Invisible People

[clayne]

So I started this argument within another photographer's photograph on Flickr, which is definitely not the best place to have it, but quite honestly I just couldn't take it anymore. The posting of images of disadvantaged, homeless, etc. with an emphasis entirely on impact, drama, etc. but completely lacking any subject information, background, or even a name. I find this practice to be indirectly exploitative, and there's nothing new about that - it's been discussed before.

However, it continually amazes me how people tell me that *I* am missing the point, and that I should be able to appreciate dozens of faceless individuals entirely shot in dramatic style but providing me with no tangible feeling as to who they are, their environment, or what their concerns are. A few are telling me that HCB, Weegee, etc. didn't provide any backing information (never mind the fact that HCB and Weegee were predominantly doing street photography), therefore it's somehow alright to post 50 portraits of homeless people and nothing about them?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16536699@N07/3224888579/

There's nothing new in itself about this particular kind of photography on Flickr. More than a few photographers do it and people seem to eat it up. Flickr itself is not the best place to have a debate or even critique anything (witness the "delete me" photograph people thought was crap) - which in itself is sad. I do blame myself for not just emailing the guy, but on the other hand, maybe someone else will stop and take the time to think about it.

 

[keithwms]

There was recent discussion here of Lange's famous depression-era photograph of a mother and child; that discussion might be of interest.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[clayne]

There was recent discussion here of Lange's famous depression-era photograph of a mother and child; that discussion might be of interest.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Sure. I believe there is some similarity there and it explores some good points that I hadn't considered. Perhaps what bothers me in the discussion I put forth is that these photographers believe (or probably more accurately *say*) they are doing good for these people and that they care about them. I have a hard time completely believing that and speculate deep down they care more about their own visibility rather than their subjects.

 

[jslabovitz]

Just to offer a counter-example, I've been very impressed with the work of Howard French ("A Glimpse of the World" on Flickr), who consistently tells the story of the amazing characters he's met. To me, the portraits with the stories is so much more interesting, deep, and dramatic.

See Howard's work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/, especially his Dead Link Removed set.

--John

 

[keithwms]

I also am very bothered by the claim that some people make that they are somehow helping the homeless by taking [trite] images of them. In the case of Lange, I think there was a journalistic story to be told. And that particular story really needed to be told, I think. But today's trite images of unkempt people with soiled clothing, they have become so cliched that they have lost their ability to confront.

The real challenge, I suppose, is to base an effective image on a scene that so many people walk by every day. People are so familiar with it that they are blinded to it. So how does one construct a meaningful, original, confrontational piece of imagery? But that's only the first part. The second part is, how could that piece of imagery benefit the subject, if that is the goal of the photographer. I don't know how to do it. I look at Lange and I do not, at this point, see how to do it.

 

[clayne]

Just to offer a counter-example, I've been very impressed with the work of Howard French ("A Glimpse of the World" on Flickr), who consistently tells the story of the amazing characters he's met. To me, the portraits with the stories is so much more interesting, deep, and dramatic.

See Howard's work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/, especially his Dead Link Removed set.

--John

John, yeah, I've seen his work before. I should restate though, that the issue is with the consistent lacking of background and/or subject documentation, not with the subject matter of homeless people (although that does have issues of it's own). Howard doesn't really fall into this group. In fact, he even presents the subject's name.

 

[arigram]

I think this subject is way overblown and I really don't see the ethics behind it.
When you're doing street photography, everybody's game. Why should it matter if it is a homeless guy or a business man, a street musician or a junkie? They are all people on the street and they are as viable for photography as any landscape or subject. I never payed the people I have photographed and never worked with a professional model. Either on the studio or on the street, my subjects are plain humans, going about their business or agreeing for a few snaps. I don't take anyone's soul, I don't harm anybody and hell, I haven't even made money from my photos.
I don't understand how its exploitation, the photography of certain kinds of subjects out in the public. Its not like you're the one who robbed or drugged them. If you give someone a heroin hit just to take him shooting, yes, I would agree that's exploitation and harmful and morally wrong. Save for snaps of guilty people, photography is harmless.

 

[pauliej]

Didnt Weegee sometimes take images of db's (dead bodies in CSI-speak) with the local street-citizenry showing their various reactions? Is the art in the image, which can sometimes be very, very brutal, or is the art in a description of the image? Maybe the caption should include some context (junkie on skid row, vs paid model made up to appear as junkie on skid row), or could that be more confusing? Not sure...

paulie

 

[Allen Friday]

I find the title of the thread interesting: "Invisible People." The homeless and street people are invisible to a lot of us. I live in a small town and we don't have "street people." How many of us live in nice neighbor hoods an work in nice offices and never come in contact with these invisible souls?

So, is photographing them and posting the images, thereby making them visible to a wider portion of the population, exploitation or calling attention to a population in need?

 

[funkpilz]

I do partly agree with arigram, but what I think the real problem is that people try to shock and awe with pictures of homeless people, and oftentimes aren't really driven by some kind of desire to change the world. The exploitation is that people use the shock value that actual people have to get attention from the viewers, and probably aren't concerned about their subjects at all.
I don't disapprove of taking pictures of homeless people, but I do think that you should tell a story. This goes for any published image, however. I'm not a fan of people publishing cryptic, mysterious pictures/paintings and telling the viewers to figure them out themselves; to me, that's just not art.

 

[funkpilz]

I do partly agree with arigram, but what I think the real problem is that people try to shock and awe with pictures of homeless people, and oftentimes aren't really driven by some kind of desire to change the world. The exploitation is that people use the shock value that actual people have to get attention from the viewers, and probably aren't concerned about their subjects at all.
I don't disapprove of taking pictures of homeless people, but I do think that you should tell a story. This goes for any published image, however. I'm not a fan of people publishing cryptic, mysterious pictures/paintings and telling the viewers to figure them out themselves; to me, that's just not art.

 

[dpurdy]

Well I am sick of pictures of people.. People taking pictures of other people. It is some kind of species obsession vanity. I am to the point of nausea at looking at pictures of people. But that said and my feelings aside, I see no way to fault someone who wants to document the face of humanity in a seemingly impersonal way. Humanity is all the same in so many important ways that to look at a nameless invisible person is to look at yourself. Perfectly valid work.
Dennis

 

[Paul.]

Well you certainly seem to of pissed his friends off!

Saw the portrait and read the comments, have to agree with you, do not see how this portrait helped the down and out unless he paid a moddeling fee. I compleatly failed to understand the perpose of the picture or its context, it was a portrait of a down and out nothing more, no matter how gushing his groupies.
Seems to me he justified takeing the picture by saying he had just distributed a trunk full of food and water, to my mind this exposes a distinctly mercinary attitude, I'll help you but there must be something in it for me sort of thing.

I may in my nievity of misjudged the perpose of Flickr but do not see it as a medium for promoteing social awareness more a vehicle of self promotion.

While I am a socialist I belive most of the less fortunate people ie. down and outs, drug addicts, alchholics etc. are the victims of self inflicted injuries and when they start helping themselves is the time for society to help them, untill then it is money down the drain.

Regards Paul.

 

[keithwms]

Paul, you're definitely not a socialist then!

 

[jamusu]

There are but only exploiters amongst us.

Jamusu.

 

[cloudhands]

I really enjoy this kind of conversation.
Maybe not as extreme as Dennis' feelings, I too am tired of looking at pictures of people. I don't know, I just feel too manipulated. I don't know if it's my conditioning or not, but why do I feel that sense of repulsion/fascination when I view photographs like this? I read an interview of S. Adams linked from APUG, and that sparked a line of questioning in my mind about this sort of thing. I still have not come to terms with exactly what the truth of the matter is, with respect to my emotional reactions. I still find it all a little unpleasant and exploitive. I am turned off by people using blatant images/themes to inflame my emotions (usually in a negative way, but in a positive way as well).

I would like to pose an additional question: In art, does the ends justify the means, or does the process the artist took to create the piece of art affect the "value" of it? Personally, I feel the work should stand on its own. You shouldn't need to be told what is happening in the picture, or how the artist made the picture, etc.

 

[JBrunner]

I think the difference is when the photo has a context. Just showing a photo of an unkept person out of context suggests nothing, and at this point of history is plain boring. Have the photograph say something. There is more to homelessness than dirty fingernails so make me understand. Tell me something I don't know.

 

[dperez]

This is not a socialistic point of view at all... I think we need to adopt the attitude that homelessness regardless of its causes should be intolerable. We don't sit around and wait for problems to fix themselves before we decide to step in and help, that's just foolish.

-DP

 

[JBrunner]

This is not a socialistic point of view at all... I think we need to adopt the attitude that homelessness regardless of its causes should be intolerable. We don't sit around and wait for problems to fix themselves before we decide to step in and help, that's just foolish.

-DP

Some things should transcend politics. Homelessness isn't actually a condition, but rather a symptom of real condition such as poverty, mental illness, addiction, etc. You can't cure homelessness by addressing it directly, although helping those individuals that are homeless with basic needs for survival and some comfort is humane and decent. The real problems are the underlying social, societal and individual issues. I'm not interested in helping homeless people. I'd rather help the guy who needs training for a job, the addict get off his addiction, the ill get treatment, and so on. Addressing those things is the only way to actually do something that really helps. Calling someone homeless is just another way to dehumanize them.

 

[removed account4]

i see these kind of photographs as " hey look at this portrait of someone down and out "
maybe that is all that there is to say ...

the photographer didn't say he was doing anything more than that, did he ?

they were just photographs of "the american poor" like india, haiti, mexico .... anywhere.

when folks make photographs of "the poor" in other countries do they put detailed captions
with names &C, or do they let the viewer see a photograph ?

 

[jd callow]

I think shots of the homeless are like nudes. Some are excellent, but too many are cheap and or exploiting.

 

[MattKing]

I prefer to describe this as "Unseen People".

Matt

 

[SilverGlow]

Clayne, you are looking to rescue a group of people that don't want your rescue.

It is NOT exploitive to photography the homeless, unless one does it to poke fun at them. It seems this is not the case.

Nobody is getting hurt, disparaged, nor jabbed by photographing the homeless, and not documenting their story/demographics/vitals. You fail to see the infinite subjectivity of this topic, and it seems you feel that your feelings on the subject are the de facto policy all should follow.

You really need to find a real issue to champion.

Go volunteer at a soup kitchen ;-)

 

[clayne]

Clayne, you are looking to rescue a group of people that don't want your rescue.

It is NOT exploitive to photography the homeless, unless one does it to poke fun at them. It seems this is not the case.

Nobody is getting hurt, disparaged, nor jabbed by photographing the homeless, and not documenting their story/demographics/vitals. You fail to see the infinite subjectivity of this topic, and it seems you feel that your feelings on the subject are the de facto policy all should follow.

You really need to find a real issue to champion.

Go volunteer at a soup kitchen ;-)

Let me throw another wrench in the gears here. The EXIF data for the photo reveals that various post details, like contrast, clarity, sharpness, etc. have not only been adjusted (no big deal there) but cranked to the max. Additionally the color has been manipulated so as to unnaturally tint/tone the subject. All of these adjustments fall in line with "dramatic", i.e. high contrast, edgy sharp lines, cold color.

Is this exploitative?

 

[SilverGlow]

Let me throw another wrench in the gears here. The EXIF data for the photo reveals that various post details, like contrast, clarity, sharpness, etc. have not only been adjusted (no big deal there) but cranked to the max. Additionally the color has been manipulated so as to unnaturally tint/tone the subject. All of these adjustments fall in line with "dramatic", i.e. high contrast, edgy sharp lines, cold color.

Is this exploitative?

No, it is not exploitative.

It's art. Art can be disturbing, pretty, ugly, funny, sad, tragic, and provocative.

If homeless are people and equal like you, me and all of us, then they too deserve to be used as a subject of someone's compositions, just like your kid, or wife, or mother, or neighbor.

Perhaps pictures are disturbing to those that are reminded of how little they've done for the less fortunate. Or perhaps there are other reasons that have little to do with the homeless and more to do with other reasons, one's life's experiences, history, etc.