Street photography and the homeless

jsrockit said:
There is no one size fits all answer to this... it's kind of like film vs. digital.
Click to expand...
No, no, no. All true internet debate is predicated on "one size fits all". I'd not normally quote Wikipedia but this sums it up pretty well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes

Is this whole thread not a question of respect? And of attacking those who think that a homeless person is less deserving of respect than other people, and therefore "fair game"?

Cheers,

R.
 
Fireblade wrote: "you don't have ethics, as all man have none, just because you may do one good thing, don't be deluded." There is more truth here than in the whole thread.
 
well, this thread has been high and low in emotions...
a very touchy topic...... but, still needs to be hashed over every so often...:eek:
 
Roger Hicks said:
No, no, no. All true internet debate is predicated on "one size fits all". I'd not normally quote Wikipedia but this sums it up pretty well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes

Is this whole thread not a question of respect? And of attacking those who think that a homeless person is less deserving of respect than other people, and therefore "fair game"?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

This comes under the same auspices as taste in art...no right or wrong. If it is not illegal...do as you please.

To dictate to others what to shoot and do in life smacks of the highest levels or pretentiousness.
 
"All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape." - Friedrich Nietzsche

:)
:dance:
 
Ranchu, you go and quote Friedrich Nietzsche on a thread about the "ethics" of photographing the homeless? seriously...The guy was a total wanker.
 
However trite it might seem, when taking candids, I pretty much let the Golden Rule inform my decisions. There are a few limitations I impose on myself, but on the other hand, I do not demand compliance from others.

As has been noted, candids are invariably rude, to some extent at least, but if you have respect for the process and for your goals, I believe there is vindication. Just on an anthropological and historical level, how unfortunate it would be if photos only portrayed the posed or those who first gave consent.

Aesthetically, for me, candid shots usually occur when a human or more and their surrounding environment (the street) conjoin to hopefully produce a compelling photo. The opportunity is often fleeting and unrepeatable.

I seldom seek to capture the emotion or story of the person, because photography is far too presumptuous for such a narrative endeavor unless entering the realms of the documentary or journalism.

As for the homeless specifically, for me, they are off limits. It goes back to the Golden Rule. If I were down and out, maybe I wouldn’t care, or maybe I might even invite it. But maybe not, and maybe not for understandable reasons.

Moreover, while it is not for me to judge the motives of any one particular photographer, I do believe that photographs of the homeless can sometimes recklessly capitalize on the preinstalled drama of privation, resulting in output that is hackneyed if not outright exploitative.

I’m also aware that such photos can help generate needed awareness or simply show a part of humanity as we know it now. Whatever the case, though, disparities suffered in this world should at least prompt consideration; and for me, taking a photo of a businessperson is not the same as taking a photo of a homeless person in regards to these considerations. Again, this is just me.
 
... ha, although ...

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya'
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
SOCRATES, HIMSELF, WAS PERMANENTLY PISSED...

... as the song goes
 
johnny scarecrow said:
Right, then, that's settled.
Incidentally, where do you stand on Plato?
Click to expand...

Never thrilled me, nothing new, lazy cretan, influenced by earlier jewish writings, like all philosophers and religions past and present never solved the worlds issues, talked sh!t all day long...today we do it at front bars...you did ask :D
 
These discussions always bring a wry smile. Expecting your fellow man (and women too, obviously) to share in your morals and ethical standpoint must be the greatest source of frustration.

Not directed at any one individual but each of us. We no doubt share many but to share all, no chance.
 
OurManInTangier said:
These discussions always bring a wry smile. Expecting your fellow man (and women too, obviously) to share in your morals and ethical standpoint must be the greatest source of frustration.

Not directed at any one individual but each of us. We no doubt share many but to share all, no chance.
Click to expand...
Dear Simon,

Ah, but you are ignoring the fundamental internet truth that those who do not agree with you are worthless buffoons.

The trouble is, of course, that some of them are. But another law of the internet bans the use of words like "some". Either they are all worthless buffoons, or they are all perfectly right at all times.

As the old saying goes, even if the biggest fool on earth says that the sky is blue, the sky is still blue.

Cheers,

R.
 
I have done it a (very) few times, but always felt guilty. It always felt like an easy, cheap shot, somehow exploitative and not very creative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top