People walking in the distance, under a "foot center" sign.
And in the center, a footless and blind homeless. Ignored by all but me.
Ethics? Respect? What are you guys talking about?
NB23, this is a very respectful and ethical photo.
Thank you. But my point is simple: if it's worth shooting, shoot it, ethical or not.
Actually, I would qualify both of these as the aforementioned 'artporn' I spoke of, because they're in service of self-satisfaction instead of social change. This is not to say they are 'bad' images - they're strong images, and at least the one is a critique of the people passing behind the man in the wheelchair. But otherwise, how do either of these promote social change? They don't- they both reinforce the photographer's and by extension the viewer's sense of moral superiority either to the people ignoring the man in the wheelchair or to the man passed out on the sidewalk. They're artporn because they serve to gratify the photographer first before anything else. This is not to say that there is no place for self-satisfying imagery, but in the context of photographing people who lack the ability to give or withhold their consent, I'd say it is in fact unethical and inappropriate.
I'm a photographer, not a philosopher nor a politician.
Gandhi wasn't a photographer nor would it have helped him the least bit to be one.
Not even HCB changed the world. What a funny idea.
Why is "social change" a photographic concern or even a topic? Photography gives me, and probably others, a rush. That's all there is to it.
art porn ?
give me a break
these are quite strong images and if part of a larger series
really makes a statement about homelessness and human neglect.
consent of people in street photography that's kind of funny?
since when do people get consent when photographing on the street ...
there isn't a shred of privacy on the street ...
scott did you get consent + releases from people who you might have photographed
on the streets of france, or object release forms for all those facades you photographed ?
in any case, this work is much more interesting and thoughtful than other street photography
and street-architecture photography posted in-thread or in-gallery.
nice work NB
My point is not that social change is a requirement for taking a photograph. Nor is obtaining written consent. The consent distinction I'm making is that the blind man or the unconscious man are incapable of registering the presence of the photographer and exercising consent by removing themselves from the field of view of the photographer or otherwise indicating they do not want to be photographed. When I was in France taking photos, if someone saw my camera and indicated they did not want to be photographed, I did not take their photo. I would not take the photo of someone obviously homeless because in addition to the absence of privacy the homeless person has as a precondition of their homelessness, they may well not be capable of articulating consent because of mental illness and are not aware of what is happening to them.
Again I think it has to do with intention and what one wishes to accomplish. If pictures of homeless people helps raise an awareness of their lives and challenges, and if it's done well (like NB23's photos above), it could certainly spark interest among people who are better off to lend a hand and find ways of helping out.
I don't think the act of photographing homeless or ill-fortuned people is disrespectful. But the intent must be scrutinized, and I hope that there is a will somewhere within the conscience of the photographer to do good by these fellow humans.