Anti-Street

I went to a show of a documentary photography project today in Las

Cruces. The work was by Oscar Lozoya. I thought I would share my

impressions of what I saw because the subject is relevant to this new

forum and familiar to anyone who is interested in street and

documentary photography. The title of my posting does not reflect

antipathy toward street photography; rather, the "Anti-" part refers

to the concept of opposites or other dimensions as in "Anti-

Matter".<br><br>

The title of the show is actually "Images from the Streets: Portraits

of Albuquerque Homeless". And, the operative word is "from" and

not "of". Over a period of several years Lozoya has taken homeless

people from the streets into his Albuquerque studio to photograph

them using what are basically commercial portrait techniques. When I

went to the show I was apprehensive about what I would see because

the subject has been dealt with so many times that it always seems

unlikely anyone will come up with new ideas about it, or that it

will be accomplished in such a way as to not appear exploitative of

the subjects. On the other hand, the show did have some things going

for it. Lozoya is a well-known New Mexico photographer who has won

many awards for his work, he is the published author on portrait

technique, and he is a life-long resident of Albuquerque where he has

known some of the subjects of his show for many years. The show was

mounted with an extensive text by Michael Robertson, an

anthropologist who himself has spent extended periods on the street

getting close to the subject of his academic inquiries. Finally, it

appears the show was sponsored by the UNM Anthropology

program.<br><br>Soon after I began to walk along the walls of the

gallery where the show is mounted, the idea began to take shape that

this was a project that went spectacularly wrong. Lozoya sat each

of his subjects in front of a black drapery background and lit them

using standard portrait lighting techniques that obviously owe

something to Yousuf Karsh. The lighting always included a spotlight

which annoited the subject's skin with a sheen of heavenly sweat and

often brought out every scar and pore with startling clarity. What

the setting and lighting did not do -- for me at least -- was to

reveal anything about the character in question other than to

highlight the fact of physical abuse and self-abuse. The people

seemed to be near-empty human shells. Lozoya's comments accompanying

each picture appeared sympathetic, but I found his use of the

term "models" very off-putting and suggestive of the related

term "mannequins".<br><br>The texts of the anthropologist, Robertson,

are mostly fine, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the

photographs; his engagement with street people in their environment

puts him in another dimension from Lozoya's studio. The combination

of the two transports one back to the dawn of Anthropology when Boas

was trying to find alternatives to applying calipers to people's

heads as a means of defining racial differences. The culmination of

this unfortunate pairing is a photo entitled "Jackson, Robert and Bob

E." depicting three stacked profiles -- the picture instantly evokes

19th Century studio photographs of Native Americans which appear to

have been taken immediately prior to extinction, with taxidermy on

the near horizon.<br><br>Lozoya's most successful photograph in the

show is predictably the one he has blown up to the largest size,

about three feet by four feet. Entitled "Atocha", the picture shows

a fellow who is among the least physically damaged of any of Lozoya's

subjects. The face is clear of scars, the thick, springy strands of

hair blend into a well-trimed beard. Only the flat, dead eyes give

a hint of a life spiraling into darkness. Looking at the mask-like

face and the mass of hair resembling steel cables. I was stuck by the

fact that the image was not a character study but an architectural

one. Lozoya missed his true calling.<br><br>I regret the negativism

of this review; I would have much preferred to write another. My

hope is that it will elicit some reports about how the topic of

homelessness has been dealt with elsewhere with more success, or

perhaps some tentative ideas of how to approach the subject in some

new ways.<br><br>I suppose the UNM Press may eventually incorporate

Lozoya's pictures in a book. There do not seem to be any images from

the show on the web, but I did find an interview and a picture on an

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0936262710/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-

1788429-0678313#reader-page">Amazon page</a> which gives some hints

about Lozoya's style.

 

As you've outlined the show I'm not certain what the viewer is supposed to take away with them. Portraiture is by definition utilitarian and these images hardly sound as though they've transended that premis. Homlessness is disturbing, perhaps however not the best vehicle for differentiating one group of portraits from another.

 

Maybe this show is a bit like dragging bodies off a battlefield and into the studio?

"<i>Maybe this show is a bit like dragging bodies off a battlefield and into the studio?</i><br><br>That's a very good summation. The thing that remains a mystery to me is how the University of New Mexico Anthropology Dept. or the specific anthopologist who provided the running commentary could conclude that this exercise conducted in a commercial photography studio could constitute a documentary of value to their profession. My understanding of anthropology is that it is the study of people in their physical and social environment. If you take the person out of their environment, what is there left for an anthropologist to look at? I could see how such pictures might be of some passing interest to a pathologist or someone with an interest in public health, but even then I doubt professionals from those fields would claim any objective or scientific value for the collection of portraits.<br>    The thing that can't be done from account alone, of course, is to form a judgment on the esthetic or artistic value of the portraits. I've indicated some of my feelings on that topic, and I should also confess a rather strong negative bias toward most commercial portrait photography.

This sounds a lot like a project that a photographer in Vancouver BC was/is doing. Don't know which one came first.

 

It was interesting in a "people out of their element" way. Sort of like shooting a stripper gardening at home in her high heels and pasties.

 

But all in all, I don't get too excited about stuff like this. It always comes off like exploitation in some way. Taking photos of homless people is like shooting fish in a barrel. It isn't hard to befriend someone who has nobody else.

I read something about that Vancouver project. I think part of the thing there was that nobody takes pictures of these people that are carefully lit and make them look good, so it was a different tack. But I haven't seen any of the pictures, so I don't know if that's valid.

 

Something like this could have value, but it would depend how it was done. And I tend to agree that the value wouldn't really be documentary once people are removed from their context.

<i>"...Taking photos of homless people is like shooting fish in a barrel..."</i><br><br>Yes, I think that is certainly the impression that is created by a lot of casual collections of street shots of the homeless. On the other hand, I don't think that means that the topic couldn't form the basis for a legitimate documentary.<br>    I wonder, for example, if there would be enough archive shots out there somewhere to illustrate the explosion of homelessness over the past twenty-five years in the U.S. I'm thinking especially of San Francisco which I left in about 1977 before the things were too bad. When I passed through there again about five years later I was astounded that the square in front of City Hall had become a tent city of homeless people. Seems like just two shots made at the right interval could have quite an impact.

I was in San Francisco in the past two years and remember seeing a half block from the Cable Car turn around touristic spot a group of homeless people. There was a situation that unfolded. One small woman was frantic. It looked like some city officials or someone else had taken or thrown away her collection of possessions. She was rushing around confronting one of the officials and one other homeless woman who seemed involved and in a way pleased at her crisis. The woman, who was maybe in her thirties, finally went around the corner and sat down against the building wall and cried.

 

I never considered taking a photo. I wondered if the pressure to remove these individuals had to do with the proximity to the touristic spot. There was a small group of about twenty around this nearby spot.

 

Getting back to the exhibit, maybe some small influence for the effort at least from the starting point was August Sander. However, from Mike's description and response to it, the project seems wrong-headed.

Now THAT William is a story from the street! I think you've just nailed the problem.

 

Street people must tend to lurch from crisis to crisis. Whether a photo essay or a narrative my heart goes out to that woman, I feel I want to help. From someone who has little problem saying no to panhandlers I can promise you that a studio portrait wouldn't draw me in the same way you've just done.

 

Thanks for a provocative and thoughtful string Mike! I'm twigging to the notion that street photography needs to get beyond simple faces in a crowd, etc to be most effective. Maybe those things that we remember and care to relate later are also the most worthy subjects for this gendre.

I think the difference with Sander was that he included just enough details of the person's environment to nail the person's place in the social order. Sometimes it was just the style of clothing such as a tie, hat or boots, and sometimes a little more of the surroundings or a pet.<br>    I had quite a bit of contact with homeless people in the past as the result of working in social service systems in NY, SF, Spokane and Las Cruces. I guess that accounts for some of my interest in the topic now as a photographer, though I don't really have any direct entry back into that world now. Looking back, I can think of several individuals whose lives would have been interesting to document in some fashion.

Mike, I guess a big part of the problem would be that homelessness is a complex problem. People end up there for all kinds of reasons, have varying ways of living with it, and have varying challenges. The idea of dealing with "The Homeless" as a monolithic block is as ludicrous as planning to do a photo essay on "the homed," if you think about it.

Just to follow up briefly on that last thought, I did also remember that one of my homeless contacts was interviewed by a reporter and he or a photographer made a picture which appeared in one of the Spokane papers about fifteen years ago. I had found the middle aged woman living in a chicken coop. I spent some time unsuccessfully trying to talk her into some other accomodations. I bought her some groceries and arranged to get her some food stamps, but couldn't really change anything significantly. The community mental health people refused to intervene because she was judged not an immediate danger to herself or others. The newspaper story and picture were factual, and not bad, but I don't think they produced any benefit for the individual either. My bosses at the social services agency were mostly concerned about the publicity indicating that we were not being effective in helping the woman. I don't know that a well-done documentary effort would have made any differnce to the woman who really just wanted to be left alone to get on with her life as she saw it. But, maybe the right combination of pictures and words could have shed a little light on how these things come to be.

Andrew, I think that what you say is quite right. There are a lot of reasons people become homeless and stay that way. That was kind of what I was getting at in your previous thread about knowing your subject sufficiently well to get at the truth of the real issues. I don't think I've got the energy to tackle the issue myself now, but it has been on my mind since seeing that failed show.

In the early 90s, I saw a man sitting on a scrap of cardboard just above Soho near Oxford St and Tottenham Court Rd. He had wild hair and a beard and was a thousand shades of brown, his clothing and his skin. His left eye was gone, just the socket. People took great care to step quietly past him that sunny day in April. I didnt take his photograph. And I do think of him from time to time.

 

I tend to buy newspapers from street vendors, generally I give twice the price. It is not very much, but at least it is something.

The precursors of this technique, who made it "respectable", are Irving Penn and Richard Avedon. Penn did exactly what your guy in Albuquerque did, with Maoris, among others, and the Time-Life photography series of the 70s lavished all kinds of praise on his "creativity". I always thought the pics looked ridiculous. Avedon's "The American West", I think is the title, takes his patented portrait style, which works well with Beautiful People, and points the camera at lower class folk and makes them look scary (IMO).

 

Once this stuff gets established popularly as an "artistic" approach, someone like Lozaya can easily sell it to curators and even anthropologists. It's a technique that's established for years, it's been accepted in [genuflect, bow] New York. I completely agree with you Mike. I don't like it.

 

Two considerations though. (1) I wonder how the subjects feel? Maybe they feel validated somewhat. (2) It ain't easy to make a buck as a professional photographer these days. Ya gotta keep coming up with something.

"<i>I tend to buy newspapers from street vendors, generally I give twice the price. It is not very much, but at least it is something.</i>"<br><br>Interesting that you should mention this. Las Cruces recently decided that the news vendors in the medians were a threat to public safety. At the same time they passed an ordinance that prohibited panhandling. Additionally, the homeless shelter was moved about two years ago from a downtown area to an industrial neighborhood. Nice for us home owners, I suppose, but I imagine it made the situation of the homeless all that more desperate.<br>    So, this suggests than another focus for a documentary photographer might be to make the homeless visible in a society that wants to make them disappear without really dealing with the reality of a large part of the community that is without shelter.

"<i>Two considerations though. (1) I wonder how the subjects feel? Maybe they feel validated somewhat. (2) It ain't easy to make a buck as a professional photographer these days. Ya gotta keep coming up with something.</i>"<br><br>Mutual benefit is probably an important point that is easily overlooked. While I was hypercritical about the exhibit I reported on, it actually fulfilled an objective I have suggested: that of making the homeless visible. Maybe I need to revisit my ideas about the whole thing.

I think that the point about making homelessness visible is an important one. We've had a law passed to ban panhandling, which has the effect of hiding the problem, and at one point there were suggestions that the homeless be put in camps, which of course has somewhat frightening overtones.

 

I think many people mistakenly criticize projects on homelessness (or poverty, or famine, or name-your-issue) because they can't result in a solution. But just making sure that it isn't ignored is probably the most important thing.

<a href="http://www.lozoya.com/homeless.htm">here are some in the series</a>

Well it's not what I expected. I'm impressed. He has succeeded in showing dignity, intelligence, humour, etc., in these faces. It's the opposite of what I think Avedon, the high fashion guy, does with rough-and-tumble people. The lighting is overdone; Karshian - reminds me of the portrait of Kruschev - but it works. I hope these people got to see their pictures, and got a free wallet sized image, (maybe with a new wallet).

Having lived in ABQ for nearly 30 years, I have watched Oscar develop his photographic style. Although much of his work is interesting, more often then not, it makes me want to ask the question - "what's the point?"

 

In contrast, another ABQ photographer, Miguel Gandert, does far better work and his portraits tell stories about the person instead of about a technique.

a) They're dreadful.<br>

b) These photos have absolutely nothing to do with either Irving Penn or Richard Avedon's work. Different ballpark--no planet.

Richard Avedon's book is actually titled "IN The American West." A slight difference which, unmoticed, has led many critics to make fools of themselves. (Like the difference between Famous and Infamous.)

I hope that the show travels. While divorcing the homeless from their surroundings changes their context, a show like this might force us to think more of their sitituation in life. How they got those "scars"....