Opinions about exploitation
I figure Ill ask about it here because I think if youre willing to commit to LF, you probably have a good emotional investment in photography as well. How do you guys feel about taking pictures of people that you find interesting. Say on a street or in a bar, donut shop, etc. Is it right or wrong to approach someone and ask to take their picture because they have some kind of quirk or something that makes them stand out? How interesting would the pictures of people like Diane Arbus, Shelby Lee Adams, Alec Soth, Walker Evans, Chris Verene, Bruce Davidson, Eugene Richards, etc be without at least some of the pictures being about people who dont fit into the cookie cutter mold of an ideal american? I know their pictures greatness is much more than some kind of spectacle of the different, but it they are definitely a part of what makes those pictures good, so...is it right or wrong? How do you guys deal with the exploitation of peoples images?
Opinions about exploitation
I guess it all depends, the master of exploitation is Witkin IMO. Remove the dead or mishapen bodies and you got left with nothing. Yet some people think of him as a genious...go figure!
Being born in Mexico I am sick an tired of seeing tourists take pictures of beggars and street performers. There is a whole more to Mexico than beggars and in the case of Bertrand a trash landfill.
Compare Witkin's photographs with Eugene Smith's photographs of Mercury poisoning in Japan, one if exploitation the other is documentation done with sensitivity and respect. Like art, I know it when I see it... :-)
Opinions about exploitation
The exploitation is not in taking the pictures, but in how they are used.
Opinions about exploitation
if the person is pissed off that you are taking the picture, I dont want to see it and it shouldnt be taken IMO. Respecting other people comes before photography. There are plenty of quirky people who will agree to be photographed.
Witkin is repulsive.
Opinions about exploitation
"I know their pictures greatness is much more than some kind of spectacle of the different, but it they are definitely a part of what makes those pictures good, so...is it right or wrong? How do you guys deal with the exploitation of peoples images?"
In the case of Shelby Lee Adams you are not looking at pictures of an outsider nor do I think his subjects are exploited by his point of view. IIRC, Shelby is from Hazzard County, Kentucky and is taking pictures of friends, neighbors, and relatives. He is a participant in their lives as much as they are subjects in his photographs.
I took a workshop from him several years ago and found his pictures and tales fascinating. He handles serpents with the same finesse as view cameras.
And thank God for people like Gene Richards who show us what life is like outside of "cookie-cutter" America.
Personally, I think conformity can be more disturbing. I get the shakes whenever I see an Abercrombie & Fitch clone.
In my own images I'm very upfront with the subjects about why I'm taking the images and what I hope to realize. Most of them are cool with that. If not, just move along.
Opinions about exploitation
Very interesting topic: as was said earlier, I feel it depends on what is done with the images afterwards and the photographers intent. If its only about "filthy lucre" I'm sure that there is circle of hell just for people who exploit others misery. I myself have been very tempted to use my access to convalecent and alzheimers facilities, I have family members in both, to document the lives of the people there. I haven't done so yet because I question my own intent! Would it be to draw the attention necessary for oue society to take better care of the less fortunate? To show the humanity that still exsists there however broken they are physically? OR to feed my own passion for a "cause" or worse yet for personal recognition!!!! I think about it then say nah! i aint gonna do it.
Opinions about exploitation
I agree with Bill and Jorge. Its all about one's motivation; why is the picture taken and what is done with it afterward. I don't do many pictures with people at all, in a small part because I don't ever want anyone to feel that they are being exploited, paraded in front of the world with others saying "Oh, aren't those people provencial!", or "How quaint and unenlighted". I feel many of the pictures seen these days of the Amish are taken for amusement. Smith's series on the mercury poisoning was full of dignity and respect. And it got the point across.
There's a fellow in our area that hasn't driven a car in over 40 years. He travels everywhere on his old Farmall tractor with no cab, just a canvas windbreak on the front. He cut the utility lines to his house and uses a small generator to power the refrigerator and a few lights. He would make a highly interesting story on the subject of independance. But I think everyone in the community, including myself, would feel such a story, and pictures, would be exploitive of him.
Some things are better left alone. Like Jorge says, look beyond the obvious.
Opinions about exploitation
You mean like this?
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BZ64
Does the world really need another mediocre picture of a smiling "peasant girl"?
And when she let her picture be taken, did she realise it was going to be published for hundreds, possibly a couple of thousand or more people to view her as a living cliche on somewhere like photo.net?
What is the point apart from some meagre instant gratifaction for the photographer
Opinions about exploitation
Interesting. I wonder how A. Sander's work fits in to all this? I was at a home for dying destitutes run by the Sisters of Charity awhile back and was asked not to photograph the patients---and I didn't. Misery isn't something I'd shoot, but I could see a documentary "reason" for it given the right set of circumstances. I can't see any honor in exploitation however.
Opinions about exploitation
Paddy Quinn qrote:
>You mean like this?
>http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BZ64
>Does the world really need another mediocre picture of a smiling "peasant girl"?
While we may not need "another smiling peasant girl," I don't find this photo exploitive. What differences are being exploited? How is she being marginalized or used for profit? Could it be perhaps that there is gratification for the subject as well as the photographer?
I do agree that the photo is mediocre. But, I don't see or feel exploitation. On the other hand, Jorge's point is very valid. There is more to Mexico than beggars and street performers.
Take a look at http://www.thomasadaniel.com/
While many of these people are marginalized by society, history, and time; that doesn't make the photographs exploitive.