What is your definition of Exploitation?

ruben said:
If your definition of "hey-day" is intended to mean the days in which pros were paid due money, I may agree and congratulate the dis-linking of photography and money. We were made rather a favour.

But if you are talking about public attention to a group of images, nothing has changed. It all depends on the quality of the images, both form and contents. The intrinsic power of Photography is still there, in the basic fact that the only required thing is the right photographer at the right moment or situation.

Shoot a series of "stills" on Bin Laden's life at his cave, and you will have again the power of Photography felt worldwide, with all TV channels showing these pics.

It is not the medium but the contents.
Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...

Thanks, Ruben, for the comment.

I think perhaps we are all mixing apples and oranges when dealing with shooting people.

There is street photography which is what we see most of on the forum and other photo sharing sites. True, just a slice of life, a moment in time, but of no real value to society. How many tight jeans or sweaters can you fit on the head of a pin?

Then there's photo-journalism, paid or otherwise, which is what we try for but can't find in Starbucks.

We are taught ( pre digital giga cards )to ask 'why are you taking the shot?'. If the answer is, 'because it will get a comment on the forum', don't shoot it.

Nice thread, anything that gets me to write more than three words is a delight.

Ducky;)
 
I would like to add that "interacting" with the subject is not necessarily a two sides road. It can take place in your mind only. If your interaction is basically positive, in your mind, you can freely sneak and always will be ready for the reaction of your subject, of whatever type it may be. At this later stage it will become an active two sided interaction.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
I don't think "profitting" from your work is exploitive. I think the idea that you should not work for money is exploitive. That is used against artists all the time. If I cannot make money, how do I do more work?
 
Maybe slightly off track but i still think relevant to the original question, i would point you to Gary Knight's observation on his VII profile, where he reflects on the impact his work has had on those he has photographed:

http://www.viiphoto.com/

Food for thought from someone i admire greatly and had the pleasure to meet.
 
jmilkins said:
Maybe the answer is that the stealth method yields one or two "natural" images before the subject becomes aware of the camera, whereas the "interactive" method allows a raport to develop, break through any posed moments and get to a relaxed "natural" portrait....
Click to expand...

The answer is that there are middle grounds too between stealth and interactive. I don't need to be stealthy at all to get shots that show little or now interaction. I can do that (and so can you) by simply being right there out in the open and just doing what you do. Is a window washer stealthy, or a mail man? No. But how often do we actually see these people do their thing? Hardly ever, because they are part of the environment, pose no thread, do their usual stuff, and are thus ignored by our senses. It's when we start to act out of the ordinary or suspiciously that people start to notice us.
 
I don't take photos of people simply because I would not want them photographing me. How do I know where a photo of me is going to end up?
 
Finder said:
I don't think "profitting" from your work is exploitive. I think the idea that you should not work for money is exploitive. That is used against artists all the time. If I cannot make money, how do I do more work?
Click to expand...

Hi Finder,
With all due respect your post is very ambiguous, first because most of the artists of photography hardly survive the month, and then because your phrasing of things puts in question marks wether the target is art or money.

And lastly, because of your advocating that "the idea that you should not work for money is exploitive". This is the classical argument for allowing oneself unrestricted free hand moral standards. You seem to insinuate you are the real underdog, the real vyctim, instead of that homeless.

A true artist is a person commited to his art in whatever conditions he/she will be.

A mercenary of Art is a guy having unique visual talents, but devoid of contents. Art, People, Himself, are just instruments for making money. And it doesn't matter at all how many people will be clamping hands on his behalf. Since profitable art is paid by the upper social layers of society, there is always a niche there for empty souls to meet and feed each other, in perfect harmony.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For me there's another way, and this is ON ASSIGNMENT. And, like many of my colleagues above,
I take pix without, and with permission. For 15 years as a Photojournalist with the Jerusalem Post, and for the Weitzmann Institute of Science, I was sent into interesting places, and met some top people, by arrangement.

When my son went into central Africa, Samoa and Alaska, etc., with his video crew, it was by arrangement. You don't get the kind of footage they returned with, unless some tribal chieftain approves it. The German-funded project is on world climate change.

Getting back to street photography, I DON'T feel like I'm committing a crime,
yet sometimes, I do feel like I'm taking something without permission.
And, it makes little difference if the "tool" is a Leica of the 1960's, or a D200.

Cheers, mike
 
Last edited:
ruben said:
Hi Finder,
With all due respect your post is very ambiguous, first because most of the artists of photography hardly survive the month, and then because your phrasing of things puts in question marks wether the target is art or money.

And lastly, because of your advocating that "the idea that you should not work for money is exploitive". This is the classical argument for allowing oneself unrestricted free hand moral standards. You seem to insinuate you are the real underdog, the real vyctim, instead of that homeless.

A true artist is a person commited to his art in whatever conditions he/she will be.

A mercenary of Art is a guy having unique visual talents, but devoid of contents. Art, People, Himself, are just instruments for making money. And it doesn't matter at all how many people will be clamping hands on his behalf. Since profitable art is paid by the upper social layers of society, there is always a niche there for empty souls to meet and feed each other, in perfect harmony.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...

Ruben:

What I am refering to is, unless you have another source of income, you need to finance what you do. And what is exploited is this sentiment:

A true artist is a person commited to his art in whatever conditions he/she will be.
Click to expand...

No, I am not motivated by money, but without it I can't pursue my art. This is taken advantage of by editors and others that beat an artist down by making them feel guilty by "working for money." That "selfless" devotion was only able to be pursued by an aristocracy that was rich. This idea is poison. As stated above, it seems I can try to make work, but I must ot "profit" from it. Why? I need to eat and pay rent. I need to supply the materials, time, and talent. But I must be expected to fund this by myself? It seems OK for publishers, printers, and organizations to "profit" from work, but not the artist. Without a financial base, I cannot work. What is exploitive about having your art support your life (and your art)?
 
Why do you all assume that exploitation is a rude manner? I just looked up the meaning of the word and it's meaning is: Utilization of a person or group for selfish purposes. The word utilization means to: Put to use, turn to profitable account. Selfish means devoted to, or caring for ones own interest, regardless of others. So I can say that i'm an exploitist and proud to be one.


Yes I use my camera to exploit people, hoping to please myself with the final print.

Yes I utilize people as my subjects, using them for any gain weather personal or $$.

Yes I am selfish in that I am devoted to my photography, absolutly caring for my own interest because it's a hobby that I enjoy and it relaxes me. Plus my Dr. says I should get out and walk for exercise. Besides, don't I have a right to be selfish with my photography considering the amount of $$ I paid for my equipment? If people don't wan't to be exploited then they need to stay home and become a recluse.
 
Last edited:
gb hill said:
Why do you all assume that exploitation is a rude manner? I just looked up the meaning of the word and it's meaning is: Utilization of a person or group for selfish purposes. The word utilization means to: Put to use, turn to profitable account. Selfish means devoted to, or caring for ones own interest, regardless of others. So I can say that i'm an exploitist and proud to be one.


Yes I use my camera to exploit people, hoping to please myself with the final print.

Yes I utilize people as my subjects, using them for any gain weather personal or $$.
.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with your view. For the one in the exploiting position, exploitation is a highly enligthened manner of correctly distribuing resources, turn the lazy to be of utility, and you don't necessary have to feel selfish. Most de-luxe exploiters are just making a favour to mankind. This thoughts are as old as the Greek phylosophy, with only one element lacking: the denyial of democracy and the claim of full power for the minority of the devoted elite, called by the Greeks - "Aristocracy".

Take care,
Ruben
 
By metaphor..

By metaphor..

I want to utilize my experience with a Chicago person, now in her 50's. Caroline Myss Ph D, best selling author and international lecturer on human consciousness, intuition and healing... was my teacher when I was active in so-called "personal growth" groups. I have most of her books and have been to 4 of her workshops in Scotland. Please go to:

www.myss.com

Caroline has made a fortune from her books and workshops. She has a following of people, who go to wherever she is doing a workshop or new book tour in the USA. To be more specific, if Caroline were to do a workshop in your town, her day rate is somewhere between $3,500 - $5,000 per diem.

Now then, I ask you, Is THAT exploitation? I like Caroline; she's brilliant and a stand-up comedian to boot. Is she exploiting her "co-dependents?" I do think so.

Cheers, Mike
 
I don't go around photographing hobos, junkies, or whatever -- nuff said quote Memphis

I liked meeting Doug. I esp. liked his hat.:D Why do we make apologies for shooting these types of people? It's almost like making an apology for sinning.Don't get me wrong, I feel for the homeless and have given to them food & such as they needed, but speaking from a photographers standpoint, Why make excuse for pointing a camera in there direction & pressing a shutter! WHY??? Should I feel guilty because I wan't to utilize a a subject that interest me. Does Memphis feels guilty everytime he walks down Beale st. goes into a bar & starts taking pictures of musicians! You wan't to know where the real sourse of our guilt lies in I believe. FEAR! Thats the great hinderence in ones photography many times. The Bible has a verse that says: Perfect Love casteth out fear. I think a great photograph that expresses emotion, comes from a good photographer that shows emotion to his subjects. I for one think i'll quit making excuses.
 
memphis said:
the real question that would have been closer to home to ask -- on beale street there are musicians playing every few hundred feet... in the bars, they have a tip jar as they do on the street... As a tourist, traveling to this town for the experience specifically of blues / music, shouldn't the tourists feel guilty about not putting a little in the tip jar... every one of the musicians is financially insolvent, most are day to day existence... they're working 8-12 hours a day to entertain the tourists... it riles me up when the passerby people do not put something in the tip jar
Click to expand...

Never been to Memphis so I didn't know that. Yes I agree, and if I ever go, I will be sure to load my pockets with change because it would be pretty sorry to photograph the musicians and not give back some love in return.

BTW Memphis have you heard the blues group WSNB?
 
Last edited:
I'm a little skeptical of ascribing motives or intent to a photographer or the photographer's image. We cannot predict with certainty how a viewer will react to a picture.

In the example of a homeless person, whether the photographer was motivated by compassion or money (or both) has no bearing on how the viewer will react. The viewer will see the image through his own mind's filter and react with sympathy or scorn regardless of the photographer's intent.

I'm not for any sensorship of public domain photography. It is always useful to show the human condition to ourselves so that we may try to see who we are, where we are and what we're doing.

Of course, after all these years, I still don't know!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom