Shoot the Homeless!

[back alley]

Joe, thanks for stating your reason for deleting the image tag.
The image, however, was not uploaded to the RFF site. It was on one of my sites and thereby used none of Jorge's space. Is it ok with you if I use a smaller image?

R.J.

oh, it wasn't about server space.
i could barely read the thread, having to move the page back & forth.
i find people lose interest quickly if they can't readily read.

no prob if you want a smaller image.
joe

 

[jlw]

I want to warn everyone upfront that mine is a very obscure and old-fashioned point of view. It is:

In a documentary sense, you acquire the right to photograph something by making an effort to know it, be part of it, and understand it. Once you're involved in the subject, then you can make pictures (or not) as part of your involvement. If you're ONLY interested for the purpose of making pictures, you're a shallow exploiter. (And you'll probably make superficial, crappy pictures.)

Don Doll, a Jesuit priest who's also a contract photographer for 'National Geographic,' did a lot of great photos on the Rosebud reservation here in the Midwest. Once at an exhibit of this work, I asked him how he had gained such intimate access to the reservation people. He said that he had been assigned there first as a parish priest; he lived with those people every day, said their Masses, baptized their babies, buried their dead. Later, when he came back to photograph, he wasn't just photographing generic poverty-stricken Native Americans; he was photographing families he knew, whose lives he understood, and who understood what he was doing and why.

In a less grand vein: I'm interested in photographing dancers. Dance is a visually appealing subject, so you can take pretty pictures of it without being involved in it much at all -- but they usually don't penetrate the surface or go beyond cliches. I did want to go beyond that, so I read a lot about dance; met a lot of dance people and volunteered for a lot of dance organizations; took dance classes and participated in performances as a "civilian." While this wouldn't qualify me to claim that I was a dancer myself, it was enough that I felt fairly confident that I understood their values and how they approach their work. I felt this gave me enough "ownership" of the subject that I could photograph it without feeling that I was simply iterating cliches. I felt like I knew enough of the story to tell the story as I saw it.

So, if you were to say to me that you were interested in photographing "the homeless," I guess my questions would be: Are you involved in the lives of homeless people in general? Are you acquainted with people who work with them? Do you volunteer in a homeless shelter or advocacy group? If you're not interested in homeless people, why are you interested in photographing homeless people in the first place? (And how can your photographs have any insight if you don't know anything about the subjects?)

I feel that thinking of "the homeless" as simply an abstract collection of potential heart-rending photographs doesn't do justice to them as individuals. If you get involved at the individual level, you might be surprised. I belong to a little church that does a lot of community outreach projects, and one thing we've learned from these is that the population of homeless people is as diverse as the general population: they're not all scary, incoherent "winos" and they're not all tragically noble "victims of societal neglect." How can you expect to make good photographs of people if you don't have the vaguest idea of who they are or why they live the way they do?

 

[RJBender]

I've always been curious about communities that "arrest" the homeless (i.e. vagrants) - regardless of why they are in that state.

After all, then they get clean sheets and three squares (m/l).

If your town arrests and imprisons the homeless - do they then retain the status of being homeless?

😕

George,

I don't know the details of the case but Keiner Plaza is a popular place for outdoor concerts in St. Louis. I'll try to find a story about the case.

R.J.

 

[dcsang]

I think, and this is only my theory, that in the past; and I'm talking the early 30's, "shooting the homeless" probably meant documenting their plight.

I believe it also meant living amongst them in order to see what life was like through their eyes.

So should we/shouldn't we... to be honest with you.. I could and have (I've got one guy up in the gallery) and most of the homeless in Toronto are not all "crazy" or "addicted" but in order to do it properly I would think I would want to write about it as well as shoot them. Find out why they are where they are; if it's a life choice, if it's due to financial upheaval or drug addiction; but at least to talk to them about it and find out who they are.

Cheers
Dave

 

[back alley]

well said jim, well said.

 

[dcsang]

well said jim, well said.

Jim's posting happened while I was writing mine.. I think he said what I thought (and wrote) in a more eloquent way 🙂

Thanks Jim 🙂

Dave

 

[RJBender]

oh, it wasn't about server space.
i could barely read the thread, having to move the page back & forth.
i find people lose interest quickly if they can't readily read.

no prob if you want a smaller image.
joe

Ok,

Here's a smaller image that goes with my post at 23:07.

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

I do not agree with shooting homeless people for the sake of photographing them; but years ago when I was a lawyer I shot over one-hundred photos of them. Once my brother developed them and I had these homeless persons' personal information, my partner and I initiated a law suit on their behalf. That was before the Iranian revolution.

Right. Take your camera, go inside their space and try to see the world as they see it. The photograph becomes a document.

The issue, as I see it, is that people assume that help from Christian ministries is the greatest and that the homeless are foolish for not accepting it. My opinion is that the quality of these services should be investigated.

BTW, aren't you Frank Granovski's wife?

R.J.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

I have been lurking in this thread and following the discussion.

I once attempted to photograph one of the residents of Balboa park herein San Diego. He was sitting in one of the arched gallerias in the parkwith sun pouring down on his white hair (wild and wiry too).

I was about 30 feet away and he spotted me immediately. I got one shot.As I walked by him he quickly stood in front of me and began shouting"you won't do that again!" Over and over. Everyone within earshotlooked at me like I had mugged him. I was shaken. And I desrved it.

Most of the people on the street here are shcizophrenic and stay in thestreets and parks because they don't trust the help that is offered.Many are extremely paranoid. I had not taken that into account when Iwas shooting.

In general I'm shy about photographing others. The few shots I have ofpeople on the street actually generated some anxiety for me.

After that fellow in the park ranted at me. I got it. He has so littleprivacy living out there. Last thing he wants is to have somebodytaking photos of him. Who knows what he thought I was. At the veryleast I was intruding on his revery.

I have the negative, Scanned it once to post and decided not to.

I have no opinion other than this, for me it comes down to whether Ihave permission for an image. Street musicians -- I pay them and mostare ok with a few photos after they get a few bucks. Soem even talk toyou, or smile or wink. Street people on the other hand are getting byon what little they have. Little money, little shelter, and preciouslittle privacy.

Having said all of that, I'm not against photographing street people. Ijust find it difficult to do without conscience standing in front me,yelling.

 

[cp_ste.croix]

I can't speak for Vancouver but a good majority of homeless here in Houston are on the street due to an addiction to drugs, alcohol and in many, many cases mental illness ( off their meds), they weren't kicked to the curb by the "power elite". I suggest you speak with some of these guys once and a while, ask them how they became homeless, they'll tell you straight up.

As far as taking pics of them I see nothing wrong with it, I have always wanted to do a short folio of portraits with some words spoken from these guys, respectful of course.

Todd

I can speak for Vancouver and the reasons are largely the ones you have outlined above, specifically mental illness and drug use. Of course, without straying too far into the ploitical, one could argue that treating certain drug users as criminals instead of people suffering from a disease might be closer to what Frank is referring to...

 

[RJBender]

I have been lurking in this thread and following the discussion.

I once attempted to photograph one of the residents of Balboa park herein San Diego. He was sitting in one of the arched gallerias in the parkwith sun pouring down on his white hair (wild and wiry too).

I was about 30 feet away and he spotted me immediately. I got one shot.As I walked by him he quickly stood in front of me and began shouting"you won't do that again!" Over and over. Everyone within earshotlooked at me like I had mugged him. I was shaken. And I desrved it.

Most of the people on the street here are shcizophrenic and stay in thestreets and parks because they don't trust the help that is offered.Many are extremely paranoid. I had not taken that into account when Iwas shooting.

In general I'm shy about photographing others. The few shots I have ofpeople on the street actually generated some anxiety for me.

After that fellow in the park ranted at me. I got it. He has so littleprivacy living out there. Last thing he wants is to have somebodytaking photos of him. Who knows what he thought I was. At the veryleast I was intruding on his revery.

I have the negative, Scanned it once to post and decided not to.

I have no opinion other than this, for me it comes down to whether Ihave permission for an image. Street musicians -- I pay them and mostare ok with a few photos after they get a few bucks. Soem even talk toyou, or smile or wink. Street people on the other hand are getting byon what little they have. Little money, little shelter, and preciouslittle privacy.

Having said all of that, I'm not against photographing street people. Ijust find it difficult to do without conscience standing in front me,yelling.

The photos always need a caption, IMO. This requires some sort of dialogue. Grab shots are photos taken without the dialogue.

R.J.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Clearly - I won't be taking grab shots. A dialog would be difficult to carry on.

 

[ch1]

.....So, if you were to say to me that you were interested in photographing "the homeless," I guess my questions would be: Are you involved in the lives of homeless people in general? Are you acquainted with people who work with them? Do you volunteer in a homeless shelter or advocacy group? If you're not interested in homeless people, why are you interested in photographing homeless people in the first place? (And how can your photographs have any insight if you don't know anything about the subjects?)

I feel that thinking of "the homeless" as simply an abstract collection of potential heart-rending photographs doesn't do justice to them as individuals. If you get involved at the individual level, you might be surprised. I belong to a little church that does a lot of community outreach projects, and one thing we've learned from these is that the population of homeless people is as diverse as the general population: they're not all scary, incoherent "winos" and they're not all tragically noble "victims of societal neglect." How can you expect to make good photographs of people if you don't have the vaguest idea of who they are or why they live the way they do?

Actually, I think I was saying that not only are the homeless not just an "absract collection of potential heart-rendering photographs" to me but that they are as much my neighbors as the iPod wearing yuppies and poodle-walking "matrons of a certain age" who also populate my community.

So, if I were to go out on a given day and document my community - would I be right of wrong to include photographs of my homeless neighbors?

Would it be exploitative if I showed one of them collecting beverage bottles and cans are redeemable for five cents each? Aren't I in such an instance simply documenting a working person doing his/her job.

And if instead, I studiously ignored these neighbors, would I not be engaging in a fraudelent depiction of what isn't really my community?

And if I am extremely busy at my work, such that I have little time to devote to personally performing good works, but instead contribute money to support those who have the time that I lack, is my caring of lesser worth?

And lastly, you ask: "How can you expect to make good photographs of people if you don't have the vaguest idea of who they are or why they live the way they do?"

But, as I said several times, and what you choose to ignore, is that I do live amongst the homeless, as much as I live amongst the privileged. I choose to live in a densely populated urban area and my neighborhood ranges from luxury apartment buildings to a men's shelter to a rehab center.

Each day I am surrounded by tourists who like to take pictures of famous places. They do not come to my community to take picture of the homeless who live in my community. Quite the contrary, they avert their eyes from such persons. With the rare exception, I would hazard to say that the only people who "shoot the homeless" are the people who care about them!

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

My ideas of Vancouver wre always of the beauty of the plcae.

Then we got a TV show here, Da Vinci's Inquest, filmed on location in Vancouver and I've got a much better idea of the city now and I'd actually like to go there.

The tv show depicts the day to day life, including homeless people.

 

[RJBender]

Actually, I think I was saying that not only are the homeless not just an "absract collection of potential heart-rendering photographs" to me but that they are as much my neighbors as the iPod wearing yuppies and poodle-walking "matrons of a certain age" who also populate my community.

So, if I were to go out on a given day and document my community - would I be right of wrong to include photographs of my homeless neighbors?

Would it be exploitative if I showed one of them collecting beverage bottles and cans are redeemable for five cents each? Aren't I in such an instance simply documenting a working person doing his/her job.

And if instead, I studiously ignored these neighbors, would I not be engaging in a fraudelent depiction of what isn't really my community?

And if I am extremely busy at my work, such that I have little time to devote to personally performing good works, but instead contribute money to support those who have the time that I lack, is my caring of lesser worth?
And lastly, you ask: "How can you expect to make good photographs of people if you don't have the vaguest idea of who they are or why they live the way they do?"

But, as I said several times, and what you choose to ignore, is that I do live amongst the homeless, as much as I live amongst the privileged. I choose to live in a densely populated urban area and my neighborhood ranges from luxury apartment buildings to a men's shelter to a rehab center.

Each day I am surrounded by tourists who like to take pictures of famous places. They do not come to my community to take picture of the homeless who live in my community. Quite the contrary, they avert their eyes from such persons. With the rare exception, I would hazard to say that the only people who "shoot the homeless" are the people who care about them!

Well said, George!

R.J.

 

[rover]

This is a good discussion of photography, street photography, the rights of photographers and their subject, impact......

Thanks for keeping the discussion on topic guys.

 

[Michael I.]

I think photographing homeless people is immoral

a)better sell your fancy camera and buy them a hot meal

b)it's easy to get a good response out of a strong subjected photo - it doesnt have to be good(watch time magazine-they do it constantly)it's cheap.

It's justifiable if it illustrates a project to raise money or awareness- I once shot a friends brother funeral - he was killed in a military activity(Israel)at age twenty. I have very strong images of his grandafthe(a jewish WWII veteran)crying-probably the best image I ever took - newer showed it to people - I actually feel ashamed of it.

respectfully,my 2 cents

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Take the photo and then pop in the nearest sandwich bar and get the guy a bite to eat.

 

[rover]

Courtesy and respect go a long way too.

I used to work in Hartford in the early 1990s. Every day walking around town at lunch everyone would get solicited by a homeless person.... that just was the way it was. One day when talking to a friend I was solicited, I stopped continued my conversation with my friend not paying attention to the person until I realized that I didn't have a dollar or any change to offer him. I was embarrassed because I had stopped for that purpose, I turned to him when I realized I didn't have anything, changed my demeanor towards the man because I had been almost ignoring him going through the motions, apologized, and said something like, "I am sorry Sir, I thought I had a dollar...." I didn't expect his reaction. He actually smiled, looked back into my eyes and said "Thank you, nobody has called me Sir in a long time, you have a very good day today too." I will always remember how his face changed and what he said to me.

It is probably a good rule of thumb for this photography too. Offer dignity in what you do and do it well.

 

[Michael I.]

Take the photo and then pop in the nearest sandwich bar and get the guy a bite to eat.

thats practicly prostitution of the bad kind - you use a persons condition so you can buy him cheaply and produce a strong photot- best bang for a buck sort of speak.