The Homeless, To Photograph; or not to Photograph

[george013]

Most photographers want to shoot beautiful subjects. And make them more beautiful in PP, cloning unwanted things away, etc. It must refer to something that the photographer sees as good. In this view the downside of society doesn't fit.
The photographer is told he's acting unethical. But I think it's also could be said the spectator doesn't want to be confronted with them. It disturbs his view.
In this case not the photographer is in the dock but the spectator.

George

[LePetomane]

I think it is disrespectful to take a picture of someone without their permission. The fact that someone is down on their luck and destitute does not give a photographer the right to take their picture. If you really want that photograph then ask their permission. Or even better, take them to lunch at your favorite restaurant or invite them to your home for dinner.

[flashback]

I appreciate the discussion folks. Apparently I've hit a sore spot with some people (how dare I tell someone what they may or may not photograph). That was my intent. Perhaps in the future some people may think twice about photographing a homelessperson. Despite the rational, calm and reasoned many of you have presented, I've yet to see any evidence of any one having used those photographs in a way that may have bettered that homeless person's life. It seemed to me that I did point out that were one using their photographs to do such a thing that that would indeed be an appropriate use. Instead a few people seem to have had their feelings hurt or their pride dinged, apparently because how dare a lowly fireman (yes, with his ax and which he's used, not metaphorically) lecture them about what they may or may not photograph (yes, I'm looking at you Mikey).

I am not squashing discussion here, rather inflaming it. For those of us in the States, and maybe elsewhere, there seems recently to be a diminishing of decency, in how people are treated. It's simply my (strongly held) opinion that unless there is an end game to taking those photos, why take them. Even if one were to have a gallery showing of photographs of homeless, unless a respectable portion of the proceeds were going to alleviate homelessness or in some tangible way help them, then it's just profiting off the backs of those who have nothing. These are my opinions, as you all have yours. If there's a difference it's that I've taken a stand that I can morally defend while some of you may not be able to defend yours. I don't know if that's true but it appears to me to be so.

Moving on, showing me photos of homeless is not going to rile me (if that were a consideration), I see them most every day in the city. Taking your ball and going home (electing to no longer take part in this discussion (without me having even responded to you)) seems a poor choice in a rational and reasoned discussion.

Maybe the homeless are not particularly relevant to many of you, maybe they aren't around or are sufficiently invisible that this discussion seems pompous and overbearing, and I can get that. Why go on about something that just may not be relevant. But for those that do see the homeless (even if as targets of opportunity) I'm of the hope that going forward this discussion may cause you to pause and consider their plight. And if only a few of you do than I can claim maybe some small bit of success. And if that is the case, then why on earth would anyone in this discussion find an excuse to be annoyed at me?

I am still interested and any and all feed back, thoughts and comments.
j

[flashback]

All this assumes the homeless people don't want their pictures taken.

Jack it seems to me that you believe you are within your rights to make yourself into an unofficial champion of the homeless to defend and protect them from the evils of the heartless photographer whereas all you actually seem to be doing is telling us that we shouldn't be taking pictures of these people (that you don't personally know or seem to have anything directly to do with) because you personally think its wrong. Now there is nothing wrong in having an opinion as there is nothing wrong in voicing that opinion - but - that is all it is, an opinion and an opinion should never be voiced in a way that makes your opinion seem like it has any more weight than those of others.

Robin, unofficial or otherwise, wanting to defend and maybe help out the homeless is now a bad thing? And are you saying I don't know or have anything to do with the homeless, or just the ones you and others are shooting, because you were not at all clear on that. I do indeed know some of the homeless around me and I do indeed have something to do with them.

Th only reason my opinion might hold more weight than another is that I might be on a bit higher moral ground. I mean, I'm saying don't take pictures of the homeless because I think it's exploitative, dehumanizing, blah blah blah, whereas others are saying I can take a picture of them if I want to. Yeah I do see how I might come off arrogant. Sorry about that.

[flashback]

Sorry folks, I'll get back to this this evening,

[William W]

What I see are two older men, one helping the other. There is nothing about them to suggest homelessness.

Well, you might not see homeless men: but you might not know about Sydney and its inhabitants in 1976. That does not mean that others au fait with Sydney at that time would not see two homeless men: because they did.

*

As to your second image, to what purpose? How did you make that person's life any better? And how is it not exploitative?

The purpose was to stimulate the viewer’s thinking and hopefully action: this purpose was already stated in Post #10.

*

I do indeed have a problem that people think that simply by taking a photo of a homeless person they may, in some way, sorta kinda may be helping that person out.

Indeed, that is a problem that you have and you have clearly articulated it: but you having that problem does not negate the possibility that it [photography] can and does help in a concrete form and at a fundamental, societal level – and for the record - those two images were not anything about “simply taking a photo”: the images were carefully crafted and as previously mentioned, they were a part of series.

You ask how did that second photo make that person’s life better – I have no idea if it did or not.

What I can report is that my series of images raised both awareness and also quite a lot of money which feed directly into a shelter which is still running today: that shelter allows many of these men (many more in number today than in 1976), but maybe not those particular three men in the images, maybe none of the men in my images of that series, but maybe all of the men I photographed, maybe 50% of them - I don’t know how many or who – but the money raised allows many homeless men to sleep inside and not on the street and for them to have an hot meal in the morning and night-time.

*

I don't know that your taking funeral photos relates to this discussion, especially as you were commissioned to take them.

And I was commissioned to make the previous homeless men images too – but that is by the by.

The reason for mentioning the Funeral and Burial photos and how that topic relates to this discussion, is because those Funeral images was also capturing the human condition at times when people are at their most vulnerable and helpless – and it was mentioned simply because that was far more difficult task for me to do, (which is what was already stated).

WW

[Black Pearl]

Does every photograph of a person either homeless or just in circumstances that they would rather not be in constitute an intrusion or even as you are suggesting shouldn't even be taken?

In 1984 the world saw footage and images from Ethiopia that showed people in devastating poverty, need and deplorable conditions, these images and the events that came from them helped a generation to come together and do something about it. One such thing was Band Aid which helped raised $24m to try and make a difference.

Should this photograph have been taken?



By: David Burnett
Credit: Contact Press Images

[William W]

. . . Apparently I've hit a sore spot with some people (how dare I tell someone what they may or may not photograph). That was my intent. Perhaps in the future some people may think twice about photographing a homelessperson. Despite the rational, calm and reasoned many of you have presented, I've yet to see any evidence of any one having used those photographs in a way that may have bettered that homeless person's life. It seemed to me that I did point out that were one using their photographs to do such a thing that that would indeed be an appropriate use. Instead a few people seem to have had their feelings hurt or their pride dinged, apparently because how dare a lowly fireman (yes, with his ax and which he's used, not metaphorically) lecture them about what they may or may not photograph . . .

Well for the record my feelings have not been hurt nor my pride dinged.

It is interesting however that the rationale of the assumption of people’s pride being dinged is predicated on the assumption that readers would automatically think that firemen are “lowly”.

As for “evidence” if that is what you were seeking, and noted that evidence was not asked for in the Opening Post P: but on that topic of ‘evidence’, it occurs to me that post #10 could certainly not have been read all too carefully. If it was the purpose of the OP to seek ‘evidence’ about the THINKING and USAGE of Photography then Post #10 has that.

And in any case, any thinking and usage that I might personally attribute to my Photography, provided I stay within the law, is only applicable and answerable to and for me. It is neither for society, nor to anyone else to dictate to me. Similarly and equally it is certainly not my place to enforce onto other photographers any code that I make for myself.

WW

[William W]

Should this photograph have been taken? . . .

Definitely - it and all like it for that purpose: YES, indeed.

A very powerful and motivating image.

WW

[William W]

. . . I think it is disrespectful to take a picture of someone without their permission. . . .

That is not in accord with the general laws of your land. Especially a country which has a Constitution. Laws, especially Constitutional Laws, I suggest, are suppose to reflect the 'people's view'.

Perhaps if you have such a strong view on the issue of first attaining permission before making images of people, you should lobby to change the laws of your land.

WW

[William W]

Instead a few people seem to have had their feelings hurt or their pride dinged, apparently because how dare a lowly fireman (yes, with his ax and which he's used, not metaphorically) lecture them about what they may or may not photograph (yes, I'm looking at you Mikey).
I am not squashing discussion here, rather inflaming it. . . . For those of us in the States, and maybe elsewhere, there seems recently to be a diminishing of decency, in how people are treated. . .

An observation and question on the topics of:

> "I am not squashing discussion here, rather inflaming it”
and
> "diminishing of decency, in how people are treated"

Why would one choose to use the diminutive form ['Mikey'], when the man's name is clearly published here as "Mike"?

WW

[Shadowman]

When I visited India children and elderly women would approach our vehicle asking for money or food, our guide said ignore them because many of them are either being exploited by their parents (the guide would point to a man or woman nearby) and said that many times the children still wouldn't get fed. My traveling companion gave one little girl a sandwich she had just purchased but the little girl scowled at the food and again asked for money. This is an example of a foreigner not knowing the circumstances of the persons plight, how ignoring the situation or giving into the despair can be either helpful or a hindrance to the behavior. I see the homeless on a daily basis mainly because I live near downtown and an entertainment district and I've gotten to know a few and have seen some whose conditions haven't changed for at least a decade. I wonder if American guides give the same warning to visitors to our country. Incidentally, I see some of these same homeless people inside the city library, does it change our views to photograph them in this setting as it would to photograph them on the city streets?

[rpcrowe]

I would not assume to tell anyone what or whom they should or should not photograph. I simply personally choose not to photograph down and out people.

[Loose Canon]

I can see where you are coming from Jack.

But why stop with photographing homeless people? By this reasoning war correspondent photographers/videographers have no reason to shoot in war-torn countries and this too cannot be justified. Whole cities bombed out and wounded everywhere. Mass graves with soldiers standing over them with weapons pointed into the grave. I’ve seen much worse than a shot of a homeless person on the street. Where is the rant on this?

I have produced product shots of firearms for different entities that offend people. No blood, no gore, no downtrodden, no one even in the shot. Just a simple product shot of a firearm. Someone doesn’t like firearms so they are offended seeing a photo of one. Am I supposed to now not shoot this subject matter for fear of hurting someone’s feelings?

In this very Forum there was a shot a hunter took that caused an amount of outrage because a couple of people were offended. Never mind that the poster was a legal, law-abiding citizen (as far as we know) and the game was taken legally, lawfully, and humanely (as far as we know). And further never mind that without people like him there would be no wildlife/conservation in the USA. So people like him actually improve the “plight” of wildlife conservation/preservation by their actions though the "offended" were clueless that this is the case. That thread was closed by the moderators presumably because these so called “offenses” were voiced. As I recall, the OP didn’t ask for opinions on hunting or a moral judgment, nor was it appropriate to voice moral judgments in the comments. He just displayed a shot of something that that he thought was good and that he liked.

It kills me when someone asks me “so why did you take this shot”? “What did you hope to achieve?” “What were your goals?” Since when is it not perfectly okay to take a shot just for the mere fact that the photographer thinks it might just be a good shot. Nothing more than that. There doesn’t have to be any lofty ideals, “achievements”, goals, furthering of a cause, or even have an end game. It is unlikely that a photographer is categorizing or tracking habits or habitats of “Hobous americanus”. Which when you think about it in itself could be considered a very offensive term. So I guess so much for your "moral high ground".

There is nothing in itself morally or legally wrong with taking photos of people on the streets (homeless or otherwise). In the final analysis no one can know the trials/hardships any given person may be going through (homeless or otherwise). If one is so dead set against it, or considers it disrespectful, then just don’t do it. It’s really that simple.

Just because one is offended doesn’t mean they are right, nor does it mean their judgment of others who are not offended necessarily have any validity unless legalities are concerned. It doesn’t mean everybody else has to be offended as well, and it sure doesn’t mean the photographer is any less sensitive to a problem just because he/she took a photo.

Taking your ball and going home (electing to no longer take part in this discussion (without me having even responded to you)) seems a poor choice in a rational and reasoned discussion.

I wouldn’t worry too much about a certain poster taking his ball and running home Jack. It is the standard MO when things don’t go exactly as planned for this person. He abandons his own threads for this same reason. The same thing was done after a deliberate and unprovoked derision on me in a thread that this person started and that I didn’t even participate in other than to mark a post as helpful.

[chauncey]

From a purely philosophical viewpoint...why do we even take pictures?
Mine only have the potential to hang in my living room, else I don't squeeze that shutter.
While I do appreciate an image of a "well turned ankle", I don't seek them out at the beach.

But consider for a moment the value of documenting the ills that mankind inflicts on one another
and putting those images in the faces of the masses.

Does it not force us out of our gated communities and look at what transpires around us?
Those images display the homeless...the child in Chicago...the worldwide atrocities...they would
go unacknowledged were it not for those images.

I would submit that it would be difficult for good men to do something in the face of evil if he fails
to see when evil exists. There is a value in those images.

[jonjdoe]

The beauty in all this is that we are all talking. Everyone is better for talking. Consider this: I once met a man when I was in a volunteer-for-the-homeless situation that took my fellow volunteer to task for making some off the cuff comment about homelessness. The homeless man said to her "Lady, you choose to not be homeless, that's your business. I choose to be homeless, that's my business. I am unencumbered by your possessions, and it's the way I want to live". His words, not mine. He was well educated, well read, and articulate. You never know with whom you are talking.

[LePetomane]

That is not in accord with the general laws of your land. Especially a country which has a Constitution. Laws, especially Constitutional Laws, I suggest, are suppose to reflect the 'people's view'.

Perhaps if you have such a strong view on the issue of first attaining permission before making images of people, you should lobby to change the laws of your land.

WW

I didn't state that it was illegal. I think it is disrespectful. There is a difference. Our laws are based on constitutionality. Some recent ones are based on unconstitutionality. Nowhere in our Constitution does it specifically state that you have the right to photograph someone just as it doesn't state that being photographed is a violation of one's Fourth Amendment rights.

Is being photographed outside of the boundaries of one's reasonable expectation of privacy? You tell me.

[Black Pearl]

There is a difference - you think it is disrespectful whereas William is dealing with absolutes. You are free to think what you like but that doesn't make it right.

People can shoot whatever they like in just the same way that people can think whatever they like.

[William W]

I didn't state that it was illegal. I think it is disrespectful. There is a difference. . . . .

I understood exactly what you wrote and I understand that it was your opinion.

I have a reasonable understanding of your Constitution and the history of it. I have a good founding in the general laws (in the USA) applicable to photography and the expectation of privacy, these last points mainly because I have worked in Atlanta for a media organization.

My comment, (more an implied question), was that if you hold that opinion strongly enough, then maybe you should lobby to have laws to enforce it.

Apropos your question - I think that one's expectation of privacy would be one predicate of a law which would affect the Photographer's right to photograph: and it is my 'in general terms' understanding of your (mostly State/Territory/Commonwealth) laws - that is indeed how it is at the moment, so I come back to the same point, if you (or anyone) feels strongly enough about this, then maybe they should lobby to change the law to reflect that opinion. It is not really for me, being not a USA Citizen, to lobby or argue for or against that.

WW

[William W]

There is a difference - you [Paul] think it is disrespectful whereas William is dealing with absolutes.

Indeed.

*

On a related tack of 'absolutes':-

Laws seemingly / arguably are a reflection of a country's absolutes.

With that as a premise, then I put that countries where the Photographer's right to photograph is severely restricted by any Law are countries where their peoples suffer far more greatly than in those countries where there is the freedom to record, report upon and publish the human condition.

I'd offer the advice that all people think very VERY carefully before they push any opinion which could result into any law, the purpose of which is to restrict the freedom to record; report upon and publish the human condition.

WW