[mee]

I don't understand the rise in popularity of photographing people in hard times (read: homeless). It used to be photos of (non-homeless) people on railroad tracks... then we moved to photos of (non-homeless) people in front of brick walls or fences... today it seems to be taking pictures of people going through difficult situations. As if they are now some kind of freakshow to be gazed upon...
Not that all create these photos for that reason...

However, I do see a dramatic increase in photographs shared of people who are currently homeless in the past few years. And some of the stories of the photographers seem to indicate it is almost like a trophy hunt.. which is a bit stomach turning. If anyone does decide to do this, please remember you're photographing someone's son or daughter and perhaps someone's mom or dad. It is not a game. They're human no different than anyone else and deserve some respect and dignity.

I suppose one upside, however, in all of the photographs of people who are currently homeless is it really shows how much of an epidemic we have in the world.. with just homelessness alone stemming from various situations.. not all from our own choices; It is so easy for anyone to lose all their physical possessions and be out on the street. And so hard to come back after.. especially the older you get..

[RGlasel]

I don't understand the rise in popularity of photographing people in hard times

It's subtle bigotry, treating real human beings like scenery. Get your street photographer cred by capturing someone less fortunate than yourself in a vulnerable position. I agree with you 100% and instead of trying to impress others with their photography skills, people should be trying to make a difference in the lives of people who end up on the bottom half of average.

[Winder]

So what Lewis Hine did was wrong?

What about Dorothea Lange?

[Kozlok]

Artists want to capture the world they see.

[Tom S.]

Moved to proper area. General Talk is for Non-Photographic topics only.

[RGlasel]

It's part of the debate over whether or not photographers are entitled to use/distribute pictures of private individuals to degrade them. I've been on the board of a homeless mission, and we wouldn't use photographs of our clients where they could be visually identified, in newsletters without their written permission, and very seldom would that permission be granted. Taking pictures to share on the premises with other people using our services wasn't a problem; ironically there is a real sense of community among homeless people in spite of their transient lifestyles. Sometimes the reticence of homeless people to become public spectacles is because of outstanding warrants, sometimes it because of acute personal embarrassment, but any photographer who feels entitled to take photographs of these people without engaging them on an individual basis is just stripping away some of whatever dignity they still have left. The impulse to embarrass celebrities is jealousy, the impulse to embarrass the poor and downtrodden is bigotry.

---------- Post added 05-10-14 at 12:56 PM ----------

What about Dorothea Lange?

In her words "I saw and approached the hungry and desperate mother, as if drawn by a magnet. I do not remember how I explained my presence or my camera to her, but I do remember she asked me no questions. I made five exposures, working closer and closer from the same direction. I did not ask her name or her history. She told me her age, that she was thirty-two. She said that they had been living on frozen vegetables from the surrounding fields, and birds that the children killed. She had just sold the tires from her car to buy food. There she sat in that lean-to tent with her children huddled around her, and seemed to know that my pictures might help her, and so she helped me. There was a sort of equality about it." Dorothea Lange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Winder]

It's part of the debate over whether or not photographers are entitled to use/distribute pictures of private individuals to degrade them.

Nothing that occurs in the plain view of the public is private. By definition these words are polar opposites.

Images of people don't degrade them. Assuming the image isn't manipulated, it is simply a frozen moment of the immediate reality.

---

Last edited by Winder; 05-10-2014 at 12:55 PM.

[clackers]

Images of people don't degrade them. Assuming the image isn't manipulated, it is simply a frozen moment of the immediate reality.

Well, the counter argument some would use is that from a dignity PoV it's a moment you've chosen to capture that others wouldn't, and that someone's plight is being used as part of your hobby, Winder.

It's possible to see both viewpoints.

[dmeadows85]

I was thinking about the same thing the other day. Aside from the ethical concerns, it seems like such a cliche at this point in time. Every time I see another black and white, high-key portrait of a homeless person and their weathered wrinkles (or elderly person for that matter, bonus points if both) staring straight into the camera, I just wonder why? What new thing is the picture saying? What's the point?

I have seen photo essays that explore particular people who may be homeless or disadvantaged or addicted, but that at least is telling a story, is exploring the lives of its subjects and requires getting to know of who they are and their challenges. There's a sensitivity and vulnerability in that which I applaud.

The random snap of a homeless face just because it looks weathered? Opportunistic and exploitative at worst, mundane and tired at best.

Just my two cents, in a rare rant from a non-confrontational introvert--damn, it feels good to have an opinion!

[Winder]

Aside from the ethical concerns, it seems like such a cliche at this point in time. Every time I see another black and white, high-key portrait of a homeless person and their weathered wrinkles (or elderly person for that matter, bonus points if both) staring straight into the camera, I just wonder why? What new thing is the picture saying? What's the point?

And the same can be said every slow shutter, over saturated water fall. Every cookie cutter wedding shot of rings, or shoes, or the dress. What do you take pictures of that is "new"?

[dmeadows85]

And the same can be said every slow shutter, over saturated water fall. Every cookie cutter wedding shot of rings, or shoes, or the dress. What do you take pictures of that is "new"?

Whatever I can. Besides, it's hard to argue for the human dignity of a waterfall, oversaturated or not.

[Winder]

Whatever I can. Besides, it's hard to argue for the human dignity of a waterfall, oversaturated or not.

Subject matter is subject matter. Human or not. We're not special. It doesn't matter if you are capturing a moment of joy or sorrow. It is simply the reality of that moment it time. There is nothing good or bad about it.

[clackers]

Subject matter is subject matter. Human or not. We're not special. It doesn't matter if you are capturing a moment of joy or sorrow. It is simply the reality of that moment it time. There is nothing good or bad about it.

Ah, you're just a documenter of the world around you, Winder!

I think if that's your explanation to an angry guy when you've just taken a picture of his attractive girlfriend, your theory of art may not save your teeth ending up on the pavement.

[Winder]

Ah, you're just a documenter of the world around you, Winder!

I think if that's your explanation to an angry guy when you've just taken a picture of his attractive girlfriend, your theory of art may not save your teeth ending up on the pavement.

Possibly, but I'm not changing my "theory" simply because someone else is incapable of controlling their emotions. If someone dresses like a flamingo and then gets mad because they are attracting attention and having their picture taken, then they are the one with a problem.

Never do anything in public you don't want the world to see.

[clackers]

If someone dresses like a flamingo and then gets mad because they are attracting attention and having their picture taken, then they are the one with a problem..

I'm sorry, Winder, but this is the justification for date r@pe, and is rightly scorned.

As for telling the man you've photographed sleeping in a doorway he should go home if he doesn't want to be seen in public ...

I'm afraid there is a certain kind of sociopath that gives other candid photographers a bad rep with their attitude.