Is 'street photography' exploitative?

I love the phrase 'eye candy'.

Says exactly what it means.
 
jakeblu said:
So, in that case should only those who can do something about the suffering be able to see those photographs, for arguably only those who can do something to alleviate the suffering should be able to view the images, the rest are just voyeurs. Sontags words I believe and whilst she was talking about more graphic images its probably relevant to this discussion, or at least your point anyway.
Click to expand...



In a way yes. Those who then view the images, and only discuss their tonal range, composition and other formal values, ignoring the suffering of the subject and just praising it as a photograph on its technical merits are partly guilty of the same thing. They're blind to what photography is about. Its what makes people praise glamour shoots for similar reasons, and completely ignore the fact that they are just objectifying soft porn. Some people just ignore the subject matter entirely, and just look at photographs as a meaningless artifact that's nothing more than a measure of the photographer's skill.



DT01 said:
See what a world of difference that makes (in my opinion).
Click to expand...



Not really. I'm still saying the same thing. Whether I say "I think" to preface it, or say "in my opinion" to the end changes nothing. It's just one of those annoying things that people do, like saying "no pun intended" when it clearly was, or saying, "any way.. going to mow the lawn now" as a signing off, in a childish way to indicate lack of interest, even though they've been responding to everything you've said for 6 pages, and will continue to do so for 6 more. :) It's meaningless. If I write it, I think it. Why do I need to tell you it's something that I think? Isn't that a bit like a McDonald's apple pie having "Caution, contents may be hot" on it? It's just one of those things people do to try and inject some politeness into an otherwise aggressive post. With me, you get what you get. No passive aggressiveness, no hypocrisy… Just what I think. If you don't like it. tough. I'm here to discuss things frankly and openly, not pander to the sensibilities of people who get upset over ridiculous things that ultimately don't matter on a silly forum. If someone is actually stupid enough to think I imagine my word is law, just because I don't tag "in my opinion" onto the end of everything, maybe they deserve to get upset. Of course it's my opinion.. whose else could it be? :)







DT01 said:
I'm also fairly certain that isn't just your view too, but it's also true that there are degrees of suffering and degrees of morality. So for example, shutting down Sure Start schemes while handing £millions to other countries that can afford to fund a space programme is morally reprehensible, in my opinion, but clearly that view isn't shared by the fat brass of Westminster.
Click to expand...



Agreed. There's strong evidence to suggest that politicians, CEOs and other people we admire as "driven" actually score very high on tests for psychopathic and sociopathic behaviour.







DT01 said:
In your opinion. In my opinion
Click to expand...



No.. I disagree... that implies that what I think is equally as valid as the views of someone who has no empathy for their fellow human beings and vice versa. It implies that should someone wish to exterminate all homeless people to save money and make our streets look prettier has equal views. Legally they do, but morally, no... I'm sorry.. they just don't. It's clearly what I think… there’s no need to keep saying “I think” at the start of each sentence.. we’re not children, and this is not a 8 year old’s school essay.



DT01 said:
, not caring about such people might be an indication of many undesirable traits but borderline psychopathic, I would think not. That said, I'm sure each case would be taken on its own merit.
Click to expand...

Being completely insensitive to the suffering of others in order to further your own gains is classic sociopathic behaviour… oh.. that’s NOT what I think, sorry… that one is a fact J



DT01 said:
Some days I give change, on some occasions I've bought drinks or given food to homeless people and on other occasions, I have sat down with them and tried to understand their problem. One particular time when I had been penniless myself and one tiny step away from being homeless, I tried to impart the solution that I had applied to my own dire situation, to a man in his early twenties who later demonstrated that he would rather spend his days sitting in a doorway asking for change. They're all different. Some days I ignore them. I'm pretty sure that doesn't make me a sociopath or a borderline psychopath, all though I don't have the paperwork to prove either.
Click to expand...



We’re not discussing whether you do, or do not give change here… that’s far too simplistic. I’m discussing the moral choices we make when deciding to exploit them for our own gain. Some people are quite capable of forgetting they are people who are going through an incredibly bad time, and suffering, and see them as a good photo opportunity… an opportunity for themselves.. one that allows them to take a “good” photograph, post it online just so other equally blind people can ohh and ahhh over the gritty, “powerful” black and white portrait.

The other interesting thing in your last comments was your idea that money is the reason people are homeless. While it plays a part, it’s actually rarely the root causes of homelessness. It’s far more likely the way our systems designed to HELP people are actually punitive in nature. Another cause is fleeing severe abuse of one kind or another at home. A great deal of homeless actually ARE there by choice, but it’s the least s**t choice of two incredibly s**t choices for many. The idea that people become homeless because of money is just indicative of the attitudes and way of thinking of most people… probably the same ones who feel it’s OK to exploit them for their own ends in the first place. It’s also indicative of the opinion of someone from a relatively stable, caring environment, one where the only wolf at the door is the fear of being poor… as if it’s the worst thing that can happen in their lives. How that fits with you I’ve no idea, as I don’t know you, but its VERY common for people to believe that money is the cause of homelessness. This is why you hear people thinking they’re lazy, or why idiots in suits walking past say “Get a job” and chortle with their mates on their way to Pret a Manger to buy their lunch.



DT01 said:
You wouldn't want to see mine David, I shoot eye candy (and ballet dancers!) That said, I'm just asking questions rather than passing judgement so my credentials are perhaps less relevant.
Click to expand...

I love internet over-reaction :) Well.. qualifications aren’t the be all and end all people imagine them to be, but it’s a weird world when we all have to pretend to be humble and strive to avoid speaking with any authority, even when we’re pretty damned certain we’re right. If you’ve spent a long time researching a subject, and got a pretty good handle on it, when in your opinion do you have the right to stop asking questions, and start speaking with the confidence of one who’s done the reading? Do I need a BA for that? A MA? A PhD? Where does it stop? When you go to the doctor, do you expect him to venture his opinion, or do you want him to tell you in no uncertain terms what’s wrong? When you take your car to the garage, do you want the guy to tell you what he THINKS is wrong… or do you want to hear that he THINKS he’s fixed it? Do you accuse both of them of arrogance if they tell you what's wrong? You're merely forming an opinion of that person based on what you expect from them... nothing more. You've actually no idea in most cases if what they're telling you is a load of b******s or not. You NEED to believe they're right, or where does that leave you? You assume his opinion is worth more than yours, because it;'s in your best interest to believe that... you want a solution, and they give you one. In internet forums that's something that never happens. For all you know I may well have a PhD, but I'd still be regarded as arrogant if I speak with any authority. People are basically insecure when faced with an open forum where the "opponents" (as they childishly see them) are an unknown quantity.

People are selective. The internet is viewed as this great democratic process that levels the playing field, and people just hate being made to feel wrong, so they behave as if anyone who shows up with some confidence in what they are saying is a know it all, arrogant piece of work instead of someone who is putting forward a strongly held opinion that should be debated to establish it's worth. Whether you think I'm wrong or not, you actually WANT me to be wrong, so you can WIN. :) Go on... tell me I'm wrong :)

I prefer to engage in debate. Think I’m wrong.. prove me wrong. Simple as that. I’d be happy to be proven wrong. I’d rather feel I’m living in a world with far fewer w*****s in it than win a silly internet argument. I just enjoy debate. I've no great interest in winning. "Winning" against an opponent I've never met, never will meet would be a very hollow victory wouldn't it?

This what debate is for. You present your findings as if they are facts, and then the others posit their findings. You debate the worth of each and arrive at a reasonable, objective conclusion. It's the nature of how knowledge is gained. Not all knowledge is gained through scientific experiment, some knowledge is arrived at via reasoned discussion and observation, especially social knowledge, and it's for this reason that people only have ultimate faith in scientific knowledge only because they've been brainwashed by one singe epistemology and are blind to others. That's why social sciences are much maligned.... wrongly so.... in my opinion ;)
 
Last edited:
PH mentioned Mass observation, which made me think of Humphrey Spender and Worktown, an interesting Street photography type project


Mass-Observation was a large-scale investigation into the habits and customs of the people of Britain that was started in Bolton in 1937. Bolton was named “Worktown” by Tom Harrisson.

The project focused on Bolton initially and during the Second World War was enlisted by the Government to monitor public morale in the population as a whole. The project still exists today and the archive is currently held at the University of Sussex.“

The aim of the Worktown project was to investigate everyday working class life in a northern industrial town. Nothing was insignificant, so leisure activities, patterns of spending and saving, political views, religious practices, holidays in Blackpool and factory cultures were all of interest. Spender was at the time emerging as an innovative social documentary photographer and came to Bolton armed with a camera that was small enough to remain hidden while he photographed people going about their daily lives.

Notes were also made of conversations, eavesdropping at restaurants, dog tracks, pubs, clothing details were recorded, such the ratio of black shoes to brown shoes on the High Street was noted, even down to the number of chips in a portion.

It was inevitable that accusations of snooping, voyeurism and spying were made. In Spender’s own words “We were called spies, pryers, mass-eavesdroppers, nosey parkers, peeping-toms, lopers, snoopers, envelop-steamers, keyhole artists, sex maniacs, sissies, society playboys“. During the Second World War the project became commonly known as “Cooper’s Snoopers” after the Minister of Information, Duff Cooper.

http://boltonworktown.co.uk/
 
big soft moose said:
wasnt nifty 50 only applicable to the canon 50mm f1.8 - it being nifty because it was such a bargainous price.
Click to expand...

I think you mean barginalacious.

Blank_Canvas said:
I prefer 'beautiful' why use two words when one will do !
Click to expand...

Because 'eye candy' doesn't mean 'beautiful'. Eye candy implies superficiality, and as such is a worthwhile extension of the (English) English vocabulary.

The above is what I THINK, it is my OPINION. :D
 
DG Phototraining said:
I'm rather late to this discussion, but I agree with fabs, Street Photography is crap - end of :)

Maybe

Dave
Click to expand...

Post 183, I said: street photography can be seen as part of the documentary genre, documenting the society of the time through images and stories.
As a historical record it's fascinating.
 
Byker28i said:
Post 183, I said: street photography can be seen as part of the documentary genre, documenting the society of the time through images and stories.
As a historical record it's fascinating.
Click to expand...
I agree and it would be a shame if there is a generation or two lost due to people pontificating whether we can include homeless, disabled, mixed race, heck whether we can include people or not without some deeper meaning.

Surely, defamation aside, having a record of our time warts and all will be brilliant for the generations to come.

Earlier in the thread that was this example of a homeless person in a stairwell. To me the photo perse wasn't a huge problem, however the text explaining how that photographer went about it was pushing it over my imaginary line.

Likewise what Keith mentioned earlier, in the context of what was being discussed (yes I read all posts from the beginning) made total sense and was respectful and came across to me as socially inclusive. Taken by its own out of context I can understand a nerve may have been touched, but in the conversation it really didn't deserve the harsh come down. Heck aren't we up to about 20% of people in our country that have some form of registered disability and receive government support. Should we ignore 20% of people from photography? And how do we recognise them? Surely we would go back to the signs around he neck situation. I really didn't understand that.

I find street photography fascinating. Especially so capturing other photographer and their environment. I hardly publish anything but do find it a fascinating record to keep and see.

I was blessed to found a box from my great grand mother going back to the roaring twenties with lots of photos of life on their estate in the Netherlands, the towns around them, the big cities that I used to live. But then amazingly also from their holidays. The summers were spend in the New Forest with lots of street photography around the towns of Brockenhurst and Lyndhurst. And the winters they all moved to Gstaad. Again amazing captures of the people on the streets, the fashion they wore the skis they used. All close up and personal.

I love it when people snap away and like to believe there is only a tiny small minority who capture candida that could be seen as defamation for a laugh ;( I prefer we focus on the great documentaries of our time, and personally prefer less black and white as colour is a big part of our world and culture. But hey that is just me.
 
That's one issue with digital media. On the one hand you have a limited number of prints being made, those permanent records, on the other hand you have the dilation of good images through the countless millions of memory images put on line, facebook etc (although those seem to be duckface ones... :) )

Seeing printed images in exhibitions has a huge impact compared to viewing small online.

I like to produce prints for my assignments. It's something my first tutor asked me to do and I really appreciate the medium now. I've also stared to produce photobooks for other occaisions, travels etc. It's really nice to have something tangible to hand around.
 
Even pictures which are bad in photographic terms can become valuable social documents with the passage of time. The more photographs I take the more I think that is the best reason for taking them.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I prefer 'beautiful' why use two words when one will do !
Click to expand...
Because 'eye candy' and 'beautiful' don't mean the same thing?
When I look at my wife, I see 'beautiful' but she's never been what you'd call 'eye candy', in her youth she'd have got as far as 'pretty', definitely not eye candy though.
 
dejongj said:
I agree and it would be a shame if there is a generation or two lost due to people pontificating whether we can include homeless, disabled, mixed race, heck whether we can include people or not without some deeper meaning.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I agree completely. All I'm saying is do a moral self-check before you go off on one objectifying people for your own gains.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I prefer 'beautiful' why use two words when one will do !
Click to expand...

Because they aren't the same. Eye candy implies frivolous, superficiality.... just as candy is not a wholesome meal.. it's just a sweet diversion for a few minutes.. and have too much of it, you'll get fat. Have too much eye candy, and you'll become creatively bloated and constipated. :)... or probably suffer from creative diarrhea actually... much to the suffering of those around you :)
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
Likewise what Keith mentioned earlier, in the context of what was being discussed (yes I read all posts from the beginning) made total sense and was respectful and came across to me as socially inclusive. Taken by its own out of context I can understand a nerve may have been touched, but in the conversation it really didn't deserve the harsh come down. Heck aren't we up to about 20% of people in our country that have some form of registered disability and receive government support. Should we ignore 20% of people from photography? And how do we recognise them? Surely we would go back to the signs around he neck situation. I really didn't understand that.
Click to expand...

You are twisting what several have said here. I dont mind being photographed. ive not seen any disabled person in this thread saying no photos of me at all. I cant speak for all disabled people, but if you want to photograph me on the street for my dashing good looks, impressive whiskers, interesting face, wonderful dress sense, or overall as an undiscovered fashion icon then yes no problem. So if the motive to photo me is the same reason that you would want to photograph an able bodied person ie the disability is irrelevant that's fine...that's equality.

If you only want to photograph me to point out my disbility makes me 'less ordinary' or look at that fat beardy bloke lying on the pavement waiting for some help....that will get me some likes on flickr then no. If the disability is the motive for the photograph then that is where I have an issue.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Believe it or not, I agree completely. All I'm saying is do a moral self-check before you go off on one objectifying people for your own gains.
Click to expand...
And having read through all of it his morning, you definitely helped me change my mind on a few points and consider other aspect. I thought it was a fascinating discussion that helped me see a different side to it as well.
 
Steve said:
You are twisting what several have said here. I dont mind being photographed. ive not seen any disabled person in this thread saying no photos of me at all. I cant speak for all disabled people, but if you want to photograph me on the street for my dashing good looks, impressive whiskers, interesting face, wonderful dress sense, or overall as an undiscovered fashion icon then yes no problem. So if the motive to photo me is the same reason that you would want to photograph an able bodied person ie the disability is irrelevant that's fine...that's equality.

If you only want to photograph me to point out my disbility makes me 'less ordinary' or look at that fat beardy bloke lying on the pavement waiting for some help....that will get me some likes on flickr then no. If the disability is the motive for the photograph then that is where I have an issue.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how I've twisted anyone's words? Isn't what you wrote exactly what I support? I'm now totally confused and don't see why that requires such an aggressive response?
 
dejongj said:
I don't understand how I've twisted anyone's words? Isn't what you wrote exactly what I support? I'm now totally confused and don't see why that requires such an aggressive response?
Click to expand...

Aggressive?
Sorry if you interpreted it that way...wasn't the intention, and not really sure why you think Im being aggressive but that was not my intention.
 
Byker28i said:
PH mentioned Mass observation, which made me think of Humphrey Spender and Worktown, an interesting Street photography type project


Mass-Observation was a large-scale investigation into the habits and customs of the people of Britain that was started in Bolton in 1937. Bolton was named “Worktown” by Tom Harrisson.

The project focused on Bolton initially and during the Second World War was enlisted by the Government to monitor public morale in the population as a whole. The project still exists today and the archive is currently held at the University of Sussex.“

The aim of the Worktown project was to investigate everyday working class life in a northern industrial town. Nothing was insignificant, so leisure activities, patterns of spending and saving, political views, religious practices, holidays in Blackpool and factory cultures were all of interest. Spender was at the time emerging as an innovative social documentary photographer and came to Bolton armed with a camera that was small enough to remain hidden while he photographed people going about their daily lives.

Notes were also made of conversations, eavesdropping at restaurants, dog tracks, pubs, clothing details were recorded, such the ratio of black shoes to brown shoes on the High Street was noted, even down to the number of chips in a portion.

It was inevitable that accusations of snooping, voyeurism and spying were made. In Spender’s own words “We were called spies, pryers, mass-eavesdroppers, nosey parkers, peeping-toms, lopers, snoopers, envelop-steamers, keyhole artists, sex maniacs, sissies, society playboys“. During the Second World War the project became commonly known as “Cooper’s Snoopers” after the Minister of Information, Duff Cooper.

http://boltonworktown.co.uk/
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, looks an amazing project and I will have to have a good look when I have an hour or two to spare to do it justice.
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
He realised people altered their behavior for the camera and so developed ways to photograph unobserved, hiding his camera under a raincoat and taking photographs at waist height without looking through the viewfinder or shooting with his camera casually placed on a pub table.
Click to expand...

A deeply flawed anthropological method that. It doesn't really help you understand what you see. It tells you nothing about the people you are studying. Observing is one thing, but understanding what you are observing is another. With anthropology or ethnography you really need to talk to the people you are working with. In fact, "working with" is the key factor for a good study. If you can get hold of a copy of Dark Days by Marc Singer on DVD.. watch it, then you must watch the extra "making of" section. You need to watch both or or neither makes any real sense. You can get the main documentary on Net Flix... but not the "Making of"... which is stupid.

Mass observation was hugely flawed too. Participant observation, where the researcher is actively involved, and balanced with a reflexive way of writing your research up has long since been a preferred method. See John Berger - A Seventh Man, or Righteous Dopefiend by Bourgois and Schonberg for this in practice, or Being Enthnographic by Raymond Madden for a textbook explanation.

In my opinion, "Dopefiend" is perhaps the best example of reflexive participant observation ever done.

I have an unlocked PDF of "Dopefiend" if you want to read it... I can let you have a copy if you PM me. Be warned... it's a disturbing book to read. (the quality of images in it are crap though due to being copied so many times - the images from dopefiend can be found online though)
 
Last edited:
simonblue said:
I think this thread has run its course,i also think its maybe time to just agree to disagree about the subject,and maybe even get out their and start taking some photos :)
Click to expand...
A bit off topic but I don't really get posts like this. I don't mean any ill-will here, just affably curious: if people still want to discuss it then let them, if you feel that, for you, it's run its course then surely you just don't bother reading.
Seems to be a thing where people on this forum want threads locked at some arbitrary point when they, personally, decide it's "run its course". I don't really understand it.
 
ghoti said:
A bit off topic but I don't really get posts like this. I don't mean any ill-will here, just affably curious: if people still want to discuss it then let them, if you feel that, for you, it's run its course then surely you just don't bother reading.
Seems to be a thing where people on this forum want threads locked at some arbitrary point when they, personally, decide it's "run its course". I don't really understand it.
Click to expand...

None taken,i think it's more to do with me,it's tempting to be drawn into the thread again while it's still open,when maybe it's time for me to move on :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Believe it or not, I agree completely. All I'm saying is do a moral self-check before you go off on one objectifying people for your own gains.
Click to expand...
Does the "objectifying" occur at the time the photo is taken or is it more at the editing/publishing stage?
Most street scenes need to be captured within a very short time frame as things change so fast on the street and there is often only a second or two between spotting a potential picture and the scene being lost forever, so any moral "self check" would need to be done in a very short time if the "objectifying" is done at the point of capture.
 
Interesting question. Generally I'd say at the time of image taking, but post could emphasise something through crop or processing.
That's not to say that you can decide not to publish. Don McCullin says he has lot of images he's taken that he won't publish.
 
boliston said:
Does the "objectifying" occur at the time the photo is taken or is it more at the editing/publishing stage?
Click to expand...

Could be either, or both... Something happens when you see someone at the absolute rock bottom, and consider only what a great photo it would make and give no though as to how you cold do something to help. If nothing triggers a humanitarian response, then you have to question yourself at some stage. Clearly Kevin Carter had such a moment when he reflected on reducing such subjects to images, and he had a very good reason for being there, and doing what he did.. the world absolutely needed to know, but it still got the better of him in the end. The fact is, people take images of homeless people and live with it either because the images are intended to effect some change, or they just blind themselves to the suffering, and rationalise what they are doing, but ultimately, if you only see a great photo opportunity and nothing else, then something is missing in your moral make-up


boliston said:
Most steet scenes need to be captured within a very short time frame as things change so fast on the street and there is often only a second or two between spotting a potential picture and the scene being lost forever, so any moral "self check" would need to be done in a very short time if the "objectifying" is done at the point of capture.
Click to expand...

Really? If you saw a child being attacked would you need to decide if you should shoot it, or help? If you saw someone hanging out of a car windscreen dying at the scene of an accident, would you shoot it, or help?

You'll probably now explain that it's different because he's not actually dying before your very eyes... so it's OK.
 
Perfect use case for wearing a GoPro :) Men can multitask.
 
Found a really interesting street photography?
http://mashable.com/2015/02/10/harlem-1970s/

Jack Garofalo (1923-2004), one of the leading photographers forParis Matchmagazine, spent six weeks in Harlem, New York, in the summer of 1970. His images were the cover story forMatchin October that year.

n the 1960s, large numbers of residents left Harlem for neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, seeking better schools, improved housing and a stronger sense of safety. Left in Harlem were the people who couldn't afford to or chose not to move.

Despite massive federal investment throughout the 1970s, in 1978 the New York Times would publish an article titled "Harlem's Dreams Have Died in Last Decade, Leaders Say."

Yet, as these pictures show, that didn't mean Harlem in 1970 was lacking in vibrancy. In the words of Camilo José Vergara, another photographer documenting Harlem during the decade: "There was something vital going on in Harlem in the '70s."
 
Tom Wood mentions exploitation here. Although I wouldn't say he is a 'street photographer'. What I have found interesting from watching videos of photographers like Wood and Martin Parr at work is how they DO interact with their subjects yet make pictures which look like they were shot candidly. Which brings us back to the (lack of) truth in photography..
 
Ed Sutton said:
Tom Wood mentions exploitation here. Although I wouldn't say he is a 'street photographer'. What I have found interesting from watching videos of photographers like Wood and Martin Parr at work is how they DO interact with their subjects yet make pictures which look like they were shot candidly. Which brings us back to the (lack of) truth in photography..
Click to expand...

Does all street photography have to be shot candidly ?,i do a mix of both sometime candidly sometimes with interaction :)
 
i think some street photographers love interacting - look at eric kim for example - he practically choreographs his shots! i generally prefer the more candid style of sp like matt stuart, david solomons etc
 
simonblue said:
Does all street photography have to be shot candidly ?,i do a mix of both sometime candidly sometimes with interaction :)
Click to expand...
That's often the impression that gets put about. Hence my post. TBH I wish the genre could be consigned to a dustbin somewhere - it's all just photography as far as I'm concerned.
 
Ed Sutton said:
That's often the impression that gets put about. Hence my post. TBH I wish the genre could be consigned to a dustbin somewhere - it's all just photography as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
the same could be said about landscape, sports, portrait, wedding, macro, wildlife - all "just photography"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top