Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi, David, I posted early in the morning, just before I left for work, and maybe wasn't expressing myself well (if I ever do... <g>). I was trying to say that you ~didn't~ exploit this fellow, Dave. And, not because you talked to him first, not because you gave him money, not because you got his permission. Rather, because your shot, ~to me~ was a photo of an individual, not a beggar, not a wheelchair-bound person. Your photo captured something of his personality, and even if his wheelchair, or his hat (or can, or whatever he collects his change in) were in the photo, it would be an outstanding photo. That they weren't in there is all the much better, in this case. I was simply trying to say how hard it is to take such photos where there seem not to be exploitation involved. That being said, and having read the many posts following my first one, it may be that I shouldn't have used the word "exploitation". It simply strikes me as all too easy to walk around town with a camera, taking shots of every street person and beggar at every street corner ~just because they're beggars and street people~ and not because they are human beings with their own histories, there own distinct personalities, their own demons and triumphs. Every fall, a new crop of photography students starts at Ryerson University here in Toronto, and you can see them, suitably armed with their Pentax K1000's almost chasing poor beggars down the streets, trying to take that "Socially Relevent Photograph". Whether that's exploitation, or whether some other word applies, that strikes me as wrong - focusing on a person's unfortunate circumstances and not caring that there's a person underneath. It may be, as someone suggested, that all street photography - all photography in general - is exploitative by it's very nature. Perhaps so. If that's the case, I'd submit that there's good exploitation and bad exploitation. Whatever, I'll say it again, Dave. I like your photo a great deal. It is obviously taken with great sensitivity and care on your part. And it shows the subject, not as an object for our pity, but as a person with dignity. And that's Good. cheers, frank David Young wrote: > Frank T. wrote (in part): > > >As for the photo itself, I rather cringed when I saw the title. Oh, no, > >thinks I, another shot of some poor person, asking for money. It's so > >difficult to capture such street people without exploiting them. > > >But, I think you did it, David. This is a very sensitive portrait of this > >person, that seems to tell us something about him, delves into his > >personality. With no hint in the photo itself that he's a beggar. Very > >well done. > > -- > > Frank: > > Although it doesn't show in the photo, the gentleman is wheelchair bound > and quietly begs on the same corner, every day, rain or shine. However, my > interest was not in showing these two aspects of the man, but rather his > very interesting face. I think it worked. > > As for exploitation... well, in a sense, yes. However, I first asked his > permission to take his photo. Secondly, afterwards, I added substantially > to his 'collection'. Much more so than I might otherwise have done. So, > who 'exploited' who? > > Thank you, for your kind comments. > > ---------- > > David Young, | égalité, liberté, > Victoria, CANADA | fraternité et Beaujolais. > > Website at: www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html