'm uncomfortable with the notion that photographing poor people requires a justification like depicting their plight to the world, and with the notion that poor people are somehow a different species who merit a different kind of treatment. The important word in the phrase "poor people" is "people".
 
There is a difference for homeless people whose "home" is the street. They don't have the option of staying in their houses when they want privacy.
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
There is a difference for homeless people whose "home" is the street. They don't have the option of staying in their houses when they want privacy.
Click to expand...

People photographed by street photographers may want privacy, but they don't get it. If we are going to extol one genre of photography that effectively ambushes people and invades their privacy, why would we take exception to knowingly photographing poor people? Is there merit in hiding their poverty?

I would wager that one of the great frustrations of being poor is being treated as if you were a social anomaly by virtue of your poverty.
 
i cannot see how pictures would contribute anything to what we already know about homelessness, desperation, poverty etc. as long as the only thing that distinguishes the photographer from a passerby is the camera in his hand---except, of course, for "decisive moments". And then they are not homeless pictures anymore-just human pictures...and that's better actually...
this is not to say that there is no photographic merit in chronicling the lives of the less fortunate ones: but passing by them and firing shots is hardly helpful.
 
I'm for shooting anything interesting. Taking the odd snapshot of a poor person doesn't seem very interesting. But I live in LA, possibly the most ridiculously extravagant city in the world, and also a city inhabited by tens of thousands of illegal aliens and nearly as many homeless people. The other night, on my way to an expensive restaurant in Silver Lake, I saw a woman and her two small girl children (7 & 5?) -- I assumed they were mother and daughters, but don't know for sure -- scavenging aluminum cans from a trash barrel. I find the contrasts compelling, and *very* interesting, for a whole lot of social and political reasons.
 
shot in 1983 or 1983. Ronald Reagan and Geo. H.W. Bush were preparing to run for reelection. Reagan's presidency focused on healthful and outdoor lifestyles. For example, ketchup was classified as vegetable for purposes of funding school lunch programs (ie, "we gave 'em little packs of ketchup; that's all the vegetables those kids need"). People were encouraged to rediscover the simple pleasures of camping out and sleeping under the stars, as the gentlemen in this picture are demonstrating. In earlier times, such behavior would have labeled these men as hobos and victims of catastrophes like the great depression. Today, we many people act as if folks like these were simply lazy and not willing to work. I fear that we're headed back towards times in the US where there will be rising numbers of homeless. I think we may be revisiting the numbers of people living in the streets that we last saw during Reagan's presidency. I don't think we'll see Hoovervilles rising in Central park as we did in the 30's, partly because the government will not allow people to set up camp that way.

One could argue that I was invading the privacy of these fellows. And, to a certain extent that's obviously true. I've never printed this shot before or shared it on the web. In fact, I don't think I've seen this since I originally developed the film. The shot needs some post-processing work to fix the significant underexposure, but I'll stand behind it as a document of the way things were and an unfortunate reminder that we may be heading down that same road again today.

5183695490_8ed09c7c9b_b.jpg


The total happy nonchalance of the people atop this big boulder in Central Park in NYC says a lot to me about the nature of many, though fortunately not all, of our citizenry and our attitudes about the poor. They so easily ignore these two men.
 
Last edited:
Dear Roger,

Having just returned from the subcontinent, this is an issue that I have had to address recently. Rather like funerals in 3rd world contires, I try to avoid taking "travel" shots of poor people. Individual portraits are OK, and often result in a new, if short-lived, friendship (and a contribution to the family coffers). Where we passed complete shanties on the outskirts of Delhi & Jaipur, I simply put my camera away - we need to allow people some dignity.

While in Nepal a few years ago, we came across a team of women breaking stones by hand to resurface a mountain road. They lived in bamboo shanties along the road and made the equivalent of 2p (5c ?) a day. From this they fed and clothed their children and themselves, their husbands being away looking for work. Again, I could not take photographs of their conditions for my amusement.

Maybe it's just me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom