john falkenstine Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 its about time. http://www.flickr.com/groups/33979405@N00/discuss/132025/?search=Homeless+photography Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted January 27, 2007 Author Share Posted January 27, 2007 And more http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/03/photographing-homeless-banned.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 The second link is sadly funny. You do realize that it is a parody, correct? I do have pictures of a what others would call a homeless man, but because he is an associate whom I've known for years, and helped out a few times. He chooses to be homeless, lives in an abandoned car year-around in Minnesota. He's got more guts than anyone I know. Now, let's do something about these sunset pictures! Enough already! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted January 27, 2007 Author Share Posted January 27, 2007 Yup, I know its parody. But how funny is it really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majid Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 The <a href="http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/cassidy/leicaslacker/plug/10/index.html">seventh commandment</a> of Leica Photography is: <blockquote> "Thou shalt not photograph homeless people. Leave them alone or buy them food. This pleasith <em>(sic)</em> the Lord." </blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott friedberg Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Photographing the homeless is only 'OK' with me when it's practiced at an extremely high level; when it shows a clear concept to the viewer and when it 'adds' something. To do it this way is extremely difficult; apart from Sebastiao Salgado I have yet to find a photographer who is capable of doing it. His photographs of refugees and migrants (though they do not not show homeless people in a conventional way), hopefully make my point clear. I think it's very wrong to just grab a camera, go out and snap some homeless people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Ah yes, much better to pretend they don't actually exist. While I don't go hunting down or chasing after homeless people, if they're presenting themselves in public they get treated just like everyone else who's in public: if it looks like they might make an interesting shot, I'll take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmalever Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 I have my opinions about photographing the homeless, but for those that think it's wrong, where does this feeling originate. I've heard all the argumants about exploitation, etc., but I'm also not convinced. I think just about anything is subject matter. Is it interesting? Ususally not. I don't rule anything out, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott friedberg Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 "I have my opinions about photographing the homeless, but for those that think it's wrong, where does this feeling originate." I don't really know where this feeling originates. Being an atheist I would also never photograph folks going to church for example. I can't really explain, there are just some things I would never photograph even though they take place in the public realm. All is ofcourse open to debate and I respect other opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwebster Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 I don't think that photographing homeless people is "wrong" any more than writing a story or making a movie about homeless people is "wrong". I agree with one of the posters here who said that he does not go out looking specifically for homeless people to photograph, but if an interesting photograph presents itself that happens to have a homeless person as its subject, he would take the picture. Our emotional response to a movie or a photo that deals with homelessness, does not have to equate to the taking of pleasure at the plight of the homeless person, nor to any notion of their exploitation. Consider this example ... Quite apart from their compassion and artistic integrity, the photographs of homeless, poverty-stricken migrants produced by the FSA in the 1930s by the likes of Dorothea Lange, arguably served a greater good in bringing the nation's attention to the plight of those fleeing starvation and poverty in the dustbowls. They are also an unflinching chronicle of U.S. history, warts and all and as somebody once said, those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to relive them (my paraphrasing). <p> I think that every photo or for that matter, any other example of artistic expression or self-expression, must stand on its own merits, and trying to define any kind of blanket generalizations as rules of photo-etiquette is a foolish and futile exercise. What should we make of Capa's photograph of the death of a Spanish civil war soldier or that famous photograph of the naked young girl running down the road in Viet-Nam after a Napalm attack? Are we better off not to see such things and who should decide this? <p> Except in a minority of cases wherein a photograph might clearly be labeled as exploitive or immoral (pictures of children taken for the sexual gratification of adults for example), I think it's very hard to define in any general way, what are "worthy" subjects for photography and what are not. Subjects such as homelessness and sunsets might generally be cliches but photographs that illuminate them from a new perspective need not necessarily be. <p> I don't want to sound pompous here or try to impose my standards (or anybody else's) on people - if anything, I'm trying to argue (albeit perhaps not so eloquently) that such an exercise is at best, unwise. <p> BTW: I also really enjoyed the spoof. It sounds like something worthy of <a href="http://www.theonion.com">The Onion</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott friedberg Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 "What should we make of Capa's photograph of the death of a Spanish civil war soldier or that famous photograph of the naked young girl running down the road in Viet-Nam after a Napalm attack? Are we better off not to see such things and who should decide this?" My point is that photographing homeless people, has to make some sense, it has to 'add' something, there has to be some sort of well thought-over concept. You mention the FSA photos and I mentioned Salgado and some of his photographs. Both are excellent examples where this is the case. In contrary, the vast majority of the photographs of homeless people that show up on the internet these days, don't add anything at all. These are the kind of photos that are 'wrong' and they should not be taken IMO. There just is no point in taking them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwebster Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 <em> These are the kind of photos that are 'wrong' and they should not be taken IMO. There just is no point in taking them.</em> <p> I see the point you're driving at Scott, but I cannot agree with you that these pictures are in any way "wrong". <p> Do you think that Dorothea Lange took the kind of pictures for which she became so respected, on her first outings as a photographer? <p> If I post a photo of a building that fails to "add anything" to the general field of architectural photography, is that any more "wrong" than an "artless" picture of a homeless person? <p> In either case, the photographer could be critiqued for some lack of quality and exhorted to improve their work, but I cannot see any moral context here in which the photographer could be accused of being "wrong". <p> And I speak with the experience of somebody who has produced many "pointless" pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wigwam jones Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 There is nothing that can be observed in public that is not within the purview of the photographer. Whether the resulting photograph is worthy or not worthy is for the viewer to decide. Photographs are never immoral, they are amoral. The viewer makes them moral or immoral by what they interpret them to mean. How can it be otherwise? A photograph left unprocessed is Schroedinger's Cat. Is it of a homeless person or a noble moment of human triumph? You, the observer, cannot tell. The film does not know. It is beyond your concepts of right and wrong, good or evil. Hitting a homeless person is immoral, it is wrong. Teasing or taunting them. Damaging them in some way, physically or emotionally. But we are far beyond arguing over whether a photograph of a person damages them, aren't we? It would invite the question, "In what way is a person damaged by having their photograph taken?" That they may not like having their photograph taken is another question, of course. When the film has been processed, the print made, what does the print know about itself? What mental capacity does it have? None. We look - we begin to interpret. A homeless person, laying on the ground, wearing tattered clothes, clutching a wine bottle. What do you see? Is what you see all there is to be seen? Taking a photograph of a homeless person is not only 'not wrong' it is 'not right'. It is beyond such concepts. There is no right or wrong to taking a photograph that can be otherwise observed in public. It simply is. See what you see, take the photograph or do not. Personally, I do not often take photographs of homeless people. They can become angry and attempt to hit me, or they can demand money, which I usually give them and do not wish to part with. But if I do, I do. The viewer of my resulting photograph puts the good or the bad on it. Thus, my answer is that I do not care if a photographer takes a photograph of a homeless person or not. Their act is without a 'good' or 'bad' label to me. I may not like the resulting photograph, or perhaps I will. And that is the only good or bad it will have - the result which I place on it inside my own head, and applying only to myself. To me, urging others not to take a photograph of a homeless person is equivalent to urging them not to look at a homeless person. I see, I photograph. It is the same thing. One records on film, the other only in my brain. Shall I then turn my head and pretend not to see the homeless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
________1 Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 It's a bit hard to imagine practicing street photography and never photographing street people. Are they not a significant aspect of street life? To ignore them seems very odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 WTF is "Leica Photography???" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_macpherson Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Dan - from the Seventh Commandment proclaimed above it seems to be something to do with walking around wearing a very expensive photographic tool, and not using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sknowles Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 <p>Interesting comments, the full range of views. Personally, I generally don't photograph homeless people or transient. This stems from a personal experience when I began in photography in 1969 in San Francisco. While I agree, being on the street in public view (beside shelters where else can they go to live), don't they deserve the same respect we give everyone else? What if a city, like Tacoma and Seattle, have ordinaces prohibiting panhandling and them approaching people in downtown and other areas. Who are we to invade their space because we can? The ordinances have a purpose, to protect the public and tourists, but they also have provisions if you approach them, which they don't recommend. <p>Have I photographed homeless people and transients? Yes, one's on my <a href="http://www.wsrphoto.com/about.html">about</a> Web page. So, I'm not consistent either, but who is anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wigwam jones Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 <blockquote><i> Scott M. Knowles Photo.net Patron, jan 30, 2007; 09:16 a.m. <br /> While I agree, being on the street in public view (beside shelters where else can they go to live), don't they deserve the same respect we give everyone else? </i></blockquote> <p>Yes. Which is to say, if they are in public, they are subject to being photographed. Like everybody else. The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike. I accord them the respect I give all of our fellow human beings, neither more nor less.</p> <blockquote><i> What if a city, like Tacoma and Seattle, have ordinaces prohibiting panhandling and them approaching people in downtown and other areas. </i></blockquote> <p>What if they do?</p> <blockquote><i> Who are we to invade their space because we can? </i></blockquote> <p>What is 'their space' when they are in public? How does one invade it? Every ATM machine they pass by photographs them. Every trafic signal with a camera. Every anti-crime surveillance camera. Which of these is 'invading their space'? And if it is invading their space, then why is it not invading MY space when my picture is taken if I'm on the street in public? Are you suggesting that the homeless have MORE rights than the rest of us?</p> <blockquote><i>The ordinances have a purpose, to protect the public and tourists, but they also have provisions if you approach them, which they don't recommend.</i></blockquote> <p>I don't understand what you are saying. The purpose of vagrancy laws and anti-panhandling laws are to keep the bums away. They can call it whatever they like. I am unaware of any laws forbidding people to 'approach' a homeless person. I would love to see a citation to any such law.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_macpherson Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 This is a controversial issue, but I think whats most important in all this is the photographer's intent. To give an example - there was a thread on Photonet a few years ago about taking pictures of the homeless. I've looked in the archives but cant locate it. Anyway the photographer was looking for advice, and said something along the lines of "now that the colder winter weather is here and conditions are bad its bringing the homeless out and it seems like a good time to go try shoot them..." or words to that effect. The individual was roundly, and quite rightly, castigated by several people for his thoughtlessness and apparent callous nature. There were comments about his post not differing too much from someone planning a big game safari shoot. And of course theres the nub of it. On a safari you cant really interfere and have to let nature take its course. But as a citizen I think you can do something with the situation of your fellow man. It's not right or wrong to take photos of homeless people. But its certainly wrong to treat them as being of lesser worth than you and avoiding any interaction with them. I think if its worth photographing them, sometimes its worth talking to them. Sometimes you'll get a heap of abuse, and sometimes you'll get warmly thanked by the person who still retains their dignity and fellow-feeling. Its all about intent, and only you, the photographer, can know for sure whether it's right. I read a lovely quote from a documentary photographer I admire and it's simple. He was asked by a student how he went about taking pictures of people and how to do it, how to get such wonderfully intimate images, and he replied "before you lift the camera to your eye ask yourself, 'do I love this person', and if the answer is no, put the camera away and move on" Good advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott friedberg Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Wether or not you guys agree with my opinion, I hope you got my point. Photographing homeless people in the public realm is something that I would never do. It is just something I can't really explain. Street photography and the choice of subjects is a very personal thing. I don't want to judge anyone for their choice of subject so my apologies to those I may have offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wigwam jones Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Ripped from the headlines; hot, fresh, and topical: http://www.winona.edu/winonan/s2007/1-31/MinneHallphotoexhibitaddresseshomelessness.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_jenner1 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 /RANT ON Reading about people's moralistic dogma on threads like this always amuses me. Don't photograph the homeless? Gee, why don't we just ignore them and exclude them from society. Most homeless I've done shots of appreciated that someone would have an interest in taking their picture. Leica's 7th dogma of photography? Maybe a bit of self-guilt over an over priced toy. Gee, don't take their picture, feed them. Where was this BS self righteous attitude when the Leica owner was forking over thousands for a new lens. BS! /RANT OFF I don't mean to be a troll but can you see some of my points? -Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wigwam jones Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 "I don't mean to be a troll but can you see some of my points?" The one you comb your hair around? Sure! LOL, just kidding. Actually I agree with you, but I think the Leica 'Commandments' thing was intended as some strange form of self-deprecating humor. Even the guys who own every trinket Leitz ever made are usually willing to admit it's not about photography at that point as much as it is about 'collecting'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_jenner1 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Yeah, I understand the wierd Leica fetish. I meant to be over the top which is why I put the "rant" tag on. My hair is to short to wrap anything around! -Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sknowles Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Wigwam Jones said, "The purpose of vagrancy laws and anti-panhandling laws are to keep the bums away. They can call it whatever they like. I am unaware of any laws forbidding people to 'approach' a homeless person. I would love to see a citation to any such law." There aren't laws prohibiting approaching homeless or transient people, but if you approach them, your rights under the ordinances prohibiting them from approaching you don't apply. You lose that protection and they have the same rights as the rest of us. We can be held accountable for our actions provocking them. While many of the transients are cautious with people, some aren't always mentally there and can be prone to violence or outragous behavior, and sometimes approaching them with a camera is sufficient to set them off. And the police might ask you, "And what did you expect?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now