Photographing the homeless...

[BradS]

I have been trying to find words to say what Brian has just said. I cannot however.

I am very glad that you posted your photo of the homeless man and I am disappointed, not surprised however, at the harsh criticism it has elicited.


This discussion has brought forward many old difficult memories that I would rather not entertain. Even so, I've given much thought to the whole thing today....and though I cannot, at present, put those thoughts into words, I can tell you emphatically that there is nothing wrong with your photo and if people have a problem with it, that is their problem - not yours.

Thanks for posting.

[paulr]

I like rdenney's points very much. In a sense, they suggest questions we should consider any time we're photographing people. What is our real motivation? To what degree is the subject a partner in this endeavor? To what degree are we taking advantage of power bestowed on us by our social rank, by circumstance, by the camera, by control of the editing?

I don't think that categorically any subject should be off limits. But some, due to the extreme potential for exploitation, need to be considered more carefully than others.

The idea that we're always doing good by showing social injustice is a little suspect. What are you showing that people don't already know? Are you really fighting it, or just using as a genre? But the notion that we should never benefit from someone else's misfortune also deserves examination. Surely Robert Capa benefited from his war photography (before it killed him); Walker Evans benefited from the FSA project. But these photographers were clearly doing something that transcended opportunism.

What does it take to to transcend opportunism? I don't have a quick answer, but I suspect it requires asking hard questions about your motives and also the likely effects of your work.

1. Don't expect their desires to be consistent with their principles or statements of principle, any more than our desires are always consistent with our principles. It must be recognized that many homeless people demonstrate larger disparity there than those who are not homeless.

2. Don't expect all homeless people to be the same in their opinions and attitudes. One can find those who suffered unexpected calamity and ended up homeless without intent, imprisoned by circumstance, and the word "homeless" really applies. They are like those who have a home, except that they don't. There are also those who are imprisoned by choice, and spend those dollars within minutes at the nearest bar. We used to use a particular term for them, without remorse or guilt--"bum." And surely there are those who choose to be homeless as a means of not being imprisoned, equating the responsibilities of this world to a ball and chain. I suspect the word "hobo" applies there reasonably, at least in hindsight. Finally, there are those who would rather solicit and accept gifts from strangers than live in the ordered world, and for them the appropriate term seems to be "beggar", though those from any of these categories are often beggars. And there are many who wander between categories from moment to moment for reasons they may not even know themselves and can't or won't express.

3. Photographers should check their motives. Are we making a photo just because photos of homeless people make us look politically relevant or sensitive? Are we making a photo because the current aesthetic all too often favors images of people in unhappy circumstances? Pretending to be Henri Cartier-Bresson is probably as cliche as pretending to be Ansel Adams, except that the pretty rocks don't complain or require a model release. I'm sure there are photographers who believe deeply in understanding and portraying homeless people with dignity and honesty and when they make photos, they have a purpose for doing so that becomes evident either in the photo or in the accompanying story.

[dperez]

I agree with the general thrust of what Denis has said. It seems the dilemma lies in the interpretation of ethical standards. I would be a bit put off by seemingly exploitative photographs of homeless people as well. Especially if there are no details provided by the photographer.

However, I believe there can be great use in photographing homeless people or other under-represented/ignored people that more or less live “invisible” lives, to borrow a term from Ralph Ellison.

Photographs of natural landscapes by William H. Jackson eventually led to the creation of Yellowstone National Park. Dorothea Lange brought attention to the plight of migrants, child laborers, and Japanese internment camp prisoners, Walker Evans documented the effect of the Great Depression on working people. Stephen McCurry’s photos have generated attention and humanitarian action towards the conditions of Afghan refugees, the cultural and political struggles of Tibetans, and the list goes on. I need not mention the contributions of Henri Cartier-Bresson. Even Richard Avedon’s In the American West series, has provided the public with an opportunity to look at working people from a different perspective—arguably, a class perspective.

I doubt that in many of these cases the photographers had time to get to know their subjects as well as they would have liked. Dorothea Lange’s famous photograph of Florence Thompson as the “migrant mother,” while significant as a commentary on depression era conditions, had ethical consequences as well (See Geoffrey Dunn, 2002).

Avedon was very conscious of the idea of a need for a deeper interaction or an investment with his subjects, as has been documented in many interviews, and his many return visits to the people he photographed as part of the In the American West project. In the end, he did feel as though there was an element of exploitation in his photographs, and I believe that lingered in the back of his mind for many years.

So, I think it’s a tricky subject. The ethical boundaries of photography are not so easily defined. There are situations, such as the Florence Thompson case, where the social and cultural impact of a photograph may, in hindsight, outweigh ethical considerations.

I think this is an interesting topic and I thank the OP for writing about it.

[al olson]

Thank you dperez for bringing this paper to my attention. Was this Ms. Lange's modus operandi? Was she typically this brash and brazen with her subjects? It seems that with her interaction with Ms. Thompson there was a certain amount of audacity and perhaps arrogance as well. This photograph, while extremely moving, caused Ms. Thompson a great deal of discomfort throughout her life and for each time it resurfaced.

I have always had difficulty sticking my camera in someone's face and violating their space as done by Cartier Bresson and apparently by Dorthea Lange. While I am comfortable photographing strangers in groups, I do not like to single people out as subjects of my interest. This aversion also applies to the homeless.

While living in the DC area I had ample opportunities to photograph the homeless sleeping on the ventilation grates of the Federal buildings. Many predawn excursions to photograph Baltimore's Inner Harbor I found homeless sleeping on the benches and in sleeping bags along the walls. If I were to take such a candid photograph (surreptitiously perhaps), no matter how compelling it might be, what do I accomplish by hanging it on a wall?

On the other hand, if the homeless person is befriended and agrees to pose, the result would be artificial. Again, even if I were likely to befriend this person, I would avoid taking the photo. I agree with Denis, it seems exploitative, even if you are paying them to pose. In the end such photographs no longer are needed heighten our awareness of the homeless problem. We see it all around us from the many causes as pointed out by Mr. Denney.

Even if such a photo has a nice "character" aspect, has anyone who has ever photographed a homeless person given a nice "portrait" print to their subject?

[dperez]

Al,

I think the primary difference between Dorothea Lange, and say, your everyday photographer trying to make a social documentary piece (and I say that with no intention of offending anyone), is that it was explicitly what Dorothea Lange was there to do. She worked for the government under the Federal Resettlement Administration and the Farm Security Administration, and her charge was to document the conditions of migrants, agricultural workers, and later Japanese internment camps as a photographer for the War Relocation Authority.

I don’t think that she was as brash and uncaring as the article made it seem. In other articles that I read, it was revealed that Florence Thompson thought that Dorothea Lange had made a ton of money off her photographs, which was not the case. Lange was not taking these pictures for her own personal gain, in fact she wrote rather detailed accounts of her efforts and how much she was troubled by the plight of many of her subjects. Lange was committed to bringing attention to the conditions of people who could not do the same for themselves.

My point was simply that there are ethical dilemmas inherent in any attempt to construct social documentaries. It is no less of an ethical issue to portray images of the homeless (as a social commentary) as being happy and satisfied with their position in life, than it is to heighten the awareness of their condition by portraying their condition as grim.

I think it’s easy to be judgmental of the actions of social documentarians, especially in hindsight. I don’t believe Dorothea Lange knew how powerful that photograph would be, just as Steve McCurry couldn't anticipate at the moment how much of an impact the famous Afghan Girl photo would have.

[Allen in Montreal]

......


Even if such a photo has a nice "character" aspect, has anyone who has ever photographed a homeless person given a nice "portrait" print to their subject?

Yes, often.

I have even been given an mailing address for the person's mother and asked if I would mail the print to "mom".
Which I did.

[Chris Dunham]

I've not read this thread but just sampled a couple of the first posts.

Personally I was not at all comfortable with the image and situation but I do not wish to sensor the photographers work in any way.

It is very clear that the person in the image is being put down, there is no dignity in that portrayal - perhaps that is it's value ?

Chris.

[neil poulsen]

I see nothing wrong with photographing a homeless person. What could be wrong depends on what you are doing with the photo. If you are looking to profit from it, then you need to document the person's information and pay them for their services like any other model. If you are a hobby photographer or if the photo is not used for profit, then go ahead and shoot away, and get whatever release or documentation you need. A photo is just a capture of light at some point in time. For all I'm concerned, it is just a data point in the archive of life. It is society that puts meaning to that, and society is free to argue over social injustices and what-not, but the image itself is a separate entity.

I think that it depends on the photograph. The homeless are at a disadvantage; they don't have a lot of money. Depending on the photograph, what can be at stake is their dignity. Will they compromise their dignity and also sign a release to get some cash? Very possibly, especially if they haven't eaten in a while. But, is this right?

I have an excellent photograph of what I suspect were two homeless men. They were having a discussion in front of a really neat building. I approached them and asked if I could photograph them. They gave their permission. I felt this photograph showed them in a positive light, versus in some stereotypical pose of despair that we sometimes associate with the homeless.

It's interesting. I volunteer for an organization that supports homeless kids. In that setting, one can be back and forth friendly and joke around and kid with one of these youth. But, if they see you walking near them on a sidewalk, I've seen them turn their back. They have their dignity. The streets are their home, and I wonder if approaching them (with or without a camera) isn't akin to walking through someone's front door without an invitation?

We all have feelings, of course. I think that any time we interact with the homeless, we need to be especially aware of what they might be feeling, especially given the disadvantages that they face.

[Allen in Montreal]

...........

It is very clear that the person in the image is being put down, there is no dignity in that portrayal - perhaps that is it's value ?

Chris.

Dear Chris,

With all due respect, I disagree.

The one known truth about the image and it's message, is that his message will never be known because the photographer did not communicate with the man enough to understand the implications of his gesture.

Is he flipping the bird to the cheap photographer?

Is he making a statement about the values of society, dollars before lives and how it always comes down to the all powerful Buck!

We will never know and can only guess based on our biases towards the subject.

This is a significant issue among street photographers. There are three problems, the first having to do with ethics and propriety, especially when money changes hands, the second being that these photographs are easy to do and a dime a dozen, and the third being an absence, except in the context of a thought-out documentary project, of any apparent aesthetic or even political purpose. Experienced street photographers won't do them; just check out the street photography fora on the internet, where this kind of thing is looked on with disdain. What's a little different about this one is that the subject's decision to hold up the dollar bill can be construed as giving the finger to the photographer. Just look at the expression on his face.

...........

I read something else on another forum, where it was said literally:
"Taking photos of the homeless is like clubbing a lame duck. Where's the sport in that?"

Perhaps a bit too blunt, but close to my own sentiments

You can NOT document the streets of your city, capture the heart and soul of your city, without addressing homelessness, but......

If you view it as a sport, please stay away from the subject.

If you are shooting and running, please stay away from the subject.

If you are willing to give the subject the same respect you give your kid's teacher, your doctor, your lawyer, the man who packs your bags at the grocery, the same basic respect that every human deserves, the time spent with a homeless may surprise you!


The "lame duck" hunting street shooters should find a homeless, spend time over a year with him/her and have an exhibit of the work, with all sales going to a local shelter.

They may change their "club hunting" views on the subject.

[Brian Ellis]

There are various categories of homeless people. Some are homeless because they prefer to live the way they live - no responsibilities, no boss, no place they have to be and no time they have to be there, etc. Others are homeless because they made choices to drink and drug earlier in their lives. Others are mentally ill for reasons unrelated to drinking and drugs. Others - a small minority IMHO - are homeless because things happened to them that were beyond their control, lost a job, houses foreclosed, etc. And in truth some are fakes - you might be amazed at how much money can be made by begging, at least I was when people in a position to know told me (e.g. the "homeless" person who gets his hair cut by my barber and who drives up in his 2008 Ford Expedition). There are probably other categories or sub-categories of these that don't immediately come to mind.

Since I have no way of knowing which category any particular homeless person falls into, and since the degree to which I'm exploiting them vs the degree to which they're exploiting me depends on the category, when photographing them I wouldn't give any special thought to the fact that they're supposedly "homeless." I'd treat them like any other human subject. I'd photograph them with their permission and I'd pay them something like I'd pay any other model. If I didn't want to or couldn't get their permission I wouldn't photograph them.