From: Joe (jtait@texas.net)
Date: 09/23/02-08:59:30 PM Z
> I also feel uncomfortable with photographs of poor people, made by
> middle class people.
This is pretty laughable and really presumptious. What kind of blanket
judgement on "middle class" people are you making here and how do you
sort them out from other photographers? Since they are the predators
(some hyperbole here), if I am in a higher tax-bracket, can I then take
pictures of the huddled masses?
> One deranged man actually shot a filmmaker from Canada because he was
> so tired of Appalachian people being portrayed as backward and ignorant.
I liked Judy's take on that. That man was truly forward-thinking when he
shot the Candian in protest at being potrayed as backwards and ignorant : )
> I think your gut feeling is the best guide to your own ethics about
> photographing people either on the street without their permission, or
> with their permission in their own homes and communities. If you feel
> a little queasy about it, maybe you shouldn't do it. Certainly
> sharing your photographs with your subjects before you show them to
> the world is some sort of insurance against exploiting people. If
> they think they look good, it's probably ok.
Obviously there is value in being conscious of people and their
condition when you photograph, and being compassionate and
non-exploitative is admirable; but there seems to be this element of
self- censorship running behind some of this. That is definitely a
dangerous road. Putting forward the idea that we can't know if we are
"exploiting" someone or not without asking is a little too PC for my
tastes. I mean, there are real injustices out there and photography has
only served to make this evermore present in all our minds (I hope).
-Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:10 PM Z CST