Photographing the down and out

[cliveh]

I have a moral dilemma with this. I was once in the Opera district of Paris where a beggar in the pouring rain was making gestures for money. She/he was under a black cloth making signs of complete desperation. From an artistic point of view, it made a wonderful photograph in terms of tone and composition. However, I thought it morally wrong to photograph. What do other photographers think about such a situation.

 

[xkaes]

One is use a concealed camera. People have been doing that for 150 years -- but not just to take pictures of those who don't want their pictures taken.

The Sub Club

Another is to ask to pay for taking their picture -- before the picture is taken. Likewise, people have been doing that for 150 years.

 

[Don_ih]

If you think the scene would make a good photograph, then that is your motivation. Are you using the beggar? Do you normally consider yourself using the people and things you photograph?

No concealing the camera - unless you want to feel like an ass (arse). And why should you pay for a photo that won't make you any money? Are you going to get the beggar to sign a release?

Morality is all about motive and obligation. Beyond your own place in society, you have no obligation to the beggar. So it's a matter of what motivates you.

In other words, do what you want if you're not taking advantage of other people (to their detriment).

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I have a moral dilemma with this. I was once in the Opera district of Paris where a beggar in the pouring rain was making gestures for money. She/he was under a black cloth making signs of complete desperation. From an artistic point of view, it made a wonderful photograph in terms of tone and composition. However, I thought it morally wrong to photograph. What do other photographers think about such a situation.

I won’t do it. Poverty porn is wrong.

 

[awty]

Poverty is all around, to ignore it is not telling the whole story.

 

[Pieter12]

Poverty is all around, to ignore it is not telling the whole story.

No but photographing the poor is morally insensitive unless you are taking the photos with the intention to somehow help raise awareness of their situation. The are out in the open and don’t necessarily have the privacy afforded to those who are better off. Taking their pictures like some sort of deviant or animal on display is offensive.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Poverty is all around, to ignore it is not telling the whole story.

Agreed. The Human Condition has been a subject forever. Grace and class by the artist make it acceptable.

 

[Dan Pavel]

It's a tough decision. It reminds me of Kevin Carter's "The Vulture and the Girl". Carter committed suicide 4 months after getting the Pulitzer for that photo...
However, in a situation as yours if the aesthetics of the scenery is much more impressive to me than the condition of the man involved I usually take the photo and eventually pay the man. Otherwise, if the man's situation looks really desperate I can't take any picture.

The same thing happens to me with highly impressive situations or places. For instance I couldn't take any picture inside Hagia Sophia - I instantly felt the burden of the history of the place and the visceral fear of the hundreds of people locked inside while the Ottomans were forcing the doors during the conquest of Constantinople.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is a personal decision. I would not take the photography at all, but each photographer has to decide for themselves and live with their feelings if they do take the photograph.

 

[xkaes]

In other words, do what you want if you're not taking advantage of other people (to their detriment).

With that approach, don't be surprised if you have your camera shoved down your throat -- literally.

 

[Sirius Glass]

With that approach, don't be surprised if you have your camera shoved down your throat -- literally.

Or up some other orifice.

 

[awty]

No but photographing the poor is morally insensitive unless you are taking the photos with the intention to somehow help raise awareness of their situation. The are out in the open and don’t necessarily have the privacy afforded to those who are better off. Taking their pictures like some sort of deviant or animal on display is offensive.

I think good street type photography should be impartial. Once you start picking and choosing subjects to fit a story line it becomes a documentary on your biases, which is OK if you state what you are doing.
There's always going to be a lot of bad photographs amongst us amateurs, but people who are good at it shouldn't be given restrictions.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Poverty is all around, to ignore it is not telling the whole story.

The story isn't that there is poverty. The story is why there is poverty. The story is not that there is a poor man on the street corner, the story is why is this man poor. What got him there? Did he have a job? Does he have family? Do they know he's there? What was his childhood like? What makes it so that he can't get out of poverty? Is he from Paris? Is he from France? Does he still have hope?

Yes there is poverty all around, and just taking photographs of beggars is actually ignoring it — hope you don't mind me disagreeing with you on this, awty, just that I feel very strongly about it.

Like any of us I've been tempted. The other day, I saw a blind beggar — hello ghost of Paul Strand! — in the subway. Was obviously a bit distressed. Had my camera, and a pretty good photograph. Put the camera back in the bag, went to him, asked him if I could help. I let him grab my arm, led him out to the street. Chatted a bit—turns out he's Haitian like me. I promised myself that I would check next time to see if he hung out at the same station, and pursue the conversation. I want to take a photo of him, but I want to ask him first if I can, if it's OK with him, and after I get to learn a bit more about him.

Same with this lady that begs once a week near the liquor store. I've started chatting with her. I know I missed a great opportunity to photograph her the other day—the light was just perfect, falling on that pink coat of hers, but now that I know her a bit, now that I've seen how unbelievable grateful she is that someone just takes the time to say hello to her and ask her how she's doing—treating her as a normal human being, defining her as a human being, not as a "beggar"—I can't. I might some day. But if I don't nothing will be lost. The world does not need another photograph of a beggar, no matter how nice the composition is. And neither do I.

BTW, for situations like this, when I'm not sure, I take out my "Gordon Parks moral compass" to find an answer .

 

[Two23]

Living in South Dakota I just don't see much of that sort of thing. When I travel to big cities I sometimes do and rarely take those photos. I feel like I'm exploiting people. When I do take them, they're usually non-recognizable. A few times I've started talking to one or two, asking about how they're doing etc. just as I do others I meet. I ask if I can take a photo. Almost always my camera is something from the 1930s to 1950s like a Kodak Brownie or a 120 folder, loaded with Ilford FP4+.


Kent in SD

 

[Arthurwg]

The story isn't that there is poverty. The story is why there is poverty.

Exactly. That's really the point and the subject that should be pursued. But it's not an easy story to tell, in words or in pictures. And most folks don't really want to know about it, especially if it means it might cost them something.

 

[Arthurwg]

Earlier this year I saw an exhibition of Dianne Arbus's admittedly excellent pictures of mentally handicapped people, most of them in various foolish costumes, celebrating at an institution. While most of the subjects appeared to be enjoying themselves, I couldn't help but feel that they were being ruthlessly exploited. The pictures were immensely compelling, but I did feel like a voyeur enjoying their misfortune.

 

[KerrKid]

Whether it’s right or wrong depends on your intent.

I think the same thing would apply to war photography or accident photography.

 

[MattKing]

It also depends on how well you do it. As well as what you do with the results.
The resulting photographs may have a positive impact, or they may not.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I would have taken the photo, assuming such photography would be my cup of tea ofcourse...
But then I would have given the man/woman enough to buy a bowl of hot soup and a sandwich, the least he/she would have earned for being my model!

PS: street photography is not my thing, it gives me the feeling of 'steeling' someone's face/personalty without his consent, which might have to do with a (overly-) sense of guild due to a dominant Catholic education (sic)...

 

[Daniela]

I choose not to photograph people in distress. A person begging/sleeping in the street is in a very vulnerable situation. If I'm not going to acknowledge their situation enough to help somehow, I shouldn't be taking advantage of it by using it for my aesthetic pleasure.

Think about it from their point of view: you're alone, cold, hungry, without a safe place to go. Most people who pass you by don't even notice you, most ignore you, the police probably bothers you, and then someone just comes and takes your picture as if you were an attraction. Talk about dehumanizing...imagine the hopelessness...

 

[Don_ih]

defining her as a human being, not as a "beggar"

Yet a beggar is a human. Humans exist under all kinds of socio-economic conditions. They also all have their own characteristics and problems. Your treatment of someone doesn't define them for anyone other than you.

What does the other person think as you walk away to the comfort of wherever you live? Oh that nice man, he deigned to speak with poor lowly me?

But, yes, taking a photo of someone is essentially ignoring their real life, whatever that life happens to be. It takes great skill to make a photo represent anything of any significance.

With that approach, don't be surprised if you have your camera shoved down your throat -- literally.

Only if you're an asshole. You know, if you're not an asshole, "doing what you want" generally includes not acting like an asshole.

Want to help the indigent and homeless? Raise funds for relief. Do blanket and coat drives. Go volunteer at a soup kitchen. Try to give them something they can rely on - not just a few dollars for the photo you take - the photo which lasts forever - the dollars which are gone in seconds. They don't need to talk to you - they might benefit from you talking for them, though.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

But it's not an easy story to tell, in words or in pictures.

In words, it's been recently very eloquently and powerfully told by Matthew Desmond. Anybody who truly cares about the subject should read this.

Think about it from their point of view: you're alone, cold, hungry, without a safe place to go. Most people who pass you by don't even notice you, most ignore you, the police probably bothers you, and then someone just comes and takes your picture as if you were an attraction. Talk about dehumanizing...imagine the hopelessness...

This sums it up perfectly.

 

[warden]

It’s not that infrequent to happen across one of the thousands of homeless people here that are addicted to heroin and shooting up or in a stupor. One local photographer I know has done a good job of documenting their plight while also trying to help them, which is good for everyone involved. Absent that sort of arrangement I won’t make an image of someone else’s suffering.

Last week there was a long form NYT article called “A daily game of Russian Roulette: Homeless in San Diego”. Erin Schaffer was the photographer for the report which involved her gaining the trust of one homeless man and documenting his daily routine for a week. The result is outstanding.

 

[BrianShaw]

Not a criticism, @warden, but an extension of thought. While many homeless are indeed addicts, many are mentally ill, and many are just exceedingly poor. There are not just thousands… there are much more than that.

Having known, meaning personally known over protracted amount of time, several of these destitute people, it’s clear to me that there are many reasons for their circumstances. Yet I can’t even imagine what it must really be like to be them.

Not a subject I personally want to immortalize in a photograph.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have a moral dilemma with this. I was once in the Opera district of Paris where a beggar in the pouring rain was making gestures for money. She/he was under a black cloth making signs of complete desperation. From an artistic point of view, it made a wonderful photograph in terms of tone and composition. However, I thought it morally wrong to photograph. What do other photographers think about such a situation.

Your stomach gave you your answer.

Interesting, I was in Paris a week ago with the same situation and passed on the shot. I have taken them in the past but there is a "why are your shooting it?" kind of question each time. If I feel queasy, I won't shoot.