Bob W wrote: > > > In a way, all photography is voyeurism. > > > [...] > > > > Refusing to photograph the homeless and otherwise, would on > > the flip side, > > would be like denying their very existence. Which could be > > considered a form of > > denial. > > > [...] > > > > But, definitely, looking at pictures of the homeless and down > > and out may be > > the most gut wrenching. > > > > Marnie aka Doe > > > > I agree with you, by and large. > > I should point out though that we don't know whether the man in the > photo is homeless or down and out. For all I know he could be the > fashion editor of Vogue, the president of the Royal Institute of > British Architects, or an internet libel lawyer trawling for business. > > I'd also like to point out that it is not a picture of a down-and-out. > It's a picture of a person who was asleep on his feet in an > interesting composition. Whether he is down and out or the fashion > editor of Vogue makes no difference - I would have taken exactly the > same photograph whatever his situation. In many ways it would have > been a more interesting photo if he was the President of the RIBA, and > dressed appropriately. > > The trouble with pictures of down-and-outs is that viewers tend to see > the down and out, not the person, and not the picture. That's why you > have to show the face. > > Regards, > Bob > > ________________________ me thinks you doth protest too much... (I know, I haven't got the quite just right)
This hit me particularly hard - and I could never have taken the photo - ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
