View Full Version : What is your definition of Exploitation?
BigSteveG
07-26-2007, 11:40
In reading a review in Focus Magazine, I noticed the reviewer made the following remark about his subject. "Despite their excurciating intimacy, these photographs don't ever hint at exploitation."
The remark has me thinking about my standards as a photographer. I like doing street photography a great deal. I never ask permission and do not plan on doing so. Sometimes I consider myself a thief of moments. I "take" pictures of complete strangers in the street, in stores, restaurants. I take pictures of couples being romantic. Children showing their wonder at life. If I watch long enough (or am quick enough), people reveal themselves in un-guarded moments. These are the "gems" in my collection.
I've not sold any prints. I've no intention of becoming a professional photographer. I have this vague dream of having or showing my gems in an exhibition someday.
Am I exploiting others for my pleasure or artistic aspirations?
I have the same feelings.
BigSteveG
07-26-2007, 12:06
Glad I'm not the only one. I love a great portrait, landscape or studio shot. But I don't want to do that kind of work on a serious level. Street/candid photography is a strangely magnetic beast.
exploitation is selfish, an unequal exchange. do your subjects justice and you'll be ok.
"That's exploitation"
Or recording contemporary life.
BigSteveG
07-26-2007, 13:58
exposure. I did think the reviews were soft. They didn't really promote or criticize the photographer. And I think they should do that either way. That is the purpose of an art review.
"Doing my subjects justice" is exactly my intention. The leader of my 1st workshop (he studied w/ many photo luminaries,) made the comment "It's easy to show suffering and misery in the world. It's far more difficult to show beauty." Another member here (His name currently escapes me,) signs off with "Thou shalt not photograph the homeless." Both statements express the need for a "standard" in the photographer's choice of subject matter.
The best I can do is to follow my instinct.....and try to create the kind images that exhibit a vision of beauty as banal as they may seem to others.
erikhaugsby
07-26-2007, 14:01
Or recording contemporary life.
And now it all depends on your point of view, doesn't it? :)
But that's the root of the problem--exploitation can't be straightforwardly defined, it instead is matched uniquely to each individual viewer of the photograph.
I do "sneak" street pics many times. What will happen the day I am catched in the process ? Provided I am not beaten, and I believe I will never be, but asked for what am I doing or why, I am ready to engage in a cool talk, starting with the sentence "Photography is Art and you have been part of it through my camera..."
Cheers,
Ruben
I stopped taking pictures of people I don't know unless I'm somehow involved with them I asked myself why I wanted a particular picture-a pretty girl? Vicarious pleasure? No more. If I have no relationship with the subject, and it isn't noteworthy in some other way, I pass.
Pretty much gave up sharing photos on the web, too. Just my own feelings.
I stopped taking pictures of people I don't know unless I'm somehow involved with them I asked myself why I wanted a particular picture-a pretty girl? Vicarious pleasure? No more. If I have no relationship with the subject, and it isn't noteworthy in some other way, I pass.
Pretty much gave up sharing photos on the web, too. Just my own feelings.
I agree. The last time I shot strangers they were taking picturer as in "shoot the shooters". They usually, if they even noticed me, turned and shot me.
Without the web, photo sharing sites or RFF they have no point, IMHO. Unless you can post and say, "hey guys, check out this expression, butt, bosum(s), etc, what's the point. You would not frame the shot.
The hey-day of street photography ended with Life magazine and the many fine photographers of the day. You can't turn back the clock, not even with a 50's camera and 50's film.
As far as an exhibition someday, you will need releases if any money is charged.
Just my .02 cents worth.
back alley
07-26-2007, 15:47
if it happens on the street, in public, open for all to see, how would it be exploitation to photograph it?
joe
BigSteveG
07-26-2007, 15:49
with Life magazine and the many fine photographers of the day". What's wrong with keeping the tradition alive?
Joe is right - public is public.
I really enjoyed Portobello market, I was snapping photo's of people, and sometimes they look directly at the camera. Same happened on Chinese New Year.
So long as you haven't caught somebody at an awkward or embarrassing moment and then seek to further embarrass by publishing the shot, you have nothing to worry about. Paparrazzi exploit. Photographers photograph.
Besides.....If you aren't caught, you can't get in trouble. :D
............The hey-day of street photography ended with Life magazine and the many fine photographers of the day. You can't turn back the clock, not even with a 50's camera and 50's film.
...........
If your definition of "hey-day" is intended to mean the days in which pros were paid due money, I may agree and congratulate the dis-linking of photography and money. We were made rather a favour.
But if you are talking about public attention to a group of images, nothing has changed. It all depends on the quality of the images, both form and contents. The intrinsic power of Photography is still there, in the basic fact that the only required thing is the right photographer at the right moment or situation.
Shoot a series of "stills" on Bin Laden's life at his cave, and you will have again the power of Photography felt worldwide, with all TV channels showing these pics.
It is not the medium but the contents. The only "hey-day" photography lost was it shares in the monopoly of visual comunication, and some possibities of high level income attached. With the income, much of the trend is gone, but the breath stopping power of a good pic, is still there. Waiting for us.
Now there is another aspect related to money and us. If you agree that money is a means and not the end goal, then you may have to make a very serious self questioning about wether non paid photography still can make the hey day for you.
Cheers,
Ruben
A lot also depends on not just your feelings but on what is culturally accepted. I recently spent a week in Istanbul and was shooting in market places without any fear or trepidation. When I'm shooting in a similar environment here in Amsterdam, I'm much more conscious that I'm stepping on cultural so-so's (if not no-no's).
Creagerj
07-27-2007, 00:48
...People will than you for taking the pictures that you did, especially if they capture the essence of human existence at that time. Historians and anthropologist in particular. However, I have always found that my pictures are always better if I am connected with my subject in some way or another. People like to have their picture taken by a stranger who asks permission, most of the time anyway.
Simon Larbalestier
07-27-2007, 01:43
Selling the prints or not, still the homeless and other misfortunate people need the high quality photographer and his gallery show, and other means of communication, to promote their cause. Taking a clear counscious side against human explotation by humans by any photographer is the opposite of exploitation.
Ruben
I agree with Ruben here. I spend a lot of time photographing those who are in very distressing and unfortunate circumstances. Nothing is taken without their consent but to be able to explain the those i photograph how my taking of a picture of them can improve their life is a very difficult one to answer. I believe to raise awareness and advocate change is the small part i can play as a photographer and i choose do this instead of nothing at all.
jmilkins
07-27-2007, 03:09
So Simon, Ruben and others - I've often wondered this - when you ask permission to take a photo rather than take the photo more stealthily, are you skewing it in some way - i.e. is the subject aware and therefore posing?
Or does interacting with your intended subject allow you to understand a little more of them and their circumstances and allow them to relax and trust you?
I 'm not very experienced in street photography because I have viewed it as a candid , stealthy medium.
Maybe the answer is that the stealth method yields one or two "natural" images before the subject becomes aware of the camera, whereas the "interactive" method allows a raport to develop, break through any posed moments and get to a relaxed "natural" portrait....
Comments from the experienced welcome....
My view is that people don't have the right to expect privacy if they're in a public place and if you want to take their picture with or without their consent there's no law stopping you.
Simon Larbalestier
07-27-2007, 04:51
So Simon, Ruben and others - I've often wondered this - when you ask permission to take a photo rather than take the photo more stealthily, are you skewing it in some way - i.e. is the subject aware and therefore posing?
Or does interacting with your intended subject allow you to understand a little more of them and their circumstances and allow them to relax and trust you?
I 'm not very experienced in street photography because I have viewed it as a candid , stealthy medium.
Maybe the answer is that the stealth method yields one or two "natural" images before the subject becomes aware of the camera, whereas the "interactive" method allows a raport to develop, break through any posed moments and get to a relaxed "natural" portrait....
Comments from the experienced welcome....
I would say for me, it's your second point regarding trust and them being more relaxed in one's presence. However i don't think my photography can be so easily defined as to be "street photography" as it normally takes place inside people's home's or at least their environment. For certain i have found the use of RF cameras allows for a less noticeable presence within their surroundings.
If your definition of "hey-day" is intended to mean the days in which pros were paid due money, I may agree and congratulate the dis-linking of photography and money. We were made rather a favour.
But if you are talking about public attention to a group of images, nothing has changed. It all depends on the quality of the images, both form and contents. The intrinsic power of Photography is still there, in the basic fact that the only required thing is the right photographer at the right moment or situation.
Shoot a series of "stills" on Bin Laden's life at his cave, and you will have again the power of Photography felt worldwide, with all TV channels showing these pics.
It is not the medium but the contents.
Cheers,
Ruben
Thanks, Ruben, for the comment.
I think perhaps we are all mixing apples and oranges when dealing with shooting people.
There is street photography which is what we see most of on the forum and other photo sharing sites. True, just a slice of life, a moment in time, but of no real value to society. How many tight jeans or sweaters can you fit on the head of a pin?
Then there's photo-journalism, paid or otherwise, which is what we try for but can't find in Starbucks.
We are taught ( pre digital giga cards )to ask 'why are you taking the shot?'. If the answer is, 'because it will get a comment on the forum', don't shoot it.
Nice thread, anything that gets me to write more than three words is a delight.
Ducky;)
it's simple, I've seen simon's work, it is kind and compassionate - bumfighting and bumvertising are exploitive... everybody knows the lines and when they've crossed them...
I would like to add that "interacting" with the subject is not necessarily a two sides road. It can take place in your mind only. If your interaction is basically positive, in your mind, you can freely sneak and always will be ready for the reaction of your subject, of whatever type it may be. At this later stage it will become an active two sided interaction.
Cheers,
Ruben
I don't think "profitting" from your work is exploitive. I think the idea that you should not work for money is exploitive. That is used against artists all the time. If I cannot make money, how do I do more work?
Simon Larbalestier
07-27-2007, 06:20
Maybe slightly off track but i still think relevant to the original question, i would point you to Gary Knight's observation on his VII profile, where he reflects on the impact his work has had on those he has photographed:
http://www.viiphoto.com/
Food for thought from someone i admire greatly and had the pleasure to meet.
Maybe the answer is that the stealth method yields one or two "natural" images before the subject becomes aware of the camera, whereas the "interactive" method allows a raport to develop, break through any posed moments and get to a relaxed "natural" portrait....
The answer is that there are middle grounds too between stealth and interactive. I don't need to be stealthy at all to get shots that show little or now interaction. I can do that (and so can you) by simply being right there out in the open and just doing what you do. Is a window washer stealthy, or a mail man? No. But how often do we actually see these people do their thing? Hardly ever, because they are part of the environment, pose no thread, do their usual stuff, and are thus ignored by our senses. It's when we start to act out of the ordinary or suspiciously that people start to notice us.
I don't take photos of people simply because I would not want them photographing me. How do I know where a photo of me is going to end up?
I don't think "profitting" from your work is exploitive. I think the idea that you should not work for money is exploitive. That is used against artists all the time. If I cannot make money, how do I do more work?
Hi Finder,
With all due respect your post is very ambiguous, first because most of the artists of photography hardly survive the month, and then because your phrasing of things puts in question marks wether the target is art or money.
And lastly, because of your advocating that "the idea that you should not work for money is exploitive". This is the classical argument for allowing oneself unrestricted free hand moral standards. You seem to insinuate you are the real underdog, the real vyctim, instead of that homeless.
A true artist is a person commited to his art in whatever conditions he/she will be.
A mercenary of Art is a guy having unique visual talents, but devoid of contents. Art, People, Himself, are just instruments for making money. And it doesn't matter at all how many people will be clamping hands on his behalf. Since profitable art is paid by the upper social layers of society, there is always a niche there for empty souls to meet and feed each other, in perfect harmony.
Cheers,
Ruben
mike goldberg
07-27-2007, 07:21
For me there's another way, and this is ON ASSIGNMENT. And, like many of my colleagues above,
I take pix without, and with permission. For 15 years as a Photojournalist with the Jerusalem Post, and for the Weitzmann Institute of Science, I was sent into interesting places, and met some top people, by arrangement.
When my son went into central Africa, Samoa and Alaska, etc., with his video crew, it was by arrangement. You don't get the kind of footage they returned with, unless some tribal chieftain approves it. The German-funded project is on world climate change.
Getting back to street photography, I DON'T feel like I'm committing a crime,
yet sometimes, I do feel like I'm taking something without permission.
And, it makes little difference if the "tool" is a Leica of the 1960's, or a D200.
Cheers, mike
Hi Finder,
With all due respect your post is very ambiguous, first because most of the artists of photography hardly survive the month, and then because your phrasing of things puts in question marks wether the target is art or money.
And lastly, because of your advocating that "the idea that you should not work for money is exploitive". This is the classical argument for allowing oneself unrestricted free hand moral standards. You seem to insinuate you are the real underdog, the real vyctim, instead of that homeless.
A true artist is a person commited to his art in whatever conditions he/she will be.
A mercenary of Art is a guy having unique visual talents, but devoid of contents. Art, People, Himself, are just instruments for making money. And it doesn't matter at all how many people will be clamping hands on his behalf. Since profitable art is paid by the upper social layers of society, there is always a niche there for empty souls to meet and feed each other, in perfect harmony.
Cheers,
Ruben
Ruben:
What I am refering to is, unless you have another source of income, you need to finance what you do. And what is exploited is this sentiment:
A true artist is a person commited to his art in whatever conditions he/she will be.
No, I am not motivated by money, but without it I can't pursue my art. This is taken advantage of by editors and others that beat an artist down by making them feel guilty by "working for money." That "selfless" devotion was only able to be pursued by an aristocracy that was rich. This idea is poison. As stated above, it seems I can try to make work, but I must ot "profit" from it. Why? I need to eat and pay rent. I need to supply the materials, time, and talent. But I must be expected to fund this by myself? It seems OK for publishers, printers, and organizations to "profit" from work, but not the artist. Without a financial base, I cannot work. What is exploitive about having your art support your life (and your art)?
This is a very interesting and thought-provoking discussion IMO.
Meet Doug.
http://lh6.google.com/leicaphotos/RqoVMBfPGeI/AAAAAAAAG44/vJxHRi-D8-0/s800/doug.jpg
Doug is homeless and alcoholic.
Doug's mother was killed in a sleepy southern Alabama town many years ago during a aggravated robbery.
His wife and children were killed in a similar situation much later.
Doug served our country in Vietnam.
Doug was a happy go lucky man.
After his wife and kids were killed in a brutal criminal act, Doug stopped caring.
Doug asked me to take this picture.
Doug remarked on how old he is now looking.
Doug ended up being one of the best employees my brother ever had.
I don't go around photographing hobos, junkies, or whatever -- nuff said
Why do you all assume that exploitation is a rude manner? I just looked up the meaning of the word and it's meaning is: Utilization of a person or group for selfish purposes. The word utilization means to: Put to use, turn to profitable account. Selfish means devoted to, or caring for ones own interest, regardless of others. So I can say that i'm an exploitist and proud to be one.
Yes I use my camera to exploit people, hoping to please myself with the final print.
Yes I utilize people as my subjects, using them for any gain weather personal or $$.
Yes I am selfish in that I am devoted to my photography, absolutly caring for my own interest because it's a hobby that I enjoy and it relaxes me. Plus my Dr. says I should get out and walk for exercise. Besides, don't I have a right to be selfish with my photography considering the amount of $$ I paid for my equipment? If people don't wan't to be exploited then they need to stay home and become a recluse.
Why do you all assume that exploitation is a rude manner? I just looked up the meaning of the word and it's meaning is: Utilization of a person or group for selfish purposes. The word utilization means to: Put to use, turn to profitable account. Selfish means devoted to, or caring for ones own interest, regardless of others. So I can say that i'm an exploitist and proud to be one.
Yes I use my camera to exploit people, hoping to please myself with the final print.
Yes I utilize people as my subjects, using them for any gain weather personal or $$.
.
I fully agree with your view. For the one in the exploiting position, exploitation is a highly enligthened manner of correctly distribuing resources, turn the lazy to be of utility, and you don't necessary have to feel selfish. Most de-luxe exploiters are just making a favour to mankind. This thoughts are as old as the Greek phylosophy, with only one element lacking: the denyial of democracy and the claim of full power for the minority of the devoted elite, called by the Greeks - "Aristocracy".
Take care,
Ruben
mike goldberg
07-27-2007, 10:06
I want to utilize my experience with a Chicago person, now in her 50's. Caroline Myss Ph D, best selling author and international lecturer on human consciousness, intuition and healing... was my teacher when I was active in so-called "personal growth" groups. I have most of her books and have been to 4 of her workshops in Scotland. Please go to:
www.myss.com
Caroline has made a fortune from her books and workshops. She has a following of people, who go to wherever she is doing a workshop or new book tour in the USA. To be more specific, if Caroline were to do a workshop in your town, her day rate is somewhere between $3,500 - $5,000 per diem.
Now then, I ask you, Is THAT exploitation? I like Caroline; she's brilliant and a stand-up comedian to boot. Is she exploiting her "co-dependents?" I do think so.
Cheers, Mike
I don't go around photographing hobos, junkies, or whatever -- nuff said quote Memphis
I liked meeting Doug. I esp. liked his hat.:D Why do we make apologies for shooting these types of people? It's almost like making an apology for sinning.Don't get me wrong, I feel for the homeless and have given to them food & such as they needed, but speaking from a photographers standpoint, Why make excuse for pointing a camera in there direction & pressing a shutter! WHY??? Should I feel guilty because I wan't to utilize a a subject that interest me. Does Memphis feels guilty everytime he walks down Beale st. goes into a bar & starts taking pictures of musicians! You wan't to know where the real sourse of our guilt lies in I believe. FEAR! Thats the great hinderence in ones photography many times. The Bible has a verse that says: Perfect Love casteth out fear. I think a great photograph that expresses emotion, comes from a good photographer that shows emotion to his subjects. I for one think i'll quit making excuses.
I don't go around photographing hobos, junkies, or whatever -- nuff said quote Memphis
I liked meeting Doug. I esp. liked his hat.:D Why do we make apologies for shooting these types of people? It's almost like making an apology for sinning.Don't get me wrong, I feel for the homeless and have given to them food & such as they needed, but speaking from a photographers standpoint, Why make excuse for pointing a camera in there direction & pressing a shutter! WHY??? Should I feel guilty because I wan't to utilize a a subject that interest me. Does Memphis feels guilty everytime he walks down Beale st. goes into a bar & starts taking pictures of musicians! You wan't to know where the real sourse of our guilt lies in I believe. FEAR! Thats the great hinderence in ones photography many times. The Bible has a verse that says: Perfect Love casteth out fear. I think a great photograph that expresses emotion, comes from a good photographer that shows emotion to his subjects. I for one think i'll quit making excuses.
the real question that would have been closer to home to ask -- on beale street there are musicians playing every few hundred feet... in the bars, they have a tip jar as they do on the street... As a tourist, traveling to this town for the experience specifically of blues / music, shouldn't the tourists feel guilty about not putting a little in the tip jar... every one of the musicians is financially insolvent, most are day to day existence... they're working 8-12 hours a day to entertain the tourists... it riles me up when the passerby people do not put something in the tip jar
the real question that would have been closer to home to ask -- on beale street there are musicians playing every few hundred feet... in the bars, they have a tip jar as they do on the street... As a tourist, traveling to this town for the experience specifically of blues / music, shouldn't the tourists feel guilty about not putting a little in the tip jar... every one of the musicians is financially insolvent, most are day to day existence... they're working 8-12 hours a day to entertain the tourists... it riles me up when the passerby people do not put something in the tip jar
Never been to Memphis so I didn't know that. Yes I agree, and if I ever go, I will be sure to load my pockets with change because it would be pretty sorry to photograph the musicians and not give back some love in return.
BTW Memphis have you heard the blues group WSNB?
10,000 tourists a night walking by, spending $8 / drink, very few tip the musicians -- every one of them is popping pics with their digicams - the musicians get prints from me every time I'm down there --- we both exploit each other = some of my work has appeared on cd covers I'll not be suprised to see quite a few cd's next year with my work - but for me, it's not about money
Bike Tourist
07-28-2007, 04:27
I'm a little skeptical of ascribing motives or intent to a photographer or the photographer's image. We cannot predict with certainty how a viewer will react to a picture.
In the example of a homeless person, whether the photographer was motivated by compassion or money (or both) has no bearing on how the viewer will react. The viewer will see the image through his own mind's filter and react with sympathy or scorn regardless of the photographer's intent.
I'm not for any sensorship of public domain photography. It is always useful to show the human condition to ourselves so that we may try to see who we are, where we are and what we're doing.
Of course, after all these years, I still don't know!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.