> In a way, all photography is voyeurism. > [...] > > Refusing to photograph the homeless and otherwise, would on > the flip side, > would be like denying their very existence. Which could be > considered a form of > denial. > [...] > > But, definitely, looking at pictures of the homeless and down > and out may be > the most gut wrenching. > > Marnie aka Doe >
I agree with you, by and large. I should point out though that we don't know whether the man in the photo is homeless or down and out. For all I know he could be the fashion editor of Vogue, the president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, or an internet libel lawyer trawling for business. I'd also like to point out that it is not a picture of a down-and-out. It's a picture of a person who was asleep on his feet in an interesting composition. Whether he is down and out or the fashion editor of Vogue makes no difference - I would have taken exactly the same photograph whatever his situation. In many ways it would have been a more interesting photo if he was the President of the RIBA, and dressed appropriately. The trouble with pictures of down-and-outs is that viewers tend to see the down and out, not the person, and not the picture. That's why you have to show the face. Regards, Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
