Indifference

Richard

lizzard_nyc

It's funny as I was looking at this my brain thought it was Rainbow's and I thought, wow he really upped the contrast

#1 is so good Richard. I think it captures exactly what B.D. has said "no bums, for bum' sake, but tell a story" ok I'm paraphrasing. I think you did just that. It's not about the homeless person, but about society's indifference--I specially like the lady with the fur coat!

I like #2 as well but I don't see indifference so much.

Richard

Thanks, Liz. I think you're right about #2--it doesn't quite render what I was seeing, which was people walking by and ignoring the dwarf selling lottery tickets. In retrospect, I probably should have tried to get somebody already past him into the frame as well, but it was a very crowded scene and hard to get a clear shot at all. I can wait for a little while for a shot, but then I start feeling like a stalker and usually just move on instead.

Flyinggina

I agree with Liz on #1. It is a quiet statement about the realities of life in large cities.

Not sure how I feel about #2. I feel uncomfortably like a voyeur because I can't help but look at the man. The people walking past are avoiding that. Must give this a bit more thought.

Virginia

sara505

I like #1, a lot, for reasons already stated. The second one misses - but was a good idea - I think mostly because of the angle. Maybe if you had been more to the left the people walking by would be more in a row, giving more a sense of time and spac.e

rainbow

First one seems to meet B.D.'s description of shooting bums whereby the plight of the homeless is contrasted with the indifference of the affluent. Excellent shot!

Second one, as you acknowledge, is weaker. Shooting angle may have been better to your left and catching him in profile while catching the faces of the passerbys.

Richard

Flyinggina wrote: »

Not sure how I feel about #2. I feel uncomfortably like a voyeur because I can't help but look at the man. The people walking past are avoiding that. Must give this a bit more thought.

Virginia:

I was not entirely comfortable about shooting #2 and I also hesitated to post it. I guess I did both because I wanted to clarify my ideas on the matter. Is it better to look or to avoid looking?

Part of me says that looking away denies what's real and also increases the isolation of an individual who probably feels very isolated. Another part of me feels guilty about using this subject for my own ends. But don't we street shooters do that all the time, really? Why treat a dwarf differently than a lady in a fur coat? One of the "regulars" in my neighborhood is a guy without arms who begs with a paper cup held between his teeth. I have had many chances to take his pic but I haven't and I probably never will. What's the difference? I suppose dwarfs have frequently appeared in literature, painting (especially 17th century Spanish) and film (Fellini and others). In general, they are not portrayed as objects of pity, though those were less politically correct times. The other guy is just too painful to contemplate.

I suppose in the end it's a personal decision. I'm sorry if this image made you uncomfortable. I have the same reaction to lots of Dianne Arbus's work--not that I pretend to be in her class. But I don't think you have any more reason to feel like a voyeur with this shot than with most of the other pics on this forum. If you disregard the sexual connotation, a voyeur is one who looks and sees, right? and as photographers that's what we're supposed to be doing.

Sorry for the wordy response, but sometimes I don't know what I think until I write it.

Richard

Sara and rainbow: Yes, a different angle might have worked better. Perhaps I'll get another chance someday. Thanks for commenting.

sara505

Richard wrote: »

.....
Sorry for the wordy response, but sometimes I don't know what I think until I write it.

Amen to that!

bdcolen

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

It's funny as I was looking at this my brain thought it was Rainbow's and I thought, wow he really upped the contrast

#1 is so good Richard. I think it captures exactly what B.D. has said "no bums, for bum' sake, but tell a story" ok I'm paraphrasing. I think you did just that. It's not about the homeless person, but about society's indifference--I specially like the lady with the fur coat!

Absolutely!!!! Nice, Richard!

Flyinggina

Richard wrote: »

Virginia:

I was not entirely comfortable about shooting #2 and I also hesitated to post it. I guess I did both because I wanted to clarify my ideas on the matter. Is it better to look or to avoid looking?



I suppose in the end it's a personal decision. I'm sorry if this image made you uncomfortable. I have the same reaction to lots of Dianne Arbus's work--not that I pretend to be in her class. But I don't think you have any more reason to feel like a voyeur with this shot than with most of the other pics on this forum. If you disregard the sexual connotation, a voyeur is one who looks and sees, right? and as photographers that's what we're supposed to be doing.

Sorry for the wordy response, but sometimes I don't know what I think until I write it.

Richard, please don't be sorry that the image made me uncomfortable!! I don't actually consider that a bad thing. There is a lot in this world that I have trouble facing - both concrete and conceptual - and many photographs that I find disturbing but worthwhile. That is not entirely to my credit.

My response to your photo surprised me - I did not have the response to the first one you posted. But it made me think - about the human condition, about my own ability to see - really see - the world around me and my willingness to let reality in.

So, methinks you did your job!!

Va

Richard

bdcolen wrote: »

Absolutely!!!! Nice, Richard!

Thanks, BD.

Flyinggina wrote: »

So, methinks you did your job!!

Cool.

stphotography

Unsocial society... Good work!

torags

#1 Well done Richard, excellent contrasts .

#2 I think you caught a beggar for beggars sake (unintentionally)

lensmole

The first one is indeed top drawer !