Is 'street photography' exploitative?
- Thread starter droj
- Start date
Ok one last one,Don McCullin photos of the homeless around Whitechaple .
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
so whats your comment about it?
Rich_Ellis
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 510
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- No
This thread is very interesting to me and despite the personal sniping has some very good points raised. I have never done street photography and have little interest in it but have felt a certain "unease" when viewing some types of image in the genre.
The original question - is street exploitative?
The answer has to be - it can be.
People are involved here. Their lives, their feelings, their sometimes unguarded moments.
Any photographer snapping an unknowing human subject (maybe even knowing in some instances) runs the risk of exploiting that person if their only aim is to get a picture that only they benefit from. It's kinda what exploiting means isn't it?
Google definition:
"making use of a situation or treating others unfairly in order to gain an advantage or benefit."
Now, whether there is a "story" or documentary importance to a shot can't be down to the viewer. Only the photographer can decide if they intend the shot to mean anything. If they think it means, "hey, look at this gritty old person, they've seen some things in life eh?". Then I have to agree with David. It's expoitative.
If the intent is to somehow try and attempt to highlight a cause, the difficulties of a people coping with war, the aftermath of a bank collapse, death, grief, ecstasy etc etc and actually SAY something then it might be argued it isn't expoitative.
It doesn't to me have anything to do with choice or rights or legal ability. It's about morals and ethics and what civilized societies deem acceptable. This is obviously open to interpretation but there is usually a general consensus.
I think most photographers producing images like the one highlighted in the other thread are mostly guilty of not thinking about it. Not considering what they are doing. Too desperate for the "ooohhhh, nice gritty capture, aren't you clever" support of peers. Most people I think, aren't thinking. If they did, they may well approach the subjects in a more compassionate way and get better pics as a result.
If you have considered and still want to take pics for your own ends then nobody can stop you obviously. Dip yer bread. However, the OP asked a question.
The original question - is street exploitative?
The answer has to be - it can be.
People are involved here. Their lives, their feelings, their sometimes unguarded moments.
Any photographer snapping an unknowing human subject (maybe even knowing in some instances) runs the risk of exploiting that person if their only aim is to get a picture that only they benefit from. It's kinda what exploiting means isn't it?
Google definition:
"making use of a situation or treating others unfairly in order to gain an advantage or benefit."
Now, whether there is a "story" or documentary importance to a shot can't be down to the viewer. Only the photographer can decide if they intend the shot to mean anything. If they think it means, "hey, look at this gritty old person, they've seen some things in life eh?". Then I have to agree with David. It's expoitative.
If the intent is to somehow try and attempt to highlight a cause, the difficulties of a people coping with war, the aftermath of a bank collapse, death, grief, ecstasy etc etc and actually SAY something then it might be argued it isn't expoitative.
It doesn't to me have anything to do with choice or rights or legal ability. It's about morals and ethics and what civilized societies deem acceptable. This is obviously open to interpretation but there is usually a general consensus.
I think most photographers producing images like the one highlighted in the other thread are mostly guilty of not thinking about it. Not considering what they are doing. Too desperate for the "ooohhhh, nice gritty capture, aren't you clever" support of peers. Most people I think, aren't thinking. If they did, they may well approach the subjects in a more compassionate way and get better pics as a result.
If you have considered and still want to take pics for your own ends then nobody can stop you obviously. Dip yer bread. However, the OP asked a question.
By going out with my camera I'm potentially making use of any situation I find, in order to try and create something aesthetically pleasing, thought provoking or emotional for me and people I share it with.
The people in the photos rarely gain any benefit from it, once I did hand them some prints of people I knew I could find again. I also share photos on twitter to more local circles, because I am happy for the people to see photos of them.
But really by that definition and the number of photos I've take it probably makes me about 99% exploitative.
Last edited:
I will take another photo for example
DSC05605 by dancook1982, on Flickr
I did not care for who the person in the photo is, just what he was wearing; because it suits the impression that people have of Guildford, a wealthy town.
Oh and it's black and white and I played with the levels to make his black coat and shoes more striking.
I've exploited this man.
DSC05605 by dancook1982, on FlickrI did not care for who the person in the photo is, just what he was wearing; because it suits the impression that people have of Guildford, a wealthy town.
Oh and it's black and white and I played with the levels to make his black coat and shoes more striking.
I've exploited this man.
Rich_Ellis
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 510
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- No
I would agree, and as long as you know that and are happy to continue then it's your choice.
Rich_Ellis
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 510
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- No
I think their nothing wrong wrong with them
Simon thats great then. But McCullin worked with them, got to know them and was highlighting their plight wasnt he?
Because i'm "making use of a situation or treating others unfairly in order to gain an advantage or benefit."
made use of the situation in order to gain a benefit
I've also objectified him for my own purpose.
Whether or not this is exploitation by everyone's definition, I don't know. I don't really need to put a label on it. I was just putting the post above into context
Oh..... I see - yup.. I broke down the sentence in the wrong place and grouped unfairly with 'treating others unfairly' 
fair enough, my bad.
- Messages
- 34,670
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not sure what the law has got to do with anything. Does what you say have to be against the law for anyone to object to it?
seems more like overreacting to it if you ask me
It does make me laugh when people put their point across and THEN say "let's just agree to disagree".
- Messages
- 5,064
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm rather late to this discussion, but I agree with fabs, Street Photography is crap - end of
Maybe
Dave
Maybe
Dave
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
You misunderstand. My point is that why else would anyone photograph someone else suffering? Surely.. morally... the only reason can be to show that suffering in order to do something about it. Therefore... if you see a homeless person, and think nothing more than what a great image it would make, it instantly becomes questionable in terms of it's motive. Homeless people are suffering. Spending all day in a doorway asking for change, probably withdrawing from something, or being hungry (or both) is quite plainly suffering. Would you do the same at a road accident where people were suffering? Would you think about what a great photo it would make? (shrug)... that's fr you to decide yourself, but it casts a serious moral question if you did.
I get it.. then fine... but why then go to such lengths to make it "artful"? Why publish it? Why seek praise for it? Plainly, that's not the intention at all.
It's just TOO easy to forget that when you shoot a homeless person, all too often, what you're actually shooting is someone else's suffering. I think the reasons for doing that quite simply have to be questioned. If it's to do no more than further your own career, then it is exploitative.
I'm ascribing a set of motives to a type of photography, yes. As for the individual in question, let's not forget we have what that individual wrote. It didn't exactly drop with remorse or concern about the subject. He was bothered about "getting" him, and placed far more importance upon what settings he used. Does that sound like someone with an honourable motive to you?
Can you provide me with another reason? Is there another reason to photograph someone else's suffering?
I don't believe I've ever once said that the reasons for being homeless are the same... in fact, I'm pretty damned certain I haven't. There are strong links though, and none of them particularly pleasant. No one CHOOSES to be homeless... even if it was their decision to run away from home in the first place. Are you suggesting there are homeless people who willingly opted to live such a life when they didn't actually have to?
No one is suggesting that homeless people are never to be photographed... you seem to imply that is what I'm saying. The questioned posed in this thread however, is whether it's exploitative, and taking photos of people's suffering, without their consent, so post on-line to simply get feedback on your "photography" is pretty crass, don't you think? The problem here is that everyone assumes that they can judge this the same way we judge other candid images of people, but you can't, because ultimately you're shooting someone else's suffering and misfortune, which SHOULD place some moral restraints on you. I know it does me. I'd never shoot a homeless person for this reason, unless I knew I was working on something that genuinely could result in some change in fortune for that person. To do otherwise, would be me making work for MY gain. I simply couldn't do that. Morally.... something would stop me.
Can you give us some other examples of what it's alright to photograph someone's suffering without their consent and then publish it?
That's another distinction you're not making here, but one I plainly have. The problem is the clandestine, sneaky way some people go about it. Talking to the person, gaining their consent and then producing something done with empathy and clearly demonstrable ethics is not what is being discussed here, and I think you know it... or you should if you've been reading the thread and not just dived in at page 4 or something.
If that picture has no other obvious motive other than to create something artful that promotes the photographer, then that's exactly what I'm saying, yes. Can you provide another reason to shoot someone else's suffering and publish it without their consent? I'm struggling to think of one.
Yep... because morally, the reasons for taking it outweigh the reasons for not doing so.. again something discussed at length earlier in the thread. Shooting someone's suffering or not has to be a moral decision that's weighed by assessing how the subject benefits.. not you as the photographer. Otherwise, you're on morally ambiguous ground.
Perhaps if you read the whole thread you wouldn't have had to ask that question. It's simple. Shooting someone else's suffering needs a good reason... shooting someone else's suffering without their consent and then publishing it needs a VERY good reason.
I've never once pointed a camera at a homeless person, and never will until I'm pretty certain I'm working on something that could result in a change on that person's circumstances for the better. It's just my moral standpoint, and nothing will ever change my mind on that.
You think I need PHOTOGRAPHY to back up my morals? Surely.. morality in general and common decency is all I need.
Nice fishing trip there dude, but seriously.... I've never once told anyone how to photograph homeless people... I've suggested that unless the work is more than just making god work for YOUR benefit, it's morally questionable, and it is DEFINITELY exploitative if you do not have the subjects permission to shoot it.. and especially PUBLISH it for your own gain. If you think this is a photographic issue, then maybe you're moral compass needs some calibration.
You need to see photographs to understand how to have empathy for your fellow man? I see. Seriously... stop with the put your money where your mouth is thing, because I've already stated I've never once pointed a camera at someone who's suffering and never will. You don't need to see images to understand moral decency. I've pointed you in the direction of some work that perfectly illustrates my point earlier in this thread if you're interested. Look up Margaret Morton, or watch Dark Days. Get hold of a book called Righteous Dopefiend by Bourgois and Schonberg. Those are good examples of how to do it.
Last edited:
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
So lets discuss images of disabled.
Geoff Dyer in the ongoing moment, writes about images of anonymous blind people, who were photographed so frequently in the early half of the last century that Walker Evans wrote about encountering 'the inevitable familiar inventive blind man working his way down the rocking isle' in the intro to his subway work
Paul Strand, Lewis Hind, Garry Winogrand, Ben Shahn, Andre Kertesz, as well as Walker Evans and Arbus, all made dramatic images of blind people on the streets of America across the last century.
So Stands image of the Blind beggar, is this exploitive?
he often took images sideways with a fake lens pointing forwards so people didn't know he was taking images.
Like a mug shot, the old blind woman stands stiffly against a stone wall. The camera records her eyes roving in different directions. A large BLIND sign dangles from her neck. There’s a metal badge above the sign showing the number “2622” which gives her the right to beg. The woman’s street-worn face runs the gamut from grit to despair.
Strand shot this photo in an era when other photographers were taking “pretty” shots. No soft touches in Blind Woman. During this period in his career Strand photographed slums, drunks, and peddlers.
“I felt they were all people whom life had battered into some sort of extraordinary interest and, in a way, nobility,” Strand said.
“Your photography is a record of your living--for anyone who really sees,” Strand said. “You may see and be affected by other people’s ways, you may even use them to find your own, but you will have to eventually free yourself from them.”
It's very much of it's time. Pretty much as many images are. Much as Winogrand's image of the black man, white woman with dressed chimpanzees was of it's time, topical, and relevant in 1967 in the U.S. Make a habit of taking pictures of mixed race couples now though, and you'd be seriously questioned as to your motives if no good reason was made clear, because why else would you make an issue of mixed race in this day and age? Your politics would be seriously questioned, and rightly so.
The fact is, there was a time where simply showing people things was considered an effective way of dealing with problems (you're a student.. you'll have heard of the FSA). Such raw documenting was common (see mass observation documentary films from the 40 and 50s), but while historically important and actually very good photographs, using what someone did many decades ago as a reason for doing it today is clearly going to be a problem.. the whole socio-political landscape is simply not the same. We're only talking about certain subjects here though.. just the way we document the "other"... marginalised people.... "cripples" (an acceptable word then) etc.
Last edited:
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I will take another photo for example
I did not care for who the person in the photo is, just what he was wearing; because it suits the impression that people have of Guildford, a wealthy town.
Oh and it's black and white and I played with the levels to make his black coat and shoes more striking.
I've exploited this man.
You've done nothing derogatory though. A man in the street... furthermore... one that can't even be identified. How have you exploited him. It's a nice shot.
DT01
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,292
- Name
- Drew
- Edit My Images
- No
I get your point David. Given that morals are in themselves, variable and any variation can be dependent on many things, (personal disposition, social conditioning, culture, religion......) it might be useful if you preface your statements with 'I think that...' Then they would come across less like you are trying to ram your morals down people's throats as de-facto rather than your opinions (even if your opinion is shared by many, if not all).
The 'fishing' you refer to is more broadly related to how you post. You condemn plenty, whether this issue or 'eye candy' as you have put it (and I won't go trawling through your posting history to produce specific examples but I'm evidently not the only witness to this). I generally read your posts with interest and they are often thought provoking, however you do tend to dismiss anything that doesn't fit your world view with such vehemence that it suggests to this reader that you truly believe that your view must be the view. You are pretty adept at talking the talk; your posts come across as supremely authoritative but all we really have though is your words. You might argue that it doesn't matter what kind of photographer you are but it's always good to see that those on the high horses can also go over the jumps (and I'll apologise now for the horse racing metaphor...I'm sure you get my drift).
The 'fishing' you refer to is more broadly related to how you post. You condemn plenty, whether this issue or 'eye candy' as you have put it (and I won't go trawling through your posting history to produce specific examples but I'm evidently not the only witness to this). I generally read your posts with interest and they are often thought provoking, however you do tend to dismiss anything that doesn't fit your world view with such vehemence that it suggests to this reader that you truly believe that your view must be the view. You are pretty adept at talking the talk; your posts come across as supremely authoritative but all we really have though is your words. You might argue that it doesn't matter what kind of photographer you are but it's always good to see that those on the high horses can also go over the jumps (and I'll apologise now for the horse racing metaphor...I'm sure you get my drift).
Last edited:
I don't know that I really have, I misinterpreted the literal definition and wanted to apply it in context to see whether it would really be the case. nevermind
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Clearly, everything I write is what I think.. goes without saying
Some things though, clearly are just wrong, and are not defensible. Shooting images of someone's suffering needs some good reasons in my opinion. Let's try again for some context. I'm not sayng that it's some kind of unbreakable rule... "Thou shalt not shoot someone suffering" or anything like that, as I've just given you three examples of work that do exactly that. The REASONS for doing it are an entirely different matter though, surely you must see this? Taking photos of someone else suffering can only really be defended in one way - it helps them (or others in similar situations). Even news images of people suffering are not shown without VERY good reason. SERIOUS deliberation is taken before images that show suffering are shown. It's not done lightly, and that's with major international, and humanitarian stories. Taking images of someone in an unfortunate, desperate situation because you thought it was just a good photo is simply not a good enough reason if you ask me, and doing so without their consent, and then posting it on a photography forum for crit as a photograph is just showing immense lack of sympathy.
I'm fairly certain this isn't just my view. I'm fairly certain the vast majority of people would find taking unsolicited images of someone suffering to further your own career as a photographer slightly reprehensible. Anyone who doesn't... well, couldn't care less about such people as there's clearly something making them somewhat less than human.... in my opinion. That's borderline psychopathic, and almost certainly well on the scale of sociopath.
With regards to other posts and walking the walk...jumping the jumps or whatever analogy you chose, I have a wealth of images available for you to look at, both on here, and scattered all over the internet. Where are yours?
I do find the way amateurs treat photography as a competitive sport amusing though.
Some of the greatest minds who have written about photography have never even taken a photograph with any serious intent.
Last edited:
DT01
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,292
- Name
- Drew
- Edit My Images
- No
Clearly, everything I write is what I think.. goes without saying
Taking images of someone in an unfortunate, desperate situation because you thought it was just a good photo is simply not a good enough reason if you ask me, and doing so without their consent, and then posting it on a photography forum for crit as a photograph is just showing immense lack of sympathy.
See what a world of difference that makes (in my opinion).
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.
In your opinion. In my opinion, 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.
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.
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.
jakeblu
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,874
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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.
Blank_Canvas
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,400
- Edit My Images
- No
Eye candy ?
Most models I know prefer to be known professionally as a 'model' some may find you're phraseology a tad condescending or even unprofessional.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I tend to agree with Keith that everyone (in public) is equally fair game - I wouldn't generally* target a disabled person because of their disability - however nor would I shy away from photographing someone who was disabled if they were doing something interesting/noteworthy , anymore than I would someone who wasnt disabled.
I believe that was what Keith also meant - and ironically in this we are doing what many disabled campaigners say they want - that is treating them equally and not considering them a special case due to their disability
(* I say generally to prempt anyone bringing up that I did do a big set on disabled veterans a few years back - however I'd note that was at the request of a social enterprise that works with disabled ex forces , and all shots were taken with consent of the subject before the shutter was pressed ... irrc only one person approached said he didnt want to take part, and I respected that )
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
hopefully he's talkinm about models - remember the furore a couple of years ago when someone here (I won't say who) turned out to have a flickr feed full of candids of women - mainly shots of T&A or legs or both clearly taken covertly in the street ? IMO that kind of thing crosses the line from social documentary to "dirty old man"
DT01
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,292
- Name
- Drew
- Edit My Images
- No
Who said anything about models? I'm referring to images that are created to please the eye, as opposed to those that might have some deep narrative or social agenda (although I do like to tell a bit of a story sometimes, if I can). I seem to recall David (Pookeyhead) in some thread or other, being particularly derisive about such images.
Blank_Canvas
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,400
- Edit My Images
- No
Eye Candy (and ballet dancers)
'A person who is or people considered highly attractive to look at, often implying that they are but lacking in intelligence or depth'
Presumably ballet dancers don't fall under that definition.
Images pleasing to the eye ? - that's very subjective, one mans marmite is another mans jam. Sometimes a bit of context is required otherwise things become confused ( a bit like this thread)
Steve
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,685
- Name
- .... Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just reading through this thread and came across the references to the disabled - which reminded me of this image I shot in Tallinn in 2011 of two wheelchair-bound passengers from our cruise ship who had just "bumped into each other" in the middle of town, and the sheer joy on their faces was so clear - I don't think I exploited them in any way
DSC_6913 by Midland Red, on Flickr
This is a lovely picture and perfectly fine imo as the image is about the joy of the encounter. The fact that 2 of the group are in wheelchairs is incidental. So the image to me is about friendship and not disability. This is the equality we strive for as the disability is ignored and I can't imagine anyone having a problem with it.
I have no problem being photographed and treated as any able bodied person. My objection is only where any photograph was what I felt was exploiting my inability to do things 'normally' such as the example in a previous post of falling over, in which case I feel I am being mocked and made fun of. And yes able bodied people are capable of falling over and making a fool of themselves. But they can usually jump up and laugh it off, whereas I flounder about like a beetle on its back.
DT01
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,292
- Name
- Drew
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, this!
OP
droj
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,069
- Name
- droj
- Edit My Images
- No
Hmmm .. just as I was thinking of expanding the remit and starting a new thread titled "Is photography exploitative?" ... but maybe I'd better not!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
DT01
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,292
- Name
- Drew
- Edit My Images
- No
I suppose they could do but that's not what I meant, which is why I separated them.
It's absolutely subjective and in my case, the images that I create for the simple purpose of being pleasing to my eye (or a client's eye for that matter) are my 'jam' while to Pookeyhead, they could be his 'Marmite', which is why I directed my original comment to him, as a response to his question.
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,400
- Edit My Images
- No
And to bring this back into context I refer you to post #225 !
Forgive me, (English) English is my first language as opposed to (American) English !
I would suggest that this thread is rejected by the 'Plain English Society' !
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
IIRC that was in regard of landscape photos on the peter lik thread - the basic premise being that pretty pictures like the Lik one arent as 'worthy' and therefore good as say Gursky's Rhine - I also recall that it descened into yet another tiresome reprisal of the "what is art"debate - so lets not do that again here
OP
droj
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,069
- Name
- droj
- Edit My Images
- No
No two ways about it - 'eye candy' is American English! Utterly. Maybe we should have a language thread. When did a 50mm lens become 'nifty', for instance? Or nearly every lens that isn't a tele or a zoom, a 'pancake'? Don't get me started!
Blank_Canvas
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,400
- Edit My Images
- No
Duplicate post - deleted.
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,400
- Edit My Images
- No
Of course it is. Nifty fifty has always been a personal pet hate of mine. It sounds like child speak. Personally, I find it hard to take people seriously when they dumb down the English language.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
wasnt nifty 50 only applicable to the canon 50mm f1.8 - it being nifty because it was such a bargainous price.