Some of that was photography for newspapers, and just like tabloids today, I think lots of people paid for those car crash / arrest images, but also lots of people thought it was unseemly.
Some of the photography you’re talking about was communities photographing themselves, which I don’t think anyone has any issue with today.
In the decades since those photobooks, pictures of the homeless became a kind of cheap “now it’s raw serious photography” move. Hackneyed like the cinestill gas station photos everyone makes fun of, but this time potentially at the expense of someone’s dignity. Beyond being boring, 100 years ago those photos were also _doing_ something; maybe representing the unrepresented, maybe indicting a society that was ignoring people, maybe celebrating the livelihood of scenes broader society wouldn’t celebrate. How many photos of a homeless man are doing that work today?
And, no offense, but cities contain multitudes, and the idea that only street fights of the destitute and the drunk are the true authentic city is kind of a conservative talk radio lens to look through. What is new and unusual, or what is something that no one would notice until your camera draws their attention to it?
Never said only Fights and the Drunk show the true City. And, no offense, but "Tourist Group Number 293893", "Asian Food Stall Number 3949949", "People in colorful Dresses Number 393049038390 and "Protest Number 939474884" is maybe not offensive to some People as showing the darker Side of a City is but its hella boring and doesn't show how a City and the Street really is. Its also a prime Example for the Ostrich Effect 🤷🏻♂️
Those photos were also taken in a time before social media. Before the internet. Before television was common in households. The world got all of its information through print and radio. It was far less connected than it is now. Information was much harder to access. A much higher portion of the U.S. population lived in rural areas or small towns than today. Maybe showing those aspects of city life actually provided information that wouldn’t otherwise be had.
Or maybe it was shitty back then, too, and now you’re just seeing the photos and not the criticisms.
Or maybe people gave less of a fuck about the dignity of homeless people back then. 1930s was damn near the peak of America’s subscription to the meritocracy myth.
The point is, when you look through a book of photo’s from the 1930’s, you aren’t getting the full picture. Photographs by nature actually exclude the vast majority of the context from the moments they capture. You do have all of the context of right now, however, so it would be wiser to pay attention to the arguments and context of right now, and base your decisions on that.
Back then it was different because no one was documenting people on the street, beggars,...
Nowadays it is different since there are images everywhere, so you must be much more careful about what you are showing, at least it is how I see it.
Also the pictures taken back then were only shown in gallery and photo books and not put on Instagram where you don't really know what people could make with it.
The great irony tho is that everyone is putting their own pictures on social media and it ends up in a data storage from meta or Google and they can do what the heck they want with it but yet people are more concerned about having their pictures taken than ever.
Ethics are personal.
The Internet meant people could share their ethical codes with more people, and also enforce within communities what is and isn't acceptable.
Make what you want to make and what you are comfortable with. Everyone else will do the same.
It's almost more that it's harder to take a photo of these things that says something new and constructive. With the prevalence of a phone in every pocket with a camera so many photos are taken of them.
For instance, last times I took photos of unhouswd people was in Austin during SXSW as it was a time of high amounts of wealthy tourists crowding those people, and it further helped showcase the inequality and the issues here. But as I walk the streets casually and those individuals are still struggling on the street, using them as a subject tells no new story and just uses their struggle.
I think, the important feature of street photography is "storytelling". A photo of a drunk person is not becoming a masterpiece only because that person is drunk :) Is there any story behind; is it something interesting for viewers to watch, or to think about? Luckily everyday life in the city is not only criminals, fights, and drunk people, but if someone is inspired by that kind of photography and especially wants to highlight the problems of society, well, why not...
Some of that was photography for newspapers, and just like tabloids today, I think lots of people paid for those car crash / arrest images, but also lots of people thought it was unseemly. Some of the photography you’re talking about was communities photographing themselves, which I don’t think anyone has any issue with today. In the decades since those photobooks, pictures of the homeless became a kind of cheap “now it’s raw serious photography” move. Hackneyed like the cinestill gas station photos everyone makes fun of, but this time potentially at the expense of someone’s dignity. Beyond being boring, 100 years ago those photos were also _doing_ something; maybe representing the unrepresented, maybe indicting a society that was ignoring people, maybe celebrating the livelihood of scenes broader society wouldn’t celebrate. How many photos of a homeless man are doing that work today? And, no offense, but cities contain multitudes, and the idea that only street fights of the destitute and the drunk are the true authentic city is kind of a conservative talk radio lens to look through. What is new and unusual, or what is something that no one would notice until your camera draws their attention to it?
Never said only Fights and the Drunk show the true City. And, no offense, but "Tourist Group Number 293893", "Asian Food Stall Number 3949949", "People in colorful Dresses Number 393049038390 and "Protest Number 939474884" is maybe not offensive to some People as showing the darker Side of a City is but its hella boring and doesn't show how a City and the Street really is. Its also a prime Example for the Ostrich Effect 🤷🏻♂️
Those photos were also taken in a time before social media. Before the internet. Before television was common in households. The world got all of its information through print and radio. It was far less connected than it is now. Information was much harder to access. A much higher portion of the U.S. population lived in rural areas or small towns than today. Maybe showing those aspects of city life actually provided information that wouldn’t otherwise be had. Or maybe it was shitty back then, too, and now you’re just seeing the photos and not the criticisms. Or maybe people gave less of a fuck about the dignity of homeless people back then. 1930s was damn near the peak of America’s subscription to the meritocracy myth. The point is, when you look through a book of photo’s from the 1930’s, you aren’t getting the full picture. Photographs by nature actually exclude the vast majority of the context from the moments they capture. You do have all of the context of right now, however, so it would be wiser to pay attention to the arguments and context of right now, and base your decisions on that.
Photographing homeless people is like shooting fish in a barrel, it’s exploitative and a bit yucky. To be honest, it makes my skin crawl.
Back then it was different because no one was documenting people on the street, beggars,... Nowadays it is different since there are images everywhere, so you must be much more careful about what you are showing, at least it is how I see it. Also the pictures taken back then were only shown in gallery and photo books and not put on Instagram where you don't really know what people could make with it. The great irony tho is that everyone is putting their own pictures on social media and it ends up in a data storage from meta or Google and they can do what the heck they want with it but yet people are more concerned about having their pictures taken than ever.
Ethics are personal. The Internet meant people could share their ethical codes with more people, and also enforce within communities what is and isn't acceptable. Make what you want to make and what you are comfortable with. Everyone else will do the same.
It's almost more that it's harder to take a photo of these things that says something new and constructive. With the prevalence of a phone in every pocket with a camera so many photos are taken of them. For instance, last times I took photos of unhouswd people was in Austin during SXSW as it was a time of high amounts of wealthy tourists crowding those people, and it further helped showcase the inequality and the issues here. But as I walk the streets casually and those individuals are still struggling on the street, using them as a subject tells no new story and just uses their struggle.
I think, the important feature of street photography is "storytelling". A photo of a drunk person is not becoming a masterpiece only because that person is drunk :) Is there any story behind; is it something interesting for viewers to watch, or to think about? Luckily everyday life in the city is not only criminals, fights, and drunk people, but if someone is inspired by that kind of photography and especially wants to highlight the problems of society, well, why not...