Street photography and the homeless

helenhill said:
I find your way of Thinking so dry & abrasive ....
Your constant 'Set of Rules'
We must shoot and live by ...
your Theory of Ethics , its rather absurd ;)
Perhaps You can start a New Fundamentalist Religion with your Correct Book of Reasoning eek:
Click to expand...

... yep that's it, why do people persist with this twaddle?
 
When I started this thread, I was ambivalent, but now I clearly see why I should not photograph the homeless.

In fact I'll delete all photos of homeless people that I have taken, whenever I come across them.

Thanks for everyone and their input, it helped me to see both sides of the argument.
 
Hiroshima Taro by Shiro_Kuro, on Flickr

Hiroshima Taro Is Hiroshima's most famous residents.... There are many stories about this eccentric man.
Rumor has it that Hiroshima Taro is a Hiroshima University graduate who used to work as an elite business man for the Mazda corporation- Hiroshima's largest employer. He chose the life of the streets after after the love of his life refused him . Some say he is a millionaire from demanding money from film crews and photographers who want to take his picture . There was aportrait of him at Hiroshima MOCA last year .

I see him often when I go into the city, but today was the first time I spoke with. He has a gentle and humorous personality . He loves the fact his image can be found all over the inter webs and he is known around the world ... that he won't be forgotten . I do not speak enough japanese to get any further than the small talk , there is something about him that lifts your mood ,I think you can see it in his smile..... .

Knowing a bit about him, I offered to pay him for his photograph which he readily agreed . Look at the background he chose for himself , taking his job to be photographed seriously ; ) .... Hiroshima Taro is a generic term for someone who is born and raised in Hiroshima .... house less or not Hiroshima is his home.

Also ,local kids consider it good luck to see Hiroshima Taro when visiting Hiroshima City... seems there are many stories and memories connected to this " Homeless " man .....
 
ZuikoAndHisM3 said:
I think that some of us may be looking into the subject too deeply - I believe that 90% of the street shots of Homeless People are basically a 'free pass' into "look, I'm evoking emotion from the viewer!" by non-creative People.
Click to expand...

Quite a lot of subjects are a 'free pass to evoking emotion' : a weeping child, a smiling bride, a doleful dog or any cute furry animal.
Which leaves only formal landscape and abstract composition as acceptable subjects for a serious photographer. Can we still do nudes, or is that also too facile?

It is a bit easy to tar the whole genre with the brush of trite sentimentality. Yes, some of it is easy sentiment, and some is lazy street photography. But a lot of photographers sincerely want to share their shock and empathy at encountering scenes of deprivation and abject poverty. And I suspect those who would dismiss these photos as pain porn, would rather not have to deal with the problem at all. I can understand : poverty stinks, literally. Talking to a three weeks unwashed homeless drunk with vinegar breath is not my idea of pleasant conversation. It would be nice to just look away, pretend there is nothing to see. But if we all keep looking away, it will only get worse.
Of course, a photo will not better the life of a homeless subject. But sometimes, photos do move public opinion , and sometimes, public opinion moves governance.
I know, small individual acts will not change the world, but, as the chinaman said : 'Every little helps', while he was relieving his bladder in the yellow sea.

Cheers
 
helenhill said:
What I find strange is that You Deleted your Post
Which I quoted : POST # 61
and I responded to it

Why did You delete it ... Change your mind on your Theory of Ethics
Click to expand...

I did not delete my post.

A moderator must have deleted it..........
 
I have read enough to not get involved in any one reply...

IE: Ethics ?
Ummm, what difference does it make if the person is homeless or lives in a mansion? They are both on Public Streets, it makes no difference if they had no choice, or by choice... (The homeless do make a choice where they hang out).

Is it more ethical to take a photo of a person who "looks" like they are not homeless?

How many embarrassing photos of "non-looking-homeless" do we take, and say that is ethical? because they have nice clothes, and no sign?

Ethics is on how you present the photo, as a slice of life, or just a voyeur image with no story. Not in taking the photo.

ALL of life's stories need to be a part of our photographic history, not just the stories of "Well to do looking"!
 
Ranchu said:
I find it pretty chicken to candidly photograph homeless people. A cheap shot.
Click to expand...

Because the act of taking photos of a homeless person exploits their vulnerability and powerlessness to manufacture a fetish object for the use of the better situated, for contemplation and reflection at leisure. They are kept from objecting to being used in this manner by the threat of violence by the state. There is an enforced inequality which the photographer is taking advantage of - indulging in, in fact.
 
helenhill said:
I find your way of THINKING rather DISTURBING
your first paragraph is mind boggling... here is your Quote:
"bribes of money and food, that is sentimental voyeurism and this is unethical like all forms of voyeurism"

How can You judge people's simple gestures as Bribes and Voyeurism then Dismiss them, belittle them with your judgmental dirty mind

Enough of your Pontificating please
Be a little more loving in the way you view your photographer friends here on RFF
Click to expand...

As a moderator, you have the right to disagree but you're getting personal.

Anyway, I stand with what I said.
 
If this is exploitative, voyeuristic, sentimental, trite and lacking ethics, I'll gladly try and make some more :

U54266I1362965565.SEQ.1.jpg


I wonder how those who would prefer to sweep poverty under the rug can invoke ethics.

As a well brought up catholic boy, I thought ethics was about laving the thirsty end feeding the hungry. Sorry if I'm mistaken

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Homeless or not, the homeless are humans, and have God-given dignity. If you are compassionate and respectful, and respect their rights, i don't have a problem. Have I? Yes. If I feel I don't have their tacit approval, I don't.
 
Ranchu said:
You've made the man a prop in your juxtaposition.
Click to expand...

Yes I did. I took away his personhood and I made him into a symbol, just as I did with the smiling faces in the advert. He's not a person, just a homeless thing. And the smiling faces represent us, the better off moiety of society, who can ignore what is happening below their noses and blithely shout their joy for our culture of enjoyment without danger, beer without alcohol, cream without fat and sex without contact.

I am not at all ashamed of leaning heavily on the iconic nature of the elements in this picture. Thank you for noticing.
 
Well, thank you. Maybe one day someone will do the same to you. Wouldn't THAT be ironic? An endless circle of juxtaposition.
 
Ranchu said:
Well, thank you. Maybe one day someone will do the same to you. Wouldn't THAT be ironic? It's like an endless circle of juxtaposition.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know how close I got to sleeping right next to him. Thank you for reminding me.

Cheers
 
Well, now that's better. A cautionary tale for all, and we didn't even have to smell him, or tell him our names. Nonetheless, I certainly feel that I've learned a great deal about 'the homeless'.

After all, "personal involvement is optional."
 
Ranchu said:
That's great, heroic even, but you didn't really answer what I asked you.

"If you were homeless, would you want to have your picture taken candidly without your knowledge, and posted to some photo gear forum?"

YES or NO?

"Would you want your photo taken WITH your knowledge, but without your consent, and be unable to stop the aging pedant from taking it?"

YES or NO?
Click to expand...
The person of whom you ask and demand an answer, cannot give you a true response, in that she is not homeless and has no way of knowing how she might feel about it considering that the answer would be dependent on what her particular circumstance at the time might be, and she cannot speak for any other homeless person in the matter.

There are certainly folks who grab and sneak shots of the "exotic" or dramatic homeless individual. The people who habitually go for the low hanging fruit. Well, most times that comes from inexperience, or a poorly formed conscience.

Photography in urban street environments is based upon making a quick decision to make a photograph of a time sensitive moment. If reasonable judgment is used, you make the photograph. After you review the work if you have doubts about it, or feel that it might be treating the subject in an unjust way, then you simply do not share it or "post on a photo gear forum".

If someone cannot make the reasonable assessments and judgments before, during, and after making a photograph, then perhaps they need to find another hobby.

Helen's original comments were perfectly sound and reasonable and show her experience as well.
 
Guess you don't want to answer those either. Likely because as a non-homeless person yourself, there is no possible way you could ever imagine your feelings in that situation. Just too hard to say.

Well, that lets you out, too, fair enough! It is interesting how everyone wants to talk about themselves and their hobby, though, and not the people in the street.

Cheers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom