The new face of Homeless

[Roger Hicks]

Actually, the most important photojournalism work speaks for itself. The viewers will have an incontrovertible impression, based on their knowledge of current events. This famous photo comes to mind, and has always given a feeling of the Face of Homelessness. And no amount of blather or discussion is necessary to see what's going on:

Dear Garrett,

You've just completely destroyed your own argument.

How does anyone know this is the Warsaw Ghetto, unless they've been told in words?

Sure, many of us can guess. But what (for example) of the picture of Aylan Kurdi in the policeman's arms?

We need to know (a) that he's dead and (b) why and how.

Likewise, "Coal-searcher, going home to Jarrow" (Bill Brandt, 1937) relies on knowing in words about the Jarrow marches and about poverty in the 1930s. You probably know the picture but for those who don't, see http://www.moma.org/collection/works/53508?locale=en

To pretend that pictures stand alone is naive at best, faux-naive at worst.

Addendum: my wife just looked at this, and when I asked her to guess where it was, she said, "Oradour". That's because we live near Oradour-sur-Glane, the "famous" murdered village, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane

Just because you recognize something (because you've been told what it is in words) doesn't mean that everyone shares your perception. Had you even heard of Oradour before?

Cheers,

R.

 

[goamules]

"To pretend that pictures stand alone is naive at best, faux-naive at worst." (Hicks)

To hypothesize that a picture cannot stand alone without narrative text is ..... pretty weird coming from a photographer.

Anyone can apply a dozen different a stories to any picture. The thing about photography is that the viewers are allowed to determine what a photo means to them (disregarding long, windy text placards in galleries, or artsy descriptions in photo coffee table books). Great photography is when those interpretations are largely similar. Most people, like your wife, understand the underlying theme of my example, even if the facts aren't known. A snapshot of a girl with a cell phone....well, you need narrative. It's the difference between great photojournalism, and journalism (writing) supplemented by a photograph. You should understand that, one would think, by this point.

 

[codester80]

Let's compare the OPs photo and the example Garrett provided to try and explain his position a photo should tell a story.
Without knowing the backstory to the OPs image what do you SEE? Seeing being the critical criteria here. I see a young woman sitting on a piece of luggage somewhere (a back alleyway would be my bet) doing something on a cell phone while smoking a cigarette. There are bags of unidentifiable stuff in the background.What do all of these elements tell me? They can tell me several different "stories". This could be a young woman texting a friend during a smoke break during a shift at work. She could be homeless. She could be waiting for a friend to pick her up after being evicted from her apartment. Maybe her boyfriend tossed out all of her belongs and she's trying to figure out her next course of action. As you can see, the photo doesn't clearly define any one "story".
Now for Garrett's example. I see women and children in heavy coats, carrying bags and personal possessions leaving a building with their arms in the air (an apartment building would be my best guess) and there are several soldiers (one with a gun visible) watching the women and children leaving the building. I know these are Nazi soldiers because of the uniforms (if this is the very first photograph of Nazi soldiers then a caption would be needed but as Garrett said most viewers of this photo would have been aware of Nazi uniforms when the image was made). What do these elements tell me? These women and children are not leaving on their own free will. There is a war or other potentially violent event precipitating this forced relocation. Coming to this photograph in the "current events" of the day I would understand these are Europeans being forcefully removed from their homes by Nazis. It's a powerful image. It's made even more powerful when words are added to clarify these people are Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto and are being transported to the death camps. But even without knowing the specifics, the viewer gets a powerful story of the terrors of war.
Strong photojournalistic photos tell stories. Weak ones do not. A photographer cannot let their own emotions and political views cloud their ability to evaluate the true merit and impact of an image. Simply put the OPs image does nothing to communicate the situation the young woman is facing.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . To hypothesize that a picture cannot stand alone without narrative text is ..... pretty weird coming from a photographer. . . .

To hypothesize that a picture can often stand alone without narrative text, let alone should, is ..... pretty weird coming from someone who is using words [text] to support his argument. . . .

But to ignore your reductio ad absurdum, do you believe that it doesn't matter where it is?

Because if you believe that, anyone can use any picture for anything. Spanish Civil War? WW2? Breakup of Yugoslavia? West Bank? Ukraine? I'm talking about 70+ years of different conflicts -- and you could quite easily find pictures where only a weapons or uniforms nerd could tell exactly where and when it happened. And probably at least as many more where even a weapons or uniforms nerd couldn't.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Simply put the OPs image does nothing to communicate the situation the young woman is facing.

What would, then? Can you even imagine such a picture, let alone take it? Humanity spent millennia evolving language. Pretending that a photo-essay without words can replace it is (I repeat the phrase) naive at best, faux-naive at worst.

No, the OP's image is not up there with the greatest, or even the great. But with the text it deserves attention.

Cheers,

R.

 

[daveleo]

When the photo that Garrett posted was originally publicized, I'll bet my shoes there were many words, probably headlines, and a bunch of other still pictures wrapped around it and probably predated by similar pictures and supplemented by movies. That whole package of news educated viewers to a very horrific event (and we are so educated even before we view it today).

If you could find some 20 year old somewhere in the world who did not know a thing about WW2, and showed him that picture, he'd probably think "Wow, I gotta see this new post-apocalypse movie - looks like maybe it's on another planet too". He would not implicitly understand what he is looking at.
That picture of course has more impact than the OP's picture because we know the story, it touched tens of millions of lives, and it is tragic (not the picture itself - the story behind it).
Anyway, this is a good point for me to bug out of the thread. I said what I had to say, and I'm sure it's understood.

 

[rhl-oregon]

I'm reminded of the Robert Hass poem "Meditation at Lagunitas" that began

"All the new thinking is about loss. In this
It resembles all the old thinking..."

I may have the line breaks wrong. We have the poor with us always, as someone once remarked at a dinner. And we can have new wine in old bottles, even if it tastes like vinegar or would be better changed into water, to reverse the miracle at Cana in a way that might benefit some of the chronically homeless.

The "new homeless" are just the youngest yet to be subjected to its indignity, insecurity, and austerity (to quote Chomsky via Ranchu's signature), but in its presence every photographer has a chance to find his inner Lewis Hine or Dorothea Lange and perhaps change himself, herself, even if homelessness and refugeeism persists around, before and beyond. And in changing, maybe does more afterward to alleviate what social ills s/he can afford to do, if it's just volunteering to wash dishes at a church breakfast for the homeless.

Oh, I had another thought re the argument: "I gotta use words when I talk to you" (T.S. Eliot). Not every image must show without telling, and some break our hearts more tellingly when captioned just so.

 

[thompsonks]

Who in the world would think it's wrong for photos to be accompanied by words? Or why would someone think that work in a story-telling or photojournalistic tradition doesn't belong on RFF?

And what's wrong with photographs having a political motive or message? The Photo League, the FSA photographers, Capa, Gene Smith, those who photographed the civil rights movement, all had political messages to get across. Politically motivated photography is as real and respectable as 'fine art' stuff. There are so many legitimate uses of photography, all presumably welcome and respected here.

Thank you, Jim, for making the photograph and offering the story as you heard it told.

Kirk

 

[zauhar]

Who in the world would think it's wrong for photos to be accompanied by words? Or why would someone think that work in a story-telling or photojournalistic tradition doesn't belong on RFF?

And what's wrong with photographs having a political motive or message? The Photo League, the FSA photographers, Capa, Gene Smith, those who photographed the civil rights movement, all had political messages to get across. Politically motivated photography is as real and respectable as 'fine art' stuff. There are so many legitimate uses of photography, all presumably welcome and respected here.

Thank you, Jim, for making the photograph and offering the story as you heard it told.

Kirk

I don't believe the complainers are against politics per se, they are against YOUR politics. ;-)

I think that for a documentary image, including a caption is not only acceptable, it is expected.

Randy

 

[codester80]

What would, then? Can you even imagine such a picture, let alone take it? Humanity spent millennia evolving language. Pretending that a photo-essay without words can replace it is (I repeat the phrase) naive at best, faux-naive at worst.

No, the OP's image is not up there with the greatest, or even the great. But with the text it deserves attention.

Cheers,

R.

I can imagine such a photo or two. Take a few steps back and show the environment the young woman is sitting in. I'm guessing it's a back alley where she hides amongst the trash cans avoiding detection from those who may see her as an easy victim. Return later in the day when she is getting ready to bed down for the night and show the conditions she must put up with. Heck, get closer and let the viewer see the fear/exhaustion/anger/indifference/etc. in her eyes and face. Allow the viewer to connect to the woman.
And nowhere did anyone say a photo-essay without words should replace one accompanied by words. Photographs in a photo-essay needs to meet one of three objectives: It must attract the attention of the viewer, add additional information not expressed in words, or illustrate an idea or piece of information within the text (see every issue of National Geographic). The OPs photo fails to do this as I explained in a previous post. The photograph is too ambiguous. Words are required to generate interest, perspective, and information for the photo.
And for the record, humanity has spend millennia evolving visual language as well. Man first communicated via paintings on cave walls WITHOUT words.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I can imagine such a photo or two. Take a few steps back and show the environment the young woman is sitting in. I'm guessing it's a back alley where she hides amongst the trash cans avoiding detection from those who may see her as an easy victim. Return later in the day when she is getting ready to bed down for the night and show the conditions she must put up with. Heck, get closer and let the viewer see the fear/exhaustion/anger/indifference/etc. in her eyes and face. Allow the viewer to connect to the woman. . . .

In other words, allow each person who sees the picture to place their own personal interpretation on it, regardless of whether that interpretation is reasonably complete or even true. No thanks: I'll go for the words-and-picture(s) package.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't believe the complainers are against politics per se, they are against YOUR politics. ;-)

I think that for a documentary image, including a caption is not only acceptable, it is expected.

Randy

Dear Randy,

Exactly. Imagine the words without the picture: nothing like the same impact. Now imagine the picture without the words: little more than a snapshot. Put the two together and they seem to make some people very uncomfortable. Which is, to a considerable extent, what the photographer intended; but then, the people who are made uncomfortable are often the ones who don't want to think about luck, life chances, inequality, self-righteous complacency and "I'm all right, Jack."

It is not a work of genius, but then, it doesn't have to be: most photojournalism isn't. It's still good; it's still worth seeing (and reading about). Trying to diminish its value by comparing it with the best pictures ever taken is a red herring. Trying to pretend that photojournalism shouldn't be accompanied by words is more of a red imaginary whale.

Cheers,

R.

 

[emraphoto]

i would like to humbly request that everyone, in every corner of the internet, stop using the holocaust to illustrate your logic. in almost all situations the comparison is ludicrous and in very bad taste.

setting the bench mark so high is unfair. i suspect it is also missing the point. for the OP to stop, engage and share is a fine outcome in my books. the dogma, boxes and incredible expectations often prevent the magic from happening.

 

[rhl-oregon]

"The Red Whale." Roger, are you going to write that story, or may I?

Let's do it the way Leigh Hunt used to write poems with Keats: 'tonight, our topic is Autumn; the 20 minutes to write begins...now.'

(If any wannabe Melvilles are tuning in, you have 20 years to write your version of "The Red Whale." Others are free to write haiku, sonnets, children's books, or if you must, 95 theses to be nailed to the door at Magnum or Flickr. ;-)

 

[airfrogusmc]

Roger you have hit the nail on the head. I agree and so did Winogrand for what it's worth.

About 1:36 in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek

 

[Ranchu]

Somewhat strangely, I was reminded of this photo, NSFW. http://www.masters-of-photography.com/W/weston/weston_nude_1936_full.html

 

[goamules]

Let's compare the OPs photo and the example Garrett provided to try and explain his position a photo should tell a story.
Without knowing the backstory to the OPs image what do you SEE? Seeing being the critical criteria here. I see a young woman sitting on a piece of luggage somewhere (a back alleyway would be my bet) doing something on a cell phone while smoking a cigarette. There are bags of unidentifiable stuff in the background.What do all of these elements tell me? They can tell me several different "stories". This could be a young woman texting a friend during a smoke break during a shift at work. She could be homeless. She could be waiting for a friend to pick her up after being evicted from her apartment. Maybe her boyfriend tossed out all of her belongs and she's trying to figure out her next course of action. As you can see, the photo doesn't clearly define any one "story".
Now for Garrett's example. I see women and children in heavy coats, carrying bags and personal possessions leaving a building with their arms in the air (an apartment building would be my best guess) and there are several soldiers (one with a gun visible) watching the women and children leaving the building. I know these are Nazi soldiers because of the uniforms (if this is the very first photograph of Nazi soldiers then a caption would be needed but as Garrett said most viewers of this photo would have been aware of Nazi uniforms when the image was made). What do these elements tell me? These women and children are not leaving on their own free will. There is a war or other potentially violent event precipitating this forced relocation. Coming to this photograph in the "current events" of the day I would understand these are Europeans being forcefully removed from their homes by Nazis. It's a powerful image. It's made even more powerful when words are added to clarify these people are Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto and are being transported to the death camps. But even without knowing the specifics, the viewer gets a powerful story of the terrors of war.
Strong photojournalistic photos tell stories. Weak ones do not. A photographer cannot let their own emotions and political views cloud their ability to evaluate the true merit and impact of an image. Simply put the OPs image does nothing to communicate the situation the young woman is facing.

Thanks for this perfect description and analysis. The OP photo reveals very little that differentiates from 1,000,000 other recent photos of a young woman on a cell phone. Therefore....it needs a long "cover story." Journalism is fine. Photography is fine. The OP photo is NOT photojournalism.

 

[paulfish4570]

here is what i have to say: blah, blah, blah.
give the OP a break. good grief ...

 

[Ranchu]

Agree! Caption/no caption my ass!

:dance:

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Thanks for this perfect description and analysis. The OP photo reveals very little that differentiates from 1,000,000 other recent photos of a young woman on a cell phone. Therefore....it needs a long "cover story." Journalism is fine. Photography is fine. The OP photo is NOT photojournalism.

You have a really weird, strange view of what is and what is not photojournalism.