Toronto Photography Meetup Group

The discussion on whether it's "ok" to photograph the homeless got me thinking about the purposes of photography and I realized that we don't have a thread for photography theory, ethics of, purpose of and that sort of arty/academic navel gazing.

The subject of photographing the homeless is a good starting point for our theory thread, it doesn't have to be, and hopefully won't be, just about this, but, as we saw, when it occurs in a thread with the photos people get defensive and/or morally superior about their respective positions. Why?The purpose of such photography is thought and discussion is it not? Are there reasons for these positions beyond "I'm defending what I did cause I did it" and/or "it makes me uncomfortable that you did that cause I wouldn't."* Flash! by James Polchin is an essay on the voyeurism associated with certain types of photography. Although he doesn't explicitly mention the photography of homeless I do think there is a relation here. He mentions feeling "guilty...knowing that beneath [the photos] is a morbid intrigue about intruding on strangers who never consented to my lens." This, arguably, this is more poignant with the homeless or anyone in a position of weakness. The photographer becomes an intruder, observed or not, who is in a position of power to take this image, to capture someone who is unable to defend themselves because of the position of their subject. This, I think, is where the position of getting to know your subject comes from. The sniper's dishonour of not looking the person in the eye they're about to shoot. But, this is not to say there is no value in a candid photograph. A candid of a subject captures something different than a portrait of the same subject, and that something can be, and often is, altogether valid. A candid photograph, of the homeless speaks about the separation and distance we/they have from the rest of us. The photographer's unwillingness to interface closely with such a subject. From a distance it's only mildly uncomfortable while getting up close is, I think, more valuable, but it sure ain't comfortable.

* I'm being slightly polemic here to get attention because, otherwise, I fear this could be a slow moving thread with me occasionally posting essays.

I guess the answer comes down to "intended use"...are you doing it to make a few bucks for yourself, to tell a story (as in reporting news), or to aid the plight of the homeless.

There have been debates on other forums about taking pictures at funerals, including the corpse. This is something frowned at in North America because it should be a private time, there shouldn't be a camera flash going off, it's being voyeuristic or preying on those who are in mourning...but in other cultures this is the norm at a funeral, it's the only time to capture the image of certain relatives who don't or can't otherwise attend family events. Even photographing the corpse, some family members want that final moment where their loved one is resting peacefully forever more.

And then you can get into debates like, "Ghouls Took Photos Of Dying Suicide Girl"...there was a story on Aug. 11 of this year about people photographing a 13 year old girl as she was dying. See:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Robyn-Nixon-Inquest-Coroner-Blasts-Members-Of-the-Public-For-Taking-Photos-of-Dying-Girl/Article/201008215681633?f=vg

You can find snuff movies online, movies of public executions, pictures of suicides...how many times have we seen the Challenger space shuttle explode on TV, or the planes going into buildings where there is video of it? When we watch a building burn we are seeing someone's life go up in smoke, even if there's no loss of life. How many people turn their heads when driving past a car crash? All voyeurs!

There are photobooks out there like, "Car Crashes and Other Sad Stories" by Mell Kirkpatrick,
http://www.amazon.com/Car-Crashes-Other-Stories-Photobook/dp/3822864110?tag=citofgamonlco-20

or "Death Scenes: A Homicide Detective's Scrapbook" by Sean Tejaratchi:
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Scenes-Homicide-Detectives-Scrapbook/dp/0922915296?tag=citofgamonlco-20

If you watch the news, or read a newspaper you're a voyeur, learning about other people's lives. You have to make up your own mind how much of it is ethical and how far is too far.

Photographing the homeless in my opinion is such a starting point in terms of putting the photographer in a situation where they have to decide to take the shoot or not. What about all the war photographers in the world? They make the choice every time they step out to be the voyeur of tough situations. They stand by as people get shot or as children come into harms way.

Yet, it's important to share the stories of those on the front line. We give them a voice. We tell the stories of those who cannot speak for themselves or don't have the ability to get their story out.
Which is the same as photographing a homeless person. You are giving them a voice. Instead of ignoring the fact that homelessness exists, you can confront it in a moral manner and share their images, their stories. Even if you just show the images to fellow photographers to say hey look at whats going on, you might make a difference.

If we as artists or photographers, or even just as people, always felt so uncomfortable that we never shot anything that might be viewed as wrong or made other people uncomfortable then we as people would never grow. Never learn that these issues exist.

I couldn't find the link to the actual story but I remember hearing about a photojournalist who was in the war in Iraq and she was photographing this young girl while men with guns took over her street. She then stood by(still shooting) and watched the little girl get shot. She won an award for the photograph instead of saving the girl.

It's also very personal, the choice we as photographers make each time we use our camera.There's no clear line as to what is acceptable to shoot
and what isn't. We simple have to make that choice for ourselves each time we pick up the camera.

Watch this video if you doubt photojournalism can't be for the good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkyFQ97Orzc

better still watch the whole series.

Kevin Carter committed suicide a few months after taking that pulitzer prize winning photo of the vulture stalking a child crawling towards a UN food camp. I wouldn't dare say that the photo or the fact that he left the scene right after taking the photo was a direct cause of his death, but it's definitely something to think about.

Another photographer could have shot that photo, walked away, won the prize and lived a completely content and happy life, enjoying all of the benefits that come along with being an award winning photographer.

Personally I don't think its my right to judge a photographer for the circumstances in which the photo was taken or what happens to the subject after the fact. A photo is 1/100th (depending on your shutter speed ) of a second of time and space. We cannot presume what the circumstances around that 1/100th are.

I can only look at my own conscience and make the decision to take a photo or not. A book publisher, or Pulitzer panel is definitely not going to do it for me. If I don't feel guilty for taking a certain photo, then I'm OK with that, no matter what anyone else who sees it says, they weren't there, I was.

Wow Very powerful stuff there. I almost cried there Remind me of my homeland in a way

Thanks for sharing Ryan. He is definitely one of a kind.

I don't know if this is really on topic but I will rant anyway.

We have all heard the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. Now days I think the saying has to modernized to: In this modern digital age a single picture is worth a blink of an eye.

Just like much of the work that use to be done by professional photographers has been replaced by masses, the value of a single photo has been diluted. Masterpieces are still being produced but for the most part we don't value or the story in a single photo has been lost because of the high level of noise.

More and more photojournalism is mostly just a snapshot of the moment, presented to the public on the same or next day. There is little or no research or analysis, instant in instant out.

When talking about the ethics of a photographer maybe we shouldn't just look at single images but look at a body of work.

Maybe the saying should be changed to:

A picture and a thousand words is worth 10,000 words
or
One picture is worth 100 words

These days "Short Docs" puts the meaning back into photojournalism.

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/10/ ... congo.html

^agree

as information and images (read content) become more abundant and 'free' the challenge is to contextualize this content... organizations like the NYT, Economist (in the past and to an extent currently) and now the Huffington Post - contextualize images, stories, video etc...

photojournalism never stood alone on the strength of an image or series of images, NatGeo, Life, NYT etc... elevated still images to photojournalism by utilizing words (as simple as a caption or as far as a full blown investigative piece) to contextualize the image(s)...


working photographers who aspire to inform, educate and share their views are turning to video to add context to their images and in some cases to replace the still image altogether since video is a better media for contextualizing imagery...