Is photography of misery/poverty ethically correct?

<p>I often do street photography, where per definition the aim is to capture the spirit of the moment. A recent shot features a woman begging in the streets of some southern European city.</p>

<p>My opinion is that photography should show life as is, and not a beautified version. Friends of mine claim that it is politically incorrect and unethical to show poverty. How do you think? You might as well not take pictures of wars, crime, and other misery then.</p>

<p>Whether correct or not I think a photo of someone begging for food/money would make a more compelling/moving image than just a shot of people walking down the street.</p>

<p>I agree with you Monika (keeping in mind though that I do not to street photography), that you should show life as is and not a clean version. I <em>might</em> , however, feel compelled to act on my sense of compassion and not take the photo of the beggar so as not to perhaps embarrass him/her. But I dont think there is anything <em>wrong</em> with it.</p>

<p>Other than my own shyness getting in the way and keeping me from doing street photography, I dont see anything wrong with what you're describing at all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Friends of mine claim that it is politically incorrect and unethical to show poverty. How do you think?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it is politically incorrect and unethical to pretend it does not exist.</p>

<p>Excellent point Michael.</p>

<p>As misery and poverty become more and more prevalent, photos of it can become more and more trite.<br>

On the other hand, you may make a good photograph in and of itself.</p>

<p> Everyone goes through their "Bum period". Worse than politically incorrect and unethical, it's pointless and boring. If you can figure out a way to make it yours instead of generic, go right ahead.</p>

<p>for me there is only one criterium regardless of the subject: does it make for a interesting photo.<br>

Luis is right</p>

<p>I quite intentionally and consciously make a point of not photographing poor, disadvantaged, or scruffy people who are down on their luck. As an aside - not entirely related, but not exactly the same thing - I also tend to avoid the "person doing menial job automatically equates to an interesting photographic subject" context. Although, frequently, in the latter case, the photograph is a good one - but not because they're hard at work in their hi-vis jackets and I've got the time to be swanning around with a nice camera and without a care in the world. But mainly, I'll avoid portraying the negative aspects of modern life.<br>

The act of editing and presenting (ie, my choosing to take the photo in that direction, at that time, with that framing) will emphasise such states, and only add to the mindshare of such situations, usually with very little utility in respect of solving or changing such states, but rather to statically consider or glorify or behold such states as though 'this is the way reality is'. I prefer to emphasise the positive - accentuate the excellent - and diminish the focus on the mediocre.<br>

That, and also, shooting ugly or messy or poor people tends to dilute my core motive of portraying the ridiculous in our lives.</p>

 

<p>I agree with Michael. Not only do such photos focus public attention on issues that need attention, but they also serve as documentation of crisis periods in our history. The work of Dorothea Lange and others are still vivid reminders of the Great Depression of the 1930s. You could be on the path to doing the same for the Recession of '09.</p>

<p>Forget political correctness. Go with your heart.....</p>

<p>All too often people don't want to see poverty and pretend it doesn't exist. Taking pictures brings awareness and brings it to the forefront where it belongs. <br>

You could always make it very ethical, by taking picutres and working with the local homeless shelters or other activists group and try to do a fund raiser. Now we're talking. There's much more to photography than just taking a neat picture. </p>

 

<p>I think in general it is unethical to misconstrue or use a photograph out of context. For example, a lot of paparatizzi photographs that show a celb with an 'angry' face and trying to bill it as so and so having had a huge fight, etc when really they are grimacing because they almost tripped. That sort of thing. Beyond, that by all means I see nothing wrong with what you are mentioning.<br>

Of course when it comes to no political/social motivations I see no issue with it. Heck, I think a flower isolated from everything around it by a convenient black felt backdrop is often times more interesting them one sorrounded by the real background, that sort of thing.</p>

<p>I think the relevant question is whether your picture celebrates the humanity of your subject, irrespective of his or her condition. Dorothea Lange's pictures are not of down-and-out Dust Bowl Okies, but of human beings fallen on hard times and resolved to endure. Your photograph of a woman begging can be put to a simple test--do we see ourselves in her?</p>

<p>The best way to answer an ethical question is the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you were the down-and-out beggar, would you want someone to take your picture? Some will answer "yes" to this question, and some will answer "no." So if it's going to be obvious that you're taking the picture and the subject will know it, you've got to find a way to ask, as difficult as that might be. If it can be done without being obvious and no one knowing, then I think it's o.k. to show life as it is. The poor and downtrodden are entitled to their dignity, and photographers have to respect that. Permission to obviously take their photographs is necessary.<br>

I was in the Peace Corps in the Philippines when a busload of tourists came out and started taking pictures in a small village. One tourist photographed a man urinating at the side of the road (there were few "bathroom" facilities in the area, and the man probably had none at home; most people just used the hillside). The photographer got a photo and had a chuckle, and I was appalled. You don't have to be religious to address the "do unto others" principle.</p>

<p>It seems I've touched a critical and very ambiguous issue with this post. As for Stephen's posting: I have started to make it an issue that people know I have taken their photo. It is not only a thing of intellectual property rights, but also of curiosity - I want to hear the story behind. And I've met some highly interesting people like this - people we tend to pass, to detour, to avoid just because they're there. Or people we just don't see because we don't look. Sometimes I think I'm more interested in why they are the way they are than the photo I've ended up taking.</p>

<p>I've had a few incidents like the one from the Philippines mentioned myself, and find them highly appaling. It's a reason to avoid group travelling, albeit in some countries it is easier to do so.<br>

What seems strange to me is that the more interest I show, the easier I seem to find access to people - I know I'm often a tourist (yeah, sometimes I even work...), but they make me feel like I'm not. Strange world, this.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Taking pictures brings awareness and brings it to the forefront where it belongs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Taking pictures does nothing to increase awareness. Only if the results are being shown in a way that can actually create awareness and affect things is there any value. The truth of the matter is that most people photograph poverty because it is easier than doing the hard work of going into people's homes, spending time with them, and understanding what their lives are really like. There are often uplifiting photos that are actually a much better tool for helping people than showing their poverty, but these take more effort and sometimes more expense on the part of the photographer. Instead, we get photos taken from an emotional distance that only show some physical characteristics.</p>

<p>When I first read this question it brought to mind some of the Pulitser Prize winning photos from the past. While I claim no authority on the subject two brought to mind were the photo of the veitnamiese girl who stripped her clothes off after being hit with napalm.<br>

The other being the dead kids at Kent State after being shot by the National Gaurd in the early seventys. If these arn't examples of "misery" I have no idea what would be.<br>

Another question would be why you take pictures. I took pictures of my 18yr old son as he lay dying after being shot by his mother's husband. I have used these pictures to drive home the point of how important it is for girls\women to be carefulwho they allow into their lives and their children's lives. they will never be on Photo.net or displayed in a showing.<br>

So your use of the pictures would in my opinion dertermine how ethical they are.<br>

wlt</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The other being the dead kids at Kent State after being shot by the National Gaurd in the early seventys. If these arn't examples of "misery" I have no idea what would be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are "news" shots. They aren't photos taken by someone walking around on a street with destitute people on it. There is a huge difference.</p>

<p>Check out this book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Art-Black-White-Portrait-Photography/dp/1584280832/ref=sr_1_43?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240954352&sr=8-43">The Art of Black and White Portrait Photography</a></p>

<p>Oscar Lozoya has quite a few portraits in the book of people who were homeless in poverty, etc. Anyways, I don't want to give away too much, but if you read the book you will see how his photography actually made a difference in the subject's (and other people's) lives. In a positive way.<br>

So is it ethically correct? I would say that depends on how you go about it.</p>

 

<p>There are several different issues here. There is a difference between taking a picture and publishing it. There is the initial issue of why are you taking the photograph in the first place. This initial issue i usually resolve using the same criteria I use for every other photo I take: does the subject interest me, if so, I take the pic. I have one exception and that is when i am faced with the prospect of shooting a handicapped person ( not simply poverty stricken). If I don't have a "good" reason for shooting a handicapped person, I don't take it. Having said this, the most powerful image I have ever taken was of a handicapped person . The photo I most regret not taking because of self censorship was of a standing, nude, old woman, with obvious mental health issues, who was having great difficulty in freezing weather on the streets of NYC in 1995. I regret even more that I didn't stop to help her. I should have done both. My BS excuse at the time was I was with my wife, we were in a hurry to catch a train, and I simple didin't want to get involved. My mistakes. I still see the woman clearly.</p>

<p>I think Jeff is right.  There is a major difference between random pictures and actually tying pictures to together to tell a story with some meaning.  I don't contest anyone's right to do either.  One of the best down and out pictures I have made was when I sat down on a Paris sidewalk with a somewhat besotten fellow with a big bottle of wine and red eyes and talked to him for awhile as we became buddies.  I got a very jovial, smiling, red eyed subject waving his bottle around who was delighted to have his picture taken.  He was also, I think, very happy with the francs I stuffed in his pocket.  Nobody lost.  I have the picture framed but have yet to scan it.<br>

 </p>

<p>If you are profiting from somebody else's misery...I believe it is the wrong thing to do. OTOH, if you are securing a model release and sharing profits with the person/s photographed, I agree that it may be acceptable in many circumstances.</p>

<p>I don't know if she took his picture or not, but one of our local photographers I know went out of her way to try to talk to a homeless man in our community. It was several months before the man answered back. Usually, he would just sit there silently. If she took his picture and made his portrait, I think that would be ethical. </p>

<p>There's a difference in there between making someone's picture in public, and snapping a photo to poke fun at them or take something. Making pictures of people is alright to me. It doesn't have to take forever, but if you have some backbone, you know the difference. </p>

<p>I like to talk to them, give them a few smokes, or a few bucks for a beer. I don't know if that's considered unethical, or not, and I don't really care, but it can't be any worse than ignoring them altogether.</p>

<p>Ricardo has the right idea, I think. Just imagine yourself in your subject's place. Every reasonable person wants to be treated with respect and dignity. And most of us can appreciate a beer now and then.</p>

<p>In 2002 I was in Luanda Angola. My driver said he would take me to a refugee camp, so I went with a Contax 645. I got out of the car, and back in. I couldn't even look at it.</p>

<p>UNITA, MPLA, America, the Soviets, Cuba, French, Rhodeians, South Africans, everyone else has done so much good there. Depressing as hell.</p>

<p>In 2005, 2006 and 2007 I was back again. The camps were closed and most had returned to their villages. The people that were there doing the most for humanity were doctors, their ticket punched by Bill Gates. I saw the most amazing display of from an Angolan photographer at teh Musuem of War. The most I could photograph at the time were simple houses with signs warning to stay out as the land was mined.</p>

<p>Having a camera and desire, and actually having the guts to document it are far apart.</p>