FRAGILE

"If you would like to point out the particular words that you find derisive I will be more than happy to provide a meaning for them."

Much obliged.

"I looked at the two links you kindly provided for your images. These I take it, are supposed be shining examples of what homesless people should look like and how they should be photographed?"

Here is the second:

"Many thanks for your opinions, no matter how misguided or inaccurate, they were nonetheless entertaining and provided good material for debate."

These are not so subtle rebukes.

In any event, this is my last post in this thread. It has certainly degenerated into a childish tit-for-tat that does neither of us any credit. I will point out one  thing, though: an "assumption" is different from an "impression". Some assumptions I made--like when I assumed you had more time with them than you clarified you did--were ultimately dispelled by you, and I apologized for them. The impression I have of the pose is that it creates an altogether mental image from the narrative is a subjective reaction to the picture. It cannot be wrong anymore than my initial impression on looking at a Picaso was that the Emperor had no clothes could have been "wrong". At most, it would have been an opinion not in lockstep with the prevailing wind. I could change it with either more knowledge of Picaso, or even more maturity, or, with time, the prevailing wind might shift to where it lines itself up with my opinion. It is merely a fleeting impression based on what I saw and felt.

As far as apologizing for calling the two guys "loafers", I never, ever, did that. I merely pointed out that the pose makes them come across as that. I have never met them, and accept their stories as you presented them. The image created an impression in my mind, though, and I pointed out that a different pose might create a different impression, and suggested it could have been tried. Just how this can be construed as me calling the the two individuals  "loafers" is a matter that escapes my limited mental capacities.

In any event, good luck. I bear no grudges.

My initial thoughts of your "last post" in this thread are that yet again you have cherry picked the parts my response you wish to draw attention to and ignored the rest. But I don't have a problem with that I shall continue to address each issue you have raised as and when you raise them, indeed as I do with every person that leaves a comment.

My other overall impression of our exchange is that for some one so scathing and harsh about a persons first time attempt at a particular genre that the same person is so intimidated and rankled by an equally harsh response.

I don't mind what you say about my image, harsh or otherwise, it is your perogative to form any opinion you wish, but I will respond in kind, not on "tit for tat" basis by visiting your images and treating them with the same values, that you saw fit to adhere to mine, nor to make assumptions about them, this simply isn't condusive to progress for me and represents an inordinate waste of my time. I will simply spend whaever time it takes to answer your questions and ask my own in return in order to clarify each and every aspect of our discussion.

Ok to answer you queries relating to "Derisive language"

"I looked at the two links you kindly provided for your images. These I take it, are supposed be shining examples of what homesless people should look like and how they should be photographed?"

Firstly the above initial sentence relates to you being "kind" ....hardly derisive is it.  The second sentence relates to a question and there is nothing to suggest to me that there is anything "derisive" about the question. "Shining examples" are reference to the images that I thought was your idea of being the ideal medium of photographing homeless people. I find nothing "derisive" about the text whatsoever.

"Many thanks for your opinions, no matter how misguided or inaccurate, they were nonetheless entertaining and provided good material for debate."

Your opinions formed by your assumptions have been proved beyond doubt to be "inaccurate"  and as previously explained the "misguided" reference is related to your interpretation of a situation that has already been explained. If you hadn't actually read the text I could understand some of your mistakes, but after having read it and apparently enjoying its content, you still didn't take on board the information that was contained therein. Not the crime of the century I'll grant you, but nonetheless relevant in our discusiion and one that I thought was worthy of pointing out.

"Derisive" means mocking, scathing, scornful, or contemptuoous, none of the above quoted words even begin to fit into this category, and whilst I don't mind explaining my words, it becomes tiresome that you find offence in such mild references, when your inital post suggested that my image was only fit only to "discard" ....ok a poor choice of words on your behalf and I accepted your apologies for it, but I'm simply drawing a comparison of words and phrases used.

Some assumptions I made--like when I assumed you had more time with them than you clarified you did

The above assumption was also one of the examples I quoted of you being inaccurate as you will note from my original narrative that I spell out in no uncertain terms the amount of time I spent with the guys in question. (15 Minutes)

The impression I have of the pose is that it creates an altogether mental image from the narrative is a subjective reaction to the picture. It cannot be wrong anymore than my initial impression on looking at a Picaso was that the Emperor had no clothes could have been "wrong".

I don't see anything wrong with forming an impression from a photograph but  Picasso was an "impressionist" painter and as such it was with a purposeful motive that the rendition of his images were created. And I really don't find his work to be a fitting or like for like comparison to any photograph. However the subject in question is a photograph of two living human beings, and whilst your impression of them is yours alone to have and to relate to others as you will. I will now attempt to exp[lain why I feel that this so called "impression"  is wrong, insensitive, derogatory and downright offensive.

I will now try to draw a comparison of your "impressions" with another view in order that you might percieve just how hurtful and callous your "impressions" are to people less fortunate than yourself.

If for instance, (and I stress that I am now being hypothetical) I viewed a photograph of a mixed race person and told you they looked like Bank Robbers, Pimps, Thugs, or  Drug Addicts, simply because of the way they looked or stood or sat down., then I would expect people of mixed race and others sympathetic to them to be outraged and highly offended and quite rightly so.

However you quite openly tell us that these homeless people look like "loafers, never do wells, and slackers" simply from thier "pose" and think there is nothing wrong in holding this narrow discriminatory view. I hope the above parallel will make you pause and think again.

As far as apologizing for calling the two guys "loafers", I never, ever, did that. I merely pointed out that the pose makes them come across as that.

I know you didn't apologise for using the words "loafers" my reference to the "poor choice of words" was aimed at the word "discard" for which I accepted your apology in the same spirit that it was offered.

You have singled out people of a particular homeless persuasion and related that in thier given sitting position they looked like "loafers slackers" etc

I think this "impression" you have tells the viewer more about you, your mind and your thought processes than it ever will about Mick and Jim. Most people and I do stress "most" people seem to have a far more compassionate view of homeless people than you have.

To get an immediate "impression" of "loafing" etc from a person that is sitting down amongst squalor, is in my opinion a very narrow view

Let me reiterate once more my view of your "impressions" and I refer again to the parallel example above, if you attach labels to people then you are by that very association them "calling them" by whatever name is used.

I think you walk a very fine line along a discriminatory route and my only hope is that you do so with a naivety that belies your current views on this subject. 

I really do hope that my final explanation will bring home the gravity of your choice of wording and the issues therein relating to them.

I didn't for one minute think you would bear any grudges.

Regards

Alf

Excellent street shot and impressive story - thanks so much for sharing. Very inspirational work, Alf.

Bw, Volker

Many thanks for your imput and encouragement. I'm a biit out of my comfort zone here, but I took the opportunity that arose. I have since took a few more street shots, and I will post them in due course.

Cheers Volker!

Alf

Great image Alf, I really enjoyed reading about these guys.

Rich.

Thank you! I'm really glad you enjoyed the narrative, it was a unique experience, and they were two great personalities to converse with.

Best Regards

Alf

Life is "fragile" ... everywhere in the world ... Great shot !

The body of comments on this photo tells about its quality and power to capture the viewer's thoughts. I started reading and stopped about a quarter of the way because I think a photo like this needs no explanatory words but should let the viewer's mind wonder around. The "fragile" word says it all. Great.

Alf, I liked it and seeing it back I still can smile. Honest and no nonsense, story or not, it is a pleasant, even humoristic shot. And a crop? Yes, the grain and the potatoes, for otherwise you soon can shoot lots of white people probably in the same position. Yes, I wished I was joking. 

LUC

I think you just epitomised the sentiments of the photograph with your sentence. Thank you!

Best Wishes

Alf

ANTONIO

I agree this image does indeed seem to have captured the viewers thoughts and sentments. There is a lot to read, but yes its much more simple to view and reach your own conclusions. My sincere thanks for doing just that.

Best Regards

Alf

OLAF

I'm very pleased that you liked this one. There are a number of emotions contained within this shot, sadness, grief, but  yes humour also!. I fear you are right Olaf, maybe what we are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg, many more will follow. Sincere thanks for your interest and thoughts Olaf.

Best Regards

Alf

Alf - Thanks for sharing this picture and for the accompanying narrative.  Life is indeed fragile and at times whimsical, but I believe that things happen for a purpose and there is a greater "picture" for all the events that we come across in our lives. 

This struck a personal chord because I know how it feels to have everything one day and lose them the next, although not in such extreme circumstances as told by these guys.  The thing that I have learned is that you can't take money or possessions with you -  only love and knowledge.  I too have heard from homeless people that one of the the things that really hurt is people not looking at them.  In a way, I think it is an indirect way of stating their non-existence.  It's like saying "I don't see you, you don't exist, you are nothing". I personally applaud your gesture of photographing them and taking the time to have a small conversation with them.  Through your humanity you gave them a bit of dignity back and this act in my eyes do not only confirm that you are an amazing photographer but an equally great fellow human being as well.  Bravo!

Sincere thanks for your thoughtful and compassionate comments, I really appreciate your sentiments.

I think anyone who has sailed close to the edge, anyone who has made a bad choice in lifes myriad of pathways, anyone that has been brought to thier knees, will instantly recognise a small part of themselves in Mick & JIm. I know I did, and I think you felt that same kind of empathy. You write some simple truths that are uttered a lot of the time , but are only  fully appreciated by a handful of people who like yourself have experienced severe hardship on a personal level.

I fully agree with your comments about "not looking" at homeless people and indeed the same analogy can be applied to disabled people who are often similarly overlooked, and ignored. 

As for my taking thier photograph and striking up a conversation,  this was very instinctive and natural, there was no great gesture on my part and the experience was a positive thing......I walked away feeling good, not because I had done anyone any favours, but simply because I enjoyed a few minutes in the company of a couple of characters.

If I had one wish granted in the grand scheme of things, it would that anyone that views the image and reads the narrative would perhaps in the future view homeless people in a better light.

Thank you once again Adan and take care!

Best Regards

Alf