Street or not?

[RSL]

Okay. Here's another one. Let's see if it speaks to you in a meaningful way. This woman is drifting around the city with all her worldly belongings. In a sense, she's at least as helpless as the elder in the wheelchair. The only reason I'm posting it is that you can't see her face, and so she's an anonymous example of a particular kind of problem. Is she as meaningful as the elder? She doesn't have a caretaker engrossed in a cellphone. She's on her own. When I shot this picture she was getting a bit of help from one restaurant in the city that gave her free lunches. I could go on and talk about the stupidity of a system that eliminated institutional care for folks like this one on the basis that the institutions were degrading. But I won't.

I love street photography, but I'm with Rob all the way on this one.

[N80]

I don't understand what your point is Russ. And why compare this image with the OP's? Is it exploitation you're concerned about? Why the concern about anonymity? Who here would know her? There just seem to be some rules being set out here. I understand they are your own; I just don't understand them. Neither you nor Rob have articulated them very clearly. Not trying to argue or poke anyone with a stick. Just trying to understand.

[Rob C]

I don't understand what your point is Russ. And why compare this image with the OP's? Is it exploitation you're concerned about? Why the concern about anonymity? Who here would know her? There just seem to be some rules being set out here. I understand they are your own; I just don't understand them. Neither you nor Rob have articulated them very clearly. Not trying to argue or poke anyone with a stick. Just trying to understand.

That's the doctor in you speaking, George. You could be my late father-in-law, his son, or any number of sensible people who also failed to grasp the reasons I became a professional photographer rather than follow other, more stable and dependable life-routes that my reasonable education would have permitted me access.

The two situations, or rather my feelings about the OP's pic and my life-choice are the same: the call of instinct, George, and instinct doesn't conveniently follow written regulations nor does it follow precise, articulable lines of other people's sense of logic. It simply is what it is, and is no more clear to me than to anyone questioning me about it: I just know how the emotion makes me feel. And in this instance, for me, it would have been don't do it. I can't put it any more clearly than that, I'm afraid. And again, it is not an implied criticism of the OP. Had I wanted to make a statement to that effect, I would have done exactly that, no messing about felt necessary. Or, alternatively, I would just have remained silent. But, as this isn't a post in Without Prejudice, I felt it legitimate to comment beyond the level of liking or disliking the aesthetics of the thing.

Rob

[RSL]

George, my point is that that kind of picture is exploitation, but more importantly exploitation that doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. It's a strong picture, meaning it jumps out at us and shocks us -- at least to some degree. It shocks us because we rarely see that  kind of picture.

I don't know how familiar you are with the works of the really great street photographers, but I'd suggest you view or review some of them in order to see or see again what it is that makes a good street shot. It isn't shock.

[N80]

George, my point is that that kind of picture is exploitation

I don't see any exploitation here whatsoever. The photographer did not gain anything unfairly. Money is not changing hands. Nothing was taken unfairly from the subject.

but more importantly exploitation that doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

Unfair. You could say this about any photograph ever taken.

It's a strong picture, meaning it jumps out at us and shocks us -- at least to some degree. It shocks us because we rarely see that  kind of picture.

It did not shock me at all. It is two human beings being human in the way they are human every day.

I don't know how familiar you are with the works of the really great street photographers, but I'd suggest you view or review some of them in order to see or see again what it is that makes a good street shot. It isn't shock.

I'm familiar with the greats, but admittedly am not drawn to street photography any more than any other type. You can claim it isn't shock, but I don't know how true that actually is. But as mentioned, I see not one single thing shocking about this picture and the only way it could be shocking, it seems to me, is if one is so far removed from this part of the human life cycle that it seems foreign or alien. I do not.

Rob has said that his 'ethic' is internal and difficult to express. I get that. But I'm still not sure what you are getting at. It seems that you have a very stringent set of rules for street photography. They seem to be based in the past and they seem hard to qualify. You are also of the opinion that the value and meaning of art are primarily determined by the viewer. That kind of boxes you into a corner in regard to what is and isn't street photography as one opinion is as good as the next. So here's my opinion:

I see an old man, probably with dementia, but still able to see and comprehend some things (since he has glasses on). He is sitting in a public park in nice weather. He does not appear combative or agitated. He may even be sleeping, but he might also be looking into the sky or trees. Ha appears well tended. His caretaker is sitting very close to him. She is black and probably not a family member. This says volumes in itself about who gets care and who provides it. She is looking at a cell phone, which is yet another contemporary story. This makes me wonder what the story is between them. Is she dedicated to him? Does she love him like a family member? Does he return the affection? Can he? I like the composition and exposure. I like the potential stories. I like what it tells us and makes us ask ourselves about ageing. Nothing in this image shocks me. Old people are not shocking because they are old.  No one's dignity has been compromised. Is there a pathos here? Certainly and it is one to which we all should or will at some time relate which gives the image a universality.

Is this valid? If not, why not.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Strong story, strong picture. Black and white, both figuratively and literally. I also probably wouldn't have taken it, but glad someone did. Then again, I am over fifty, with a late father who suffered from dementia.

P.S. Do not really care about ambiguity in this case

[BobDavid]

Okay. Here's another one. Let's see if it speaks to you in a meaningful way. This woman is drifting around the city with all her worldly belongings. In a sense, she's at least as helpless as the elder in the wheelchair. The only reason I'm posting it is that you can't see her face, and so she's an anonymous example of a particular kind of problem. Is she as meaningful as the elder? She doesn't have a caretaker engrossed in a cellphone. She's on her own. When I shot this picture she was getting a bit of help from one restaurant in the city that gave her free lunches. I could go on and talk about the stupidity of a system that eliminated institutional care for folks like this one on the basis that the institutions were degrading. But I won't.

I love street photography, but I'm with Rob all the way on this one.

Russ, your point is well taken. Your picture digs a lot deeper than the picture at the top of the thread. I like how you recorded a heinous scene without compromising the woman's dignity. ... It is a discomfiting image. It speaks loudly and clearly about suffering and neglect. It's unacceptable that a our wealthy country turns its back on those who suffer.

[RSL]

Strong story, strong picture. Black and white, both figuratively and literally. I also probably wouldn't have taken it, but glad someone did. Then again, I am over fifty, with a late father who suffered from dementia.

P.S. Do not really care about ambiguity in this case

Exactly, Slobodan. You personally had a reason to be hit by the picture. How about if you'd had a sister with the kind of mental illness as the woman I photographed? Would that make you sensitive to pictures of people with mental illness? The point is that if a street photograph requires a particular personal event in the viewer's life in order to be appreciated, it's not much of a street photograph.

[BobDavid]

Speaking of dignity, exploitation, and ethics, I took this self-portrait very early in the morning, the second night I stayed with Dad at the hospital. At the time, the consensus among his attending physicians was that he'd pass within a week or two. He rallied back and ended up "living" for another two years.

At the time I took this photo, I figured it would be our last picture together. Although I was ambivalent, my mentor (20 years my senior) encouraged me to submit it to a jury for an art exhibit. It got accepted. I did not go to the opening.

Every time I think about this picture, I feel torn. Unlike the woman in the photo that Russ posted, my father had excellent insurance and the medical industrial complex prolonged his life unnecessarily for two years. Dad wanted to "go." Unfortunately his wife (who had durable power of attorney) did not honor my father's wishes. Her visits to the home agitated him. The doctors, hospitals, home, and his wife prolonged his misery and profited.

I wonder if it's appropriate to share this or to exhibit it again. ... Dad passed away last  March.

[N80]

The point is that if a street photograph requires a particular personal event in the viewer's life in order to be appreciated, it's not much of a street photograph.

This is an absolute. I don't buy it and I don't think you can rationally justify it. Not absolutely. Especially in this case. It is not like the aging process is something unusual or rare. It is a universal human experience. It seems you have this standard for what constitutes "street photography" but the standard is all over the place and at times irrational.

And you never answered my question. Was my assessment of the photograph valid or not? I know that I sound confrontational here, but I'm not laying down absolutes about what measures up as good street photography. I'm just looking for clarity.

Heck, screw "street" photography. It seems like the concept, at least as it is being presented, is unnecessarily overburdened. I'll look at the photograph and measure it on its own value. Label it however you want to.

[Rob C]

Speaking of dignity, exploitation, and ethics, I took this self-portrait very early in the morning, the second night I stayed with Dad at the hospital. At the time, the consensus among his attending physicians was that he'd pass within a week or two. He rallied back and ended up "living" for another two years.

At the time I took this photo, I figured it would be our last picture together. Although I was ambivalent, my mentor (20 years my senior) encouraged me to submit it to a jury for an art exhibit. It got accepted. I did not go to the opening.

Every time I think about this picture, I feel torn. Unlike the woman in the photo that Russ posted, my father had excellent insurance and the medical industrial complex prolonged his life unnecessarily for two years. Dad wanted to "go." Unfortunately his wife (who had durable power of attorney) did not honor my father's wishes. Her visits to the home agitated him. The doctors, hospitals, home, and his wife prolonged his misery and profited.

I wonder if it's appropriate to share this or to exhibit it again. ... Dad passed away last  March.

Yes, it's distressing to be lying in a hospital bed. I've twice found myself in Intensive Care Units due to heart attacks, and strangely enough, the mental problems were not about survival at all - I can't remember giving that a thought. The problems were all physical, such as wanting to take a dump and having to try that lying on my back in bed; having nurses give me a wash as I lay there, and the huge, persistent discomfort that the body develops from just lying down for a long period: like something eating your back. It must be said that having a drip plugged into a vein doesn't stay painless for long, either, if it turns to phlebitis. In sum, one develops an entire system of minor discomforts that build and build until you could scream with frustration. If there was one positive beyond survival, it's that I entirely lost my earlier fears about invasive needles.

Wish I'd never had high cholesterol, though!

Rob

[RSL]

Yes, George, it's an absolute, and you're quite free not to "buy it." And you're right: I can't justify it rationally, if by "rationally" you mean with a reasoned argument. But I can suggest you make a serious study of the works of Cartier-Bresson, Kertesz, Chim, Doisneau, Ronis, Brassai, Evans, Erwitt, Riboud, Winogrand, Levitt, and Frank, for starters. Once you've done that you may understand what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that these two pictures aren't street photography. They certainly are. They're just not very good street photography. There's a subtlety in good street photography that's missing in these pictures. But the difference isn't something you can describe in words. It's like the difference between a prose description of a child's visit to a farm and Dylan Thomas's "Fern Hill." The first may tell you what a farm looks like. The second gives you something beyond that; something priceless and beyond what prose can describe.

[N80]

Thanks Russ.

[Chris Calohan]

What Rob said. As just about everybody who'll read this knows, street is my favorite thing. But there are situations I simply pass by. This would be one of them. Sometimes it's necessary to intrude in order to tell a story that ought to be told. This isn't one of those times.

I have to disagree with you on this one, Russ. As soon as I read your comment, Elliott Erwitt's "Colored's Only drinking fountain series came sweeping into my feeble brain. Did his series bring an end to segregation? Not likely but did his photographs bring perhaps a sliver of social awareness that preceded the segregation movement? I think so.

I would have titled it the"Inattentive Attendant." Perhaps an image like this will bring a change in how we do eldercare.

[RSL]

So what, exactly, was the "attendant" supposed to do, Chris, while the guy's absorbing the sun? Stare at him? She's right there, ready to spring if necessary. Yes, Erwitt's drinking fountain picture is something I saw frequently in the deep south back in the day. I think it did help to make a point. But I don't think this picture made a point except that here's a cripple out in his wheel chair. My answer to that is "so what?"

[N80]

So what, exactly, was the "attendant" supposed to do, Chris, while the guy's absorbing the sun? Stare at him? She's right there, ready to spring if necessary. [/agreed]

Agreed. There is no evidence of neglect here. A wife or girlfriend sitting next to a young healthy husband would probably be doing the same thing. But THAT is a point of interest in this photo and in itself a reasonable social commentary.

But I don't think this picture made a point except that here's a cripple out in his wheel chair. My answer to that is "so what?"

Disagree. (Russ is not surprised.  ) I think there is a statement here and it IS racial. And it has nothing to do with abuse or neglect. It has to do with who cares for whom and why. A loaded topic. I also don't see this person as a simple "cripple". I see someone that someone else loves and grieves over. Is it his caretaker?