Photographing the down and out

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

Saw that article. Absolutely outstanding, as you say.

This is one of the reasons I still subscribe to The New York Times. They are one of the last—if not the last—newspaper who believes in the value and power of great photojournalism, and has recognized that it perfectly fits the modern digital media format. They hire photojournalists that are either from, or already know the communities they want to write about, or that can take the time embedding in them and getting to know the people. Some of these articles, to me, is a throwback to what LIFE Magazine used to do.

Another good one today, about the Uvalde community one year after the terrible events:

After Uvalde, a Cemetery Anchors Families of Victims

A year after 19 children and two teachers were killed at a Texas elementary school, families of the victims have bonded through memories, grief and action.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here's a picture of desperate people without the desperate people. What attracted me about it was the opposition between the tent and the rich bank's columns. Where does a shot like this fit in our conversation?

 

[BrianShaw]

That’s a rich bank??? I thought it was a photograph of a homeless encampment in Ancient Rome…

 

[warden]

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.

Of course. And I'm not photographing any of it for my own enjoyment.

 

[takilmaboxer]

Regardless of their situation they are still human beings. Ask first, offer them money or food, whatever. Try to act like a human being.

 

[bernard_L]

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.

+1. Not only the intention, but the actual capability, i.e. access to a journal, or a book publisher. Flickr does not count. Jacob Riis or Lewis Hine are in their class, wannabes are in another.

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

Reminds me of a joke about a war reporter facing a scene of death or famine. Caught in a terrible dilemma.
Glossy or semi-matte?

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

No, because you are not Gordon Parks.
However, I agree and sympathise with the rest of your post https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/photographing-the-down-and-out.199456/post-2684915

 

[Alex Benjamin]

No, because you are not Gordon Parks.

I kind of figured that out already.

But you're missing the point. The point is not being Gordon Parks. It's aspiring to be Gordon Parks.

Even knowing you'll never be Gordon Parks.

 

[KerrKid]

"Mr. Jones" is a very good movie about the journalist who covered the Ukraine famine that killed 5,000,000 people. I recommend watching it.

 

[xkaes]

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6828390/

 

[jp498]

I don't see any reason to photograph a random unconnected stranger just because it's a good composition. Some story telling and connection could help it be a better photo. In Seattle a couple years ago (a place with an above average amount of "down and out") I made a connection that led to a photo we were both agreeable to, and a good story. That's what I personally want as a photographer.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

In Los Angeles we have people who owned houses and led productive lives. When someone in their family got seriously ill, they were driven into debt and lost everything becoming homeless. Many of these people were unable to cope with the lost of their spouse and the debt. The happens in other places than Los Angeles. And there are some who are so low that they would photograph them so that they could giggle when they show the photographs to their friends!

 

[faberryman]

I am not interested in photographing the homeless. I am not a photojournalist. It is not something I would do as a personal project. I would not hang a print of a homeless person on my wall at home, or give prints of a homeless person to my family and friends. Somebody else might do so. They would have to resolve the ethical issues, if any, for themselves.

The OP mentioned the homeless person he saw and was considering photographing was in Paris. Perhaps one of our EU members could chime in on the legality of photographing the homeless in Europe.

 

[xkaes]

You can pretty much photograph anything/anybody anywhere/anytime -- IF it's in public -- and you are not disturbing any thing that is legal, or doing anything illegal yourself.

If it's in public, and anyone can see it with their own eyes, it's "fair game". That doesn't mean that everyone will appreciate what you are doing -- even if you are not a paparazzi driving at 100 MPH.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't see any reason to photograph a random unconnected stranger just because it's a good composition. Some story telling and connection could help it be a better photo. In Seattle a couple years ago (a place with an above average amount of "down and out") I made a connection that led to a photo we were both agreeable to, and a good story. That's what I personally want as a photographer.

He doesn't seem homeless, just a street musician.

 

[Pieter12]

You can pretty much photograph anything/anybody anywhere/anytime -- IF it's in public -- and you are not disturbing any thing that is legal, or doing anything illegal yourself.

If it's in public, and anyone can see it with their own eyes, it's "fair game". That doesn't mean that everyone will appreciate what you are doing -- even if you are not a paparazzi driving at 100 MPH.

First, it is a question of ethics and not legality. Second, "public" does not necessarily mean that you can see the individual from a public space. For example, shooting a person in their house or place of business from a publicly accessible location (outside on the street, maybe) is not legal without their permission. I would think that extending that to a person in a doorway or church or even a tent might not be legal.

 

[Saganich]

I've fallen on the side of it's dehumanizing unless there's is a real clear thesis and outcome that will be beneficial. I worked with a public health nurse out of St. Vincent's hospital in The Village (NYC) during the time the SRO's were all being converted to habitats for better-off people and I met some interesting people who were the last to go, the hard core cases you might say. To my knowledge no stories or portraits about the people or the places were documented, except the movie Sunshine Hotel, which although authentic didn't depict well mental anguish and suffering. It was life changing, something an essay or photograph doesn't achieve, so much of photography of people is as bystander and that's not the way it ought to be.

 

[xkaes]

First, it is a question of ethics and not legality. Second, "public" does not necessarily mean that you can see the individual from a public space. For example, shooting a person in their house or place of business from a publicly accessible location (outside on the street, maybe) is not legal without their permission. I would think that extending that to a person in a doorway or church or even a tent might not be legal.

faberryman specifically asked about the legality of photographing the homeless:

Perhaps one of our EU members could chime in on the legality of photographing the homeless in Europe.

FYI, paparazzi make much of their money photographing people on private property using long lenses. Completely legal. If you can see it, it makes no difference if it is on private property or not.

 

[faberryman]

faberryman specifically asked about the legality of photographing the homeless:

I specifically asked about the legality of photographing the homeless in Europe.

 

[Pieter12]

FYI, paparazzi make much of their money photographing people on private property using long lenses. Completely legal. If you can see it, it makes no difference if it is on private property or not.

Not really. Unless it is deemed "newsworthy" (that's how paparazzis operate), one has the expectation to protection against unwarranted intrusion upon their solitude and private affairs.

 

[snusmumriken]

What do people here think about (now Sir) Don McCullin’s photos of the homeless of London in the 1960s? (Follow the “You might also like” link further down that web page.) He clearly operated with the knowledge and cooperation of his subjects. And in his characteristic dark, gritty way, he documented the grime in which they lived and their unhealthy condition. The photos don’t suggest compassion or respect, at least to my eyes, nor cast light on the tragic circumstances that brought people to that state. They just document the end result. In McCullin’s word, they show the ‘truth’.

I’m sure McCullin felt that by bringing this truth to public attention, some good would result. Maybe some political good intentions did result, and much well-meaning labour by caring people. But as far as I can see, McCullin’s photos have had negligible impact on the extent of homelessness in London. The photos are now viewed chiefly or solely as works of art, in the Tate Gallery and elsewhere. The subjects are immortalised but almost certainly dead long ago. McCullin himself is 87.

So what do you think? With hindsight, was it justified? Would a similar project now be justified? Do those haunting faces in the Tate collection justify the capture of these people in their sorriest state?

I don’t actually know what I think. But I know that 99 times out of 100 I squash any thought of photographing people having a wretched time.

 

[MattKing]

I specifically asked about the legality of photographing the homeless in Europe.

There is of course two questions involved - is it legal to take the photograph and, after you have done so, what can you legally do with it?

 

[KerrKid]

Photographs depicting the horrors of war have done nothing to end wars, so I don't think photographs depicting the homeless will end homelessness.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

The way I was raised is that if something isn't wrong, but you feel it's wrong for you, then don't do it. Let your conscience be your guide.

 

[Pieter12]

Photographs depicting the horrors of war have done nothing to end wars, so I don't think photographs depicting the homeless will end homelessness.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

The way I was raised is that if something isn't wrong, but you feel it's wrong for you, then don't do it. Let your conscience be your guide.

They may not have ended war, but they have certainly made more people aware of the horrors and suffering of war, as well as proof of atrocities that have been committed.

 

[Sirius Glass]

They may not have ended war, but they have certainly made more people aware of the horrors and suffering of war, as well as proof of atrocities that have been committed.

Proving the atrocities has become easier with the use of photojournalists.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Proving the atrocities has become easier with the use of photojournalists.

Pictures taken by one side or the other in a conflict are questionable. You need independent corroboration.