The Homeless, To Photograph; or not to Photograph

[flashback]

So is there any merit to photographing the homeless? What is accomplished by taking photos of homeless people? Does it improve their lot? Does it increase awareness of their plight? Or is it simply another notch on the camera strap, like a checked box on a life list of a birder? I suppose if you're actually doing a documentary on homeless you can get away with it but by and large photographing homeless is indeed 'low hanging fruit.'

I know that rationalizations can be made for shooting the homeless but again, what did you accomplish? You took the shot because you thought it was a good shot. Maybe even compelling but...so what? Are you working to shelter and feed the homeless? Are you out at 3am in the winter looking for people that need warmth that night? Or are you just out on a lark, saw that homeless person and thought, gee that's a good shot.

Let me lay it out a bit, where I'm coming from. I'm a fireman, I've seen people, helped people who were having the worst day of their lives. It's hard to see that family standing on the curb, watching as you try to save as much of their life as you can. Or a frantic passenger or family member melting down as we work on extricating them, or someone else in a car crash. And the media shows up because blood sells.

I see no justification for showing a vehicle accident with tarps blocking a passenger or driver's body, or sheets on a body ejected onto the street, but the media does. But it's pretty hard to see justification for those photos if you've spent the last 45 minutes trying to save a person's life, watch as they fade and then have to block out the bodies so the press can't get those really gruesome, bloody shots of the bodies. But I mean, if it's done tastefully, with respect to the deceased then it's okay, right?

I mentioned about seeing people when they're having the worst day of their life so I can't image what it must be like to experience that worst day spread out over months, years or decades. One might have high motives for photographing homeless but really, what in the end happens? A picture is taken, it's posted and then the photo and the homeless person are forgotten as the photographer moves on to other subjects. I know, some photographers will wax eloquent about 'chatting' with the hapless subject, buying them a meal or giving them a few bucks but in the end you've simply paid a conscience fee to take and show that photograph.

I know, right now there's a f̶e̶w̶ lot of people thinking I'm being a d**k and that's fine but the reality is I've shared too many 'worst days' to want, or in any way encourage anyone to exploit those among us who have nothing. I do street photography, there's a link in my signature. Go, view, tell me if I'm being a hypocrite. I honestly believe that shooting the homeless is, 99 times out of 100 little more than exploitative and at worst dehumanizes them.

It's all about seeing them as people as opposed to a trophy. And I don't care how 'tastefully' an image is presented, it's still a photo of a person who, for whatever reason has lost basically everything in their life. Hardly seems humanitarian to hold up their image and see that as anything remotely approaching sympathetic. Buy them a meal, a hot coffee, give them a winter jacket, shoes, just DO it, without the photo afterwards. Be a decent person for no reason other than to be a decent person. Not in order to get that photo. If you disagree with me you disagree with me but, as a fireman I've seen a lot of sad things and it boggles my mind that anyone would want to profit (in whatever manner) off of another person's suffering.

[Digital]

Jack, I believe you are right on target.



Bruce

[rpcrowe]

I have made it a practice not to photograph the homeless because it seems like in doing so, I am taking advantage of their vulnerability.

[DanK]

And I don't care how 'tastefully' an image is presented, it's still a photo of a person who, for whatever reason has lost basically everything in their life.

I agree entirely.

[ionian]

Hmmm. I don't like the idea of blanket bans on any subject although I can see why many, many of these sorts of images are in poor taste or taken with selfish motivations. I can also see why your profession brings you to the conclusions you have drawn - I think you have explained that very well.

However, i can also see that homeless people are people, and were people before they were homeless. Some undoubtedly make great subjects - the chance to tell their story (or something equally as powerful) through a single image, or to show a fascinating face, shouldn't depend on their domestic status. There are also strong moral reasons to ensure that homeless people are seen, to encourage action - and a photograph is one of the simplest ways to do this.

If you'll excuse my coarseness, there are some dicks in the world, and some of them carry cameras. There are also a handful of genuinely well-intentioned people, and a few of these also carry a camera. How do you tell which is which from a photo? I'm not sure, although intent and motive are often apparent from the image itself, or the use it is put to.

I say this as someone who hasn't photographed the homeless, nor do I intend to - but I hope I'd make a decision on capturing and/or showing any image based on both moral and artistic lines.

I hope this isn't just me doing that art student thing again - if so I apologise - I just don't believe in moral absolutes, especially ones that label people under blanket statements. I hope this makes sense, even if you disagree.

[flashback]

Thanks Bruce, though likely not a popular stance.

[flashback]

Richard, thank you for your compassion. However, as involved in rescuing dogs as you are I really wouldn't expect anything less.

[flashback]

Thank you Dan.

[flashback]

Simon, thanks for reading. I was venting, and in doing so may have come off more absolutist than I intended, possibly. Certainly if someone is diligently working to improve the situation of one/some homeless then, with their permission why not. But I question how many towns or cities that have a 'homeless problem' and are not yet aware of it? I know that NYC is very aware of their homeless and are working to resolve it. There are often articles about the 'plight of the homeless' not so different than the 'plight of the penguin'. I know it sounds crass but sometimes I think such articles are more about the author than the subject.

So to the topic of photographing homeless people: what is the purpose of taking that shot? Is a photographer categorizing the homeless the same way a marine biologist photographs and identifies whales by specific markings? Is this to track their movement and otherwise describe the habits and habitats of Hobous americanus?

I think the idea of the homeless telling their story is one contrived by those that seek them out to get their story, and to publish that story. Again, unless someone is actively involved in literally doing something tangible to help these folks it's really nothing more than perhaps a feel good story or photo shoot and in the end, the homeless person or persons are left to slink back into the night.

Let's get this straight, homeless people are, for the most part, not just disenfranchised, but disconnected. They are homeless because sh*t happens, because money, because mental illness, because addiction. Taking pictures of homeless does not help them. People may view the images, cluck and tsk but beyond that, likely little if nothing else. So why do it?

Sorry Simon but I can't see an acceptable reason for photographing the homeless today. Seventy five years ago, fifty years ago, maybe. That was mostly bringing the homeless to the attention of the rest of the country. But today people are aware of the homeless, they see them, they ignore them, they walk around them. Some people on the upper west side of NYC complain to the NYPD and others that 'rich people' don't want to have to deal, or see the homeless.

No, taking their pictures, to my mind does nothing to alleviate THEIR situation, their individual problem. Reinstate funding to provide beds, care and counseling for these folks, that's the way to help. Otherwise, these people are kicked out of any place that might have helped them due to lack of funding. Back out into the wild they go. Little more than a check box waiting to be checked off a photographers life list.

[William W]

Excellent topic.

Like many here I have strong views.

In summary and in simple terms: I don’t like exploitation, but equally I don’t like blanket rules which prescribe what I can and cannot photograph.

What and when I chose capture depends on my motivation; my purpose; and the message or story – and the sobering and irreversible fact that I am forever 100% responsible for any choice that I make. So, in these situations, before I release the shutter I do THINK, very seriously.

These are two Portraits of Homeless Men, from a series that I made in 1976, This was the first time I photographed people in desperate or difficult circumstances:


“Friends” – Sydney 1976

In this image I saw concrete elements: Friendship, Loyalty and also Pride; the strength of human character no matter what the circumstance. I believe the image accomplishes the conveyance of those elements to the Viewer.

***


“Stage Door” – Sydney 1976

In this image I saw a more abstract battle between despair and hope at the ‘stage door’ – and the purpose of this image to stimulate the viewer’s thinking (and perhaps their action, too).

I have no second thoughts about any justification for making my images of the many hundreds of people in less fortunate condition or position than I find myself: because I believe honestly that I have neither exploited nor harmed those Subjects and possibly I have assisted them and/or their collegiate by my actions.

***

By the way one of the most difficult series of images for me to make was Commissioned Portraits for a Family during a Funeral and Burial Service. That’s not common, but more common in some Cultures than some might know about.

These experiences have not ever been “a notch on my belt”: but rather the opportunities afforded to me or sort out by me, to make images of the array of the human condition and situation has provided me with a better understanding of it and hopefully a better participant in it.

WW
All Images © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2016 WMW 1965~1996

[Mike Buckley]

Richard, thank you for your compassion. However, as involved in rescuing dogs as you are I really wouldn't expect anything less.

So, the people who disagree with you and Richard about this are less of a person in your mind. I like to think instead that they simply have different values than the two of you about this particular topic. I photographed a homeless person because I felt the image told an important story. I wouldn't hesitate to do it again in a similar situation. If you feel that makes me less of a person, I'm really not concerned, much less offended.

I'll make a deal with you: I won't tell you what and who not to photograph if you don't tell me. I can live up to my end of the deal, but I really wonder if you can.

[Donald]

This is the sort of discussion that makes this forum a good place to be online.

I don't think there is any need for impassioned comments on either side of the debate. Instead, we can have a sensible discussion. Where the need for passion comes is in addressing the causes of homelessness and in doing something about it at a societal level.

The only one part of Jack's case with which I am not fully on-board is - "I think the idea of the homeless telling their story is one contrived by those that seek them out to get their story, and to publish that story".

I do think that photography can be a powerful medium for change. I agree that it is those who seek to tell the story, as opposed to those whose story is being told, that are driven to do so. But that is because they have the voice and the means to do so. The homeless, like many other groups are, as Jack says, disenfranchised and have no voice. Others need to provide that voice.

[george013]

First of all I want to distinguish between homeless due to a fire or any other accident and homeless as a place in the social system.
In the latter case I don't see any problem shooting them different from shooting a wonderful lady, or any other person of your interest. Probably the question is not only adressed to the photographer, but also to the watcher of the photo's. The watcher who doesn't want to be confronted with it.

Jack,
I don't think a city will or can solve the problem of poorness/homeless. All the do is trying to manage it.

Homeless are not only people from your own nation. Often immigrants, illegals, fugitives.



This picture I took shortly ago in Paris. Do you understand what you see???? I don't. All I know is that they have a lack of that stuff what's in the wall or the shop.

George

[Black Pearl]

All this assumes the homeless people don't want their pictures taken.

Jack it seems to me that you believe you are within your rights to make yourself into an unofficial champion of the homeless to defend and protect them from the evils of the heartless photographer whereas all you actually seem to be doing is telling us that we shouldn't be taking pictures of these people (that you don't personally know or seem to have anything directly to do with) because you personally think its wrong. Now there is nothing wrong in having an opinion as there is nothing wrong in voicing that opinion - but - that is all it is, an opinion and an opinion should never be voiced in a way that makes your opinion seem like it has any more weight than those of others.

[William W]

. . . I do think that photography can be a powerful medium for change. I agree that it is those who seek to tell the story, as opposed to those whose story is being told, that are driven to do so. But that is because they have the voice and the means to do so. The homeless, like many other groups are, as Jack says, disenfranchised and have no voice. Others need to provide that voice.

Indeed, and a comment as a metaphor only: sometimes more powerful, than a fireman's axe.

WW

[Shadowman]

I think there needs to be a distinction between the homeless and beggars, with the latter the person could be homeless or just an opportunist and could be any age. It's not always easy for us as photographers to distinguish between or quickly analyze the subject's life situation. I know its not always done but what if the homeless person asked for a dollar and you chose to photograph them for that dollar, does that exempt the photographer from being exploitive? Granted, I believe you are talking about just secretly taking the photograph and just moving on and I think most encounters with the homeless require this strategy, I wouldn't think of lingering at or in what might be someone's living arrangement or makeshift home. But if the homeless person is sleeping on a public street or just happens to be walking in a public area; I don't see the harm in taking their photo any more than I would in taking your photo. I know quite a few members on this forum has stated their dislike of having their own photos taken while in public; I don't like mine taken either but it's not something that would make me confront another photographer.

[IzzieK]

Photos or taking photographs of homeless/beggars/drunk in the street sleeping at steps at the wee hours of the morning -- repels me. We sometimes comes upon them in the street corners, some do have a home and a family but had fallen on hard times. How many times have we given to them or take them out for a meal or give them some groceries? I don't take pictures of them. If Bill and I can help, we do. Just that. It makes us feel more lighter to help than to photograph them.

I agree with Jack's reasoning. I've a friend from Oregon who is a recently retired Fire Chief...and the guy who owns three hangars beside us at Creve Coeur is also a fire chief. Sometimes they get to tell their stories and some of them are very heartbreaking.

[DanK]

I agree with Donald. This is a complicated issue, and it's reasonable that people will start with different views. The entire point of a discussion like this to exchange views, which will probably lead some of us to change our views a bit or to end up with a more complex opinion. Getting hot under the collar only makes that harder.

I think that one the sentence I quoted from Jack's initial post really is the crux of the matter:

And I don't care how 'tastefully' an image is presented, it's still a photo of a person who, for whatever reason has lost basically everything in their life.

This may be a key to reconciling some of the differing views here.

Does this mean that there is never a time when it is appropriate to photograph a homeless person? I don't think so. But it does mean two things, in my mind: first, homeless people should be accorded the same respect as any other person we might want to photograph, and second, we need to keep in mind the misfortunes that brought many of them to that state.

[Mike Buckley]

I don't think there is any need for impassioned comments on either side of the debate. Instead, we can have a sensible discussion.

I disagree, Donald. Your statement assumes that impassioned comments cannot make a sensible discussion and that's not true in my mind. Some of the most impassioned thoughts were delivered by the likes of Ghandi, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and others and it would be a shame to think that their impassioned ideas weren't sensible.

The entire thread is based on Jack's impassioned premise that people who take photos of the homeless (in his own words) are less humanitarian, that photographers who do that are only rationalizing their reasons for doing so, that such photographers are only adding another notch to their belt and the like. Such an impassioned premise deserves an equally impassioned response, whether in agreement or disagreement.

Photography is one of my passions. For people who feel as I do about that, it's appropriate when the occasion merits it to state an impassioned opinion.

Frankly, the premise of the thread is so bothersome to me that I will no longer be reading it, much less posting in it.

[flashback]

Excellent topic.

Like many here I have strong views.

In summary and in simple terms: I don’t like exploitation, but equally I don’t like blanket rules which prescribe what I can and cannot photograph.

What and when I chose capture depends on my motivation; my purpose; and the message or story – and the sobering and irreversible fact that I am forever 100% responsible for any choice that I make. So, in these situations, before I release the shutter I do THINK, very seriously.

These are two Portraits of Homeless Men, from a series that I made in 1976, This was the first time I photographed people in desperate or difficult circumstances:


“Friends” – Sydney 1976

In this image I saw concrete elements: Friendship, Loyalty and also Pride; the strength of human character no matter what the circumstance. I believe the image accomplishes the conveyance of those elements to the Viewer.

***


“Stage Door” – Sydney 1976

In this image I saw a more abstract battle between despair and hope at the ‘stage door’ – and the purpose of this image to stimulate the viewer’s thinking (and perhaps their action, too).

I have no second thoughts about any justification for making my images of the many hundreds of people in less fortunate condition or position than I find myself: because I believe honestly that I have neither exploited nor harmed those Subjects and possibly I have assisted them and/or their collegiate by my actions.

***

By the way one of the most difficult series of images for me to make was Commissioned Portraits for a Family during a Funeral and Burial Service. That’s not common, but more common in some Cultures than some might know about.

These experiences have not ever been “a notch on my belt”: but rather the opportunities afforded to me or sort out by me, to make images of the array of the human condition and situation has provided me with a better understanding of it and hopefully a better participant in it.

WW
All Images © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2016 WMW 1965~1996

What I see are two older men, one helping the other. There is nothing about them to suggest homelessness.
As to your second image, to what purpose? How did you make that person's life any better? And how is it not exploitative?

I do indeed have a problem that people think that simply by taking a photo of a homeless person they may, in some way, sorta kinda may be helping that person out.

I don't know that your taking funeral photos relates to this discussion, especially as you were commissioned to take them.