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.

(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.

much self-indulgent drivel snipped

In the subject line you posed a question. In the body of your posting
you made many dogmatic and judgmental statements.

Make up your mind!

Are you asking a question, or looking for an opportunity to preach?

If the latter, please take your preaching elsewhere.

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

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

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!

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. :-) ***

(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/

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!

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.--

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.