Street and documentary photography both have firm roots in the philosophy of “realism.” Unlike many types of photography, which build off “romanticism,” street and documentary photography are about reality as it really is.
I recently noticed a controversy surrounding a photo project by Aaron Draper, a professor of photography at Chico State University. Many people have claimed that Aaron has been exploitative in his work. I don’t agree with this, but rather, I level another charge – romanticized dishonesty!
“enable people to gain a more humane view of the homeless.”
What about a realistic view?…
[fvplayer src=”https://s3.amazonaws.com/gritstreet/fakestreet.mp4″]
I may have missed it, but I couldn’t find ANY text to go with these images. No story, just posed snapshots.
From the article linked above:
“…why I was exploring a topic that was more suited to a documentary style of photography. This question was important because it challenged me to think about why I preferred to light my subjects and ask their permission, as opposed to photograph them with a long lens from across the street.”
Me – Which social documentary photographers stand across the street with long lenses and photograph homeless people? Personally, I’ve known the subjects of my work for YEARS, and my primary lens is a 24mm prime… . ???
“…Some people in online forums say I’m exploiting the homeless for my own purposes or trying to whitewash their problems by using a commercial style. Once they hear more about the scope of my project they’ll see that this is entirely untrue.”
Me – While I agree that the first accusation is more than likely false (Although, I’m not exactly sure what the purpose of his project is, as he seems rather confused as to the purpose himself), he clearly whitewashed the realities of homelessness with his commercial style.
“My initial goal was to represent the culture of homelessness and focus on the methods they’ve learned for survival on the streets.”
Me – That sounds like a social documentary project rather than a commercial undertaking.
“My goal was to initiate the public discourse and from there we could get the smart people talking. Artists are often just the kindling that ignites the flames of change.”
Me – Sounds like he discovered what’s involved with a social documentary project, and decided to take the total self-gratifying commercial route instead. Nothing wrong with that. He paid his models. The sad thing is, it does not appear that he actually learned anything about homelessness himself. He doesn’t seem to have any clear message, other than causing controversy. What change? Which way should we go? What should we do? What have you learned that you can now share with all of us?
“…Knowing that these agencies don’t have the funds to hire commercial photographers to work on their campaigns, I donate images of the homeless in their areas to these agencies.”
Me – I’m not sure how familiar he is with our system, but there’s BIG money to be made in the homelessness business…
As one person stated: “To stand out from the crowd, he chose unorthodox models, that’s all…”
MAKES MY POINT>>>
“… Ah ha! you see the homeless out of homelessness, I see the homeless being happy in their homelessness..”
ME… you see Shaggy as being happy (the actual reality of homelessness)??? WOW… You are one sick-twist if you see Shaggy as “happy.”
But, I am SO happy that you said that. You just made my point! Romanticism distorts peoples’ perceptions of reality!
What are your thoughts? Leave your comments below!
Good critique Chuck Not sure how this guy could think this is in any way a real view of homelessness. Bland dumbed down and as you say how it’s going today Keep up the good work
Interesting take Chuck. You’ve got lots to say and I’d love to talk to you about the project sometime if you’d like.
Warmest,
Draper.