# Homless Shelter wants Photographer with no Ethics?



## unpopular (Jun 12, 2012)

So I found a volunteer position at a local shelter, I've actually seen this position advertised for some time and had considered it in the past. My wife kind of insisted that I reply, and so I did.

In my letter I told them that I was willing to do it, but only if I represented the subjects as individuals, rather than using their image to represent their social status. In other words, I wasn't will to make Poverty Porn for them to exploit. A pretty simple request from an organization that is supposed to be helping people get off the streets.

Two weeks later, no reply.

Do you think I should push for this, or just assume I'm not the photographer for the job?


----------



## gsgary (Jun 12, 2012)

I would say they are wanting images that will make people put their hands in their pocket


----------



## fjrabon (Jun 12, 2012)

A) whoever read your letter probably has no idea what you were talking about.  B) They just want pictures that will bring donations.  They don't give a crap otherwise.  C) whatever they interpreted your comments to mean, they probably just took them as you being difficult.  They were probably just thinking "we just want somebody who is going to take the dang photos."


----------



## unpopular (Jun 12, 2012)

^^ ok. sure. 

but for crying out loud, it's unpaid work that has been advertised for over a year now!! if they want to be choosy, they should hire someone, but I'm not going to donate my time to a project I don't agree with.


----------



## fjrabon (Jun 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ^^ ok. sure.
> 
> but for crying out loud, it's unpaid work that has been advertised for over a year now!! if they want to be choosy, they should hire someone, but I'm not going to donate my time to a project I don't agree with.



I can tell you administrators in non-profits hate volunteers with demands more than anything else.  Mostly because they think it makes their job harder.  Whoever is reading your letter probably just thought "Jesus, I don't need to deal with and consider whether or not these pictures are representing these people as individuals or exploiting the nature of their social class, I don't even know what that means.  I just want some pictures to put up, but heck if I'm dealing with this guy."  

Not saying that's right, but from knowing people who run NPO's, that's how they think about any volunteers who come with stipulations.  Heck, they barely want to take donations with stipulations, if those stipulations make their job harder (or even if they think it possibly might).


----------



## unpopular (Jun 12, 2012)

Was I so wrong then? It seems to me that I should have the principle of least interest here.


----------



## fjrabon (Jun 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Was I so wrong then? It seems to me that I should have the principle of least interest here.



No, by no means were you wrong.  You stated what you believed.  If they want you they'll let you know.  Otherwise they'll probably wait until some college kid who 'like totally saw all these cool homeless pics' applies and they'll exploit the college kid and the homeless people in order to raise money.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Jun 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> So I found a volunteer position at a local shelter, I've actually seen this position advertised for some time and had considered it in the past. My wife kind of insisted that I reply, and so I did.
> 
> In my letter I told them that I was willing to do it, but only if I represented the subjects as individuals, rather than using their image to represent their social status. In other words, I wasn't will to make Poverty Porn for them to exploit. A pretty simple request from an organization that is supposed to be helping people get off the streets.
> 
> ...



Did you actually go talk to anyone about what the position actually entailed before sending this message? or did you assume what it entailed?


----------



## unpopular (Jun 12, 2012)

Any time that you're taking photos of homeless people you can choose to photograph their economic status or themeselves as individuals. So no matter what was entailed, if it involved photographing homeless individuals and families (which according to the ad it was) I think my concerns were legitimate.


----------



## IByte (Jun 12, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> Any time that you're taking photos of homeless people you can choose to photograph their economic status or themeselves as individuals. So no matter what was entailed, if it involved photographing homeless individuals and families (which according to the ad it was) I think my concerns were legitimate.



Rest assured your conscious is clean and will be able to sleep.  You know what,  to the hell with them.  I say make dozen sandwiches, case of bottled water; then do your own photoshoot then pass the food out for a job well done.....boooyah!!


----------



## unpopular (Jun 12, 2012)

I've spoken with the homeless around here, and the particular shelter doesn't seem to be very good. One family was attending parenting classes which ended at 8:00 and often times ran over a little. By the time they packed up their three kids, it was often 8:30, and if they didn't get there before 9:00pm they risked eviction - for attending parenting classes!

I've been weary of this job, and I think for good reason.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 13, 2012)

I think your concerns are well-founded and I agree; walk away.  I have a sneaking suspicion that perhaps this shelter either wants more, or is in danger of losing government (or other) grants which it uses for its oeprating buget, and someone felt that one of those "Christian Children's Fund" campaigns would help things out.


----------



## Carny (Jun 13, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ... photograph their economic status or themeselves as individuals.



Tell me how these two photos would be different.  I'm not really sure what you mean.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 13, 2012)

You probably got no response, as others have stated, because you showed potential for being difficult. Also, they are in the business of helping the needy. They need to illustrate what they do in order to get support from people. I am sorry, but showing me a bunch of pictures of people smiling, and having a grand ole time without any reference to economic status, doesn't scream to me "I need help." As a photographer, you should know the importance of story telling in your photos.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 13, 2012)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> You probably got no response, as others have stated, because you showed potential for being difficult. Also, they are in the business of helping the needy. They need to illustrate what they do in order to get support from people. I am sorry, but showing me a bunch of pictures of people smiling, and having a grand ole time without any reference to economic status, doesn't scream to me "I need help." As a photographer, you should know the importance of story telling in your photos.






Carny said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > ... photograph their economic status or themeselves as individuals.
> ...



There is a difference between telling their story honestly, and there is poverty porn. Poverty porn says nothing at all about a person aside from the fact that they are homeless. It's those black and whit epictures of homeless people, taken from half a block away using a telephoto lens. The intention it to say "this is homelessness" without any consideration to who they are as people.

It's like photographing a Mexican family for the sake of the fact that they are Mexican, or a Black family for the sake of the fact that they are Black - and seek to represent all Black people and all Mexicans through these images.

If they were looking for "I need help" that's fine. But I am not going to use an individual to say "We need help". If the shelter cannot understand or appreciate this, then it shows a lack of compassion and understanding for the individuals they help. If they see me as problematic, then I'm OK with that.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 13, 2012)

unpopular said:


> There is a difference between telling their story honestly, and there is poverty porn. Poverty porn says nothing at all about a person aside from the fact that they are homeless.


* 
No offense, but it sounds like you are trying way too hard to create a dramatic issue out of something that really shouldn't be. Its one thing to dislike photographers who take pictures of the homeless for use as "street photography" or whatnot as being exploitative, but this is kind of silly when you are rallying against an institution that is trying to help these people. 

There is nothing wrong with capturing photos of people as they are, in order to illustrate what this shelter does. Its not like they are bringing in a bunch of people and dressing them up like hobos and then asking you to photoshop them so that they look like they are at deaths door. Honesty should always be something you strive for. 

However, While this shelter works hard to feed, clothe, and provide shelter to an ever growing group of needy human beings on a daily basis, you have the audacity to sit back and pretend that your righteousness is going to help the homeless in an sort of realistic sense. I think that your automatic assumption of exploitation and "porn" are incredibly presumptuous and misguided regardless of how hip and fun it is to frivolously use the word "porn" as a suffix. Sorry if that comes off as harsh. I don't mean to offend you, just being bluntly honest. Everyone likes to stand up for something, I just think that you are picking the wrong battle. *


----------



## unpopular (Jun 13, 2012)

Debasing and dehumanizing individuals to mere icons of a greater problem is never ethical. Judging from your initial reactions, I don't expect you to understand this because you likely don't see the homeless as individuals, but rather as a problem needing to be fixed.

Furthermore, unless you have ever used a shelter yourself, you have no idea what these institutions are actually doing.


----------



## IByte (Jun 13, 2012)

Best story of the homeless is when Diogenes of Sinope influenced Alexander the Great.


----------



## Jaemie (Jun 13, 2012)

Next time give them a nice benign letter saying you're willing and enthusiastic, blah blah blah, and then, if they give you the job, do it your way. 

Asking for permission sucks. I rarely get anything done that way, so I don't.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 13, 2012)

I agree, that is a much better approach. Get the foot in the door and feel them out.

I'm just a little disappointed, you know, I'd think anyone who worked with the homeless would welcome attempts to humanize them. I'm much more disappointed in that than not getting the job.

woot! spellcheck is back!


----------



## Carny (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm still not really sure what the difference is.  What would the photo you want to take look like?  What would the photo you think they want look like?

I think the previous posts about them not responding because they thought you were going to be difficult are probably correct.  Why wouldn't they want them shown as individuals?  If I were running a shelter and wanted photos for promotion and to get donations, then shots that made them look like individuals and real people are exactly what I would want.

It's almost like you have something against the shelter and are offended they don't want your help at the same time.

Also, there's a good chance they are busy and just haven't responded yet.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 13, 2012)

He is difficult, have you seen some of his post on here


----------



## Jaemie (Jun 13, 2012)

Those needy meek...


----------



## usayit (Jun 13, 2012)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> No offense, but it sounds like you are trying way too hard to create a dramatic issue out of something that really shouldn't be.



Totally agree...  The discussion is very similar to the ones that blatantly classify nudity as porn without much thought to the complexities involved.   

On the other hand, you shouldn't do what makes you feel uncomfortable.    If you as the photographer can use images to tell the story of the struggles of homelessness and portray them as fellow humans, then you should have no problems sleeping at night knowing that you are helping getting their message out in the open.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 13, 2012)

All this condemnation based on assumptions. Nice! Go you!


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 13, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Debasing and dehumanizing individuals to mere icons of a greater problem is never ethical. Judging from your initial reactions, I don't expect you to understand this because you likely don't see the homeless as individuals, but rather as a problem needing to be fixed.


 You have shown no evidence of dehumanizing people. If someone takes a picture of a homeless person and the photo clearly conveys that this person is either a)homeless b)impoverished or c) needing assistance then this somehow dehumanizes them? So you are telling me that a dirty guy I see sleeping on a bench instantly becomes "dehumanized" simply because I snap a photo of him? That makes no sense. 

Again, as I stated, it seems that you are assuming way too much, and also twisting a shelters intentions into your own assumptions. If you are so worried about how a shelter does its job, then go stay there, or go talk to them. Don't sit back, make assumptions, and whine about how they don't want to work with you. What I see here, is someone who had a pretty good sneaking suspicion that the reality is that this shelter does not wish to work with you. So you come on here and ask a fairly obvious question in hopes of everyone thinking you are so great for taking a stand against all those "damn filthy homeless shelters with all their ....helpfullness....and sheltering...." So we can all say "wow, that guy is so cool and righteous!" Its all so self-serving and anyone with an inkling of a clue can see right through it. 

Is this shelter supposed to just pull money out of its @ss to do what it does? Do a little test-- go out in front of a Walmart (or some other busy store) and stand with a sign asking for money. Dressed as you normally do. Then, don't shower for 2 weeks, and wear the same clothes for 2 weeks. Don't comb your hair or shave or brush your teeth. See which day you get more money. Are you any "less human" either of those days? Not really, but the public is quite fickle, especially in a down economy when it comes to donating. Just as you are suspicious about the shelter, the general public is typically suspicious of people asking for handouts. That's just life.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 13, 2012)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Debasing and dehumanizing individuals to mere icons of a greater problem is never ethical. Judging from your initial reactions, I don't expect you to understand this because you likely don't see the homeless as individuals, but rather as a problem needing to be fixed.
> ...



Let's not conflate two issues - the 'using' of the homeless for a subject and what the shelter's intent is.

I have no idea about the latter but I do have a very specific opinion about the former.
I believe that if an image has no other point than showing a homeless/poor/mentally ill (your choice) person and tells us nothing more, but uses that person's plight as cheap emotional fodder to pump up an image's impact, then it is exploitation. Rather than treating that subject as a person, the photographer in that case is dehumanizing them and degrading them to the level of only a subject.

 The homeless/poor/mentally ill are more vulnerable than most and photographers should be aware than sometime our rights can trample on theirs.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 13, 2012)

I don't think photographing homeless environmental portraits is any more dehumanizing or degrading than glamor girl bikini photography.


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 13, 2012)

and we now see why your screen name is "unpopular" 

:lmao:

...had to say it.  hippie.   lolol


----------



## unpopular (Jun 13, 2012)

I have no idea what the shelter had in mind. As a fine art photographer  who aspires recognition, though, I must maintain some level of quality in my work. Perhaps some of you can go off and give whatever the client wants, but the last thing I want is to be known as a poverty pornographer. Which, believe it or not, is a big topic in the fine art circle. 

This is not a matter of what the shelter did or did not want, it's a matter of what what I was willing to do. Like i said, I'm much more disappointed in that the shelter refused free services solely on the basis that I sought to humanize and individualize a marginal population who is so clearly often debased to their economic status.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 13, 2012)

Carny said:


> I'm still not really sure what the difference is.  What would the photo you want to take look like?  What would the photo you think they want look like?



This is exactly my point. What _should_ any portrait look like? It depends on the subject.



> I think the previous posts about them not responding because they thought you were going to be difficult are probably correct.  Why wouldn't they want them shown as individuals?  If I were running a shelter and wanted photos for promotion and to get donations, then shots that made them look like individuals and real people are exactly what I would want.



Then what's the problem?



> It's almost like you have something against the shelter and are offended they don't want your help at the same time.



If I could help the homeless in the community, my views on the shelter itself is of no consequence. I'm not sure where you even got that one aside from what I have gathered from some of the homeless I've spoken to in the community.



> Also, there's a good chance they are busy and just haven't responded yet.



Yes, there is.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 14, 2012)

Just for the record - being a politically active person, I know only too well that much of the charity in the world isnt really honestly trying to help.

For example, donations of old clothing have destroyed the clothing industry in many developing countries.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 14, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> I don't think photographing homeless environmental portraits is any more dehumanizing or degrading than glamor girl bikini photography.



pretty much, neither do I.
at least with glamor girl stuff, the woman gets something out of it.


----------



## molested_cow (Jun 14, 2012)

The mistake you made is that you made a point about yourself without opening yourself up to them first. What I mean is, you should have just sent a letter of interest stating that you want to find out more about this opportunity, then let them do the talking. Then you will find out what they really want and you negotiate from there.

Try this at any job application and you will get the same response from them, which is none.


----------



## Carny (Jun 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Carny said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still not really sure what the difference is.  What would the photo you want to take look like?  What would the photo you think they want look like?
> ...



You tell us what the problem is, as you are the one that apparently has one.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Jun 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > You probably got no response, as others have stated, because you showed potential for being difficult. Also, they are in the business of helping the needy. They need to illustrate what they do in order to get support from people. I am sorry, but showing me a bunch of pictures of people smiling, and having a grand ole time without any reference to economic status, doesn't scream to me "I need help." As a photographer, you should know the importance of story telling in your photos.
> ...



Faces of Addiction - a set on Flickr


----------



## kundalini (Jun 14, 2012)

Perhaps your quasi high ethical stance is slightly misplaced. The whole reason to volunteer to whichever cause that holds a persons' interest or internal driving force is to give back and add value to that cause. The fact that you are a Fine Arts photographer is well and good, but has little bearing to the task at hand. It seems to me the mindset should be one of contribution rather than one of personal agenda for artwork. In my mind, volunteering removes self from the equation. Had you not set boundries without even hearing what the shelter's intent is, then perhaps you could have combined the two pursuits. 

I volunteered at a local animal shelter for a while. Reason being is that I have a soft spot for animals in these conditions and have adopted a few cats and dogs from this very shelter, including the cat I have now. My intent for volunteering was for a photographer's position because I had seen their website and knew I could add value to their presentation of the animals that potential adopters would view. The typical photos were taken from outside the kennels with the chainlink gate prominent, the animal barely distinguishable and looking imprisoned rather than the adorable pet they could be. After speaking with the administrator with regard of the wanted outcome, I began asking further questions and relayed my vision of how this can be accomplished. Yep, I had a vision. 

So instead of just going up to the gate and snap-snap-snap, I would enter the kennel and spend the first 5 to 10 minutes to get to know the animal, pet it and try calming their nerves. Most were very nervous because it was a foreign environment for them, removed from familiarity, loud and a pungent odor loomed heavily. For that small amount of time spent, not only did the animal receive comfort and soothing, I was filled with a great sense of returned love and satisfaction that my contribution made a positive impact. I was told later that my photos were _a contributing factor_ for nearly a 100% adoption rate. That was my goal and intent. The bonus was honing my photographic skills.

I believe your assesment of the shelter exhibiting a lack of ethics, without any communication, is premature at best. Just my 2¢.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2012)

> Faces of Addiction - a set on Flickr



While it is true that the overwhelming majority of homeless are addicts, it is untrue that most addicts are homeless. Finding drug and alcohol addicted homeless people and using them as the icon of addiction is precisely what I am talking about here.

I can't help but feel this photographer is using the homeless to illustrate all drug addicts, rather than the stories of homeless addicts to illustrate their own addiction.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2012)

kundalini said:


> I believe your assesment of the shelter exhibiting a lack of ethics, without any communication, is premature at best.  Just my 2¢.



What assessment?? If the shelter wanted a photographer that sought to humanize the subject, then I wouldn't have been difficult. This is only an issue if they wanted a photographer who didn't mind taking exploitive images. How is that an _agenda_?

I agree that I should have voiced concerns only after they arose. But come on, if they saw my request as "problematic" then it's a cause I can't get behind.


----------



## Overread (Jun 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> > What assessment?? If the shelter wanted a photographer that sought to humanize the subject, then I wouldn't have been difficult. This is only an issue if they wanted a photographer who didn't mind taking exploitive images.
> ...


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2012)

The fact that they didn't understand what I was saying should say something, just like those who don't understand what I am saying now can't seem to think of the homeless as anything more than "the homeless".

I did approach this wrongly, but I don't understand why some people just can't see my POV on this.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Jun 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> > Faces of Addiction - a set on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just wanted to show you that what you want to really do can be done exactly the way you described it being done.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2012)

It can be done, and I appreciate your support. But I am not sure that posing random homeless drug addicts in nearly identically is really what I had in mind.

The blurbs are interesting, but without them ... idk. Was this guy just unable to find a single addict who lives in an apartment? He found a couple who are in recovery who do.

Whatever. Feel free to discuss this, but I'm getting too emotional at this point to keep up the discussion.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ^^ ok. sure.
> 
> but for crying out loud, it's unpaid work that has been advertised for over a year now!! if they want to be choosy, they should hire someone, but I'm not going to donate my time to a project I don't agree with.


 exactly! Money is a great way to sooth any difficulty.


----------



## Carny (Jun 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> The fact that they didn't understand what I was saying should say something, just like those who don't understand what I am saying now can't seem to think of the homeless as anything more than "the homeless".
> 
> I did approach this wrongly, but I don't understand why some people just can't see my POV on this.



My lack of understanding has nothing to do with "the homeless".  I can't see your pov because you've never really said what it is.  

Please just answer this question: How would the photos you want to take be different than the photos you think they want you to take?  If you can't describe post examples


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2012)

I have no idea what I think they'd want me to take. All I said was what I wasn't willing to do.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> What assessment?? If the shelter wanted a photographer that sought to humanize the subject, then I wouldn't have been difficult. This is only an issue if they wanted a photographer who didn't mind taking exploitive images. How is that an _agenda_?


Assessment, the action or an instance of assessing.  Assess, to determine the importance, size or value of;
Agenda, an underlying often ideological plan or program


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2012)

Like I keep saying, I have no opinion about what the shelter wanted, only what their lack of response means to me.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 14, 2012)

Although I agree with your POV about the homeless, my reaction would have been that same as the shelter' which was to file your application in the round file. 
Life is too short and too difficult to purposefully hire someone who has a bone to pick before he/she starts.


----------



## rgregory1965 (Jun 14, 2012)

Popcorn anyone 


View attachment 11410


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2012)

^^ no doubt, huh?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 14, 2012)

I like to think, after recieving your response to their ad, that they are all sitting around discussing what a D-canoe you must be...and having a good laugh.

It's safe for them to assume that, right?


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 14, 2012)

For a few years I was in the position where I was hiring people directly and I always treasured the cover letters which told me, indirectly of course, just how much of a PITA I could expect them to be. It saved on interviews.
Their goal was, explicitly or not, to march around with a flaming torch doing their definiton of good.
My idea for their goal was that they do the job, on time, give me good feedback and generally make my life easier, not harder.

Flaming torches set off the sprinklers.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2012)

Once again. If they saw my letter as a PITA, then I'm ok with their response.


----------



## durhamskywriter (Jun 23, 2012)

i'm late entering the arena, as i haven't visited this forum for a year or so. as has been asked before, i'd really like an answer to the question how the two portraits would differ&#8212;your (unpopular's) view and the perceived view of the shelter. here's why: i was 12 years old when i got 'serious' about photography. i took the bus downtown with the intent of showing how the big city looks before the workers arrive and came across a disheveled-looking person lying on a park bench surrounded by old, tattered bags full of stuff. the person was sound asleep so i had time to think about what i was going to do. this was way back in the 1960s and the word "homeless" wasn't even in use yet. i stood there, thinking, for the longest time. on one hand i felt that it was a cowardly act to photograph someone who might have protested had he been aware that i was going to take his picture. i also wondered if i was taking a "souvenir" shot and thus exploiting this person. i had no working knowledge of the press and wouldn't have known how to use the photo to illustrate the plight of homeless people. i pondered whether i should take the photo for what seemed hours. finally, i decided not to take the photo and walked away. but i still think about that day and wonder if i made the best decision. (this might sound far more dramatic to you, but for me, it was a defining moment on how i viewed people and the role of photographers.) i still think that i made the right decision. i knew that i'd be taking a picture of a homeless person simply because he was homeless.

i've grown up, and i now realize that i can&#8212;and have&#8212;taken photos of homeless people. the difference is, i'm taking a photo of mr brown or mrs smith. what i'm trying to capture is the humanity of the person without dwelling on whether they're homeless. in fact, i don't even think that it's important to even mention that they're homeless unless it's necessary for the story. but if i were hired to take photos for our local homeless shelter, i'd approach the assignment with the same attitude. at this time in my life, i don't think it's possible to take a photo of a person, homeless or not, and *not* explore his or her humanity.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm only saying this once:

*1) I HAVE NO PERCEIVED VIEW OF WHAT THE SHELTER WANTED. ONLY THAT OF WHAT I WAS UNWILLING TO DO.

2) YOU CANNOT PREDICT HOW A PORTRAIT SHOULD BE WITHOUT FIRST MEETING THE SUBJECT.

3) I ACKNOWLEDGE I APPROACHED THIS PROJECT WRONG, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE LACK OF RESPONSE STILL INDICATES SOMETHING TO ME.

4) IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO READ WHAT THE OP SAYS BEFORE ASSUMING WHAT THEY MEAN.*


----------



## durhamskywriter (Jun 23, 2012)

no, you've said it more than once. too bad you're not able to deal with this subject with any sensitivity. i guess i wouldn't want to hire you either. i can see you going to a job interview and saying, "um, i don't know what you're looking for, what the job description is, the hours, what the dress code is, or when the job even starts, but &#8230; no way i'm gonna do that!" LOL! good luck with whatever it is you do.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 23, 2012)

what the hell does that mean?

I can't believe how much this thread has been warped around, all over the fact that I refuse to exploit an individual to represent all homelessness.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 23, 2012)

durhamskywriter said:


> no way i'm gonna do that!



Yeah well, I wouldn't. Period. 

If they, or any one else for that matter, has a problem with it then I'm just not the guy for the job. I just don't see why I'm the bad guy here because I have actual integrity. If they or you or anyone else cannot see the problem I'd have with these images: 

homeless_guy.jpg
homeless-man.jpg
homeless-guy.jpg
homeless-guy.jpg
640px-Homeless_guy_on_Yonge_Street.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/geremology/29859293/


Then I am not sure what else to say.


----------



## IByte (Jun 23, 2012)

So what you trying say conviction over profit.  If you are working for them you want to have some artistic control, and retain some of their(homeless) dignity.  Sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## Jaemie (Jun 23, 2012)

meh..  If I were in your position, I wouldn't spend any more time dwelling on either this thread or on the volunteer position. Your letter to the shelter could probably have been written better, but from what I can tell from your first post it wasn't that bad. Whoever read it, if anyone read it, probably got the impression you might have some issues with the job and decided against giving you the job. But we'll never know really what happened. That's it. In the absence of more evidence, further speculation is a futile exercise.

Unfortunately, however, by starting this thread you've allowed everyone the opportunity to sound off on a very sensitive subject that happens to be centered on you, and thus it has become personal. Nothing is ever resolved on the internet; ideas are twisted and agendas pursued and misunderstandings abound. As the saying goes, the more you say, the more fuel you throw on the fire, and in this case, because it's become personal, it's a fire under your own feet.

For whatever it's worth, I think your motives were virtuous, but your strategy was flawed.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 23, 2012)

live and learn, I guess...


----------



## durhamskywriter (Jun 23, 2012)

unpopular said:


> &#8230; In my letter I told them that I was willing to do it, *but* *only if I represented the subjects as individuals, rather than using their image to represent their social status*. &#8230;



this is the last time i'm going to post in this particular thread &#8230; but how can you *possibly* be taken seriously when you name your pix "homeless guy," "homeless man," etc? individuals indeed. totally, totally disingenuous. scream at me again if you like, but it won't do anything to make you appear in _any_ way sincere.

revision (sparked by post #64): if those pix aren't indeed yours, i apologize. my opinion doesn't change, however, about your inability to answer the question posed by carny and myself. still, like i said, good luck in your future endeavors.


----------



## MTVision (Jun 23, 2012)

durhamskywriter said:
			
		

> this is the last time i'm going to post in this particular thread &hellip; but how can you possibly be taken seriously when you name your pix "homeless guy," "homeless man," etc? individuals indeed. totally, totally disingenuous. scream at me again if you like, but it won't do anything to make you appear in any way sincere.



I may be wrong but I don't think those "homeless guy" images were the OP's. If they were he probably would've posted them here vs posting a link.

Edit: I am actually 100% sure they are not his now that I went back and read his post


----------



## unpopular (Jun 23, 2012)

durhamskywriter said:


> revision (sparked by post #64): if those pix aren't indeed yours, i apologize. my opinion doesn't change, however, about your inability to answer the question posed by carny and myself. still, like i said, good luck in your future endeavors.



For me to answer that question would require that I have a stereotypical image in my head of what homeless people represent. How can I possibly explain what a portrait is before meeting the subject?


----------

