Okay so you have chosen to continue the thread as a discussion of photographic ethics. I can jump in on that. Let's ask the question; do we applaud or condemn the "Afghan Girl" image of Steve McCurry? This was a fourteen year old orphan girl in a refugee camp. Because of this image the whole world's awareness of the needs of the Afghani people was raised. I would not know of many of the needs of the less fortunate had it not been for an article, photograph, or video that brought another individual and their story into my knowledge. Are we exploiting someone when we capture an image of them? First of all what have we taken from them. If they are walking the street they can be easily see by the eye. What is the difference between seeing with the eye and capturing what is already easily seen on film. Their image is still readily available to eye, camera, or video. Here's the question; what have we taken from them. You know these people don't want to be treated differently. If you would take a photo of a merchant on the street, or a street musician, or just a passerby, why not someone in difficult circumstances. I'll tell you what they say to me. They don't say, "don't take my picture". The say, "don't act like you don't see me". They want to be people like anyone else, with presence and dignity. Not treated like they are not something to be looked at. Here's one more way to look at it. If you walked into any homeless shelter or mission and asked those with sound mind, "would you mind being photographed on the street if you knew that it would in some way bring about help for you and others like you", what do you think their answer would be.
I agree on this point. The person who takes a photographic image of these individuals, and profits from the image, and then returns nothing to those whose images were used (or at least those like them), should reconsider their ethics. I think the answer is to give back from what you take, be generous, share and care. Remember the old saying a picture is worth a thousand words? Well consider the impact an image has on the heart of someone who needs a reason to lend a hand to help someone less fortunate. Those of us who refused to photograph them out of conscience; did we go back and help them in some way anyway. If so they probably would have invited your photograph. Especially after you treated them to a warm meal and a hot shower. Glen -----Original Message----- From: Dan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 4:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mike Johnston Cc: Dan Scott Subject: Ethics of Documentary Photography On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 02:17 PM, Mike Johnston wrote: >> Please accept my apologies for contributing to this drift. I >> will try harder to stay on topic in the future. I really enjoy the >> PDML and >> learn a great deal from all of you. > > I enjoyed hearing from you, Glen, and I certainly think that you have > earned > the right to photograph the homeless. Thanks. > > --Mike > I applaud Glen's good works. But I don't know that good works earn anyone the right or an entitlement to photograph someone else. I understand that being in public entails being seen in public, but when you are homeless you have no privacy and no choice. You can't escape. If you are sick, dirty, hungry and cold, you can't pop home, throw your vomit/diarrhea stained clothing into the wash and make yourself presentable. Unless you are fortunate enough to loose your mind, you are entirely aware of how wretched your condition is and your powerlessness to raise yourself out of it. When someone comes along looking for something interesting to shoot, their interest in you is most likely in exploiting your misery for their benefit. I think that is wrong. Dan Scott
