Homless Shelter wants Photographer with no Ethics?

[unpopular]

I have no idea what I think they'd want me to take. All I said was what I wasn't willing to do.

[Ads]

[kundalini]

What assessment?? If the shelter wanted a photographer that sought to humanize the subject, then I wouldn't have been difficult. This is only an issue if they wanted a photographer who didn't mind taking exploitive images. How is that an agenda?

Assessment, the action or an instance of assessing. Assess, to determine the importance, size or value of;
Agenda, an underlying often ideological plan or program

[unpopular]

Like I keep saying, I have no opinion about what the shelter wanted, only what their lack of response means to me.

[The_Traveler]

Although I agree with your POV about the homeless, my reaction would have been that same as the shelter' which was to file your application in the round file.
Life is too short and too difficult to purposefully hire someone who has a bone to pick before he/she starts.

[rgregory1965]

Popcorn anyone


popcorn.jpg

[unpopular]

^^ no doubt, huh?

[Bitter Jeweler]

I like to think, after recieving your response to their ad, that they are all sitting around discussing what a D-canoe you must be...and having a good laugh.

It's safe for them to assume that, right?

[The_Traveler]

For a few years I was in the position where I was hiring people directly and I always treasured the cover letters which told me, indirectly of course, just how much of a PITA I could expect them to be. It saved on interviews.
Their goal was, explicitly or not, to march around with a flaming torch doing their definiton of good.
My idea for their goal was that they do the job, on time, give me good feedback and generally make my life easier, not harder.

Flaming torches set off the sprinklers.

[unpopular]

Once again. If they saw my letter as a PITA, then I'm ok with their response.

[durhamskywriter]

i'm late entering the arena, as i haven't visited this forum for a year or so. as has been asked before, i'd really like an answer to the question how the two portraits would differ—your (unpopular's) view and the perceived view of the shelter. here's why: i was 12 years old when i got 'serious' about photography. i took the bus downtown with the intent of showing how the big city looks before the workers arrive and came across a disheveled-looking person lying on a park bench surrounded by old, tattered bags full of stuff. the person was sound asleep so i had time to think about what i was going to do. this was way back in the 1960s and the word "homeless" wasn't even in use yet. i stood there, thinking, for the longest time. on one hand i felt that it was a cowardly act to photograph someone who might have protested had he been aware that i was going to take his picture. i also wondered if i was taking a "souvenir" shot and thus exploiting this person. i had no working knowledge of the press and wouldn't have known how to use the photo to illustrate the plight of homeless people. i pondered whether i should take the photo for what seemed hours. finally, i decided not to take the photo and walked away. but i still think about that day and wonder if i made the best decision. (this might sound far more dramatic to you, but for me, it was a defining moment on how i viewed people and the role of photographers.) i still think that i made the right decision. i knew that i'd be taking a picture of a homeless person simply because he was homeless.

i've grown up, and i now realize that i can—and have—taken photos of homeless people. the difference is, i'm taking a photo of mr brown or mrs smith. what i'm trying to capture is the humanity of the person without dwelling on whether they're homeless. in fact, i don't even think that it's important to even mention that they're homeless unless it's necessary for the story. but if i were hired to take photos for our local homeless shelter, i'd approach the assignment with the same attitude. at this time in my life, i don't think it's possible to take a photo of a person, homeless or not, and not explore his or her humanity.

[unpopular]

I'm only saying this once:

1) I HAVE NO PERCEIVED VIEW OF WHAT THE SHELTER WANTED. ONLY THAT OF WHAT I WAS UNWILLING TO DO.

2) YOU CANNOT PREDICT HOW A PORTRAIT SHOULD BE WITHOUT FIRST MEETING THE SUBJECT.

3) I ACKNOWLEDGE I APPROACHED THIS PROJECT WRONG, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE LACK OF RESPONSE STILL INDICATES SOMETHING TO ME.

4) IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO READ WHAT THE OP SAYS BEFORE ASSUMING WHAT THEY MEAN.

[durhamskywriter]

no, you've said it more than once. too bad you're not able to deal with this subject with any sensitivity. i guess i wouldn't want to hire you either. i can see you going to a job interview and saying, "um, i don't know what you're looking for, what the job description is, the hours, what the dress code is, or when the job even starts, but … no way i'm gonna do that!" LOL! good luck with whatever it is you do.

[unpopular]

what the hell does that mean?

I can't believe how much this thread has been warped around, all over the fact that I refuse to exploit an individual to represent all homelessness.

[unpopular]

no way i'm gonna do that!

Yeah well, I wouldn't. Period.

If they, or any one else for that matter, has a problem with it then I'm just not the guy for the job. I just don't see why I'm the bad guy here because I have actual integrity. If they or you or anyone else cannot see the problem I'd have with these images:

homeless_guy.jpg
homeless-man.jpg
homeless-guy.jpg
homeless-guy.jpg
640px-Homeless_guy_on_Yonge_Street.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/geremology/29859293/


Then I am not sure what else to say.

[IByte]

So what you trying say conviction over profit. If you are working for them you want to have some artistic control, and retain some of their(homeless) dignity. Sounds reasonable to me.