S&D Ethics: What is appropriate or inappropriate?

[bruno]

I don't know, basically I shoot whatever I feel like, given that it's possible without getting hurt or beaten.

 

I think it lies in each one's sensibility. I also don't like taking pictures of homeless, e.g., and basically disrespect people who do this and post pictures on photo.net in order to get high ratings (and it usually works).

 

Of course, it depends on how you approach your subject... just think about the book "raised by wolves". There is a "human connection" with the subject, that gives the work another light.

 

About the lame duck: a beggar is a lame duck as long as you want to see him like that. Maybe you can try to talk to him and see him in a different way (that will eventually lead to a different picture). Nothing I tried myseld, either, I'm not trying to teach, just thinking about things.

 

I think each of us has his/her own sensibility. When you follow it, you're always ok. If you would post a picture of someone to make a jerk out of him/her, it's quite bad, no matter rich or poor... although there's some kind of social rule that allows to tease the rich and disallows to tease the poor... but I can understand that as well.

[jenna_g]

I'm into my 14th month shooting street/documentary and I don't really have any set rules or even a specific style. I like all types of work. Quirky, funny, light, dark, abstract, socially relevant, or totally irrelevant. I know what I like when I see it, at least when I look at other's work.

 

For the most part when I'm out shooting nothing is off limits. For the most part it's reality based and sometimes reality is pretty and sometimes it can be ugly. Sometimes socially signficant and sometimes totally insignficant. My subjects tend to be working class or poorer as these are the people I'm most likely to encounter. Most of my subjects are also non-white since whites are not a majority in this state.

 

As for the homeless? I've taken quite a few pictures of the homeless, most of which are portraits I took after talking with them. The majority are not instantly recognizable as homeless in my photos. The majority of the homeless I meet are clean. The majority of the homeless I meet don't hold signs or beg for money. If not for their backpacks and seeing them all of the time you might not know some are homeless. I talk to these people. They know me. I listen to them. Most I sincerely like. Many I've met do work, but are on the street because they have health problems, or because of the lack of affordable housing. Most don't have family to fall back on so they end up on the street. Do I have some unflattering pictures of the homeless? Yes I do, but the majority I've never shown. Most pictures of passed out people are not very good anyway. The less flattering portrayals seem to be more powerful when they are contrasted by shocked, uncaring or indifferent people passing by. This Freidlander photo for example:

 

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/F/friedlander/friedlander_drunk_under_vermouth_full.html.

 

I guess I'm saying that this subject (or virtually any subject) isn't taboo, and can be done in a very powerful way. One thing I find quite odd is that many people in America think nothing of traveling to India or Africa or Thailand to take pictures of poor people in Third World countries yet they don't want to see it here. Plus I guess you could draw a line between street and documentary. If Eugene Richards documents drug addicts is it exploitive? If Mary Ellen Mark documents homeless people is it exploitive? What about Diane Arbus?

 

BTW, I also shoot along the US/Mexico border. I've been kind of working on a documentary series although a lot of it probably works better as street. It's kind of difficult to do anything like this without showing some ugliness. Border issues are driven by poverty and politics. Poverty isn't pretty. Neither is politics. Alex Webb, James Nachtwey and many others have done some powerful stuff along the borders. Is that bad?

 

Kids? Yes I take candids of kids. I won't go to a swimming pool or any place like that to take photos, but on the street, at events, or walking through neighborhoods I will. Kids are just so expressive.

[jenna_g]

Maybe "shoot for yourself" is the right attitude. Of course then you have to decide what's appropriate to share!

[eric_perlberg]

It's not so much what is appropriate to shoot, its what you bring to the shot that makes it worthwhile or not. So much of what passes for street photography is attempts at "me too" shooting based on photographic styles that were cutting edge 60 years ago. With all the images from the zillions of cameras that are sold, there's precious little that's original or interesting.

 

Try to develop your own visual vocabulary/style so that whatever you shoot has a "Jenna G" look to it and doesn't look like all the hacks that take safe weekend snaps of easy targets in the city centre and then write about the decisive moment here at photo.net.

 

If you're a guy, its not a good idea to take photos of other's kids. If you're a woman, you probably won't have a problem even if you do.

[kipling]

jenna, since when did you get all concerned about what others think? are you afraid of

something happening if you post the "wrong" pic? wtf is up with with all the politically correct

tripe here? stop thinking in terms of right and wrong, it's pointless.

[edmo]

<I>Peter: Lemme get this right, a person can enjoy or be moved - without a 'judgement' (your word Ed) being made ? What? A person's reaction to something is based on what? </I>

<p>

Absolutely, called gut feeling or spontaneous reaction if you want. A pic either has it or it doesn't. And, it's only my spontaneous gut reaction that counts not that of your viewers.

<p>

Christ at times you sound like you just finished your first semester at art school and have this burning desire to impress with your dribble. I dunno maybe some are impressed.

 

<p>

<I>Travis: Is based on how much photoshop is done after the snap, Peter, the reaction that is.</I>

<p>

Here we go ... We are talkin' about what we do not how we do it (take your time and let it sink in). Nevertheless, whipped through your pics, nice to see the work of a purist or practitioner of unmanipulated pics.

[edmo]

Peter, just an after thought.... considering your vast academic stature when it comes to the art world you must have surely heard of the abstract expressionists and their means and methods of creativity.

[thomas_sullivan]

the homeless thing is kind of off limits to me. I don't do it on purpose per say, but if the scene "en toto" catches my eyes and the light is great, i will shoot it.....but it's more for the light than the subject matter.

 

Actually, I think, in my case, that is what really determines whether I take a pic or not..........the light. I've never actually done it, but I honestly think I would take a pic of a person bleeding profusely if the light was great. My brain reacts to that first, then what the subject actually is. Before I get blasted........the next thought would be to dial 911.........

 

Kids............children..........I'm 53, a father and a grandfather........and I really hate that shooting pics of children has come to mean "pervert". When my daughter was growing up, I use to shoot all the kids in the neighbor (early 1970s) and I loved it and the parents that saw the pics loved it too. Anyhow, they are just so "free", they do pretty much what they want, they have no severely built in prohibitions about doing anything in public and when I see them just being themselves I just want to capture the moment. For me, pics of kids are what life is about.........before the madness we call adulthood takes over. I love it and shoot them as much as I can. Most of the parents........NYC and Philly....that have noticed me doing it, smile and don't seem to mind. Of course I dont "hunt them down" or follow them, it's just those 2 seconds, the acknowledgement and I'm gone. But, then I do also make the judgement call as to whether or not I think the parents will say something, and I always look more so at the parent, direct eye contact, just to make sure I dont see the "unearned suspicsion" rising in them........if I do, I just keep on moving. I wish I didn't have to.........but i understand.

 

I wont shoot pics of people doing illegal or who might be involved in illegal activities..........ie drug related, pornography related, physical crimes, theft, gangs (unless they seem to want their pics taken..........some do, surprises even me), mob (of any nationality).............I don't get paid for this stuff, and I don't need a busted head just for hobby pics. Now, if I was going full blown documentary, and going for a profit in the end..........then everything is open for pics...........but, then I'd prob approach them (the subjects) with the concept and explain how I wanted to portray them. But, passing street shots..........no, not knowingly anyhow.

 

So, you see, except for the homeless, my caveats are self preservation :o).............meaning I still consider them appropriate, but I think they need more planning that just a grab shot. And even the homeless would make a good doc.........it's just it's been done a thousand times already..........and at this point my financial support is what is needed, not my pics to bring it public light.

 

So, having said all that...........EVERYTHING is appropriate..........it's your personal reasons why you (or anybody else, or society's tabu's, or apparent tabu's as is much more the case) might not care to take the pic is actually what is at question

 

...knowing why you asked this............the last reason you shouldn't take a pic is because someone on the net implied that you shouldn't.

[fate_faith_change_chains]

When it comes to expression of mind I think everybody is a king without a crown.

[Alex_Es]

The ethical choice is personal. I base my personal choices on whether or not I can sleep at night after taking the shots that I take during the day. I generally won't photograph disabled people, homeless people, people yawning (enough of that around), people I find extremely pathetic, people who ask me not to photograph them (unless they are crooks or creeps), celebrities (unless they are friends of mine and pose for me).

[jenna_g]

Kipling: Honestly I shouldn't care what others think, but sometimes I do. Maybe that's why I participate in this forum. I agree that our work is personal, but if it's entirely personal nobody would feel a need to post any photos here or elsewhere. So I can only assume that those of us that do want to at least share photos with a few people who are passionate about this type of photography.

[boris earth]

I just shoot.

 

Alex, you know celebrities? Can you provide introductions? ;)

[average amateur]

I tend to photograph almost everyone, and that includes those on the fringes of society. I don't necessarily shy away from homeless or people with disabilities, but before I shoot I think to myself "Am I really bringing anything to this picture?". Taking a picture of a person merely because they are homeless or crippled is not only exploitive, it's incredibly boring. It implies that they do not deserve the same respect as everyone else, which is what I try to stay away from.

 

I've taken several pictures of people with disabilities, but when I snap them, I try to portray them in a positive light or bring a new insight to a moment or situation. That way I allow them to keep some human dignity.

[ray .]

Oh, so some do have lines they will not cross. Damn, what a

concept.

[edmo]

<I>your spontaneous gut rection? Like it exists in some glass bowl seperate from who you are and how you think</I>

<p>

of course it's who I am, thought that was clear when I stated I shoot for myself and no one else and when looking at one of my own pics I try not to think and just go in whatever direction the pic itself moves me in.

<p>

<I>Well I got some news for you Ed, your gut reaction is someone else's aesthetic.</I>

<p>

this should be good....care to elaborate or state who's? Seems as if it would my aesthetic and some other person would have their own aesthetic.

<p>

<I>As for a pic has 'it' or doesn't r u saying some pics are good and some aren't - and it all depends on your gut reaction (your aesthetic preferences) - c'mon spit it out man</I>

<p>

Nah, never said that either, all I said some pics hit me and some don't. I'm not really concerned with any historic or aesthetic precedents. Not my place to say what's good or bad though I can say what I like. There's a whole bunch well known folks who in my opinion have certainly produced acceptable work but not anything that really hits me, HCB, Winogrand to name a few and whole bunch that just blow me away.

<p>

<I>This is a stoopid argument.</I>

<p>

Agreed, maybe if we refer to it as a discussion it would have a slighter degree of validity to it.

[allen_r1]

I have just recently started doing S&D so this issue has been on my mind also. After giving it much thought, it seems to me that the issue is not whether one feels uncomfortable or violates social taboos etc. For me, it comes down to not taking pictures that will degrade or humiliate someone else. In my opinion someone who says they shoot anything they feel like with no regard for the ethic issues is simply amoral. On the other hand, I don't think any particular subject matter (e.g., homeless) are necessarily off limits. So much of it has to do with HOW the person is represented. Two photogs can take pictures of the same person at the same time and tell two totally different stories. So I guess my point is it is not whether you shoot them but how.

[fjords]

contrary to a common belief, your chances of being run over are increased by walking

between the lines. (a Cal Trans Study)

[ericamcdonald]

hi Jenna. The only time I won't shoot what I perceive will make a powerful photo is when the person is in imminent need of help that I can give. That's why I am not a journalist..but of course the 'who needs help that I can give' is blurry. If someone just needs a smile, conversation, or a cup of coffee, I feel I can give that and shoot them too. But if they are suffering and need serious aid/shelter/safety, I would of course do everything in my power to help and scrap the photo. Also, if taking the image would bring pain (in the moment of the photographing) to someone else, for example if I am visiting a dying person and the family would not understand. For me, it's a question of why I photograph..it's not just to create a document or powerful image, but a way for me to be in the world with others and bring vision to myself and maybe others. Also, if I see someone put their hand up to cover their face or turn away in response to the camera, or if they verbalize that they don't want to be photographed, I honor that. I'm not particularly sneaky about my intent to shoot, even when the pics aren't portraits. I think that even tho the images I/you take are street, there is a lot to be said for connection with the subject at certain times.

[Uhooru]

Someone said a little personal discretion doesn't hurt. I agree, as long as you realize its the photog's personal disgression and not someone else deciding what's "right" or "good". Who's to say what truth is or meaning or any of that? sometimes you don't know what it is you're really shooting until you look at a couple of hundred of your shots. I think each person has to decide for themselves. Sure it doesn't hurt to realize there is some mass mindset that if you ruffle its feathers is going to come back at you, but its your choice. This doesn't make me immoral or without personal standards, it just means I decide when and where they apply.

[kipling]

<i> Jenna; "I agree that our work is personal, but if it's entirely personal nobody would

feel a

need to post any photos here or elsewhere."</i>

<p>

Maybe it's paradox but work can be personal and still be shared with others. It's not really

about getting aknowledgment or approval of others you're after is it?<br>

I am not doing this for anyone but myself. and if someone (you?) comments on something

from me, i take it for what it is, a comment from jenna. Yeah, I like some of your work a

lot, yes, I'm greatfull if you appreciate my work but it's not the source of why i share my

pics. <p>

It's just experience, it's all about growing, moving forward, doing, being, creating - a good

thread is a creative experience. i like creative experiences, i want more of it, as much as i

can get. when i don't feel like this forum gives me anything back creativly, i won't stick

around. that's my take on it.

[jenna_g]

Kipling said: <i>Maybe it's paradox but work can be personal and still be shared with others. It's not really about getting aknowledgment or approval of others you're after is it?

I am not doing this for anyone but myself. and if someone (you?) comments on something from me, i take it for what it is, a comment from jenna. Yeah, I like some of your work a lot, yes, I'm greatfull if you appreciate my work but it's not the source of why i share my pics.</i><br><br>

Well on PN acknowledgment and approval are not top priorities, but when someone does comment I try to listen. I usually weigh that opinion based on that person's knowledge and/or quality of work. I have a lot of respect for many here. I enjoy a lot of the work I see here. If you're looking for recognition beyond PN it's an entirely different story I guess. BTW I really enjoy your work.<br><br><i>

It's just experience, it's all about growing, moving forward, doing, being, creating - a good thread is a creative experience. i like creative experiences, i want more of it, as much as i can get. when i don't feel like this forum gives me anything back creativly, i won't stick around. that's my take on it.<br><br></i>

 

I agree. The best threads are like really good poetry. They magically flow with great photos. Trust me, those threads are more enjoyable than having to defend myself from Ray's accusations. Episodes like that do stifle creativity. In fact all day I've been contemplating yanking my entire portfolio and finding a new playground.

[35mmdelux]

The night River Phoenix - the TV star - over-dosed at the Viper Room in Hollywood alot of similar discussion arose (circa 1995). I was there that night and so I found the discussion pertinent. What photogs need to understand IMO is the double-standard used to photog important people vs non-celebrities. In combat zones the dying are constantly photographed. Take Bosnia, Ruwanda, VietNam, etc. Soldiers and adversaries. All's fair w/ non-celebrities. When it comes to famous type celebrities the belief suddenly changes. Using Phoenix as an example, much discussion was laid on NOT to shot such fotos. I found that peculiar in view of the fotos of the dying routinely seen in media rags including some horrific fotos in magazines.

 

During the Contra War in Nicaragua (circa 1985) a well known rag ran some pictures of a captive being so-called executed. He was made to dig his own grave, then a soldier got on top of him and stuck a K-bar into his throat. All this was photographed. The photog so proud. Although a soldier myself I found this prideful shoot totally repugnant and remember those sickening fotos to this day.

 

Around the same time another rag ran a butchering of another captive in Asia. This captive was tied to a tree without defense, while his executioner stuck him in the gut at will with a K-bar. I won't repeat the entire photographed/published event but every time I remember it I want to vomit. Again another prideful photographer.

 

Remember these are human beings.

 

Use descretion. At least have that much respect for humanity.

 

And to those individuals who photographed the above described pictures you are a disgrace to all others who love the medium.

[_cire_.]

<a href=" http://www.ericmilner.com/photos/Street_and_Doc/">Here's a collection</a> of my gut reactions.

[furcafe]

So, was the late Eddie Adams a "disgrace" to the photographic medium?

 

--------------------

 

"And to those individuals who photographed the above described pictures you are a disgrace to all others who love the medium."

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

Photography is exploitative by its nature, and anyone/anything in public is subject to being photographed. As Diane Arbus said, it's one of the risks of being in public. I had homeless ask me to take their picture on several occasions. On one occasion, I asked permission and it was granted. He seemed to want to be photographed.

 

There are no rules. As Lee Friedlander said, "it's a generous medium." Just make interesting images, what/whoever the subject is doesn't matter.