Ken and his dog

We recently had a very thought-provoking <a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JhNc">thread</a> on

this forum about people's feelings on the rights and wrongs of photographing the

homeless. First off, let me just say that I was very impressed by the fact that

in spite of the passions that were clearly aroused by this difficult subject,

everybody who participated remained extremely courteous and respectful of the

views of others.

<p>

Very soon after this thread, I saw a homeless person in the street one Saturday

afternoon and it got me thinking about all the things we had discusssed on this

forum. In the end, I simply approached Ken, the gentleman shown in this picture

below and asked him directly if it was OK if I took his picture. He was very

gracious, and agreed immediately, but not before telling me how glad he was that

I had asked him first. "Not like that fella' across the street sneaking pictures

of me!" he said, indicating a guy on the other side of the road with an SLR and

a long lens who was kind of hiding in a doorway and obviously framing us up in

his viewfinder even as we spoke. It actually took me a moment or two in the busy

street, just to spot the guy amongst all the people on the far side of the road,

but I guess when you sit for long periods, watching the street like Ken does,

you get a really good sense of what's going on, picking out details that most of

us would miss in the hustle and bustle.

<p>

In any case, we chatted for a little bit before I took a couple of pictures of

him and then I went on my way after thanking him again. Recalling this

experience now and looking at the pictures again, I don't feel that I intruded

on his privacy at all, since I was perfectly prepared not to photograph him if

he had said no to my request and I feel no sense of having exploited him. At the

end of the day, the photograph is what you make of it as the beholder and it

constitutes no judgement in and of itself. Ten different people looking at it

might have ten entirely different opinions about what they're seeing. I think

that I took this picture because I am drawn to the human story that it tells,

but what exactly that story might be, is pretty much up to you.

<p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/153/381160293_a4726084ac_o.jpg"

width="1024" height="612">

Good for you. It's not that homeless people shouldn't ever be photographed, it's that the vast majority of shots of homeless people are trite and exploitative. And it happens a lot -- for Pete's sake, it was happening in the one moment you visited with this guy!

 

Even when I don't give them money, I always try to treat homeless people like, you know, people.

Nicely said Gordon. And very very true. Great work!

Mark

Thanks for the encouraging words guys!

 

However you feel about Ken and his dog, I think it's very hard to feel indifferent about them.

Gordon - what you've done is incredibly simple, and should be done by more so-called 'street' photographers.

 

Instead of treating this man as a homeless person, you've considered him as a person who is homeless.

 

Putting the person first in such situations is paramount.

 

And you are rewarded in more ways than just obtaining this excellent image.

Great shot with lots of content!

Gordon,

 

I am one who is not opposed to photographing the homeless. I think, like others, that most people choose the wrong approach and, therefore, get a cliche shot. However, your shot above is very good. It really speaks about fundamental relationships and needs without merely portraying cliched suffering.

 

Jonas

Overall I'd say Ken doesn't look too bad. He looks nourished, his skin is clear and he obviously can carry a conversation. Quite a contrast to the homeless folks one sees in Santa Monica and downtown LA. I recall a story on homeless people and panhandlers (who btw it turned were not homeless at all) who it seemed made more money then I do tax free. Why is Ken on the street?

 

Whatever Kens story, it's a good shot taken with the right approach Gordon.

Overall I'd say Ken doesn't look too bad. He looks nourished, his skin is clear and he obviously can carry a conversation. Quite a contrast to the homeless folks one sees in Santa Monica and downtown LA. I recall a story on homeless people and panhandlers (who btw it turned were not homeless at all) who it seemed made more money then I do tax free. Why is Ken on the street?

 

Whatever Kens story, it's a good shot taken with the right approach Gordon.

Beggars with dogs are a pretty common occurrence. The sympathy coin animal vote.

 

Still it is an engaging pix.

Many beggars/homeless keep dogs as a last line of protection. That means they cannot go to shelters at night. In many cases, shelters are also places where some of them have their last possessions stolen. In my area, I'm quite familiar with the homeless regulars, virtually all of which have major mental health issues. One of them is mentally handicapped and attended to with regular changes of clothing, and food money. Other persons appear suddenly, meaning they have been dumped in Tucson, usually through a one-way bus ticket. A dog is a good and tolerant companion for a struggling human and performs a task that should be done by other humans. Those who regard homeless people as manipulators should perhaps spend a week or more out on a sidewalk in freezing or wet weather; perhaps thoroughly addled by drinking a complete bottle of strawberry hill or Mad Dog 20/20 to get the right "feel" for the experience. The lifespan of a homeless person tends to be quite short.