If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is photographing the homeless unethical?
I have at times, admittedly in imitation, felt the impulse to
photograph homeless guys, only to be prevented by an ethical uncertainty. 1. they are evidently disadvantaged. 2. they are obviously vulnerable (even if willing participants, they are often too intoxicated, and no, i know that photography is not sex, actually, it's more pernicious than that if it showcases them in compromising light, widely, and time and time again, and that'd be a subjective judgement that a photographer, by virtue of his involvement, would be too tempted to rationalize in his favor) 3. they often lack a private space so that argument that you can photograph what you see in public without invading anyone's privacy may not apply fairly to them 4. i forgot "4", though the above should be enough, but yet... 4 1/2. It's been done before, so neither the novelty or the art shock apply anymore, and i somewhat fail to see the social messianic mission a photographer would have in that, though i'm sure there are goodspiritied photographers, i can only suspect that the majority would delight in their images after the event and the homeless would remain in their squalor. Sorta reminds me of that guy whose documentary was aired on CNN a few months ago about him living a month in Ethiopia; the fat ******* of a guest ate all their food while he was there, insultingly kept on wondering "how they lived like that" throughout the show, then went back to london to have his show sold to a few stations, as featured in the credits, quite profitably i'm sure. What's with those people he claimed to have been helping? I can only suspect that they are still are in Ethiopia eating bitter roots, quie literally, and their kids whom he competed with for food are still kept awake by hunger. We know there are hungry and disadvantaged people in this world, and many who care donate to discrete charities without much indulgence in artistry or self-reverence, both of which i fail to see deserved in the often incestually abusive practice of photographing the homeless. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is photographing the homeless unethical?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is photographing the homeless unethical?
Mike Henley wrote:
I have at times, admittedly in imitation, felt the impulse to photograph homeless guys, only to be prevented by an ethical uncertainty. 1. they are evidently disadvantaged. (snipped rest for brevity) There may well be good reasons to photograph them. I'd see no ethical problems at all if you don't show their faces. These unfortunates haven't always been on the street and still may have friends and relatives in their 'old' lives. You don't know why they're there. If you were a real slimeball you'd be openly getting them alcohol on the condition that you're allowed to shoot their daily travels. Some reprobate film maker will now do just that, getting public recognition for their valiant 'community service'. mike |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is photographing the homeless unethical?
Are you kidding me? Of course it's ethical. Dead bodies have been
photographed during wars--sometimes the battles themselves. If we don't photograph things because of the shocking nature of the event etc, what's left? Are we supposed to just stick to flowers & sunsets and nothing else? Please. Not that I've ever seen any such shocking thing to photograph--all I have is flowers & sunsets in my collection for the most part--but it something came up worthy of photograph I'd sure photograph it. LRH |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is photographing the homeless unethical?
Mike Henley wrote:
I have at times, admittedly in imitation, felt the impulse to photograph homeless guys, only to be prevented by an ethical uncertainty. I see many of these guys (and gals) in downtown San Diego. They are quite a mix of people. Obviously, every city will have a slightly different group, but I noticed some very common variations. There are even some who choose to be on the streets, because it allows them to escape most of the responsibilities of society. There are bums who just ask for money. Some of them want to get drunk, some are on limited incomes (like disability) and trying to get more money, and others just use begging for money as their source of income. Since I am widely travelled around the county each week, I am sometimes surprised to see the same "bums" in a nice coffee shop in another part of town, enjoying a cappuccino, and dressed nicely. There are also those who are dressed badly, and look like they have not bathed for quite a while. These are the group that I think most people imagine when they think "homeless". Some are disabled, mentally disturbed, or habitual substance abusers. Others are former convicted felons who have a tough time getting a job, so they beg for money. If you see someone like this, and they are old, thin, or frail, don't feel bad about getting them some food, but just giving them money might not have any effect (other than allowing some to get drunk). There is another group that is purely substance abusers. Some of them even have a home, some sort of income, or are retired. They are usually noticeably intoxicated, and best avoided. It is also possible to see some on occasion that are physically disabled. Their incomes are often only limited disability. I have been seeing more of these people lately, some of them returned from Iraq or Afghanistan, and often missing an arm or leg. A few of these people deal with their conditions by staying intoxicated, though some eventually start to cope with their condition. You might try talking to them, if nothing else, they might appreciate the company. There are also down on their luck people who end up on the streets. They are not drunks, nor addicts, and usually mentally stable. Some are teenage runaways, recently divorced, recently out of work, or had a recent run of bad luck. These people generally know how to use public facilities to stay somewhat clean, and often are not on the streets for long. All this bring us to photographing these people. Of the types I have described, I do think some are worth talking to, and developing some communication. If you are not willing to talk to your subjects prior to photographing them, then you should not be photographing them. Resist the temptation to give any of them money. If you want to get someone some food or something to drink (not alcohol), then do so. I did a video documentary project in 1999 through 2000 that involved interviewing homeless people. Unfortunately, we ran out of budget, though a few of the clips were actually used. It was an interesting experience, and one way that I learned all the variations of people that many just consider as one group called "homeless". Some are genuinely in need of assistance, though we found many who did not want any help, and nearly as many who were "faking it" for the money. I still talk to some of these people, since I run into them so often downtown. I have never given any of them money, though I have got a few of them a cup of coffee, or some food. I think that is a good policy to follow. If you really want to give yourself this project, find the ones that are worth getting to know, and worth helping (in other words, want some help). Let your photos allow them some dignity, and try to find them later to show them your results, or even give them a print. When I did the video project, I had an old Polaroid camera along, and gave away a few of those. Be very careful when you approach some of these people. If it is in a questionable part of town, do not be there alone. I suggest using camera gear you might not mind getting damaged. Try talking to your subjects a few times, not just the one day you want their photo. If you can do all this, then you might get some meaningful photos. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is photographing the homeless unethical?
Subject: Is photographing the homeless unethical?
From: (Mike Henley) Date: Mon, Jun 14, 2004 8:11 AM Message-id: I have at times, admittedly in imitation, felt the impulse to photograph homeless guys, only to be prevented by an ethical uncertainty. 1. they are evidently disadvantaged. 2. they are obviously vulnerable (even if willing participants, they are often too intoxicated, and no, i know that photography is not sex, actually, it's more pernicious than that if it showcases them in compromising light, widely, and time and time again, and that'd be a subjective judgement that a photographer, by virtue of his involvement, would be too tempted to rationalize in his favor) 3. they often lack a private space so that argument that you can photograph what you see in public without invading anyone's privacy may not apply fairly to them 4. i forgot "4", though the above should be enough, but yet... 4 1/2. It's been done before, so neither the novelty or the art shock apply anymore, and i somewhat fail to see the social messianic mission a photographer would have in that, though i'm sure there are goodspiritied photographers, i can only suspect that the majority would delight in their images after the event and the homeless would remain in their squalor. Sorta reminds me of that guy whose documentary was aired on CNN a few months ago about him living a month in Ethiopia; the fat ******* of a guest ate all their food while he was there, insultingly kept on wondering "how they lived like that" throughout the show, then went back to london to have his show sold to a few stations, as featured in the credits, quite profitably i'm sure. What's with those people he claimed to have been helping? I can only suspect that they are still are in Ethiopia eating bitter roots, quie literally, and their kids whom he competed with for food are still kept awake by hunger. We know there are hungry and disadvantaged people in this world, and many who care donate to discrete charities without much indulgence in artistry or self-reverence, both of which i fail to see deserved in the often incestually abusive practice of photographing the homeless. No. Photographing the homeless is no more ethical or unethical than photographing the rich and famous. It is not illegal, everybody gives up their right to privacy in public places but if you have emotional qualms, not ethical ones, simply ask permission to photograph them and give them a print (and/or food). The abusiveness is in your emotional outlook to this act not inherent in the act itself. Kindness/respect toawrd your subject will be met with (usually) kindness back. Sometimes it is necessary to ask permission after a candid shot or lose the moment, only you and your attitude/emotions can determine when or if you should make a candid shot but it is neither illegal nor immoral to do so. If you don't like the way others (previous photographers you have seen) have done this and acted there is nothing that stops you from taking their example as an example of what not to do. You have to learn how to separate emotions from morality, just because you think or feel something is right or wrong doesn't mean that it actually is. Question your thoughts/feelings/attitudes is good, being a slave to them leaves one in the land of mindless superstition. Rights (whether ethical rights vs. wrongs or the right to photograph in public/etc.) and feelings are different. Learn how to distinguish between the two and not to be led by the blindness/gut response of your own emotions. Remember, both Hitler and Ghandi felt they were right ;-). Feelings are merely guides not gods, not ethical answers. Examine your feelings but obey the truth. The act of photographing the homeless can be a sign of respect, like photographing anybody, not a sign of abuse. You are not other photographers and you are more than your feelings. You choose how you act. Are you photographing your subjects or are you beating them over the head with your camera? ;-) What is the emotional and ethical transaction (exchange) going on here? Do you both come out with something valuable from the experience (recognition, a good print/photo, a congenial interaction)? If so, regardless of the difference in your stations in life I see no harm in this. If someone doesn't want to be photographed in public that's their choice, regardless of station, and either take the photograph and move on, don't take the photograph or ****actually get to know them*** and ask them why they don't want to be photographed (maybe they'll change their mind and maybe not... - perhaps they don't like being quick targets of snapshooters but wouldn't mind posing for a portrait or letting you take candids once you get to know them as human beings which they are). But anyone who is in public has given up their right to privacy, defacto, if they don't want to risk being photographed in public they can always go into a building or other private area and this goes equally for everyone (I'm in the U.S. so take that for what its worth, don't know about British laws/rules). SO ethically it is your right but not obligation to photograph anyone in public and if your emotions are overwhelming you instead of the truth then just don't photograph and bury that camera in the "never ready case". But if you look for fairness and act with fairness and informaed truth and not just emotions in these types of situations you can usualy find a happy medium where both you, your subject and your conscioence as well as your emotions can be made happy/satisfied. Don't allow feelings masquerading as ethics to mask/allow an easy out just because you are afraid to photograph people in public, and, especially, the homeless in public. You're both people. Deal with it (the situation of photographing in public) :-). This post is... © 2004 Lewis Lang All Rights Reserved Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm Remove "nospam" to reply ***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST, PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) *** |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is photographing the homeless unethical?
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Is photographing the homeless unethical?
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
(Mike Henley) wrote in message . com... I have at times, admittedly in imitation, felt the impulse to photograph homeless guys, only to be prevented by an ethical uncertainty. http://www2.bumfights.com/indecline/ I was wondering if someone was going to mention that. The producers of that have been in and out of court in the San Diego area because of these videos. Apparently there is a question of legality in some of the activities of the participants. In my opinion, these videos were unethical. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Is photographing the homeless unethical?
Gordon Moat wrote:
Michael Scarpitti wrote: (Mike Henley) wrote in message . com... I have at times, admittedly in imitation, felt the impulse to photograph homeless guys, only to be prevented by an ethical uncertainty. http://www2.bumfights.com/indecline/ I was wondering if someone was going to mention that. The producers of that have been in and out of court in the San Diego area because of these videos. Apparently there is a question of legality in some of the activities of the participants. In my opinion, these videos were unethical. Agree. Clearly exploitive, further, the use of drugs as payment (suggested on the website) is both illegal and inhumane. People who purchase these videos should be ashamed of themselves. -- --e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Is photographing the homeless unethical?
Alan Browne wrote in message . ..
Gordon Moat wrote: Michael Scarpitti wrote: (Mike Henley) wrote in message . com... I have at times, admittedly in imitation, felt the impulse to photograph homeless guys, only to be prevented by an ethical uncertainty. http://www2.bumfights.com/indecline/ I was wondering if someone was going to mention that. The producers of that have been in and out of court in the San Diego area because of these videos. Apparently there is a question of legality in some of the activities of the participants. In my opinion, these videos were unethical. Agree. Clearly exploitive, further, the use of drugs as payment (suggested on the website) is both illegal and inhumane. People who purchase these videos should be ashamed of themselves. This is some of the stupidest crap I have ever seen. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Photographing lightening | Roger Halstead | Digital Photography | 7 | June 29th 04 09:58 AM |