Homeless

[Photographiend]

:heart: The photos

 

[Photographiend]

These are technically decent shots, with a distinctive style and a specific subject matter, and they carry some of the emotional weight of that subject matter. I don't think anyone could as for anything more in a documentary project. They hit the assigned target just fine.

There are pretty serious ethical and artistic issues with photographing the homeless, and more generally the oppressed and disadvantaged.

Ethically it's pretty much impossible to do it without being essentially being complicit in their situation. Sure, you didn't make 'em poor and sick, and you even helped out with a bit of food and cash. Good onya. Nonetheless, you are converting their suffering into a grade on a project, and ultimately into part of a degree, which degree will presumably give you advantages in life. No amount of exchanged money or other atonement is going to change that fact. Now, we all oppress one another all the time, so it ain't just you, and you're not a bad person for it. But the issue's there.

The artistic problem is that everyone does this and nothing changes. We have far more pictures of homeless people rattling around out there, making whatever artistic and social statements they make, than we do actual homeless people. Ultimately these pictures don't have any impact any more except to make the viewer say "oh how sad" and -- maybe -- donate a little something to the food bank this year. Art doesn't have to drive social change, but this kind of art is frequently justified as an attempt to drive social change. Often enough that even if you haven't the slightest intention of driving social change, your photographs will tend to be interpreted as an attempt to drive change, an attempt that won't work. Pictures of the sad and ruined faces of the homeless are, whether we like it or not, all citations of one another. They smash together into one giant ethically problematic useless ball of sameness.

All that said, the photos are fine, they do what you were asked to do and they do it well. They just happen to exist in a sort of sticky corner of the world of photography.

I think it is admirable that you care so much... however, he did not make these people homeless... I think you are putting too much of the burden on him and his project.

It is not unethical in my mind to document them... would be a whole other issue if he went and made a million dollars on their images and did nothing in return for homeless people.

 

[invisible]

I think it is admirable that you care so much... however, he did not make these people homeless... I think you are putting too much of the burden on him and his project.

It is not unethical in my mind to document them... would be a whole other issue if he went and made a million dollars on their images and did nothing in return for homeless people.

It's become pretty obvious that he did it for the TPF glory. I'm glad someone was able to see through Thornley's evil intentions. I'd be ashamed if I were him if you ask me :roll:

 

[ThornleyGroves]

I think it is admirable that you care so much... however, he did not make these people homeless... I think you are putting too much of the burden on him and his project.

It is not unethical in my mind to document them... would be a whole other issue if he went and made a million dollars on their images and did nothing in return for homeless people.

It's become pretty obvious that he did it for the TPF glory. I'm glad someone was able to see through Thornley's evil intentions. I'd be ashamed if I were him if you ask me :roll:

Haha! I'm not on here often, so I presume that was a joke!

 

[weepete]

Personally I like 5, mainly due to the warmth of the guys expression. As part of the set it also stands out to me, as he's the only one smiling.

As far as the exploitation argument is concerned you can take that one to the nth degree and run around in circles all day with it. You could also apply it to any model you use or anything you take a pic of. Utlimatley it is what it is.

 

[daymon]

Realy nice photos. There is something interesting in their eyes...

 

[gw2424]

I love the photos but the processing doesn't do anything for me.

 

[runnah]

“There are no passengers on spaceship earth. We’re all crew.”
– Marshall McLuhan

 

[The_Traveler]

If I had been your University teacher this would have been a solid fail - for a couple of reasons

First, the ethical issue of using these person's difficult life and appearance as grist for a school assignment. From your comment it seems that the price of an ethical lapse is a bit of money and a bit of food.

Second, the photographer has added nothing to the images but placed them dead center and let the camera do everything else. There is no context, no thought, just blammo.

Third, the choice of lens and the excessive PPing intentionally distorts whatever their normal visage into something monstrous.

If this is your path I expect that next you will pick on mentally and physically handicapped people to 'document.'

 

[o hey tyler]

These are technically decent shots, with a distinctive style and a specific subject matter, and they carry some of the emotional weight of that subject matter. I don't think anyone could as for anything more in a documentary project. They hit the assigned target just fine.

There are pretty serious ethical and artistic issues with photographing the homeless, and more generally the oppressed and disadvantaged.

Ethically it's pretty much impossible to do it without being essentially being complicit in their situation. Sure, you didn't make 'em poor and sick, and you even helped out with a bit of food and cash. Good onya. Nonetheless, you are converting their suffering into a grade on a project, and ultimately into part of a degree, which degree will presumably give you advantages in life. No amount of exchanged money or other atonement is going to change that fact. Now, we all oppress one another all the time, so it ain't just you, and you're not a bad person for it. But the issue's there.

The artistic problem is that everyone does this and nothing changes. We have far more pictures of homeless people rattling around out there, making whatever artistic and social statements they make, than we do actual homeless people. Ultimately these pictures don't have any impact any more except to make the viewer say "oh how sad" and -- maybe -- donate a little something to the food bank this year. Art doesn't have to drive social change, but this kind of art is frequently justified as an attempt to drive social change. Often enough that even if you haven't the slightest intention of driving social change, your photographs will tend to be interpreted as an attempt to drive change, an attempt that won't work. Pictures of the sad and ruined faces of the homeless are, whether we like it or not, all citations of one another. They smash together into one giant ethically problematic useless ball of sameness.

All that said, the photos are fine, they do what you were asked to do and they do it well. They just happen to exist in a sort of sticky corner of the world of photography.

Yes, he's exploiting the homeless in the same way that photographers were exploiting the violence and suffering of a group of people in South Africa between '90-'94. Also how people in NOLA were exploited after hurricane Katrina by members of the press traveling there and taking photos of what happened to show the world.

I want to say it has a name... Photojournalism? Yeah, photojournalism. What an awful thing. No one should ever take photos of people in dire straits. Ever. I mean, why would you want to draw attention to a cause and possibly expose more people to a potential help initiative? Doesn't really make sense to me. You know, the whole helping people thing. Just sweep them under the rug and forget they exist.

OP, I like the images. I think they're very well done. Coming from a photojournalist background I can offer only this advice: "No matter how bad it gets, don't stop shooting."

 

[cgipson1]

If I had been your University teacher this would have been a solid fail - for a couple of reasons

First, the ethical issue of using these person's difficult life and appearance as grist for a school assignment. From your comment it seems that the price of an ethical lapse is a bit of money and a bit of food.

Second, the photographer has added nothing to the images but placed them dead center and let the camera do everything else. There is no context, no thought, just blammo.

Third, the choice of lens and the excessive PPing intentionally distorts whatever their normal visage into something monstrous.

If this is your path I expect that next you will pick on mentally and physically handicapped people to 'document.'

I would agree!

 

[runnah]

First, the ethical issue of using these person's difficult life and appearance as grist for a school assignment. From your comment it seems that the price of an ethical lapse is a bit of money and a bit of food.

Wrong.

I think that doing things like this humanizes a population that is often dehumanized via modern media. When you look at these photos you realize that each photo shows a person, not a pile of rags or a tax waste.

While I think the PP is heavy, I do think the subject matter is very interesting.

 

[The_Traveler]

Yes, he's exploiting the homeless in the same way that photographers were exploiting the violence and suffering of a group of people in South Africa between '90-'94. Also how people in NOLA were exploited after hurricane Katrina by members of the press traveling there and taking photos of what happened to show the world.

I want to say it has a name... Photojournalism? Yeah, photojournalism. What an awful thing. No one should ever take photos of people in dire straits. Ever. I mean, why would you want to draw attention to a cause and possibly expose more people to a potential help initiative? Doesn't really make sense to me. You know, the whole helping people thing. Just sweep them under the rug and forget they exist.

OP, I like the images. I think they're very well done. Coming from a photojournalist background I can offer only this advice: "No matter how bad it gets, don't stop shooting."

No, I disagree.
PJ is telling something, placing the faces and people in context, informing the world on something they didn't know.
This is just exploitation specifically because there is nothing more to these pictures than 'look at the grimy, worn faces. they have it really tough. Aren't you happy it isn't you? Now let me make the color grotesque so you really can put them in a different category from you.'

Andrew, as it is his customary behavior, was polite and gentle.
Luckily I'm not like that.

 

[cgipson1]

First, the ethical issue of using these person's difficult life and appearance as grist for a school assignment. From your comment it seems that the price of an ethical lapse is a bit of money and a bit of food.

Wrong.

I think that doing things like this humanizes a population that is often dehumanized via modern media. When you look at these photos you realize that each photo shows a person, not a pile of rags or a tax waste.

While I think the PP is heavy, I do think the subject matter is very interesting.

If you were in these photos??? How would you like them then?

You consider the distorted noses / features, and intentionally Gritty PP to be humanizing? I find this demeaning... emphasizing the bad, not the good! They are basically caricatures!

As in:

A caricature is a simple image showing the features of its subject in a simplified or exaggerated way. see also: politics
In literature, a caricature is a description of a person using exaggeration of some characteristics and oversimplification of others.[SUP][1][/SUP]
According to the Indian Cartoonist S. Jithesh, a caricature is the satirical illustration of a person or a thing, but a cartoon is the satirical illustration of an idea

Caricature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[runnah]

First, the ethical issue of using these person's difficult life and appearance as grist for a school assignment. From your comment it seems that the price of an ethical lapse is a bit of money and a bit of food.

Wrong.

I think that doing things like this humanizes a population that is often dehumanized via modern media. When you look at these photos you realize that each photo shows a person, not a pile of rags or a tax waste.

While I think the PP is heavy, I do think the subject matter is very interesting.

If you were in these photos??? How would you like them then?

You consider the distorted noses / features, and intentionally Gritty PP to be humanizing? I find this demeaning... emphasizing the bad, not the good! They are basically caricatures!

As in:

A caricature is a simple image showing the features of its subject in a simplified or exaggerated way. see also: politics
In literature, a caricature is a description of a person using exaggeration of some characteristics and oversimplification of others.[SUP][1][/SUP]
According to the Indian Cartoonist S. Jithesh, a caricature is the satirical illustration of a person or a thing, but a cartoon is the satirical illustration of an idea

Caricature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are we talking about the OP photos or the practice in general?

The OP's photos are mediocre and way too processed, but the subject matter is interesting.

Like I said it adds a face to a faceless issue. I do not find it exploitive in the least, maybe if their photos were being used to sell Nike's or face cream, but as a statement it is fine.