Is photography of misery/poverty ethically correct?

[roger krueger]

I think the result is usually trite; it's an easy target, we've all seen it a million times. By now everyone's a little anesthetized

to this sort of thing.

<br><br>

At the same time I have zero patience for people on their moral high horse.

<br><br>

You want to be Gandhi, ditch the DSLR and the SUV and donate the money. Reallocate the time you waste taking photos to

doing some practical good in your community.

<br><br>

We lack the moral strength to deal with what monsters we really are, so we get all agitated over moral trivialities trying to feel

better about ourselves.

<br><br>

Someone starved today in Africa for my art, and for my comfort. Yours too.

<br><br>

Deal with it. Or cling to your denial--not my problem. But enough with trying to reclaim moral superiority by picking at the

mote in someone else's eye.

<br><br>

Look at Winogrand's legless Legionnaire. He's being shot because he's a freak, he's looking right at the camera, he knows

damn well he's being shot because he's a freak. Yet the shot has a punch-to-the-gut power nearly unsurpassed. I'd trade the

dignity of a whole boatload of people for a shot that good. Not even to have a shot of my own be that good, just to have

something that good exist in the world.

[samn]

<p>I have quit shooting poverty/homelessness and I love shooting street. It is purely selfisness on my part. I doubt anything I shoot will make a difference. Been looking at bums since 1954 living in a railroad town. They will always be there. Don't need it in my portfolio and don't need to think I'm making some type of difference. I don't like making an example of them. The stopping point for me was a young girl running up to me and pleading with me to not photograph her "like this" with tears running down her face after pointing the camera at her but not pushing the shutter release. You all do what you want, I don't condem you if you think somehow you are making a difference. I'm not doing it any more.</p>

[michaelyoung]

<p> I think it all comes down to: did you ask them before you did it?<br>

There are other issues beyond that, for sure, but I think that's the most important one of all.</p>

<p> </p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I lived in an insanely poor country for 6 years. (Cambodia) The streets were full of spectacularly poor folks. Kids that had their hands blown off by land-mines planted by the Khmer Rouge in schoolyards. Ancient shriveled forgotten beggars wearing torn rags. All very photogenic apparently, as you would see visiting photographers sticking cameras in their faces to get those shots. I guess they look exotic or something. Shooting fish in a barrel as far as I'm concerned.<br>

But those of us who lived there hardly ever took those shots. I can't speak for others, but for me I'm not interested in photographing people who have no dignity. They know they are poor and they aren't into it, believe me. If I photograph poor people, I try to do it in a positive way, to show some humanity.<br>

I just got back from almost a month in Calcutta, a town that makes Phnom Penh look like Geneva. Again, you see the foreigners obsessed with shooting the dirt covered kids living on the sidewalks. I really don't get it.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Actually you do Ian. As Jeff rightly point out there is a difference between taking an easy shot and taking the time to go into peoples homes, spending time with them and (trying) to understand their lives. You know as well as I do that tourists are led around in slums in organized tours.</p>

<p>Some time ago a wellknown Belgian photographer made a <a href="http://www.stephanvanfleteren.com/gallery_poverty/index.htmlhttp://www.stephanvanfleteren.com/gallery_poverty/index.html">series about poverty in Belgium</a> <br /> I think it makes for an easier discussion of this topic. Point in general is that people project their own sense of morality on these things. Photographing it as such isn't morally injust, the way it's done however can be.</p>

<p>Another example perhaps is the series James Nachtwey made about the family that lived near the railroad.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>oops broken link. Again, <a href="http://www.stephanvanfleteren.com/gallery_poverty/index.html">this is it</a></p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I doubt photgraphing her will alleviate her condition, but by the same token, photography never killed anybody. It may not do any good, but it won't do any harm.</p>

[pnital]

<p>"The best way to answer an ethical question is the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."</p>

<p>"The poor and downtrodden are entitled to their dignity, and photographers have to respect that. "</p>

<p> This subject was dealt with in the past in this forums if I well remember. I very much agree that keeping dignity of human being in the streets is first and for most keeping the ethics of the photographer himself, by being sensitive to other people in plight, without the possibility to change it.</p>

<p>It also depends when photography can change events and tragedies, and I mean photojournalism. An example of the difference is, when after II WW , when concentration camps were liberated and the tragedy was seen in its scale, general D. Eisenhower ordered to take as many photos as possible for future evidence, and it made a difference.</p>

<p>Taking photos in the streets will not change anything, if a personal action to really help is not taken.</p>

[joan_s.]

<p>It all depends on how you chose to portray it. I live in Ukraine and really enjoy documenting everyday life there - from a wester perspective, it often equates to documenting poverty. However, if that was the only point of the picture, it would be pointless. This is one of my favorite pics, and I hope it tells more of a story than simply speaking of poverty, for instance.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6475279-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="510" /><br>

The photographer has a big responsibility with the angle he choses to cover events. I often visit orphanages, and it would be very easy to come back with a load of shocking pictures like this:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7373933-lg.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="640" /><br>

... yet I really try and resist the temptation to, because the actual reality of the situation is more accurately depicted with this:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8270434-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="668" /></p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Pnina. And thank God for that evidence. When I was a photographer for a newspaper my job was to record events. I tried, not always successfully, to give dignity to those I photographed as what I was trying to do was establish a fleeting record of local history. I love the experience and character in old faces. Once in a while I am able to capture real compassion, or delight, or sadness in someone's face. I tried with the paper to use flattering light except for perps, accused murderers and politicians. I have real difficulty with surreptitious pictures of unsuspecting people and don't do it very often if at all anymore but that is a matter of personal taste. However, if I point to my camera and then to the subject I and they nod in the affirmative I might take a shot. I am most comfortable if I can actually ask permission and establish a dialogue with the person I would like to picture. Ton, I think the photo essay of Belgian poor people could be useful although they appear to purposely made quite stark. Most were very blank expressions. Each one of those people has a story and it would have been more effective IMO if some of that was told along with the pictures. I sincerely believe we need to know about such conditions, however. </p>

[marta_cajiao]

<p>Having been part of the miserable/poverty stricken minority who has risen up the ladder a bit of the way-- I say why not? BUT in doing so--RESPECT the subject;know that it is not just a 'thing' to be photographed but a person beneath the dirt/grime and rags. I ask and I give,treat the person as I would anyone I have asked to photograph and if denied permission then I put the camera away and talk to the person--for a spell and okay sometimes,it help if you smooth out the way..offer something to eat or maybe a few dollars cash and put myself in the other person's shoes (not literally,but you know what I mean). I was born and raised in New York City and there's so much poverty and general misery there but have taken photos of the homeless and others--the people who live on the fringes of society--the unwanted,unwashed who's lives have been whittled away by an anxious God and I can relate their plight...not all homeless people were born that way--some had been doctors and accountants and have had professions and lived lives that looking at them now you would never guess that they did. What do I get out of photographing misery/poverty a reminder that they are still human beings--and some great photos and for them;they are reminded that they are human and not things to be avoided or feared--not that either one of us needs to be reminded of that.</p>

[un_soon_choi]

<p>I think a photographer's intention takes a great part in this. However, I encountered a homeless old lady who lived in a small shelter out in the street with a sign that says "no photo." I believe it is rude to ignore the subject's feeling. (I am not saying, you should not take pictures when other people do not want it.) I see that in a photo, photographer and a subject/subjects have some sort of transparent mutual bonding. </p>

[pnital]

<p>Dick, thanks for explaining your point of view which is similar to mine.</p>

<p>You are right that those evidence are so important ( II WW) as there are people, just lately that deny the concentration camps even existed.</p>

<p>Ethics are very important to me. I like street photography and practice it when ever I can, life in the streets offer a micro cosmos of human life and behavior, funny, sad, joyful, old, young, and you name it., but I try as much as possible to keep a moral approach in choosing my subjects The series in Belgium is very sad,but has a point only if it was done to help these people, ,if not what will help the knowledge about them?.</p>

[mjulien]

<p>how can we record the history of where we are today? In my town there are homeless who are on the corners begging for a dollar or two. We have shops with "for sale by owner" on them by the rows... people are getting rid of their pets on Craigslist and the shelters are filling up in record numbers... so, if we are photographers who enjoy keeping historical records of our times, I do not think it is unethical to photograph people who are in various situations. <br>

I, personally, do not think I could point my expensive camera at them while I shoot from my air conditioned SUV and walk away... while they are sitting on the side of the road. But then I ask - why (In the USA at least) are they not where there are places to take care of them? It is a question isn't it? </p>

<p>Maybe more appropriate for a news journalist than a photographer. Just don't know there is a clear cut answer to this as far as ethical? </p>

 

[allen_r1]

<p>I think it comes down to how they are being used. Taking the photo merely to "get a good shot" is IMO exploitation of the unfortunate for entertainment purposes and is unethnical. If the photo can make a meaningful social or artistic statement about poverty, that is another thing. But as has been mentioned, most of these shots have become nothing more than cliches and cliches have no socially redeaming value. Also, I believe that if you are going to take their picture at least give them some money.</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>Myriam's pictures make the point clear: an impoverished human being offers charity to pigeons, diminished human beings still celebrate life. Misfortune may be a cliche, but the human response to it is not.</p>

[pduffy1]

<p>In my seven years of counseling homeless folks, Ive leaned that homelessness is a minor symptom of the real issue : isolation. Statistically, the vast majority of these neighbors have addictions as a result of self medicating mental illness. Giving them money in most cases is a bad idea. I often hide behind my camera, and my wallet. But when I take the time to have lunch with these folks, or simply have a conversation I come away with much more beautiful than my Canon could ever produce. Point and shoot images isolate people - on both sides of the device.</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>What if no one ever took pictures of homeless people and therefore non existed? Would that be a good thing? As I stated above, i shoot what interests me. Very few homeless people evoke a photographic response these days. I also don't shoot anyone who objects BEFORE i pull the trigger. However, I can't agree that shooting homeless people is, in and of itself, unethical . Like I said earlier, there is a difference between shooting and publishing. I do agree that the intent of the photographer is important.</p>

[acarodp]

<blockquote>

<p>My opinion is that photography should show life as is, and not a beautified version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm all against beautification, and yet, I do not shoot homeless or begging people, I do not shoot people in distress, drunk, on drugs, wounded, or dead. I would never think of shooting a guy who just had a stroke in the middle of the street and is being reanimated, to give you an example, or the immediate aftermath of a car crash with bodies and blood around. And I have seen a couple, as I suppose many others.</p>

<p>The reason is complex, and I hope to be able to explain it clearly. As I shoot people on the road, I am taking a moment of their life and making it permanent. I do NOT approve laws (so common here in Europe) that extend right to privacy to the public road. It is ridiculous, inapplicable, and will always do much more harm than good. But I still know I have a responsibility towards those I photograph, and I owe them respect. I consider absolutely inappropriate to use their moment of distress to pursue my own desire to produce an interesting image.</p>

<p>I don't fool myself and say I have to testify something. SOMETIMES, we might be testifying something. Typical cases have been the multiple instances of citizens shooting or filming police abuses. In these cases, and in many others, the importance of what was reported or demonstrated by that images was overwhelming over any other consideration. Photographers have reported fundamental images of wars, tortures, extreme poverty, oppression. As much as they can be striking and also beautiful images, their right, in my opinion, stands in their importance as document, which outweights other considerations. But these considerations exist nevertheless, and in many, many cases, I would guess in the majority of cases, we are not reporting something the world needs to see, but just following our own passion for photography. In every such case I met, I had to admit with myself that my desire of taking that photo was almost exclusively photographic, and no civil sacred fire was burning in me.</p>

<p>The question is NOT "what would happen if nobody shoot the wars / the poor". The question is "what would happen if<strong> I</strong> do not shoot this beggar <strong>NOW</strong> ". The problem in these cases is NEVER general and has ALWAYS to do with the specific case, and with your purpose in that specific case. There is no general rule except this: people have a right to respect, a right to be left alone. This right is strong in their moment of distress, and should be taken into account and weighted against the right, and sometimes the duty, to testify. Common sense should be applied, a honest look to yourself and your reasons is in order, and if you are uncertain, step back is likely the right thing to do. "Because I can" is not a good approach here.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>Charles, your simple post has said so much.</p>

<p>I walked past a man with crooked skinny legs that didn't work, folded under his body, resting on a skate board with pads on his knuckles to propel him down the road, wearing a 600 dollar pair of Lucchese boots, I became much less then him.</p>

<p>I gave him some money that he was asking for, his smile seemed genuine as he thanked me and I could only hope he didn't see my shame.</p>

[bruce_erickson1]

<p>You've got to accentuate the positive<br />Eliminate the negative<br />And latch on to the affirmative<br />Don't mess with Mister In-Between<br>

You've got to spread joy up to the maximum<br />Bring gloom down to the minimum<br />Have faith or pandemonium's<br />Liable to walk upon the scene.<br>

---Johnny Mercer</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>It's not uncommon for a person wishing to visit a popular tourist destination to come into various forums and ask, "Where is the best place to shoot the Eiffel Tower (or Golden Gate Brdige, etc.)?" or "What are the best photo locations in Yosemite?" etc. There is almost equally often some one or more responders who suggest something like, "Don't bother taking a camera, it's all been done. Go buy a coffeetable book and postcards."</p>

<p>This isn't to say don't shoot what you want, only to suggest that, "another" picture may be personally important and valuable but it may not bring the same level of interest and response to others.</p>