Intoxicated Man, Auckland 1974.

It's rare that people are aware of their emotional states or their motivations AT THE TIME. But as has been said many times by many people, a primary function of the artist is simply to see, and to carry on what he sees to others. This photo is well-seen and whether you were using the camera as a weapon (shades of Gene Smith) or on autopilot (shades of Winogrand) or showing the things that must be changed (Hine), it's a shot that has power and in the best spirit of photography lets the viewer linger on that frozen, delirious moment.

 

Keep, please.

I don't believe there's anything wrong with taking pictures of a person in a public place unless the person protests. If the photographer can help him out of his misery, he should. But if he is not capable for that, and capable of taking pictures instead, that is what one should do. I do not believe there is anything morally wrong in either being drunk on the streets or picturing one, both are states of life equally possible for any person to be in. This picture does a remarkable job of showing to ourselves two (the subject and the photographer) of our many sides in which each one of us have undoubtedly been at some time or another. The picture simply records that fact. There is a picture on photo.net of a small child in an auto accident. The(journalist) photographer had first taken care of the child till help arrived and then taken pictures. Perhaps in the case above the photographer could have done nothing to get the person to better shape, if permitted. The world is not all roses, and we can never make it so unless we know that it is not, if we want to.

 

(I am only a few years older than Tony was when he took this, so maybe I still have a lot to learn)

I'm curious why you would destroy the negative but keep a digital copy?

 

My personal thoughts are that everyone wants something different; seemingly a lot of people just see deprivation as an artistic cliche, like the emotional analogy of a sunset (easy to get a photo with impact when the subject is overtly evocative), some people would take the pic for documatary reasons...to 'get the word out' so to speak. There are myriad other reasons, but the way one handles themselves during and after the photo is shot is a reflection of their ethic. As for the former, I wonder if they donate proceeds from their published book or art-show to shelters, etc; as for the latter, I'd hope they try to use their pics to help the problem if not donating their time and energy to help directly.

 

For me, this pic and the comments refreshes the question for me...what do people take these photos for...there are books a-plenty peppered with images like this and other imortalizations of 'urban decay'...why are we drawn to these? as artistic curios (it seems to me that depictions of isolation, suffering and depravity, the darkside of urban living is perpetually chic in the fine-art circles) or as a means to a different end? What comes out of these images in the end speaks of a piece of what humanity (both the suppliers and the consumers of images like this) is about.

 

I took a picture of a homeless guy the other day just because it was 'gritty' or was expressive of something I felt inside...it was all an exersize in emotional impact, now I wonder what that motivation means to me. Thank you all. My personal ethic (wich I'm obviously still trying to live up to) is that if we're taking pics only to convey an emotion evoked by another human's condition without regard to that human is a sick sad thing...something I presume happnes too often (as evidenced by the Hyde Park photo)...on th whole, at best we distance ourselves from suffering (ignore it or say "i can't do anything about it") of others so we can feel okay about ourselves...at worst we look at humans as objects or things to be judged or used too often. who's the more depraved?

 

-a fellow Traveler trying to find his way

mikehanford@hotmail.com

woa

Dear Tony. In terms of photography this an excellent, actually a flawless shot. And you have nothing to be ashamed of. You did not kill anybody, you did not seduce a teenager, you are not a drug dealer (at least you don't speak about it in your comments). And it was not you who ruined this man's life. In situations like this, the question is how you present your character. And the first words I uttered when opening this picture were "Honest and humane." Because when you look at this man's eye you think - oh, poor thing, the life was quite cruel to you. This man is very sad, but he still is a human being. Now compare him to some healthy politician with dead eyes.

 

I understand your deliberations far too well - I am a journalist and a few years ago I on my free will went with my camera to a site of a terror attack in Tel Aviv (which happened to be just around the corner). I spent there a whole day, climbing on the roofs, entering other persons' apartments to get a better vision of the site, together with a pack - yes sir, a pack of jackals - of reporters. But this is the life and we have this urge inside us, we are story tellers (some are more talented, like you, and some far less, but it does not matter). I felt like a shit but when you decide that you are professional you just do your job honestly. And in your case - also humanly. Sorry for a long comment - but Cartier Bresson used to say that for him to push the button of the camera was to say "yes" to the things which he either loved or hated. Yes - it exists.

Hi Toni!

Bresson would give at least 6/6!

I am still struggling with the questions raised in this thread. A easy point we can agree on is that exploitation for profit is wrong, and if a shot like this turns out to bring in money, we should donate all or most of it to charity. Another easy point is that a PJ on assignment should shoot first and let the editors make the tough decisions later.

 

But what about the rest of us? On the one hand, the man is degrading himself, and we worry that we're taking advantage of his degradation to further our creative interests (or worse, our voyeuristic interests). We worry too that in doing so we're degrading him further (I don't think we are).

 

On the other hand, this fellow's long gone by now, perhaps without a trace other than this one, and here is a work of art that presents something profound and sickening about the human condition, thus touching the hearts of most who see it.

 

I'm pretty sure there are no general rules about how to handle images of this kind. We need to judge case by case. Should we take the picture? Well, if the person is just there, and doesn't object, and we're not degrading him further or manipulating him in any way, and if there's a chance of producing worthwhile art, and if we feel up to facing the situation, then why not? Should we publish the images? If the subject is an identifiable person who will be hurt by this, then No. But in the case of this shot, again, I don't see why not. Things would be different if the man's long-lost children contacted you and said they'd prefer to have the image destroyed.

 

And the quality of the image matters, too. Only if it is good work does the positive aesthetic value outweigh the negative value of the image being a record of human degradation.

 

This one I think you should keep. It haunts: Let it. That you would not take the same picture today doesn't mean you were wrong to take it in 1974.

In my opinion, a drunk or homeless person is just as viable a contender for great Art as anyone else. This is a portrait of a human being. It portrays a side of the human condition that is just as real and relevant as any other. There is no taboo in terms of subject matter, only perception and insight, which this image reeks of. A great revelation of another soul can only enrich us with the message it brings. Stay away... don't go here, this road is open to anyone who can't help themselves from taking it. Thats REAL LIFE.

Well said, Hips.

when it comes down to it, real photography is often little more than autobiography. what we see, & how we choose to look at it says as much, & sometimes more, about us than what we are photographing. the idea that something is simply 'out there' & seperate is a misnomer. it's important for a photographer to put himself on the line, to be open, & to be aware of this implication- for better or worse. this results in honest work. this is an important picture, & the discussion here highlights both the pitfalls & necessities of venturing into this kind of territory. it's always a question of attitude & approach.