Homeless

[pixmedic]

Why don't you give the link to this thread to your lecturers and let them respond?

good form.. i would LOVE to hear the professors opinion on these photos, as well as the responses to them. I would also like to see what the grade given for this assignment is.

 

[The_Traveler]

Yes, it was sarcasm. There's a small but active group of people around here that will only find faults in the work that's posted. It doesn't really make a difference what the subject matter or the technical skill or the level of artistry are – you just know that if they find your thread their feedback is going to be negative. To make things even more amazing, the photography of some of these people is – for the most part – underwhelming. If they liked some photos and disliked others (like the vast majority of us), then I wouldn't be writing this. But the fact that they seem to dislike 99.9% of other people's photos is what bugs me. Yes, your processing might be a bit heavy-handed and undoubtedly some of the subjects seem distorted, and I can understand people bringing that up. But to question your intentions by just looking at your photos? That's just too much.

A couple years ago there was a poster here that was out of control in his negative criticism of other people's work. Some of the regulars back then (me included) left the forum because of him. In my case I can't even claim that he provided me with his "feedback" – he never posted on any of my threads. But the environment he created with his posts was so toxic that is still resulted in me leaving for a year or two. Others never returned. What's going on around here these days is nowhere near as bad as it was back then, but the similarities are obvious.

I call total passive-aggressive bull-crap on this.
I look back at the comments here and I don't see negative ones that are based on anything but people's well meant and reasoned opinions.
No one seems to be taking baseless shots.

I do see people 'liking' the images without explanation - that is, afaic, even more useless.
I do see this kind of comment quoted above as saying, in effect, 'don't listen to those negative guys, I'm on your side and what I say is meaningful.'
Characterizing the negative comments as being from people whose work is 'underwhelming' is just a backhanded way of trying to make their opinion less important - and thus aggrandize one's own.

Whatever criticism is, if it seems sensible and resonates with the OP then he might consider it.
Reason-less praise might feel good but should be ignored.

As for the idea that one has to be better than the maker to offer sensible critique; if so then photography is the only art form that sets that bar for critics.
It is a silly, even stupid, concept.
Are Susan Sontag or AD Coleman not able critics because they aren't good photographers?
Whatever someone's ability to create photographs, it is their insight as to why or why not a photograph works for them that is important and useful.

 

[invisible]

I do see this kind of comment quoted above as saying, in effect, 'don't listen to those negative guys, I'm on your side and what I say is meaningful.'
Characterizing the negative comments as being from people whose work is 'underwhelming' is just a backhanded way of trying to make their opinion less important - and thus aggrandize one's own.

I'm not going to waste your time, my time, and everybody else's time replying in detail to your post. I'll just focus on your comment I quoted above and say that I've been posting here for years and never, EVER, tried to do anything like the stuff you're accusing me of. Past behaviour is normally a predictor of future behaviour, so there's a good chance that your inference is wrong. The individuals I mentioned in my post, on the other hand, have been doing this ever since they joined the forum. A few people have already started calling them out. I occasionally have blasted them too – I don't want the same crap that happened here in the past to happen again.

No one's opinion is less important, and dressing one's opinion up with fancy words doesn't make that opinion any more important than an "I like it". If someone can't back their constant, unrelenting negative criticism of other people's work with the quality of their own work, then their credibility is non-existent. And even if their work were flat-out perfect, if someone incessantly posts negative crap then it's only a matter of time until the rest of us become fed up.

In case it needs to be said, I wasn't necessarily referring to you in my post.

EDIT: One more thing: one of these days I'm going to quote one of these people's critiques and post it verbatim as feedback to one of their own photos. I think it will help illustrate my point well.

 

[tirediron]

Okay Everyone, there's no problem with a healthy debate on the merits of exploitation or non-exploitation, BUT let's keep it professional and objective shall we?

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

In case it needs to be said, I wasn't necessarily referring to you in my post.

EDIT: One more thing: one of these days I'm going to quote one of these people's critiques and post it verbatim as feedback to one of their own photos. I think it will help illustrate my point well.

I see you as a very neutral character who I've never seen caught in anything like this. I'm VERY curious to see whom you speak of and citations of said inflammatory posts. Probably before I was an active member here.

 

[invisible]

Majeed, check your Flickr PMs.

 

[Rafterman]

I just read through all 5 pages of this thread, and felt the need to add my 2-cents. To be up front, I like the pictures. Though over-processed to a certain extent, they accomplish their goal IMHO. I like the more "natural" ones that were re-posted even better. From an ethical standpoint, you could have one of many different views. However, this is real life. The OP obviously asked these people for a photo and provided a small compensation to them. He also spent some time talking with them, which is frequently all these people need to make their day. It makes them feel wonderful to have someone ask their name and be willing to listen to their stories, no matter the reason. Could you photograph them digging in the trash or shuffling down the street? Sure, but when you talk with them, when they pose for their picture with the most honest face imaginable, THEN you are capturing the most powerful image you could ever hope to get.

As someone who donates monthly to the Raleigh Rescue Mission, I can attest to how moving images of the less fortunate can really be. There is nothing wrong with showing the truth in life though, as these pictures depict. Not everyone will like every picture. Not everyone agrees on shooting with a certain technique, method, or style. However, that's why art is what it is and why it's so appealing to so many people. There truly is something for everyone, and it makes us all feel emotions of one kind or another. Even if you truly hate someone's creation though, regardless of the reason, respect it for what it is: their own personal interpretation of the world.

 

[amolitor]

Sontag wrote a pretty good book about these issues, Regarding the Pain of Others which should probably be required reading for anyone who wants to make these kinds of photographs. It's far from the last word on the subject, and as is usual with Sontag it's not all right. But it's thought provoking, which is kind of the point.

Basically she says a few things that made sense to me:

- making images of suffering doesn't actually do much to stop suffering.
- much of the time the effect of a glut of images of a specific kind of suffering is to dull our response to that suffering.
- .. except sometimes not, which is odd.

Photographs in general, and thus also photographs of suffering, tend to support our existing prejudices. Mostly, people's minds are not changed by photographs, rather their mind tends to be made more firmly made up. Some photos of homeless dudes might make you take some cans of food to the shelter this week, but it's pretty unlikely that they're going to change your behavior in the long term, and so far despite the millions of them that have been made the homeless problem seems to remain unsolved.

People have made photo essays, and bodies of paintings and etchings and so on, with the explicit and stated objective of putting an end to war. By showing us, right up close and personal, the horror of war, the artist felt that there was simply no way war could go on. SURELY people would SEE and would CHANGE?!! In fact, what happens is that we see, we shudder, and we gives thanks that it's not us, and we keep on goin' on. Images of war prove only that the bad guys are evil and we must go to any length to stop them. Images of the homeless inspire us to not rock the boat, to not drive change, to retain the status quo because -- as of now -- we're not homeless. Sure, they also inspire the opposite desire, the desire to help. But both desires are present. And nothing changes.

All of this simply comes down to this: If you take a bunch of pictures of homeless people, and then claim that while you are being exploitive, it's for the greater good of creating change for the better, you're basically wrong. That's a cloak of virtue that doesn't cover it, although you may be forgiven for imagining that it does.

Only very very rarely do images drive true change, and when they do it is invariably because the pictures makes it into the hands of a skilled propagandist, AND the time is already ripe for change. The picture is only a small element of a larger campaign that tips a population ready to be tipped over into a new point of view.

Again, I should be clear: Taking pictures of homeless people doesn't make you a bad person. Lots of perfectly decent people do it and have done it. Once or twice it even successfully created social change, but you are most likely not Dorothea Lange, and you most definitely do not have Roy Stryker as your boss.

 

[invisible]

Back to the drawing board, Thornley.

 

[The_Traveler]

To some degree, taking pictures of the homeless is like selective color or vignetting. A relatively new photographer discovers that he or she can produce an effect which is different and, to them, new and powerful and in their naivete assume that it is new and powerful to everyone.

It is deflating and difficult to hear and accept that what one believes he or she has discovered and prizes is really rather trite and overdone. Whereas as excess vignetting or selective color is merely laughable, taking pictures of the homeless can be seen as unethical, offensive and insensitive. And to someone who believes that he or she is making 'art', being accused, no matter how gently, of being any of those things is a real slap in the kisser.

Well, that is the way it works.

 

[Photographiend]

I personally think Portraits shots of Homeless people are different and refreshing. Portraying something that is so taboo some people believe it shouldn't be photographed at all, (homelessness) as beautiful, human and misunderstood... that is what I see here.

Seeing that inherent beauty in the world around you and trying to translate that beauty in a way that other people will be able to recognize. Even if the pieces originally posted were over processed, the concept alone to me is just seems like the exact opposite of exploitation. Like taking a moment to show others how relatable these people really are. The ones they walk past trying not to make eye contact with. Ignoring them on the side of the street in the cold on their way to work or standing in front of their grocer.

Part of art is being able to create something that touches other people. I would say this does. And as portraits it shows them as the person rather than the Homeless.

 

[kundalini]

I like the way Hooligan Dan approached the subject of Homeless. Thornley, if PJ is something you're interested and want to capture the impact of homelessness has on people, have a look at his thread.

The photos begin on post #21.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...y/159471-sacramento-s-homeless-tent-city.html

 

[manaheim]

Amolitor... while I don't entirely agree with all of your points, I appreciate your thoughtful and thought-provoking remarks on this topic.

I personally think Portraits shots of Homeless people are different and refreshing. Portraying something that is so taboo some people believe it shouldn't be photographed at all, (homelessness) as beautiful, human and misunderstood... that is what I see here.

Seeing that inherent beauty in the world around you and trying to translate that beauty in a way that other people will be able to recognize. Even if the pieces originally posted were over processed, the concept alone to me is just seems like the exact opposite of exploitation. Like taking a moment to show others how relatable these people really are. The ones they walk past trying not to make eye contact with. Ignoring them on the side of the street in the cold on their way to work or standing in front of their grocer.

Part of art is being able to create something that touches other people. I would say this does. And as portraits it shows them as the person rather than the Homeless.

It's really not different, so I'm not sure why you would see it as refreshing.

It's been done, and done to death.

 

[Photographiend]

Sure there are tons of Homeless Portraits out there, however not very many of them portraying their subjects in a flattering light. They all for the most part seem to play up the ugliness of Homelessness.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Hom...TL2QXQo4DoDg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=638

Any how Wabbit, you will find I am less fun to poke with sticks this week. My PMS has passed.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]