Quitting Wall Street To Tell A Prostitute's Story

Margu said:
when moriyama does this http://youtu.be/JKbFAPq75UI?t=1m43s its not exploitation because his everyone's darling guru/sensi of street photography but when some guy actually goes and takes direct and personal pictures of exploited people, instead of visual nonsense moriyama style, its called exploitation

maybe we all need to reevaluate what photography, serious photography is all about. what this guy is doing is what eugene richards did in the 70s, its nothing new but at least his keeping that tradition alive. just because people are downtrodden and don't make for pretty pictures, it does not mean photography cannot tell their story
Click to expand...


You know, I've been thinking a lot about this. And this is partly what I thought of when I started this thread a few months ago. Both the following things are true in my opinion: 1) Among the millions of apparently dull photos on the net, there are very many that tell stories, and they would get much more attention or credit if only they didn't drown in a sea of other images, or if they were taken 50 years ago; and 2) All masters, including Daido, did a lot of mediocre and dull photos that we now consider icons either because the author was the first who managed to get published that dull image or simply because it was taken by a "master" (ipse dixit" principle).

I encourage everyone to study Daido Moriyama's contact sheets in "Labyrinth", for example. They'll feel better about their own photography (and am saying this as a Daido lover..)
 
some are interesting, some just plain rubbish. But what he does now will show the value of the work.
If sales of the book etc go to helping people get off drugs and improve the work situation then good on him.
If not..... well....
 
Rant...But, many replies just seemed too judgmental...

Rant...But, many replies just seemed too judgmental...

Margu said:
any photographer who ventures beyond pets, fire hydrants, "street" and actually does some coherent work with a theme deserves credit
Click to expand...

jsrockit said:
I'd say he's doing street as well. The bottom line for me is that the work is way more about the photographer (look at MY work) then its subjects. Many do it in the photography world and we even enjoy some of the work. However, that's where the exploitation factor comes into play for non-photographers / viewers.
Click to expand...

Margu said:
that is not street. he has established a relationship with his subjects. if you "street" those people, most likely there will be an altercation with the photographer on the losing side.

the photographs are about a photographer when he/she photographs something that does not resonate with others, 99% of the boring photographs on the internet
Click to expand...

Margu said:
i'm surprised no one has yet asked what camera or lens his using...
Click to expand...


I feel the same way you do....Margu
most of the responses are comparing this newbee photographer who has a nice collection of portraits of people who could of as easily beat him,
and stole his camera and his $$ for crack or whatever. To well established photographers. He took a huge risk to get to know these people before he photographed them.

I'd bet my camera that NONE of the negative critics here would attempt that with their precious Leica's !!!.
I have read threads here where they praised the older,
established photographers, who did the same thing... expect, they where a socially accepted photographer already, so their images get praised...

I know there are plenty good photographers here... but, it seems by the many negative responses here,
they're are many "Judges" also that dismiss his work because it isn't up to par with their standard.
Well, how many of you where GREAT, or even good, out of the gate? Right... NONE OF YOU !!!!

Give the guy some credit.... it was totally out his comfort zone, and did tell a story with his book and photos as a whole.
Yes, it had been done before, as is the stuff we all photograph, has all been done before.
Your stuff and my stuff included...

But, some stories need to be told often by a different viewpoint,
to keep reminding us that not everybody has the same outcomes in life.

No, he is no "Street Photographer" as we define it,
But, it is a documentary the best he knew at the time.
He took a huge risk with his life --
A White guy with a camera in a prominently Black area in the Bronx, with a huge unemployment and crime rate.
(much more than many here would ever think of doing).. This guy has Balls, and compassion.

I praise him now, for the risk he took, and that he has a nice collection of street portraits, and that he took time to get to know his subjects... well done!!
He will grow in his technique with time, but, for a 1st try... Wow..


Perhaps, 5 years from now, when his work will be to your publishing standard, then you will praise him 😡

I expect rage to my reply..., but, this is my only reply in this thread.
 
DNG said:
I feel the same way you do....Margu
most of the responses are comparing this newbee photographer who has a nice collection of portraits of people who could of as easily beat him,
and stole his camera and his $$ for crack or whatever. And took a huge risk to get to know these people before he photographed them.

I'd bet my camera that NONE of the negative critics here would attempt that with their precious Leica's !!!.
I have read threads here where they praised the older,
established photographers, who did the same thing... expect, they where a socially accepted photographer already, so their images get praised...

I know there are plenty good photographers here... but, it seems by the many negative responses here,
they're are many "Judges" also that dismiss his work because it isn't up to par with their standard.
Well, how many of you where GREAT, or even good, out of the gate? Right... NONE OF YOU !!!!

Give the guy some credit.... it was totally out his comfort zone, and did tell a story with his book and photos as a whole.
Yes, it had been done before, as is the stuff we all photograph, has all been done before.
Your stuff and my stuff included...

But, some stories need to be told often by a different viewpoint,
to keep reminding us that not everybody has the same outcomes in life.

No, he is no "Street Photographer" as we define it,
But, it is a documentary the best he knew at the time.
He took a huge risk with his life --
A White guy with a camera in a prominently Black area in the Bronx, with a huge unemployment and crime rate.
(much more than many here would ever think of doing).. This guy has Balls, and compassion.

I praise him now, for the risk he took, and that he has a nice collection of street portraits, and that he took time to get to know his subjects... well done!!
He will grow in his technique with time, but, for a 1st try... Wow..


Perhaps, 5 years from now, when his work will be to your publishing standard, then you will praise him 😡

I expect rage to my reply..., but, this is my only reply in this thread.
Click to expand...


Couldn't agree with you more.
 
Sorry, I've lost track. Are we supposed to be kicking...

1. The original poster?
2. The Wall Street Wonder?
3. People who don't like his pictures?
4. People who distrust his motives?
5. Anyone who isn't actually here?
6. Everyone else?

It's just that I need to be sure who I'm supposed to be sarcastic about.

🙄
 
I have thoughts about the struggles of combat veterans which are analogous to the criticism of Arnade's work because the issue of PTSD is one which I live with every day.

In a nutshell, we hate "parachute journalism."

What Arnade has done is one the edge of that. He hasn't lived with the people he documents, as far as I can tell. He HAS spent a lot of time with them and developed relationships with them but he gets to leave when he wants.

There is a whole doctoral thesis sitting in this power dynamic of well-to-do photographing impoverished; white photographing black; non-addicted (as far as we know) photographing addicts.

There is no black and white of the "proper" relationship between photographer and subject when it comes to documenting a part of their life.

When I was in Iraq, I was appreciated and liked by fellow military members, regardless of their branch or job specialty. I wasn't as well liked by Iraqi National Guard who didn't appreciate the coalition military presence because we get to leave.

Now, on a smaller level, within the military, we didn't like our civilian embedded press as much. A lot of that disdain came from having to protect them, being slowed down and constantly being distracted from the job. I think most of it came from the fact that they got to go home in a couple weeks while we were there for at least six months.

It's a microcosm of the greater population of citizens vs. their temporary "guests."

Everyone who thinks about shooting a photo of someone else who is afflicted with any condition must deal with the power dynamic which exists. As a photographer, either they have the unlimited power to do so and making it obvious or they are quickly snapping a photo unbeknownst to the subject. With this power comes the ability to portray the subject as the photographer sees fit.

There is a photographer whom I regularly criticise for the bulk of his work. He likes to take photos of the backsides and legs of attractive women. Once in a while we'll get to see a face. Usually my criticism amounts to "what is her name?" upon which most of the forum (not this forum) comes to his defense claiming that his is a "different culture" and "he means no harm" and "he is just showing what he thinks is beautiful." Yes, it is all those things but it is still blatant objectification and some of it bordering on purile.

I ask the subject's name because once the subject in the photo has a name then they have some dignity and have given some power or permission to the photographer to do their work.

I digress.

The Bronx Art article on Arnade is off-base. At the same time, what he does can absolutely be construed as an abuse of power.

Fortunately, we live in a relatively free country where he is able to do his work and we are able to freely praise or criticise it.

As was said in an earlier comment, he should be praised for getting out of his comfort zone and making the effort to learn about the populations he photographs instead of just snapping photos of the nameless and leaving.

Phil Forrest
 
Arnade

Arnade

It's a difficult thing to step out of your 'community' and negotiate ways into another 'community' whilst finding the means and positive motive to represent this 'new' (to you..) community.

I know it's difficult because I've done it repeatedly, with words (and via fiction) and also recently through photography and 'reality'.

I believe the spur to do it is a desire to educate yourself and by so doing finding a 'creative' way to inform other people. To try and tell a story, be it fictional or from facts which you believe are not yet fully known.

You know yourself, within yourself, if your motives are decent.
If they are decent then the action of seeking this 'story' is surely finally one of empathy, which is one of the ways I think the world gets better.

Phil Forrest is quite right: any act of representation yields power to the one doing the representing. This will never change, it is the way of things. So the 'artist' (in any fiction which arises from serious research and the real world) or the 'journalist' (thinking here of pictures) has to use that power with compassion and connection and not allow the making of the thing to be about them. Everything flows from that last I think.

I like some of Chris Arnade's pictures, found some striking (and some less so) but most importantly I now know more about something I previously knew little about.

This seems to me a rare thing: a relatively unqualified good.
 
Tragically, those people and conditions exist and the photographer decided to show them through photographs. Take it or leave it, and I don't understand why the photographer's motivations or "quality" of the images are being questioned or debated - the reality portrayed by the images is obvious.
 
He picked up a camera. He picked a subject. And he went out and developed a portfolio of work around it.

Some of it looks good, some of it doesn't. I may or may not like it. But I certainly understand the pictures and what was being communicated.

Anything can be improved but he effectively communicated the conditions and state of the area and people he was photographing. He did good.

Next time he'll be better.
 
Photography has always been and will always be about showing other people one's personal point of view. Literally. It has never been and can never be anything else.

I think the question of "exploitation" here is interesting though, and I think it's obvious why it would be brought up, and why people would question the photographer's motives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dogman
Flo Fox, blind photographer confined to wheelchair, has died
Replies
1
Views
427
maigo
maigo
A
The mystery photographer of '60s San Francisco and undeveloped Kodachrome
Replies
16
Views
3K
bcostin
bcostin
Godfrey
A pleasant few moments today ...
Replies
3
Views
524
chuckroast
C
E
Curious — What defines a perfect street shot for you?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
3K
boojum
boojum
MP Guy
Write a review and the questions never stop coming. What say you ...
Replies
1
Views
212
peterm1
peterm1
Back
Top Bottom