Street photography and the homeless

[Pfreddee]

I wouldn't do it, out of respect for the person, but that's just me.

YMMV.

With best regards.

Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[oldoc]

I have seen very compelling images. Homelessness is not going away, but their situation is one which should concern and involve us all. In that frame, compelling images heighten our collective awareness. They always have.

 

[kuuan]

Roberts post is most significant, an excerpt:

...

Think for a moment about the magazine shelves in groceries and airports--what images are they full of? Not the homeless, not the Gulf War vets with lifelong PTSD, not the underserved mentally ill! They're chock full of food, celebrities, remodeling projects, exotic travel, hot cars, ads enjoining us to buy, consume, get away, get rich, etc. The poor, the lost, the desperate ones are invisible there. So there is an opportunity, some would say a calling, to do what one can to keep them visible--especially to those who would prefer to turn away.

if you agree than these photos first also must be taken.
The question remaining imo therefore is, how to go about to show and transport the respect which not only every person deserves but which specially is needed if the photo of a homeless really was to make the broader society aware of their fate and sympathize?

The samples seen in this thread show a high standard in these respects because either the person depicted can not be identified or is presented with a story explaining or make a positive statement.

What I've done where I live--that is, after getting beyond my own insignificant, vain, personal quandaries in photographing strangers in trouble--is this:
*Get to know by name and story the people and homeless encampments I'm photographing;
*Give them my name and email, and offer to send them the images;
*help local homeless advocates/activists get connected to university funding to create a documentary archive of images and stories that may make a difference in how homelessness is mitigated here in the present and future.

There's a clear difference between this and doing furtive street-porn of human suffering. But some of the images produced by either approach may look identical! The question then becomes: does that image see you in such a way that you must now change your life to reflect what it shows about humanity?

I much like this approach

Generally street photography imo should not and cannot be the same as is was time ago. At least for anyone who believes that humankind should and is moving towards more equal rights. This issue is grossly aggravated if a photo ends up on the internet!

A while ago I had met a local photographer, here in Saigon, a young, educated professional to go out to take some pics. He took me to a local market. I was quite surprised when he, without asking, started to give instructions to an old, obviously quite poor woman sitting on the floor in front of her 2 humble baskets, in which way he wanted her to pose. She complied without hesitance or showing any emotions. Obviously he never did anything similar to any of the more affluent shopkeepers of whom he seemed more cautious to take photos of.

It made me aware that what someone may consider fare game depends on a social hierarchy that in many places still exists but hopefully play a lesser role in modern societies. Viewing videos of photography greats in gentlemen's suit candidly taking photos of toiling market women half a century ago I wonder if they wouldn't or at least shouldn't be perceived rather respectless in our modern society of lesser social differences. Homeless had fallen through the social net of our modern societies. Nobody should take advantage of their weak position but in contrary help them to elevate it, they deserve heightened attention with heightened care and respect.

As a foreigner traveling, besides the bonus of the accepted curiosity of a stranger, I often have the 'rights of a fool' because it is not expected that I am aware of the social context and the according respect expected. In humble surroundings my social status may be perceived that much higher that hardly anyone would dare to contest. Deprived may have nothing to loose but dignity and oppose if documented candidly. If respectfully approaching and asking most are happy though, feel elevated for being noticed and considered worthwhile to be taken a photo of.

A photographer can't be just a hunter for good images. Just like anyone else s/he better be sensitive, respectful and responsible, specially whenever other humans are concerned and/or when showing a photo publicly.

 

[Shafovaloff1]

The fact that there is this discussion on this forum, and there is measured debate, is heartening. Separation from productive society may not be liberating for the affected homeless person. Why and how "homelssness" occurrs in our culture is important to know. If photographing those conditions advances the knowledge about the causes in any way, or exposes the numbers affected, then I think it is worthwhile effort. Even in this digital age, especially in this digital age, a picture can still be worth a thousand words.

 

[Sparrow]

People who lack privacy due to homelessness should not be considered fair game for street photography, especially with bribes of money and food, that is sentimental voyeurism and it is unethical, like all forms of voyeurism.

That is the simple ethical argument. Those who disagree, then they should remember that their very safety while doing street photography is thanks to the ethical nature of other people, otherwise if it was some other country, people will kill for a watch, let alone a nice shiny camera.

Without ethics there is no street photography. If you think that is wrong, then try going to some cities where ethics are not practiced.

... what about, if I photograph a homeless-person and tell a story in a single photo at the same time? How would that work?


Woman Photographing a Busker, Manchester par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity

 

[hausen]

Dear David,

Maybe some do. But how many? One in a hundred? A thousand? This one has been circulating since at least Roman times (minus the trains, obviously). Either way, it IS an ethical issue. The genuinely poor are an ethical issue. The lazy and greedy (a far smaller number) are an ethical issue. Taking exploitative pictures is an ethical issue. Have you ever talked to any of them? Do you know any genuinely poor people?

Cheers,

R.

Hi Roger,
Haven't taken polls on the whether people are true homeless. I grew up in a very low socioeconomic area of Auckland. Was surrounded by kids who didn't have lunch at school, slept in their uniforms, abused by their parents. We had all of the Gangs recruiting at our school at lunchtime looking for those kids. I made the decision that it wouldn't define me, most of the kids in my year at school couldn't/didn't make that decision so I know a lot of poor people. But the begging in the street seems to have doubled here recently and there have been journos that have interviewed supposed "homeless" and they admitted they lived in the suburbs. If you want to finance me to take that poll I am sure I can spare the time? As I mentioned in my post I don't take photos of homeless, or normal people for that matter. I find the whole street photography thing isn't me. I don't want my photo snapped in the street so I don't snap anyone else. How do you find the ethics of candid shooting of unsuspecting people? I don't judge others rights to do it, it is a free world, just isn't me.

 

[fireblade]

The fact that there is this discussion on this forum, and there is measured debate, is heartening. Separation from productive society may not be liberating for the affected homeless person. Why and how "homelssness" occurrs in our culture is important to know. If photographing those conditions advances the knowledge about the causes in any way, or exposes the numbers affected, then I think it is worthwhile effort. Even in this digital age, especially in this digital age, a picture can still be worth a thousand words.

"Why and how "homelessness" occurs in our culture is important to know."
Why?


"If photographing those conditions advances the knowledge about the causes in any way, or exposes the numbers affected, then I think it is worthwhile effort."
It will advance nothing, and nothing from the beginning of ages has been done "worthwhile" to help the homeless as a whole....let's not be deluded.
Yes there are groups and associations that feed and clothe a minority of the poor in each city, but it will never solve homelessness.

 

[lukitas]

"Why and how "homelessness" occurs in our culture is important to know."
Why?


"If photographing those conditions advances the knowledge about the causes in any way, or exposes the numbers affected, then I think it is worthwhile effort."
It will advance nothing, and nothing from the beginning of ages has been done "worthwhile" to help the homeless as a whole....let's not be deluded.
Yes there are groups and associations that feed and clothe a minority of the poor in each city, but it will never solve homelessness.

Why? Because any decent society shouldn't accept misery, especially if it is a growing phenomenon.

OK, Photography will advance nothing, nor will charity. Charity is an instrument of Status quo : the donator is rich, powerful and generous, the receiver remains poor, submissive and dependent.
The solution seems unimaginable : it is easy to imagine the end of the world - it is the subject of endless reels of hollywood movies, yet it is impossible to imagine a society where everyone is treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

But if we dare to show what is wrong with our world, maybe someone will start imagining solutions. Again (hue hue, I'm repeating my best joke, hue hue) as the chinaman said : 'every little helps', while he widdled in the yellow sea.

Cheers

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why? Because any decent society shouldn't accept misery, especially if it is a growing phenomenon. . . .

This doesn't fit the neo-liberal narrative, which is as follows:

Everything good that happens to me is the sole result of my superior intelligence and hard work. Education, family, society and luck have nothing to do with any of it. Therefore, anyone who is less well off than I am must be stupid or lazy or both.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mr_Toad]

This doesn't fit the neo-liberal narrative, which is as follows:

Everything good that happens to me is the sole result of my superior intelligence and hard work. Education, family, society and luck have nothing to do with any of it. Therefore, anyone who is less well off than I am must be stupid or lazy or both.

-- Roger
-----------------------------------------------------

That's neo-liberal? 😱

I'm old liberal, so I guess I need to re-evaluate.

🙂

 

[fireblade]

Why? Because any decent society shouldn't accept misery, especially if it is a growing phenomenon.
OK, Photography will advance nothing, nor will charity. Charity is an instrument of Status quo : the donator is rich, powerful and generous, the receiver remains poor, submissive and dependent.
The solution seems unimaginable : it is easy to imagine the end of the world - it is the subject of endless reels of hollywood movies, yet it is impossible to imagine a society where everyone is treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.
But if we dare to show what is wrong with our world, maybe someone will start imagining solutions. Again (hue hue, I'm repeating my best joke, hue hue) as the chinaman said : 'every little helps', while he widdled in the yellow sea.

Cheers

Unfortunately Lukitas there will never be a decent society, and if only there was a solution. The world has had plenty of time to see what is wrong, yet finds itself deeper in its own cesspool it has created.

 

[lukitas]

This doesn't fit the neo-liberal narrative, which is as follows:

Everything good that happens to me is the sole result of my superior intelligence and hard work. Education, family, society and luck have nothing to do with any of it. Therefore, anyone who is less well off than I am must be stupid or lazy or both.

Cheers,

R.

Well, the neo-liberal narrative isn't very decent, is it? Moreover, I think it is self-destructive. Pushing personal responsibility as the be all and end all, while denying collective responsibility, is a sure fire way to push us all into a tragedy of the commons. Maybe a fresh narrative is required.

Cheers

 

[fireblade]

This doesn't fit the neo-liberal narrative, which is as follows:
Everything good that happens to me is the sole result of my superior intelligence and hard work. Education, family, society and luck have nothing to do with any of it. Therefore, anyone who is less well off than I am must be stupid or lazy or both. Cheers, R.

That definition must be within your own mind, but that is not something i would hold against you...we all have been raised in different environments and therefore choose to believe whatever agenda suits.

 

[finguanzo]

I didn't read the beginning of the thread, but I'm not sure how homeless people are able to practice street photography, with all the expenses, especially if they decide to shoot film.. 😱
😀
That's it for me.. I'll be here all week.

 

[hausen]

This 'liberal self importance' assumes though that all street people are unhappy with their lifestyle doesn't it? Maybe living off the grid in a welfare society with a moderate climate like NZ where you have no work, mortgage, family pressures might appeal to some? Dole every Thursday supplemented with panhandling and all you have to think about is the next bottle of whatever you like to imbibe.

 

[Roger Hicks]

This doesn't fit the neo-liberal narrative, which is as follows:

Everything good that happens to me is the sole result of my superior intelligence and hard work. Education, family, society and luck have nothing to do with any of it. Therefore, anyone who is less well off than I am must be stupid or lazy or both.

-- Roger
-----------------------------------------------------

That's neo-liberal? 😱

I'm old liberal, so I guess I need to re-evaluate.

🙂

Yeah, I'm an old Liberal too. Joined the Young Liberals in 1966. But alas, that sort of liberal -- tolerant, accommodating -- is ever rarer. I don't like the term "neo-liberal" but it's probably the best description of the mind-set I described. If anyone has a better term I'll be happy to use it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

That definition must be within your own mind, but that is not something i would hold against you...we all have been raised in different environments and therefore choose to believe whatever agenda suits.

Eh?

It's quite widely shared. Lukitas was perfectly well able to understand it. So are most people who have ever heard the term "neo-liberal".

Believing the agenda I described is not something any decent or intellectually honest person would embrace; but there are distressingly many people who are neither decent or intellectually honest.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

This 'liberal self importance' assumes though that all street people are unhappy with their lifestyle doesn't it? Maybe living off the grid in a welfare society with a moderate climate like NZ where you have no work, mortgage, family pressures might appeal to some? Dole every Thursday supplemented with panhandling and all you have to think about is the next bottle of whatever you like to imbibe.

Dear David,

No, it makes the not unreasonable assumption that very few people want to live the way you describe. How many have you ever talked to? Or indeed read about?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

... I'm not sure everyone is in full agreement as to the meaning of the word 'liberal'. It's become such a wooly term over the years ... I use it for those laissez faire free-market capitalists types, on the continent it's used to mean centrist, and in the US the almost communist left.

 

[Roger Hicks]

... I'm not sure everyone is in full agreement as to the meaning of the word 'liberal'. It's become such a wooly term over the years ... I use it for those laissez faire free-market capitalists types, on the continent it's used to mean centrist, and in the US the almost communist left.

Dear Stewart,

Which is precisely why I used the unhappy term "neo-liberal".

And no, "liberal" does NOT mean "centrist" on "the continent". Here in France it means "those laissez faire free-market capitalists types" and is a distinct insult hurled from the left.

Cheers,

R.