Roger your work is simply great. Now that i live far away from my birthplace, with new thoughts and feelings, much different experiences, i truly appreciate your work. In someways it is ugly to the point of reversing white to black.It’s all a matter of exposure.The nightmarish dream concept is how i now see Africa and that particular milieu. The way you doggedly went on, adding to your score. Thank you for showing your art.

indeed…

Yes, good diologue, I have learned something about myself here, and yes, I agree we must separate the work from the personality. I actually love Rogers’ work, and I’m grateful to him for sparking this discussion. I hope if he is still with us, that he is able to gain some insight from it too. I have a feeling that despite my too sensitive response, we would likely enjoy a beer and a chat together.

yes, of course…that is my experience as well…still, we must always separate the work from the personality…no matter which way it goes….

PRESTON…

good points all…

All..

this is good dialogue…i wish i could add more,but at this very moment i am preparing to photograph the elite of Rio…i am uncomfortable doing this…moral issues? no, simply physical comfort issues…those around me now are telling me i clean up well and look good in my tuxedo…wish i felt as good as i supposedly look…

i try very hard in my work not to exploit individuals of any class or economic position…while i will be paid for the work i do tonight, i like to think of it as part of an exploration of this particular culture…having value in the long run…how i see people tonight in an elegant ballroom will be the same way i see people tomorrow in the less advantaged neighborhoods…since i tend to see the dignity of human nature most of the time, that is how i tend to photograph…even when i know that i could perhaps twist things a bit for a certain kind of image, it is just not in my personality to do it…so, i am stuck with who i am….

ok, gotta go…

cheers, david

Thank goodness I know how you arrived at your well presented
point of view. That liberal-arts education has served you
well. If my child comes off of the mountain with as much
common sense, I will not worry about my retirement.

Please keep the ball in play. This is a very valuable
dialog. My best to the Fam.

John…
I disagree with you on this one… in your argument you take out of the equation the factor “photographer” and you deal with a photograph that exists on its own right… the motivations and the intentions of the photographer and the way he will approach his subject (frame, point of focus, etc…) are what introduces the moral factor in my argument… the viewer and his perception of the finished photograph is whole other discussion… respectfully…

It’s nice that McCurry and NatGeo found Sharbat Gula twenty years later, but she refused their largesse, preferring privacy. When McCurry took the picture, I’m sure he didn’t think he was exploiting anyone, and he had no idea that the image would become iconic. And he if hadn’t been shooting for NatGeo, if he had been on assignment for a small newspaper, the image would not have had the currency it did.

So what responsibility does the photographer have to the subject after he has snapped the picture? Again, it’s nice that the Afghan girl became a phenomenon. But what if the picture had appeared in NatGeo and someone had hunted her down and killed her?

It’s hard to argue that photography is a moral act if it simply a financial transaction — paying your subjects because you have been paid. What if you don’t get paid? What if your check bounces?

When people make the moral argument about a particular photographer or levy charges of exploitation, what they are often expressing is a discomfort with the apparent relationship between the photographer and his subjects. Roger Ballen’s photos might make some people uneasy, thinking them in poor taste or impolite. But the photos don’t change, and the act of taking them remains the same, even if the photographer contributes money to a related charity. Some photographers make a big show of their charitable efforts — Salgado comes to mind. Other photographers shoot with a sense of sympathy and connection — DAH comes to mind. Viewers respond to the photographer’s relationship with his material. If Salgado never gave a dime to charity, would he be an exploiter? What he if were a lousy photographer, shooting the same people, and he his images were never published and he never got paid? We he be an exploiter (or a failed exploiter)?

It’s easy, in my view, to poke holes in the morality-money argument. The real question is the photographer’s relation with the material. Sometimes that relationship makes people feel gratified (James Nachtwey is a candidate for sainthood) or uneasy (Ballen’s art project with the homeless is exploitation). But the relationship is what it is. Some photographers are intentionally clear about it; others are intentionally vague. Others enjoy the discomfort of their viewers.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with how I view work, in this case Ballen’s. My judgement (if any) or understanding isn’t based of what he thinks I am or not, but on what *I* think (about the work and about myself).

Thodoris, my problem, if I can call it so, is about your distinction of “normal” vs. “down-and-out people”. By making a distinction you put them, in my eyes, on an inferior, or at least on a differnt level. Respect, for whoever is in front of our lenses, no matter who s/he is, is key. IMO.

i guess in the end it comes down to trust on the part of the viewer – that the ¨whoever¨ is doing the ¨right-on¨ by the ¨infront of the camera¨..
it is certainly not black n white..

Ok… first of all, there are more than a couple of different issues that are intertwined in our discussion—e.g. people as our subject matter in general, down-and-out people as our subject matter specifically, collaboration in the making of our work, etc…

Erica, Preston…

Since your points of view are somewhat similar, I’ll try to answer to both of you at once—so that I don’t repeat myself… hope you don’t mind…

Acquiring someone’s permission to take their picture (either with a simple nod, verbally, or by giving them a release to sign) does not constitute collaboration. Collaboration means that they participate actively in the creative process. For example, when two writers collaborate on a text, they share credit… being a source, and being a collaborator to a writer/journalist are two different things.
http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=collaboration

It has mainly to do with the photographer’s motivations and intentions for choosing the “poor, squatters, beggars, drifters, drug users” as his/her subject in the first place… if it was some sort of voyeurism or if it was the idea that this could be a fast track for they careers to fame—and possibly money—then it’s by default exploitation. If they were driven by some sort of idealism—to bring attention to a social issue, to bring our dark side into the light, to show to all those suits in their AC offices what the real world out there looks like, etc, etc, etc…—then it’s only logic that they would want to share any gain

As for photojournalists, most of the serious ones whose work is focused on the subjects we are discussing are almost always working in conjunction with local and/or international organizations that strive to make real and measurable difference… so, they can easily claim (and they rightly do so) that their work brings attention and helps the public to better understand the issues, *and* helps the organizations that can-do-something about these issues to raise considerable funds.

As for the “so it’s okay to photograph homeless people if you are journalist but not if you are an artist?” bit, I never said or implied such a notion. If anything, I said was pretty much the opposite… that an artist who chooses to focus his/her work on (as per your example) the homeless should be held on the same level of accountability as is a journalist.

I don’t know about Salgado, so I’ll use an example that I know of…
I used to think of… McCurry and National Geographic made a small fortune out of his “Afghan Girl” picture… now, they might not have shared that money with her directly, but they did set up in 2002 the Afghan Girls Fund (Afghan Children’s Fun since 2008) which according to their site has raised more than a million up to now…
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/donate/afghan-childrens-fund.html

And, photography *is* a moral act… especially when the subject matter is the grim side of humanity… when someone starts making money out of someone else’s misery, then if he/she has any moral values whatsoever *has* to share part of the gain with those poor, miserable, ” squatters, beggars, drifters, drug users”…

Ok… that’s 585 words… took me more than 3 hours… enjoy…

There is no such thing as a superior or inferior aesthetic psyche. Your psyche is your psyche. It’s not a contest.

To be sure, as we are exposed to a wider variety of work, and ideas, (like here on burn) we may gain a new ability to appreciate things we might have missed before. That doesn’t invalidate your previous perceptions, or the perceptions of others with less experienced eyes. Powerful work is accessable to all, and can be appreciated on many levels.

Look, listen, and learn Eva, but don’t let anyone tell you what to think, or how to react when you view their work.

Cheers

Good to hear your always wise and thoughtful words.

Yes, I have met a number of famous and many not so famous artists over the years. Some of them, while they produced amazing stuff, were pompous buffoons. Others were warm and generous in spite of their status and talents.

I have also spend a lot of time in the company of musicians. Chris Norman for example, considered one of the most gifted flute players in the world, manages to have a healthy ego, and yet is always inclusive, patient, and treats all players as equals. Occasionallly, you do run into an accomplished player who is aloof and obnoxious, but not often.

Be careful down there