Street photography and the homeless

H

Hsg

who dares wins
Local time
12:10 PM
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
641
Homeless people are one of the recurrent subjects in street photography and they have been photographed extensively. Considering such attention to homeless people by street photographers one could expect social awareness and efforts to address the problem of homelessness in the major cities and yet on the contrary the homeless problem has remind the same and in some cases it has increased. For example in New York City there are 60,000 homeless people.


But in this thread I don't wish to discuss why there is homelessness and the social issues related to it, I simply want to discuss the relationship between street photographers and their homeless subjects.

My first question is, why is it that some street photographers find the homeless people on the streets such a compelling subject?

My second question is, what do street photographers who photograph the homeless are try to achieve?

And my third question is, is it ethically right to photograph the homeless people?
 
I think if it is approached from a position of respect and real passion to help from the photographers point of view then it could be a vaiid project and create something that might open a few eyes to some things. A documentarty project on why veterans make up such a lrage % of homeless could be something that could have real validity if appoached from a position of respect and a real desire to help, maybe. Like in any area of photography intent is huge..

I don't see how taking images from a half block away with a 300mm lens of people digging through the trash is helping. But thats my opinion and something I wouldn't do.
 
> "And my third question is, is it ethically right to photograph the homeless people?"

This depends on your own ethics, as well as those you're shooting and who is seeing your work.
 
This is a complex issue, its not clear what is the right approach. For example a lot of homeless people don't mind being photographed and even pose for photos, some of them for money.

But at the same time I have felt voyeuristic after photographing some homeless person in a pathetic scenario.
 
Ethics? When you photograph something or someone, there is no right or wrong. You must be honest. You must feel comfortable within yourself.
 
Hsg said:
And my third question is, is it ethically right to photograph the homeless people?
Click to expand...


Would you clarify this question for me.
I took it to mean "Is it ethically okay to go out and shoot a portfolio or project of only images of homeless people".
Did you mean "Is it ethically okay if some homeless people show up in your street scenes?"

Thanks.
 
I do not photograph them to dump pictures here or on Flickr.
I don't have moral rights for it.
Something like Helen Hill did recently was right thing.
 
daveleo said:
Would you clarify this question for me.
I took it to mean "Is it ethically okay to go out and shoot a portfolio or project of only images of homeless people".
Did you mean "Is it ethically okay if some homeless people show up in your street scenes?"

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I don't know if photographing the homeless is ethically right or wrong. I have photographed the homeless people and its very likely that I might do so again.

I asked the question because I want to see if there is a strong argument on the ethical aspects of photographing the homeless people.

For example, is asking permission the most ethical approach to photographing the homeless?

Is paying money after taking photo of a homeless person another ethical approach?
 
^ you didn't answer my question.

I think that I answered the wrong question and if I did, I am going to delete my post because I can see where this is heading.


EDIT: I deleted my original post and am sitting this one out.The subject has too many layers to deal with.
 
most folks on the street have a choice about being there...homeless people on the street seem to me to have less of a choice...while i have no ethical problem photographing anything that is viewable i tend to not photograph the homeless mostly because it seems the trendy thing to do and i don't like being trendy.
if they ask me to photograph them i will.
 
A homeless person does not or may not have a choice but to be on the street. This means that their right to basic privacy is taken away from them either by their own volition or otherwise.

Then the question is, just because someone has lost their privacy, is that make them fair game for photography?

So the ethical question arises out of the right for privacy to those who have no home.
 
The ethics question does not interest me either. It's up to me to photograph what I encounter in my daily life...be it the mundane, the unusual or the extreme.
 
Considering some of the strange get-ups they show up in, I wonder why people WOULDN'T photograph them !

Philadelphia used to have one guy who was known as "Moondoggie" that wandered around in a real Scottish kilt, women's fishnet stockings,3 pairs of sweat socks under his Converse black hightops and the most perfectly pressed white shirt I've ever seen, plus a beard that made him look like Santa Claus on crack.

I always wondered where he had his white shirts washed and pressed-I could never find a dry cleaner that did work that good !

I'm sorry, but when I see something that strange, I have to take a picture !
 
Last edited:
Ned Bojic said:
If its a good looking homeless, why not?

I don't care about ethics and all that stuff. It's only a photo....
Click to expand...

If you aren't shooting with ethics, you're shooting with-OUT ethics.

And if it's 'only' a photo, why should anyone else care about them?

As with anything else, it comes down to motivation - why are you doing what you do? If it's portraying someone as a fellow human being in the context of a wider society, then it's no different than photographing a rich executive or a musician.

If you're just being a tourist then you're robbing that person of their dignity and, just as bad, making a boring pointless image...just my 2 pesos.
 
Documentary photography in the USA since the work of Jacob Riis in How the Other Half Lives has borne witness to shameful inequalities in shelter, food, and work, and the resulting victimization. Some of the best photographic work supported by the Farm Security Administration in the 1930s-40s showed what it was like to be economically and nutritionally insecure, exposed to the elements and on the run to a California Central Valley farm dream. Jacob Holdt's American Pictures in the 1970s updates both of these with his hitchhiker's guide to the persistent effects of poverty and racism in the US.

When such historical and ethical precedents exist, then a photographer who bears imagistic witness to human deprivation in the midst of prosperity and abundance, e.g. Manhattan, Philadelphia, Eugene Oregon, is doing ethical work.

Think for a moment about the magazine shelves in groceries and airports--what images are they full of? Not the homeless, not the Gulf War vets with lifelong PTSD, not the underserved mentally ill! They're chock full of food, celebrities, remodeling projects, exotic travel, hot cars, ads enjoining us to buy, consume, get away, get rich, etc. The poor, the lost, the desperate ones are invisible there. So there is an opportunity, some would say a calling, to do what one can to keep them visible--especially to those who would prefer to turn away.

What I've done where I live--that is, after getting beyond my own insignificant, vain, personal quandaries in photographing strangers in trouble--is this:
*Get to know by name and story the people and homeless encampments I'm photographing;
*Give them my name and email, and offer to send them the images;
*help local homeless advocates/activists get connected to university funding to create a documentary archive of images and stories that may make a difference in how homelessness is mitigated here in the present and future.

There's a clear difference between this and doing furtive street-porn of human suffering. But some of the images produced by either approach may look identical! The question then becomes: does that image see you in such a way that you must now change your life to reflect what it shows about humanity?
 
Sometimes I shoot them, most times I don't. It's case dependent. If I think it's demeaning I don't shoot. If the subject is interesting I take the shot. If they ask for a photo I oblige. If they ask for money I give a donation. Most of the time I ask for permission. If I don't ask I make sure the shot puts them in a context no close ups. My two cents.
 
its been done since the beginning of street photography, i see no reason to stop now...was it "trendy" when Paul Strand or Walker Evans did it?
 
There is a long history in art, from the Renaissance down of painters and draftsman documenting the human condition.

http://hasselbladswc.tumblr.com/image/110814472967

What I'm trying to achieve is an iconic photo, just as I do with all my subjects. If it is on the street or not on the street and I like it and it is legal to shoot...I shoot it.

http://www.artslant.com/ew/works/show/691522

http://www.artslant.com/ew/works/show/691524

http://www.artslant.com/ew/works/show/691526

Now, as a photog shooting for myself, why on earth would I want to listen to anyone tell me what to shoot? Did they hire me to shoot for them? Is it their pix or mine? Furthermore, my photos are in nearly 100 museums...where are the critics pix located...Flickr??

A street / doc photog's job is to document. Just do your job best you can.

http://dbprng00ikc2j.cloudfront.net...Dandy_Copyright_2010_Daniel_Teoli_Jr__LLR.jpg

This lady died a short time after I shot her. (Candid) No better honor I can give than to put her in a few museums' collections.

Many of you quit before you even start. By the time you run all your 'rules' for taking pix through your head the opportunity is gone...just press the button and sort it out later.

One of the finest social documentaries ever produced about the homeless was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Bowery

OK, it is a docufiction. But the film could not have been made any other way and was as true to the vision as practical with movies. With still photography the fiction can be left out easier.

I am very grateful Rogosin marched to the beat of a different drummer. In summation...shoot what you like. Forget the losers that will try to tear you down.
 
rhl-oregon said:
Documentary photography in the USA since the work of Jacob Riis in How the Other Half Lives has borne witness to shameful inequalities in shelter, food, and work, and the resulting victimization. Some of the best photographic work supported by the Farm Security Administration in the 1930s-40s showed what it was like to be economically and nutritionally insecure, exposed to the elements and on the run to a California Central Valley farm dream. Jacob Holdt's American Pictures in the 1970s updates both of these with his hitchhiker's guide to the persistent effects of poverty and racism in the US.

When such historical and ethical precedents exist, then a photographer who bears imagistic witness to human deprivation in the midst of prosperity and abundance, e.g. Manhattan, Philadelphia, Eugene Oregon, is doing ethical work.

Think for a moment about the magazine shelves in groceries and airports--what images are they full of? Not the homeless, not the Gulf War vets with lifelong PTSD, not the underserved mentally ill! They're chock full of food, celebrities, remodeling projects, exotic travel, hot cars, ads enjoining us to buy, consume, get away, get rich, etc. The poor, the lost, the desperate ones are invisible there. So there is an opportunity, some would say a calling, to do what one can to keep them visible--especially to those who would prefer to turn away.

What I've done where I live--that is, after getting beyond my own insignificant, vain, personal quandaries in photographing strangers in trouble--is this:
*Get to know by name and story the people and homeless encampments I'm photographing;
*Give them my name and email, and offer to send them the images;
*help local homeless advocates/activists get connected to university funding to create a documentary archive of images and stories that may make a difference in how homelessness is mitigated here in the present and future.

There's a clear difference between this and doing furtive street-porn of human suffering. But some of the images produced by either approach may look identical! The question then becomes: does that image see you in such a way that you must now change your life to reflect what it shows about humanity?
Click to expand...

When you look at the work of Evans, Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother, Margaret Bourke Whites work, Bruce Davidson's East 100th Street (not homeless but very poor) you see how to approach the issues correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top