Re: Ethics of Documentary Photography
On the contrary, I think it raises awareness of the problem and their plight, and those who see such photos may include an extra blanket or a few more cans of food for a 'homeless collection drive'. Too many want to pretend they don't exist, but they do, and we all can do something about it. Brad - Original Message - From: "John Whicker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 6:07 AM Subject: Re: Ethics of Documentary Photography > Dan Scott wrote: > > > > I applaud Glen's good works. But I don't know that good works earn > > anyone the right or an entitlement to photograph someone else. I > > understand that being in public entails being seen in public, but when > > you are homeless you have no privacy and no choice. You can't escape. > > > > If you are sick, dirty, hungry and cold, you can't pop home, throw your > > vomit/diarrhea stained clothing into the wash and make yourself > > presentable. Unless you are fortunate enough to loose your mind, you > > are entirely aware of how wretched your condition is and your > > powerlessness to raise yourself out of it. When someone comes along > > looking for something interesting to shoot, their interest in you is > > most likely in exploiting your misery for their benefit. > > > > I think that is wrong. > > > Dan, > > That was beautifully expressed, and you have my wholehearted support > for your views. Exploitation is precisely what this is. > > John > >
Re: Ethics of Documentary Photography
Dan Scott wrote: > > I applaud Glen's good works. But I don't know that good works earn > anyone the right or an entitlement to photograph someone else. I > understand that being in public entails being seen in public, but when > you are homeless you have no privacy and no choice. You can't escape. > > If you are sick, dirty, hungry and cold, you can't pop home, throw your > vomit/diarrhea stained clothing into the wash and make yourself > presentable. Unless you are fortunate enough to loose your mind, you > are entirely aware of how wretched your condition is and your > powerlessness to raise yourself out of it. When someone comes along > looking for something interesting to shoot, their interest in you is > most likely in exploiting your misery for their benefit. > > I think that is wrong. Dan, That was beautifully expressed, and you have my wholehearted support for your views. Exploitation is precisely what this is. John
Re: Ethics of Documentary Photography
- Original Message - From: Mike Johnston Subject: Re: Ethics of Documentary Photography > > I think that is wrong. > > > Dan, > Street photographers can have a streak of ruthlessness. They can be very > "exploitative," intrusive, and persistent. What they want is the shot. It's not just the homeless they go after with such vengeance either. William Robb
Re: Ethics of Documentary Photography
> I think that is wrong. Dan, Street photographers can have a streak of ruthlessness. They can be very "exploitative," intrusive, and persistent. What they want is the shot. Personally, I think I only ever shot a picture of a street person once. And he was sound asleep. --Mike
RE: Ethics of Documentary Photography
On 16 Dec 2002 at 18:03, Glen O'Neal wrote: > Okay so you have chosen to continue the thread as a discussion of > photographic ethics. I can jump in on that. Let's ask the question; do we > applaud or condemn the "Afghan Girl" image of Steve McCurry? Not much to say on this however for whatever positive repercussions the original image had the follow-up NG "where is she now" film was blatant exploitation IMHO. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Ethics of Documentary Photography
Hi, Monday, December 16, 2002, 10:57:15 PM, you wrote: > When someone comes along looking for something interesting > to shoot, their interest in you is most likely in exploiting > your misery for their benefit. I broadly agree with the arguments you put forward to support this, but as usual there are shades of grey (not just harsh, grainy, black & white ). I'd like to present a slightly extended line of argument which justifies a certain amount of admitted exploitation in the name of honesty. David Hurn in one of his books talks about covering a situation honestly, and trying to show it the way it is. He gives the example of somebody covering a 3-hour demonstration during which nothing much happens at all, everything is peaceful and well-ordered, but at one point there is a fight between extremists and the police, which lasts for about 3 minutes and results in a few arrests. Honest coverage would barely include the fight because it is insignificant relative to the rest of the demo. However, many sections of the press (and other institutions) would concentrate their attention on the fight because of its dramatic and photogenic impact. Other people might pretend it never happened at all, because it doesn't suit their interests. Now, when I travel to places like Africa, Romania or India, people often ask me, or tell me, not to photograph some of the uglier aspects of their country. In general my motivation in going to these places is that they are interesting, and I want to know something about them and go behind the obvious cliches like the Taj Mahal and colourful priests. I try to come back with a balanced view of what I've seen, but if anything I accentuate the positive - particularly in a place like Ethiopia, which has had a very bad press over the years. Balanced coverage, in my opinion, includes showing some, but by no means all, of the ugly things that I've seen, but I hope it's done with sensitivity towards the individuals concerned. In the same way I hope that my photographs of my own country are a reasonably well-balanced portrait, although I think I'm entitled to be harder on my own country than I am on others. This means that I do sometimes photograph homeless people - I can think of 2 occasions over the last 5 or 6 years, and they are probably more amusing than anything else. One shows a guy sitting on a car seat in the middle of a crowded pavement, reading a broadsheet newspaper; the other shows a man lying on the pavement luxuriantly smoking a cigarette, while covered in pigeons, so they're not really about misery, but they are probably somewhat exploitative. The pigeon guy acquiesced in the photograph, the other guy didn't know I took it. Now, returning to Hurn, he talks about the photographer being honest to his subject, and defines honesty by contrast with its opposite: as a photographer you should know when you are being dishonest or untrue to your subject and to your instincts, and act (or not) accordingly. --- Bob "Our heads are round so that our thoughts can fly in any direction" Francis Picabia
RE: Ethics of Documentary Photography
Okay so you have chosen to continue the thread as a discussion of photographic ethics. I can jump in on that. Let's ask the question; do we applaud or condemn the "Afghan Girl" image of Steve McCurry? This was a fourteen year old orphan girl in a refugee camp. Because of this image the whole world's awareness of the needs of the Afghani people was raised. I would not know of many of the needs of the less fortunate had it not been for an article, photograph, or video that brought another individual and their story into my knowledge. Are we exploiting someone when we capture an image of them? First of all what have we taken from them. If they are walking the street they can be easily see by the eye. What is the difference between seeing with the eye and capturing what is already easily seen on film. Their image is still readily available to eye, camera, or video. Here's the question; what have we taken from them. You know these people don't want to be treated differently. If you would take a photo of a merchant on the street, or a street musician, or just a passerby, why not someone in difficult circumstances. I'll tell you what they say to me. They don't say, "don't take my picture". The say, "don't act like you don't see me". They want to be people like anyone else, with presence and dignity. Not treated like they are not something to be looked at. Here's one more way to look at it. If you walked into any homeless shelter or mission and asked those with sound mind, "would you mind being photographed on the street if you knew that it would in some way bring about help for you and others like you", what do you think their answer would be. I agree on this point. The person who takes a photographic image of these individuals, and profits from the image, and then returns nothing to those whose images were used (or at least those like them), should reconsider their ethics. I think the answer is to give back from what you take, be generous, share and care. Remember the old saying a picture is worth a thousand words? Well consider the impact an image has on the heart of someone who needs a reason to lend a hand to help someone less fortunate. Those of us who refused to photograph them out of conscience; did we go back and help them in some way anyway. If so they probably would have invited your photograph. Especially after you treated them to a warm meal and a hot shower. Glen -Original Message- From: Dan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 4:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mike Johnston Cc: Dan Scott Subject: Ethics of Documentary Photography On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 02:17 PM, Mike Johnston wrote: >> Please accept my apologies for contributing to this drift. I >> will try harder to stay on topic in the future. I really enjoy the >> PDML and >> learn a great deal from all of you. > > I enjoyed hearing from you, Glen, and I certainly think that you have > earned > the right to photograph the homeless. Thanks. > > --Mike > I applaud Glen's good works. But I don't know that good works earn anyone the right or an entitlement to photograph someone else. I understand that being in public entails being seen in public, but when you are homeless you have no privacy and no choice. You can't escape. If you are sick, dirty, hungry and cold, you can't pop home, throw your vomit/diarrhea stained clothing into the wash and make yourself presentable. Unless you are fortunate enough to loose your mind, you are entirely aware of how wretched your condition is and your powerlessness to raise yourself out of it. When someone comes along looking for something interesting to shoot, their interest in you is most likely in exploiting your misery for their benefit. I think that is wrong. Dan Scott
Re: Ethics of Documentary Photography
Dan Scott wrote: When someone comes along > looking for something interesting to shoot, their interest in you is > most likely in exploiting your misery for their benefit. > > I think that is wrong. > I disagree. I shoot street people every now and then. I always pay them quite well, usually five US dollars. I talk to them about their situation and their aspirations. I have found that almost all are very pleased to be able to earn a few dollars as a model, and that many are anxious to talk to someone. I shot this fellow at night on a Santa Monica, California street corner. He's there all the time, and we have spoken on several occassions. You can see the five dollar bill in is hands. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=800895&size=lg Paul
Re: Ethics of Documentary Photography
I share your uneasiness about photographing the indigent, Dan. As I posted less than an hour ago, I think we should afford the homeless a shred of privacy - they may be "in public", but the unfortunate reality is that bus shelters and doorways are their homes, and really should be seen as "private places". That being said, when is "exploiting misery" acceptable - if ever? PJ's and documentary or reportage photogs take photos of people in pain all the time - accident victims, those grieving such accidents, the victims and survivors of disasters, the poor of war-torn areas - all of those seem fair game. Even if a photographer is taking pictures out of a sense of social justice, is it fair to do so at the expense of such unfortunate individuals? When and where is "the line" crossed? I'm not taking you to task on your comments, Dan, but I've often wondered where the line is, or if it even exists. As I posted before, there are rare occasions that I've asked street people if I can take their pictures, and sometimes they say yes, so I do (I won't if they say "no"). But, if one is suffering from a major mental illness, is such consent to be relied upon? Am I just asking to assuage my guilt in exploiting them? Like I said, genuine questions here, not just a philosophical debate. regards, frank Dan Scott wrote: > I applaud Glen's good works. But I don't know that good works earn > anyone the right or an entitlement to photograph someone else. I > understand that being in public entails being seen in public, but when > you are homeless you have no privacy and no choice. You can't escape. > > If you are sick, dirty, hungry and cold, you can't pop home, throw your > vomit/diarrhea stained clothing into the wash and make yourself > presentable. Unless you are fortunate enough to loose your mind, you > are entirely aware of how wretched your condition is and your > powerlessness to raise yourself out of it. When someone comes along > looking for something interesting to shoot, their interest in you is > most likely in exploiting your misery for their benefit. > > I think that is wrong. > > Dan Scott -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
