A blog post that I thought might stimulate some interesting debate.

Truth and humanity in photography

Depends on the context.

For the Big Issue, probably OK

For Hello Magazine, probably not OK

They’re people -just like anyone else you might point a camera at. Having met and worked with a few people who’ve been homeless (in the rough sleeping sense rather than the no-fixed-abode sense) one of the hardest things they have to deal with is being utterly invisible. Someone might just appreciate being noticed at all.

As with any interaction, it is about respect and consent. Although you don’t legally require either, your attitude to the subject will usually shine through.

How this fits with ‘grabbed’ photography in a public place I don’t know. Photographers do sometimes temporarily mislay respect and consent if they think it will deprive them of the image they want at the end of it.

If it brings attention to the issue and the subject consents to being photographed then I don’t see any problem. They’re human beings, like anyone else.

As PP says.^^

On a personal note I do find the above pictures all be contrived and false most of the time.

However, you cant just ignore the issue and if photography helps in bringing the homeless problem into the public eye, it might just start getting addressed properly or even eradicated. So Yes.

But if they are just being used for career progression and seem trendy or even clichéd imagery for a middle class gallery. Then No.

This takes me right back to art college. In one of our photography modules a girl decided to make the homeless the subject of her project. When were talking about them at assessment the tutor asked her if she had spoken to any homeless people, or asked their consent for any of the photographs, or even interacted with them in any way. The answer was no.

It’s understandable why a twenty year old girl might be reluctant to interact with homeless people, but the point was made there and then. She’d captured all of her images on the fly and hadn’t really had any interaction with her subjects. Her pictures were remote, devoid of character and she couldn’t justify her choice of image beyond passing curiosity.

she couldn’t justify her choice of image beyond passing curiosity.

judgemental conclusion is judgemental…Get rid of the casual adjective “passing” and it just suggests she was curious about the subject which, in of itself, is not a bad reason for exploring something. No?

photos (like words) can be loaded either way.

I spoke to a homeless guy the other day in Bristol. I did’nt feel the urge to photograph him.

I just chatted to him and asked directions.

Get rid of the casual adjective “passing” and it just suggests she was curious about the subject which, in of itself, is not a bad reason for exploring something.

I agree with the statement that just being curious is no bad thing.

I think the relevance in the scenario given above though is that this was an assessed project where the aim was to demonstrate critical thinking and purpose. You have to have a good answer to the question ‘why did you photograph them?’ If you answer is just because of curiosity, then that’s not a violation of anyone’s humanity but it’s not going to get you a pass on the course.

Depends on the context.

Completely this.

If it’s just to get an ‘arty shot’ and the subject has no say in if or how it is used, then it’s a bit shit really isn’t it?

If on the other hand it is honest, upfront and published with full co-operation/consent of the subject, then great.

Anything else feels like exploitation. Maybe I’m oversensitive. I have enjoyed forays into ‘street photography’, including people who were homeless – but it just raised too many questions for me. It still raises questions. Not so much on the fence as entangled in railings, so I just avoid it. I have myself been homeless (if living in a tent and a few caves counts) for short periods. No longer than a year. Everyone is different. Photos of homeless people often feel the same to me. Here is a homeless person. Here is a wasted life. Here is someone who looks gritty. You can trace the tragedy in his eyes. &c. It feels shitty to me. Dishonest in a way. Being homeless can be enormously dehumanising, and I know we photographers often mean well and wish to portray the ‘human face’ of the homeless person. But so, so often (and thanks in no small part to the earnestness and unrelenting cheese of so many ‘street photographers’) – this ‘face’ rapidly becomes a cliché.

nickc

judgemental conclusion is judgemental…Get rid of the casual adjective “passing” and it just suggests she was curious about the subject which, in of itself, is not a bad reason for exploring something. No?

Not curious enough to engage with it. Homelessness is an emotive subject and we can see why homeless people might make for an interesting topic. I’m not critical of her choice to photograph homeless people, but her choice to photograph them from 12-15 feet away was not bourne out of a desire to create a detached look but a desire to stay away from her subjects.

I’m not using the example to criticize a completely unknown (or for all you know) fictional photography student, rather to make the point that it’s better to engage your subject if the subject is what you are trying to capture.

For the Big Issue, probably OK

For Hello Magazine, probably not OK

so thats what Radiohead are on about!

OK Not OK

but her choice to photograph them from 12-15 feet away was not bourne out of a desire to create a detached look but a desire to stay away from her subjects.

fair enough. If you want to photo homeless, but are thinking “urgh, smelly homeless people”, I agree it’s not great

Many homeless people suffer from mental health issues (including alcoholism and drug dependency) or poor decision making. They might think it’s a good idea to have their photo taken at the time but they can (and do) regret that decision later in life.

I don’t necessarily think it’s “wrong” but it’s worth considering that by taking someone’s photo when they are vulnerable, they will have no control over those images when they reach the next phase of they’re life – i.e back in regular society.

They might not want to be reminded of their previous life. They might make new friends or enter a completely different social circle and it should be up to the individual as to whether they inform their new acquaintances of their previous life. Not for it to be discovered by other people on a random blog or website, as the images can be used against them in their newly entered social circles.

I was asked by a group of homeless folk to take some group photo’s of them in a once in a lifetime experience. I obliged and took some photo’s and I felt very very awkward doing so. I kept the amount of photos to a minimum and didn’t take any photo’s that clearly revealed any faces. I still feel very uncomfortable about taking those images.

piha

I was asked by a group of homeless folk to take some group photo’s of them in a once in a lifetime experience. I obliged and took some photo’s and I felt very very awkward doing so. I kept the amount of photos to a minimum and didn’t take any photo’s that clearly revealed any faces. I still feel very uncomfortable about taking those images.

Gangbang?

jimjam – Member
piha
I was asked by a group of homeless folk to take some group photo’s of them in a once in a lifetime experience. I obliged and took some photo’s and I felt very very awkward doing so. I kept the amount of photos to a minimum and didn’t take any photo’s that clearly revealed any faces. I still feel very uncomfortable about taking those images.

Gangbang?

POSTED 7 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

If you’re up for it Sweetcheeks, then possibly!

😆

For an example of what I mean do an image search for ‘Lee Jeffries’

ymmv, but this annoys the shit out of me . It feels like a vain post-processing exercise and it (IMO) also robs all reality from the subject. I see a wall of artificially darkened faces which all ultimately now look the same. Robbed of humanity. Like the ‘anti-selfie-selfie,er, selfie’. Like Lee Jeffries’ vision of ‘The Homeless’. It could well be another zombie film bearing the same title. And the follow-up – ‘The Homeless II – Haunted Faces’

Maybe the photographer’s (AFAIK) undeclared intent was ironic – ie to challenge society’s tendency to view ‘the homeless’ (sic) as a procession of stricken black and white dead-eyed zombies who have been robbed of humanity. Ironic how? Well, by photographing/presenting post-processing homeless people in this fashion? If not, then I just gave Lee Jeffries a get-out clause.

When were talking about them at assessment the tutor asked her if she had spoken to any homeless people, or asked their consent for any of the photographs, or even interacted with them in any way. The answer was no.

The other side of that is as soon as you interact with the ‘subject’ you change their behaviour, as you’re presence influences them.

Some of the best wedding photos for example, are the ones where the subjects aren’t aware they’re being photographed and are acting or interactive very naturally.

It’s a perfectly legitimate technique.

The other side of that is as soon as you interact with the ‘subject’ you change their behaviour, as you’re presence influences them.

That’s true. And that’s the part where I would prefer to take first take a candid, show the subject their candid portrait, and then discuss.

jon1973

It’s a perfectly legitimate technique.

It is indeed, if that’s what you are trying to achieve creatively. But this wasn’t the case. This wasn’t a series of deliberately candid images.

Also, taking candid photos at a wedding doesn’t require any moral justification. There’s an argument that the same doesn’t when it comes to people who may be vulnerable.

*afterthought – Holy shit, if you image search ‘homeless portrait’ it seems that that one photographer has completely ‘cornered the market’. He has single-handedly (SEO is friend here) flooded the internet with a specific ‘vision’ of ‘The homeless’.

Truly gobsmacked.

THht might be Google being “clever” and prioritising images similar to the ones you’ve searched for previously? i.e more Lee Jeffries.

maybe, PP, but I searched for homeless portraits first. And this from Bing just now

There’s a really good book called Hard Ground by photographer Michael O’Brien, with poems by Tom Waits that kind answers some of these questions.It was written in collaboration with homeless people in America who provide a backstory ,as mentioned by others mental health drugs and attachment issues .

Don’t they believe it steals their soul?

Malvern Rider – Member

*afterthought – Holy shit, if you image search ‘homeless portrait’ it seems that that one photographer has completely ‘cornered the market’. He has single-handedly (SEO is friend here) flooded the internet with a specific ‘vision’ of ‘The homeless’.

Truly gobsmacked.

It’s entirely possible that this is just a byproduct of him being extremely popular on facebook or instagram, or just having decent seo on his site in general. I doubt it’s a cynical excercise to corner the market of homelessness.

It’s hard to argue with the level of technical expertise on diplay in Lee Jeffries work. His images are stunning. It might be a slightly cycnical over stylised interpretation of homelessness, but I think that’s his style, and homeless people are just one of the subjects he decided to focus on.

I don’t think it’s intrinsically wrong to take the photos, (how they’re used once taken is a different story) although I think you have more of a duty to explain yourself and offer to delete photos if the subject is not happy that you took them.

I appreciate for some street photography this might necessitate a shoot first, ask questions later approach. But I do think it’s important to get the subjects permission when the status* of photographer and subject is so imbalanced. There are any number of very valid reasons why a homeless person wouldn’t want their photograph taken, especially if it was likely to find it’s way to a larger audience.

* “Status” feel like too crude a word, but I can’t think of a more descriptive way of putting this.

I doubt it’s a cynical excercise to corner the market of homelessness.

Sadly when I do a search on his name this is the first website on the search list results:

Pictures of homeless people for sale

I think his (Lee Jeffries’) work is a bit like Bruce Gilden’s in it’s ability to polarise opinion.

Oh, think twice…

Didn’t think it’d be long before Bruce Gilden cropped up. The ethical question, though different, reminded me of the project he did in Syracuse.

I forget who, but a photographer said that you should question why that story needs to be told, and if so, why it needs to be told now.

Like pictures you take in your bedroom, it depends what you do with them.

I’d show the person the pic and ask them if they happy about it being made public. When I post pics on this forum I avoid posting recent pics of identifiable people I don’t have permission from.

geetee1972

I doubt it’s a cynical excercise to corner the market of homelessness.

Sadly when I do a search on his name this is the first website on the search list results:

Pictures of homeless people for sale

[/quote]

That raises the question if it’s ok to get paid from photographing the homeless. To make a living, or to sell prints.

Or is it acceptable to get a government grant and go on a lucrative gallery tour with your work? That’s probably the serious, legitimate route to take but it can generate a lot of money.

Like this

or like

Are we talking homeless?

Or ‘homeless’….

I wouldn’t be interested in seeing photography of homeless people.
But I would be interested in seeing a painted portrait, where the artist has got to know the person, and captured something about them through their art.
I just find photography an overrated medium of pretentiousness for the most part. Click and run.

I wouldn’t be interested in seeing photography of homeless people.
But I would be interested in seeing a painted portrait, where the artist has got to know the person, and captured something about them through their art.
I just find photography an overrated medium of pretentiousness for the most part. Click and run.

Totally agree.

Nice blog post OP its a bummer when you see some art you don’t like which is similar to your own. Not sure if the arguments for your own work add up to much.

not wrong if you can capture images like these by John Claridge