- This topic is empty.
Poverty porn
-
I was driving into work today when I noticed a homeless person asleep on the footpath, nothing too unusual about that, tragic as it was. What really caught my attention though was the guy with a camera crouching and shuffling around to get the perfect shot of someone passed out on the street. I’ve never really been comfortable with the poverty tourism which is so popular in various camera clubs I’ve been to though the shots are usually well accomplished and striking, maybe it’s the eyes staring out of the Trocaire boxes coming back to haunt me.
I remember though the thought really striking me when a friend was showing me her snap shots from a recent holiday, one of which had a caption ‘John with poor people’. Something about the whole enterprise seems incredibly patronising and paternalistic, seeing more of these photos actually being made this morning really hit home. Maybe it’s like the old saying ‘people who like sausages or legislation should never see them being made’, seeing another ‘down and outs are great photo ops’ photo being created this morning really struck me as vulgar.
Any thoughts on this? Am I alone in thinking it’s a little bit vulgar for the well heeled to make a hobby out of ‘capturing’ the toll of a hard life on someones face for praise at the club? It seems quite a bit removed from the likes of Van Gogh who empathised with the people he painted and evoked a kinship and love for them while painting pretty flowers to make his living.
Striking comments Cian, and none without validity. I suppose when you look to take photographs of people it’s the ones that stand out that make the more interesting shots. Go to a motor racing event and it’s the crashes, unfortunate as they are, that make the better image.
When I read down through your comments I remember the shot that was taken of the starving child with the vulture in the background…Carter I think took it? Obviously he had stepped over his self-determined edge in this capture…enough to end his own life. Sensationalist but striving to get the more iunusual shot can affect some.
Equally quick a memory was while trawling the streets of Dublin with a club-mate and member of PI who rquested a photo of a beggar on the streets. Declining, he produced a smile of several gold teeth so not all down and outs are down and out.
Alan
I would have some views on this.
Clearly, the notion of someone crouching around a homeless person to take a snap is offputting; it should not be done and its a bit shameless to do it. The only potential exceptions I would see (for photographing a homeless person without permission) are if (i) there is a means to an end, e.g. a newspaper feature on the plight of homelessness or (ii) possibly, if the photographer is so far away that it is completely non-intrusive, even to other people on the street.
Second, I generally don’t see a problem with asking someone if you can take a photo of them, and that includes homeless people. Normally in the latter situation if the person is begging, they should be given something in exchange.
I did once take a photo of a homeless person without permission, where this kid was asleep on the pavement and people were all walking around him like he was a sack of potatoes, I was a bit gobsmacked by the scene and I took a photo of it. It was non-intrusive and inconspicous, and I don’t have a problem personally with having taken it. Another time I saw a homeless guy sleeping on the pavement in front of a ‘Bed, Bath & Beyond’; there was this most luxurious bed on display on the other side of the window, three feet away from where he was sleeping, so I took a photo of that, because it was ‘ironic’. I think that time I was out of line.
Thought provoking post Ken..and well considered. It’s a subject that has come up a number of times during the times I’ve been a member here and people do seem to have widely varying opinions on it.
Personally I’m inclined to agree with you… there is something a little vulgar about creeping around a subject who is more than likely unaware of your existence and if he was, probably not in a state to protest anyway.
I’ve taken pictures myself when I was starting out, but I have refrained for a long time now as I do not feel comfortable photographing people who are obviously in distress of some sort. I have seen people like The Baz’s work, which I think has a lot of merit, as he is not running in and grabbing a quick snap and then departing, he tries to capture some of the spirit and humanity of the character and I think a lot of the time he succeeds. Of course that takes a lot more courage and guile than simply snapping an unconscious homeless person lying on the pavement.
I guess like any issue though, it’s not strictly black and white (another bad pun). If the picture contributes in any way to public perception of the problem then it’s probably worth it. If it’s purely for extra kudos at the club meet then I think you’d have to take a look at your life morals I guess…
I dabble in street from time to time and I take photos of strangers without their knowledge or permission. But I am not a fan of the homeless-shot-with-a-long-lens-from-across-the-street type photographs. I think these are just easy and cheap shots. I have the same opinions on the drunk-lying-on-the-ground-after-the-pub type photographs.
If this photographer was so close to the person on the street, it would have been nice to reach out. On Flickr, I’ve seen some photographs of homeless people where they were accompanied by a short description about the persons life. I thought it was a nice touch to put a story behind the faces.
Same as Dave, I suppose.
I wouldn’t have an issue with photographing people surreptitiously, trying to capture a real ‘normal’ moment rather than a street portrait where the subject and photographer are aware of each other. That’s a very different vibe and I’m more interested in the everyday normality of street life, people’s expressions and how they dress, interact with each other, etc.Of course, there’s obviously been plenty of opportunity to take such a shot of someone in dire need but I can never bring myself to do that. Unless there was an specific requirement to take that sort of photo it just seems wrong, like you’re taking advantage of another person’s bad fortune. I would think though, to get the best photos you’d need to become known and accepted amongst street people over a long period of time to the point where you’re not noticed. Bruce Davidson’s stuff is great, and as he says “If I am looking for a story at all, it is in my relationship to the subject – the story that tells me, rather than that I tell”.
I have done it myslef a few times, and i didnt feel comfortble really.
I was half thinking of firstly approaching him and asking him if i could take his
snap and offer him payment, but i felt it would be an awkward situation so
bailed out and took the snap anyway and went about my business.wont be doing it again soon.
AlanGood post Cian. I think we have to be careful here to separate issues.
All photographs of people who are in vulnerable situations have the possibility of being exploitative. Elderly people, poor people, young people etc.
I think the photographer has to have integrity. It comes back to a question what you would, or would not photograph.Only an individual photographer can answer the question. What is his/her motivation for taking a particular photograph?
Photographers in the past have photographed the less attractive stuff in our society. War photographers, third world and famine etc.
This stuff exists and someone has to try and capture it and present it responsibility so that other people know that these things go on.
If a photographer – whether professional or amateur -is trying to do good things by photographing bad things, I guess it is okFor example was Don McCulling trying to exploit people when he photographed the dead, the injured and terrified on the battle field
Or was he trying to give the folks back home some insight about how bad it really is out there on in the field of battle.With the onset of camera phones and tiny digital cameras many people now carry cameras 24X7.
There is a lot of stuff recorded, violence, other peoples accidents and misfortune etc and posted on sites like you tube for voyeuristic
titillating reasons. That is really a sad reflection of society.I think to photograph homeless people really well, requires the photographer to get involved, to engage with and to
try and understand homelessness. It does not mean that all grab shots of a homeless person are bad.I would be careful about making a judgement on another photographers motivations.
If it makes an impression on me, I’ll photograph it.
I have taken a few homeless photos. Either to show isolation or inter-action with others.
One example is this:
I see absolutely no problem with taking this.
Sgt_Major wrote:
I see absolutely no problem with taking this.
If you were made homeless tomorrow and I saw you in the streets of Belfast, you wouldn’t mind me taking photographs of you and posting them online? If you focus on that one question, you might start to see why some people have a problem with these types of images.
It must be difficult enough to be in that situation, without having someone with a camera chip away at your dignity with every click of the shutter button. No matter how the person came to be in that situation, self-inflicted or otherwise, they should be off limits to those of us with a sense of (photography related) decency.
If the people are genuinely comfortable being photographed, and are able to engage in a positive way with a photographer for mutual gain… then that is a different story altogether.
All IMO of course. :wink:
So we shouldn’t cctv them either, cos thats robbing them of their dignity?
Why would I have a problem with you taking my photo tomorrow when I dont have a problem with it today?
Saw this on Guardian today….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/sep/24/homelessness.rough.sleepers
“So we shouldn’t cctv them either”
Well, there’s a bit of a difference between cctv footage that rarely, if ever, sees the light of day and an image posted on a public forum. There’s an even greater difference between that and images used in media articles to raise awareness and highlight social issues.
As for the image itself it does nothing for me simply because I’ve seen thousands of similar shots taken with a long lens. There’s no story to it other that ‘look at the homeless person’, and no sense of empathy from the photographer.
I think a lot of people in Ireland are lucky they have (mostly) extended families they can fall back on if they find themselves in poverty (for want of a better word). For others in other parts of the world (and here too, we have our own share of poverty) they are not so lucky, I think we take way too much for granted… Homelessness is a reality and could happen to anyone.
It gives me a very uneasy feeling to see people “snapping” homeless people… I think it’s a cheap shot and shows little imagination, there is a whole world to shoot out there, why would anyone want to focus on the suffering of others for their own kicks?
Should it matter if a person is homeless or not, in the end of the day youre taking a photo of a person.
If it were unethical to take voyeuristic photographs of homeless people surely the same can be said for taking the same shot of a person of fixed abode, im sure most of us here have taken a sly shot or 2 while in town of somebody “interesting”
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
