Street photography and the homeless

It's not trendy to do it the way say Davidson did with East 100th street. He lived with them for months and worked mostly with a view camera and when not working large format he was working with a blad.
 
Is often hard to tell who the truly homeless are here in NZ. It seems some of the supposed homeless come in on the trains from the suburbs to beg during the day and take the train home in the evening. They make $100-200 per day supposedly. For me it isn't an ethical issue but I generally ask myself whether what I am looking at is something I would print before I trip the shutter, so a homeless person wouldn't make the cut so I don't trip the shutter.
 
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...

So very well put.
 
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...

very well put and impressive that you do all those things, and that it works well for you. But one doesnt need to get personally involved for it to be legitimate work...
 
hausen said:
Is often hard to tell who the truly homeless are here in NZ. It seems some of the supposed homeless come in on the trains from the suburbs to beg during the day and take the train home in the evening. They make $100-200 per day supposedly. For me it isn't an ethical issue but I generally ask myself whether what I am looking at is something I would print before I trip the shutter, so a homeless person wouldn't make the cut so I don't trip the shutter.
Click to expand...

interesting yard stick!
 
pesphoto said:
... But one doesnt need to get personally involved for it to be legitimate work...
Click to expand...

Absolutely right. Personal involvement is optional.

In my case, bearing witness occurs whether I want it or not, whether I have a camera or not--I'm the camera, I'm the conscience. Empathy = willingness to imaginatively share another's suffering. Which does not always entail making an image of it (but when it does, do your best--technically and humanly).
 
rhl-oregon said:
Absolutely right. Personal involvement is optional.

Empathy = willingness to imaginatively share another's suffering. Which does not always entail making an image of it (but when it does, do your best--technically and humanly).
Click to expand...

exactly... its the hacks with their long lenses and lack of empathy in their approach that is the problem. Too many people have cameras that shouldn't.
 
Ranchu said:
So, furtive suffering porn. Readily available pathos without the smell.
Click to expand...

Nope. Or rather, not what I wrote. "Furtive" is not the operative ideal in this case. Permission is closer to it, sharing is closer to it. Also, "porn" was used at the other end of spectrum from "empathy." It's disingenuous and maybe cynical to conflate these.

Terence: I'm human, nothing human is alien to me.
Jesus via Matthew: The eye is the lamp of your body. If your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light.

Add a camera to these principles, how does it change them? That's for each photographer to answer to her or his conscience.
 
I forgot reliance on caste power differences for protection. That's key, I think. I see no empathy, just the indulgence in it. The exploitation of the suffering and powerless for an emotional need. Nice how a Bible can be used to defend just about anything if you quote the right part. I guess I'm supposed to go, "Oh, it's like that thing in the Bible, so I don't really need to think about it. Hey, thanks Bible!"
 
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, lets get over it. I'm mainly getting sick of over politicization of all things mundane.
Click to expand...
Dear Ned,

Which is precisely why many of us are REALLY sick of people who are too stupid to see that pretty much any act (especially choosing to photograph the homeless) is or should be a political act. If it's " only a photo, lets get over it" you are not really fit to vote. Of course you may choose not to vote, but if you that is your choice, then you deserve everything that happens to you, including being murdered by the homeless or the police.

Of course, you may have been trying to be ironic, in which case I apologize, but there are terrifyingly many people who fail to see that we are all a part of society, and that if all the arrogant bar stewards who deny this were all shot tomorrow, society might well be the better for it.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top