The Homeless, To Photograph; or not to Photograph

[mknittle]

California rewards people for being in this condition. there are shelters but many refuse to use then as they don't allow alcohol or drugs. there many programs to help with substance abuse. there are also training programs. for those that want to work

The police have a catch and release policy that does nothing to deter crime. We have the only probation office still opened in the county so there is a large homeless criminal population here. It has gotten so bad people are selling there homes and businesses and moving. I once had a couple of them attempt to intimidate me into giving them a ride.

Sorry but when homelessness becomes a profession they are called bums! I have no sympathy for this as behavior as they are ruining our small town. They have helped gun sales though as people are learning the sheriff dose nothing about the situation:mad

My exwife had one sleeping in her grandsons little tent it her back yard one night.

[James G]

The most zealous rebuffs and confrontations that I have encountered have been from members of the public who think they know the law and also think that they are Officers of the Court – in these very few cases it has come down to them threatening to “call the police” and in each case I have answered, “please do” and I have continued making photos – that has usually diffused the situation each time.

Bill
I had such an encounter a couple of years back in Caernarfon town square. I'd set my tripod up and was planning to photograph a rather nice Georgian building when a Security Guard from the building crossed to the centre of the square and suggested I was not allowed to photograph the building because it was 'local' government.
I disagreed and his 'boss' came out and threatened to call the police.

Oddly enough, there were banners up all around the sqaure advertising the local police, providing a non emergency phone number to contact them.... so I did. Rather to my surprise two officers arrived within a minute. The 'boss' immediately started ranting until she was shut up by the police requesting to know who had phoned.

Cutting a longish story short, I stated my case, offered to show them the London Metropolitan Police Chief's recommendations regarding photography in public places, (which I carry 'just in case').
One of the officer's asked to see what was on my camera, I started to unmount it at which he said " no need, just show me on the back thing", and after looking at a couple of previous captures told the 'boss' and her security man that they were harrassing me and suggested they leave.... unless I had any objections.....!!

This has been the one and only occasion I have ever been challenged this way and I have taken photographs all over the British Isles, Ireland, Europe, parts of America, Iceland, The Gambia, and few other 'interesting' places over the last 50 years.

I think my experience has a lot to do with the approach the Photographer takes to the Subject and the confidence that the Photographer exhibits in their photography and also the choice of why, when and where to make the image.

Absolutely... I have found that a quick discussion with hotel receptionist's when I am somewhere new, can avoid embarassment. And when on the street, I have on occasion made a point of asking the local police if there are issues with photography. Oddly enough the most common advice was to be wary of my kit!

[William W]

Interesting experience.

Not unlike the details (although the outcome was a bit different), surrounding the quite zealous bystander (who refused to provide me with any identification that would outline on what and with what authority he was questioning me), who continually attempted to stop me taking photos of those three yellow boats.

. . . One of the officer's asked to see what was on my camera, I started to unmount it at which he said " no need, just show me on the back thing", and after looking at a couple of previous captures told the 'boss' and her security man that they were harrassing me and suggested they leave.... unless I had any objections.....!!

It occurs to me that the Copper's reason to look at the images you had previously made, was not to interrogate you, nor to question the legitimacy of your conduct, but rather to seduce a more powerful THUMP on the two other people who made it there business to become involved: apparently beyond their knowledge and their brief.

WW

[chauncey]

Then there was the story of a good Samaritan that offered the disheveled gentleman sitting on the
park bench a few dollars to buy lunch, to wit he responded...I'm not homeless, I'm married.

[Shadowman]

One bit of information that should have been supplied to each of our answers to Jack's question "The homeless, To Photograph..." was our personal limits we as photographers are willing to go beyond. Mine personally has some hesitations:

1. Photographing an accident victim. I'm torn between even photographing the wreckage, on one hand one of the victims might benefit from the evidence, but on the other hand I don't think I'd feel comfortable recording someone's personal suffering.
2. Photographing a burning structure, I'd feel comfortable doing so, but as a frequent viewer of crime shows I'd be wary of being looked upon as a suspect as some behavioral experts believe arsonists like to view their handy work.
3. Murder victim. No way, unless I decided to pursue that type of media coverage; which I don't.
4. Photographing artwork. I have no inclination to counterfeit anyone's work and some artists forbid or at least try to, but I have photographed some museum pieces.

Each of the above could lead to discussions for or against, the point is we all have internal moral compasses that are not always shared with others; yet for each of us that pursue a particular photographic genre it is very important to at least consider the feelings of our audience as we present our captures.

I should add one more.
5. Celebrities, not if they want it, you know the type; they do things just to get people to talk about them.

[Shanghai Steve]

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.
j

Your post in emotional, prescriptive and moralising.....and I can totally understand why. It is obvious you are a good person who has seen far more than your fair share of suffering in the world. It is perfectly possible that you have been psychologically traumatised by your job. I used to be an operator for the UK Emergency Services and I too have experienced things which have stayed with me. I was astonished that at no point was any counselling on offer, for people literally listening to life and death for 8 hours a day. One of the very first calls I had to deal with afer training started off "EMERGENCY? YEAH IT'S A ^%&%ING EMERGENCY! HE'S CUT HIS %^#$##@! ARM OFF!"

So please believe me when I say I have an inkling of your position. There ARE many annoying "street warriors" out there who consider themselves 'important' despite having no discernible talent except to annoy complete strangers for their own personal amusement. I accept that. It is the main reason I avoid SP forums.

But your position really boils down to denying any photographer the right to document anything unpleasant or negative unless they devote their entire lives to changing it. This is unworkable. Why take pictures of anything unpleasant? Don't you know no-one cares? How dare you profit from suffering! Documentaries are mere exploitation!

This moral position, in a very real way, drains photography of any power or social relevance. If every photographer were to abide by your injunction, we would have nothing but a cavalcade of smiling people and beautiful landscapes: NOBODY would know anything was wrong with the world outside their gamut of experience.
So, yeah, some of the time it is pointless voyeurism or even exploitation by heartless people. But as in every endaevour, there are a few truly human artists whose work is incredibly valuable. Pick any genre of music or any other artistic field and it is full to the brim with the ordinary. They are forgotten in time. But I am sure we all remember those photographs which did make a difference, or highlighted the indifference of governments and people. Some of them changed things. Remember "Napalm Girl?" Who could forget? These moments are rare, but incredibly important.

[Shanghai Steve]

California rewards people for being in this condition. there are shelters but many refuse to use then as they don't allow alcohol or drugs. there many programs to help with substance abuse. there are also training programs. for those that want to work

The police have a catch and release policy that does nothing to deter crime. We have the only probation office still opened in the county so there is a large homeless criminal population here. It has gotten so bad people are selling there homes and businesses and moving. I once had a couple of them attempt to intimidate me into giving them a ride.

Sorry but when homelessness becomes a profession they are called bums! I have no sympathy for this as behavior as they are ruining our small town. They have helped gun sales though as people are learning the sheriff dose nothing about the situation:mad

My exwife had one sleeping in her grandsons little tent it her back yard one night.

Ah. An anti-homeless diatribe. How tiresome.

[William W]

. . .Remember "Napalm Girl?" Who could forget? These moments are rare, but incredibly important.

Yes. Such an image is rare in regard to having so much exposure and then being iconic and generationally memorable.

But that fact does not negate that there are many, many other images which have a positive and often profound social effect, perhaps merely in smaller groups or local areas, but none-the-less the presence and effect of these many more other images is not necessarily "rare" and each can, indeed be "incredibly important."

For example, the images referenced in Post #10; and the fact that the Homeless Men’s Shelter mentioned in Post #26 is still active today – is, undoubtedly, “incredibly important” to those many homeless Men in who take shelter, eat an hot meal and sleep there.

Moreover arguably the fact that the Shelter still exists (and with advertising using Stills Images maintains an healthy conduit of fiscal support) is "incredibly important." to: the local Law Enforcement; Local Government and Emergency Services who, without that Shelter would necessarily be more involved (and drained) each day and night because they would be called upon to remedy situations - BUT - because of the existence of the Shelter - do now not exist.

Bottom line - Stills Images of Homeless Men form part of the contribution to a social benefit on a multiplicity of levels

***

Because the internet and other forms of electronic connectivity carry such a volume, and at such a speed; and at such a inexpensive cost - there has been a dumbing-down of the impact of poignant photojournalism.

Perhaps too, the width and the immediacy of the critical ability that rapid and cheap point to multi-point communication affords any individual person to critique, slander, lie and liable and in many situations anonymously or in pack, has a compounding and universal effect of the dumbing-down the value of the Stills Photograph, which, in previous times would have been an effective, recognizable, good and valued hammer to forge societal change.

*

Eddie Adams’ photograph capturing the execution Nguyen Van Lem is another especially striking, poignant example of photojournalism. The essence of a life being taken is captured: maybe not for eternity but certainly over a generation or two and arguably that image affected much more than a little social debate, comment and change in several counties involved in the Vietnam War.

Particularly relevant to this conversation and especially addressing the general postulation of the Opening Post is this quote:

“Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world”

That was scribed by AP photojournalist Eddie Adams, prior to him making the 1968 photograph of the execution Nguyen Van Lem.

Adams' image today, is still permanently forged in many people's minds.

That image earned Adams the Pulitzer Prize in 1969 and as history notes, encouraged a massive societal change in many nations.

WW

[rtbaum]

In answer to the original question.......not.

[RFPhotogCda]

The link to this discussion was emailed to me by a friend. I've read through most, but not all, of the responses. I don't participate in internet fora any longer, but am making an exception for this one. I thought about whether to make the exception for a couple days. I'm confident I'll regret that decision.

This topic is one that comes up often. There are other subject matter that others consider to be unethical, or otherwise out of bounds.

One thing that most here are forgetting, or have never actually considered, is the difference between laws, morals and ethics.

One member in this discussion has droned on about what is legal as if that makes it acceptable in all situations. And to him, it may. To others, it may not. That is the difference between what is law, morality and ethics.

Laws, in most of the western world have been developed based on a set of societal mores. There are certain things that, as a society, we consider unacceptable. Those moral positions have, over time, been codified into laws that we all abide by. Or most of us, anyway. And if we don't, there are punishments meted out.

Laws we have to abide by. Morals are things that, generally, a society agrees upon and we all live by, even if they have not been codified. Even when we talk about the idea of societal morals there is not an across the board standard because in the west we come at it from a Judeo-Christian perspective, whereas in the east, Eastern philosophies are prevalent and other religioethnicities have their moral constructs. But, at least, within each society there is general agreement. Ethics are different. Ethics are an entirely personal matter. What one person considers acceptable, another will not. Ethics cannot be forced on a person, they must be voluntary. Read that again: Ethics cannot be imposed.

Ethics is what we are talking about here. It is fine to, on a personal level, follow an ethic that says homeless people should not be photographed. It is fine to, on a personal level, follow an ethic that says no one should be photographed without their explicit permission. There are sizable groups who agree with these ethical guidelines. There are sizable groups who do not. Where we run into trouble is when we try to impose our ethical code on others. Saying simply, I don't believe there is a purpose to photographing the homeless and I won't do it, is one thing. Carrying it further to suggest that no one else should either, that anyone doing so is somehow a lesser person is, unequivocally, to get into the area of moralizing, sermonizing and being self-righteous. The term "conscience fee" is indicative of the moralizing mindset.

There are many things that will contribute to our personal ethical code. Our society, our upbringing, our life experiences. All will play a factor. We all bring our own biases and prejudices to bear in any situation. The originator of this thread has a set of experiences that few of the rest of us do. Those work to inform his beliefs and help him form his ethical code. All that is fine. A clear lack of respect for others beliefs is not; however, productive. It is exactly the opposite. Closed-mindedness is, at the extreme, what gives us groups like Daesh, or the KKK. An approach of not listening to anyone else, not being willing to reconsider our own positions, not being willing to educate ourselves and to learn are the hallmarks of the small- and weak-minded. The Trumps of our world. They do nothing to move society ahead. They do nothing to make us better people, or make a better world. The originator of this discussion brings his own biases and prejudices just like anyone else. Given his profession, he feels a sense of duty to protect. And that is laudable. To then carry that sense of duty to the point of suggesting that others who have a job to do shouldn't be able to do their jobs, is to go too far. That is not his decision to make. Nor is it the decision of any of us to make whether someone else with a different ethical code should be permitted to do what they do.

Specifically in regard to the homeless, there may be, or may not be, ample reason to photograph them. It is a matter of perspective. There was an effort, a couple years ago, by a group in Florida to offer a different take on homelessness. The idea was Rethink. What they did was to interview a number of homeless people in their area (around Orlando, if I recall) and ask them a simple question: Tell us one thing about you that we would not know. The answers were quite revealing. One was Ivy League educated. One was a former physicist. One a former world class athlete. The idea was to try to change perceptions, to change how people thought, about homelessness and the homeless.

It is true that municipalities are aware of the issue of homelessness in their communities. It is true that most people are aware that homelessness exists. It is also true that most municipalities are trying to do more than simply "manage" the problem and that they are trying to eliminate it. Possible? Maybe not. But a worthwhile goal nonetheless.

It is also true that, while municipalities are aware of the problem, citizens of a community are aware of the problem, and private groups have set up to try and assist with the problem, there are still disconnects. There are disconnects between the parties trying to help and the parties who may need help. There are disconnects between the municipalities and the private groups trying to help. There are disconnects between citizen awareness of a problem and any impetus to try to change it. The net result being that efforts are sometimes misdirected, or inefficient.

It is also true that, while people are aware of the problem, they tend to want to ignore it than to do something about it. People's minds still need to be changed on that front. They still need to be educated and motivated to act.

It is also true that photography is a powerful medium and that it can impact thought and help effect change.

Who am I? I'm someone who has been doing street photography for about a dozen years. I have photographed the homeless, but rarely. I have a doc project in mind dedicated to homelessness and those disconnects I noted above. I'm on record as saying that photographing the homeless should not be exploitative and should be done with caution and respect. Just like the rest of us, they do deserve dignity. I'm safe in saying that there is exactly one person in this thread who has more experience than me in street photography and photographing the homeless. I have, on many occasions bought meals for folks on the street. Not as a condition of taking their picture. Most of the time I don't even have a camera with me. It's not a big production, I simply go into a restaurant, get a take out meal and as I walk past them, place it on the ground beside them and wish them a good day. It is not a "conscience fee". It is my attempt to do what little I can with the meagre resources I have to try and make someone's day a little bit better. I've brought food for a homeless gentleman's dog too, in the past.

Who am I? I'm someone who knows that, but for a few lucky breaks at just the right time, I could have been on the street on more than one occasion in the past. And no, that is not hyperbole. I'm someone who realises the same is true of many of us.

[Stagecoach]

Who am I?.

I really can not see any value in your contribution to this discussion when you end it with the above paragraph.

[Polar01]

Robert I am going to have to agree with Grahame about your post #70, you had some interesting insights, then you just through it all away with the last paragraph. Myself when I hear that phrase "I'm one or someone who knows what I am talking about", I just turn, walk away and let them continue from their soap box.

Cheers: Allan

[flashback]

To join this site, simply to attack some people here, with the language used AND implied, is the most low-life behavior I've yet witnessed here. Said -for example- to my face, I'm pretty sure that person would be apologizing to me, looking up at me from flat on their back. That this language and behavior seems to have escaped the attention of the moderators (and NOT the first time) or that no one has notified them, I'll assume they all feel the same way as this *gentleman* does.

[Donald]

...moderators (and NOT the first time) or that no one has notified them, I'll assume they all feel the same way as this *gentleman* does.

Jack - Please don't try that one. The moderators act when something is drawn to their attention. Neither you nor anyone else used the 'Report Post' facility.

I do not endorse the way in which the new member above has contributed. Given that you will have previously read it, you will now notice that the final paragraph in post #70 above has been deleted.

This thread is now closed.