Well this is a highly subjective issue but a rather important one. I feel compelled to write about this topic after reading a biography from another photographer. I will circle back to this a little later.

I have spoken with dozens of street photographers and read many books and interviews from street photographers from around the globe. One things is very clear to me and that is the majority of street photographers have no ill intent while going out in search of people and events to photograph. The fact is that it is really it is love and the interest of humanity and life that feeds street photographers passion. I can include myself in this group as that is what drives me to take photographs of strangers. I feel a sort of connection with the subjects of my photo's even though I have in most cases never directly met them. I spend time with their image and feel a type of connection or even a sense of friendship with them. Of course with any large collective of people their will be some acting with malice and outside the norm and some of these include perverts and those seeking to profit from others giving a negative opinion of street photographers as a group.

In Fathers Arms Street photography is so controversial because the photo's themselves are unsolicited. This causes some subjects a level of discomfort, shock and even in some cases anger hence the controversy. Still many subjects experience amusement, wonder, humor and even joy at being captured. In truth most people are never even aware they are the subject of a photo. Does the risk of making someone uncomfortable or angry mean that you have committed an immoral act? Possibly. In my humble opinion dealing strictly with morality I feel it is what is in the photographers mind or heart that is a deciding factor on whether it is moral or immoral. I feel that if a person really loves people and wants to capture something that moves them and share that feeling then they are not acting in an immoral or unethical manner on the flip side of that if someone is looking at exploiting the pain and suffering of another to make a profit or for fame this is truly immoral and unethical but again that is just my opinion.

I will provide a scenario for you to contemplate this sticky issue.

A homeless man is sleeping on the cold pavement of a city street looking clearly down on his luck. A street photographer takes a photo. Is this clearly a case of immoral behavior exploiting the homeless? It's hard to say based on only that right? Let's take a deeper look. I will give 3 scenarios to think about now.

Scenario 1: The photographer has been commissioned to capture images of the homeless for a charity drive in an effort gain attention to their plight and raise money for local homeless shelters.

Scenario 2: The photographer has seen other photo's of the homeless and was moved by them. The Photographer wanted to copy this concept and see if he/she can get published with a book and turn a profit.

Scenario 3: The photographer was homeless and wants to show others what a difficult life it is and try to compel others to show more empathy to the homeless.

Up to...? Which of the above are immoral or unethical people? Are they all immoral? Are none of them immoral? Does the reason matter or is only the act of taking an unsolicited photo what makes the act moral or immoral? I will not be able to answer these for you. I know what a rip off after reading all this right? I am sorry about that but I really just want to get people thinking about this issue themselves. I am not a preacher, judge, therapist or counselor I am simply a Photographer and though I have my opinions I do not seek to will them on others. I freely share them here well because that is kind of the point of a blog right? Really I encourage you to make up your own mind though.

Conversation Now to circle back to the inspiration for this topic the Bio that I had read that in affect was condemning street photographers. The Biography stated that nobody has the right to take advantage of others and in essence that is what street photographers do by their very nature. The Bio also went on to imply that special moments are occurring all the time so there is no justification for taking photos when one can look around and see them live so only willing models should be photographed.

The person raised some good points and you may agree with these points but if I had the opportunity I would like to ask them and also ask you to consider which photographs have made the biggest impression or impact? Do you think you think of studio shots or do you recount images taken by street photographers who documented and preserved candid moment in history? For me when I think of photographs that really impacted me they are documentary or street photographs 9 times out of 10. Some that pop up for most people are the famous Le Baiser de l'Hotel de Ville, Paris by Robert Doisneau or Elevator by Robert Frank or Woman, Patzcuaro, Mexico by Paul Strand... The list goes on and on but in the end we must each decide if it is moral or not and make peace with that decision.

Thank you for reading my blog. Stay tuned for future updates.