I really like his oeuvre (whatever of it i have seen so far.) Uniformally brilliant ... I wonder why the only colored photographs are those from South Asia.
I recently read where one certain photography instructor prohibited his students from photographing the following subjects: railroads, sunsets, and homeless people. I kind of agree. Mostly with the homeless people....
No no. It can be exploitive. I guess it depends somewhat on intent, but it seems rude to point a camera at a homeless person and get that 'shocking' photo just because you can.
But suppose they are there for precisely that purpose, suppose that's their "role" (chosen or not, we can talk about that some other time) — to "shock" people ... Can you imagine a society in which there are no homless people, no poor, what would be the nature of that society do you think? Who would keep a check on the greed of decent people then, people like you and and...i can only think of my sister-in-law? lol. And with greed unchecked, even of such people — can you imagine that society? The need is not to wish away the poor, the beggar, the wanderer, but to restore them their "place" ... as the true kings of mankind and as spies on our greed ... a place they had until———— And then, how can it be exploitive to click someone who anyway lives out in the open?
Yes, I see your points, but I wasn't wishing for the poor to disappear. I was thinking it rude to photograph a person without permission. It's the same issue I seem to return to again and again.
I think that if I were forced to live on the streets, and I saw a well-dressed young man with a $6,000.00 camera snapping away at me, I'd feel like quite an object at that moment. I mean, is that wealthy young photog doing anything with the images other than using them as proof to brag about his many travels? Or is he campaigning to help the poor?
I am being critical, but I think it selfish to use other people's pain to further your ambition, with no regard for your subjects.
If it's true editorial photography, it's likely part of a bigger effort to effect change, right?
It's a stunning photo, Duck. And I believe that there IS a place in the world for true "street" shooters, I'm just not one of them. It feels too intrusive to me.
If i could make just one more comment, Jen...with your permission, of course? :)
Can you not think of one man who lived like a beggar but was still thought of as the true king? I know you can. You are used to think of Him as God and the Son of God, but he was also the Son of Man, and as the Son of Man you must think of him if you want to understand this true sovereignity: naked, destitute, wandering among his people, taking care of them, chastening them, urging, in short, being a 'scandal' to one and all — yes, Christ as the Son of Man and as the true sovereign of mankind is first and foremost a 'scandal' — both in the manner he lived and also in the manner of his death. A sovereignty in which many shared in ancient times and even until the middle ages — the 'philospher', the holy men, etc. etc. They went about from door to door, begging but also watching over men, exhorting them, urging them, creating 'scandal' wherever they went. The church deemed them as heretic; nevertheless, they were a source of 'awe' (as following in Christ's path and sharing in His sovereignty) to ordinary people and had a chastening effect upon them, keeping their greed and pride in check, until———— Until the bourgeoisie came on his own. As 'work' became the arbiter of social value, the 'beggar/philosopher/holy man' became an outcaste, a good for nothing, an object of 'shame' rather than awe....
I know not everyone can be a 'beggar' ... for one thing who will feed him then? no, really. The householder, if you are familiar with one traiditon in Hinduism, is considered by it to be even more important than the wanderer, the ascetic. But, the latter too has a very important role to perform in society which our modern era has forgotten, with the result that greed, pride and many others evils go unchecked and the effects are for all to see.
I love what you've said here, N., and it's a very good reminder. I needed it.
Let me just try to explain what I'm thinking (it's difficult, because I'm not entirely clear on my own thoughts at the moment). I think there are two separate issues here. One is the right for each person to exist, and to have their role in society (the "beggar"). The other is the question of motives. (I know you don't like that word...) But I'm questioning the motives, the intent, of the photographer when she photographs the homeless. I'm not saying that a beggar should never be photographed. Quite the opposite. I've seen captivating images of homeless people, and those images brought to my mind so many thoughts and questions: what is her name? does she have children? where did she grow up? what does she believe? is she lonely? Basically, I saw the humanity and dignity of another human being. On the other hand, there are photos of homeless people that seem to only shine a spotlight on the photographer himself. THIS is where I have traveled to. THIS is what I have seen. I am an accomplished street photographer. :p
Having said all that, I realize now that it's a very subjective concept. What I see as reflecting dignity and humanity may look too sentimental to another person. What I see as glorifying the photographer (and how am I to guess his motives??) may look like a strong social commentary to another person, highlighting the mistreatment of homeless people.
I don't know.
But you did remind me of something important in your earlier comment. And I appreciate that.
Heh. You are right. I don't like the word 'motive.' In the economy of 'care', motive is not and cannot be the philosopher's main concern. Rather, his main concern is to live well, live virtuously, taking care of himself, and if he only does that, he doesn't have to worry about his motives at all. It's like when George Smiley says (in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy): "Reason as logic? or reason as motive? or reason as a way of life?" If it's the last, motives are bound to be good as well.
...But i understand your scruple. For some photographers these pictures maybe just that, a means to fame. But why should that worry you, supposing you ever want to shoot these people? Could it ever become your own motive you think? Is it even possible? And if not — for, you must know the answer to that, you must! it all depends on how you have been living — then what else? Are you afraid to 'shock' the wonderful, the respectable? Don't. These people need shocking, believe me, and badly too. heh. ;)
p.s. Now i am suddenly curious about the railroads and the sunset. What's his beef against them?
N., I don't think it would ever become my motive. I hope not. It's a slippery slope to state that one is above reproach morally, though. I think that seeking fame isn't much of an issue for me, because...it doesn't appeal to me AS MUCH as personal contentment. If I had to trade my happiness for "fame", well that's not a good deal.
I've never had an inclination for editorial photography, for the purpose of social change. Maybe it's because of my surroundings. I don't know. My interest in photography has been more of an inner journey...
And the professor censoring railroads and sunsets...well. He was just being a professor. You know, they have to make things difficult. ;-) Sometimes they eschew what they consider "mundane", but how are we supposed to learn to see what is interesting if we can't first appreciate what is mundane. (I think they can be one in the same...)
And now I realize that my original statement (in the post) is pretty much the opposite of what I'm saying now. Maybe I was on a moral high-horse? Maybe I can be led by the nose. ;-)
s a slippery slope to state that one is above reproach morally, though.
That's not what i meant. :) But as to slippery slope, i think it lies the other way...in trying to ascertain one's "motives". "Did i really need to buy all these groceries, or was it just an excuse for the quick one at the bar? But i was tired! ... Hold on! When did i think of it first? Was it at the house or the supermarket? No, no, it was at the supermarket ... But hold on a sec. more! Wasn't it—" heh. A slippery slope, indeed, as it can only lead to moral confusion and nothing else. Whereas, if i have been taking care of myself, living well and virtuously, i will never have to worry about such things. For one, i will not be as likely to make a mistake (a natural consequence of taking care of myelf.) But suppose i do — anybody can err — then i will know it. I won't have to enquire into my motives to know that. I will have erred in the sense that i'd have strayed from my assigned path, and that's all that matters. Motives can go hang themselves. ;)
...Besides, isn't there a world of difference between self-knowledge and smugness? The former is allowed only to those who take care of themselves.
Do the homeless have a right to "privatize" public spaces?
Does a couple having sex in a public park deserve "privacy" in the aversion of your eyes? If you publish photo's of them, would they win a lawsuit against you?
Once you start granting people in public spaces "private" rights... do they become permanently ceded as social customs will allow more similar behaviours?
Comments
Excuses, excuses!
Make Baltimore look interesting. THAT takes a real photographer (not me)! ;)
If poverty is so abject today and the poor so, well, poor, the rason my friend is wealth and the insatiable greed of the wealthy.
I think that if I were forced to live on the streets, and I saw a well-dressed young man with a $6,000.00 camera snapping away at me, I'd feel like quite an object at that moment. I mean, is that wealthy young photog doing anything with the images other than using them as proof to brag about his many travels? Or is he campaigning to help the poor?
I am being critical, but I think it selfish to use other people's pain to further your ambition, with no regard for your subjects.
If it's true editorial photography, it's likely part of a bigger effort to effect change, right?
------
He didn't ask
Can you not think of one man who lived like a beggar but was still thought of as the true king? I know you can. You are used to think of Him as God and the Son of God, but he was also the Son of Man, and as the Son of Man you must think of him if you want to understand this true sovereignity: naked, destitute, wandering among his people, taking care of them, chastening them, urging, in short, being a 'scandal' to one and all — yes, Christ as the Son of Man and as the true sovereign of mankind is first and foremost a 'scandal' — both in the manner he lived and also in the manner of his death. A sovereignty in which many shared in ancient times and even until the middle ages — the 'philospher', the holy men, etc. etc. They went about from door to door, begging but also watching over men, exhorting them, urging them, creating 'scandal' wherever they went. The church deemed them as heretic; nevertheless, they were a source of 'awe' (as following in Christ's path and sharing in His sovereignty) to ordinary people and had a chastening effect upon them, keeping their greed and pride in check, until———— Until the bourgeoisie came on his own. As 'work' became the arbiter of social value, the 'beggar/philosopher/holy man' became an outcaste, a good for nothing, an object of 'shame' rather than awe....
I know not everyone can be a 'beggar' ... for one thing who will feed him then? no, really. The householder, if you are familiar with one traiditon in Hinduism, is considered by it to be even more important than the wanderer, the ascetic. But, the latter too has a very important role to perform in society which our modern era has forgotten, with the result that greed, pride and many others evils go unchecked and the effects are for all to see.
Let me just try to explain what I'm thinking (it's difficult, because I'm not entirely clear on my own thoughts at the moment). I think there are two separate issues here. One is the right for each person to exist, and to have their role in society (the "beggar"). The other is the question of motives. (I know you don't like that word...) But I'm questioning the motives, the intent, of the photographer when she photographs the homeless. I'm not saying that a beggar should never be photographed. Quite the opposite. I've seen captivating images of homeless people, and those images brought to my mind so many thoughts and questions: what is her name? does she have children? where did she grow up? what does she believe? is she lonely? Basically, I saw the humanity and dignity of another human being. On the other hand, there are photos of homeless people that seem to only shine a spotlight on the photographer himself. THIS is where I have traveled to. THIS is what I have seen. I am an accomplished street photographer. :p
Having said all that, I realize now that it's a very subjective concept. What I see as reflecting dignity and humanity may look too sentimental to another person. What I see as glorifying the photographer (and how am I to guess his motives??) may look like a strong social commentary to another person, highlighting the mistreatment of homeless people.
I don't know.
But you did remind me of something important in your earlier comment. And I appreciate that.
------------
That's why Paris is easier. Personal safety.
Making Baltimore look interesting is easy. Doing it in one piece may be a different story.
...But i understand your scruple. For some photographers these pictures maybe just that, a means to fame. But why should that worry you, supposing you ever want to shoot these people? Could it ever become your own motive you think? Is it even possible? And if not — for, you must know the answer to that, you must! it all depends on how you have been living — then what else? Are you afraid to 'shock' the wonderful, the respectable? Don't. These people need shocking, believe me, and badly too. heh. ;)
p.s. Now i am suddenly curious about the railroads and the sunset. What's his beef against them?
I've never had an inclination for editorial photography, for the purpose of social change. Maybe it's because of my surroundings. I don't know. My interest in photography has been more of an inner journey...
And the professor censoring railroads and sunsets...well. He was just being a professor. You know, they have to make things difficult. ;-) Sometimes they eschew what they consider "mundane", but how are we supposed to learn to see what is interesting if we can't first appreciate what is mundane. (I think they can be one in the same...)
That's not what i meant. :) But as to slippery slope, i think it lies the other way...in trying to ascertain one's "motives". "Did i really need to buy all these groceries, or was it just an excuse for the quick one at the bar? But i was tired! ... Hold on! When did i think of it first? Was it at the house or the supermarket? No, no, it was at the supermarket ... But hold on a sec. more! Wasn't it—" heh. A slippery slope, indeed, as it can only lead to moral confusion and nothing else. Whereas, if i have been taking care of myself, living well and virtuously, i will never have to worry about such things. For one, i will not be as likely to make a mistake (a natural consequence of taking care of myelf.) But suppose i do — anybody can err — then i will know it. I won't have to enquire into my motives to know that. I will have erred in the sense that i'd have strayed from my assigned path, and that's all that matters. Motives can go hang themselves. ;)
...Besides, isn't there a world of difference between self-knowledge and smugness? The former is allowed only to those who take care of themselves.
Does a couple having sex in a public park deserve "privacy" in the aversion of your eyes? If you publish photo's of them, would they win a lawsuit against you?
Once you start granting people in public spaces "private" rights... do they become permanently ceded as social customs will allow more similar behaviours?