# Why is poverty so photogenic?



## CanadianInvestor (Dec 2, 2014)

Friends, On the pavement (sidewalk) in Bangalore earlier in the week, I became intrigued by a group of children. They had a few rubber stamps with graphics on them and would use them, with rubber stamp ink, to 'tattoo' customers using an engraving tool. There were no takers for the hour or so I hung around. Then one of the kids moved and I thought I saw that his buttocks were revealed through his tattered trousers. I wanted to take the boy there and then to the nearest shop and get him outfitted. 

Incidentally, the starting prices for homes, less than 30 metres away, in that neighbourhood, Jayanagar, is USD 1 million.

What makes us attracted to the poor and wretched? Obviously, like me you have all seen worse cases of penury, but the appeal is still something very powerful and we are ready with our gear to capture the scene.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 2, 2014)

I think it is not poverty that delivers great pictures, but poor people with his sincerity in his eyes. There is poverty in almost all countries, but in Asia poverty is seen as a fact of destiny, and poor people survive without major social conflicts.

We who live in the West, we were impressed with the simplicity of those who accept their fate so serene because we know that in our country could be attacked with stones, when shooting poor living on the street.


----------



## DiSnapper (Dec 2, 2014)

CanadianInvestor said:


> Friends, On the pavement (sidewalk) in Bangalore earlier in the week, I became intrigued by a group of children. They had a few rubber stamps with graphics on them and would use them, with rubber stamp ink, to 'tattoo' customers using an engraving tool. There were no takers for the hour or so I hung around. Then one of the kids moved and I thought I saw that his buttocks were revealed through his tattered trousers. I wanted to take the boy there and then to the nearest shop and get him outfitted.
> 
> Incidentally, the starting prices for homes, less than 30 metres away, in that neighbourhood, Jayanagar, is USD 1 million.
> 
> What makes us attracted to the poor and wretched? Obviously, like me you have all seen worse cases of penury, but the appeal is still something very powerful and we are ready with our gear to capture the scene.



The idea of "photogenic poverty" is more of emotional blackmail. 

Its not poverty, its the strength of will power and the determination to fight the conditions they are living it. . 

Personally I don't like the idea of capturing their lives.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Why is poverty so photogenic?
> 
> Because the people it impacts are living in a place that can be seen: who they are can be seen, what they do can be seen, what they wear can be seen, etc.
> 
> ...


 
+1


----------



## tayassu (Dec 2, 2014)

It is not the poverty that is photogenic, it is its consequences.

People that are victims of misfortune behave in a completely different way. Their shattered body language, their sad eyes and their outward appearance make them another kind. (Please do not interpret this to marginalise the poor, I don't know if I can deliver this message in correct English)

A photographer is always looking for the another kind of stuff to separate himself from the crowd, that is the first reason for photographing poverty.
The second is to strike emotions in the viewer's mind. With human beings and especially misfortunate human beings, the viewer is compassionate and full of fear at the same time. Fear to fall into the same abysses.
It is sad, but true. (At least from those opinions I collected about that topic)


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 2, 2014)

I contend it isn't, but we have an emotional response to looking at poverty.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 2, 2014)

People are attracted to novelty. We like looking at things that we don't normally see. This is why we like to look at automobile accidents and the rescue operation. It is not that we like seeing people hurt. But seeing a car flipped on its roof is something we don't normally see. So when we get a chance to see it, it is novel. It attracts our attention. 

The same could be said for images of extreme poverty. Most of us, fortunately, do not experience extreme poverty for very long periods of time. We are attracted to images of extreme poverty not because we like seeing poor people but because seeing people in extreme poverty is novel. 

A person who works for a charity and sees extreme poverty every day will most likely be less attracted to an image of extreme poverty than a person who does not see extreme poverty every day. 

I used to be an EMT. I have seen my share of MVAs. It is no longer novel and hence images will be less attractive to me. 

I happen to be attracted to images of large construction operations. I am sure that a professional construction worker feels the same about construction imagery as I do about MVA images. 

It is all about how familiar the viewer is with the subject of the image. 

As photographers, we can use this novelty to our advantage. We can take a "normal" picture but take it in a way that is unusual -- make something about it novel and you will attract viewers. B/W imagery is a good example. We see the world in colour. A photograph that represents the world in B/W is novel and therefore garners our attention.

As long as one recognizes the difference between something that is novel and something that is good.


----------



## agierke (Dec 2, 2014)

> I contend it isn't



i agree with this. i generally dont find photos of poverty or those living in it compelling at all. often they take on a position of gawking and fail to treat the subject with any kind of thoughtful consideration.

Mary Ellen Mark's work would be an example of photographs of poverty that i do find compelling. it moves beyond just being a bystander staring stupidly at a tragic scenario while making no effort to understand the humanity within the situation. Mark delves into these people's lives and shows a truer portrait of who they are. we as viewers can then begin to feel a greater range of emotions beyond that of the shock of squalor. 

its a subject matter that seems tempting to most to photograph....but i wouldn't call it inherently photogenic. i actually banned my students from showing "pictures of bums" on the street because i found the results to be insensitive, inconsiderate and lacking any kind of emotional depth. the subject is too often portrayed as spectacle and attempts to move beyond that and find some kind of emotional understanding are rare.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Dec 2, 2014)

Great question, and thoughts from others. And so much more important than corner sharpness. 

I think it's about contrasts.

If we are western and affluent in a global sense (and likely so if we're on this forum), and if we are curious about the world, and if we have at least some sense of compassion... poverty triggers all of those factors because it provides such stark contrast. We're out of our bubble.

It's the contrast to our manner of living; our genuine interest in the context and the person which is so very different, and the fact that our hearts and thoughts are drawn to others' need or inspired by their strength or stirred by guilt or courage or anger or pity, or spurred on to some constructive response, a smile, a gift, a change to our own way of living in the world.

If we're a photographer and not a gawking tourist, in taking a photograph we are trying to capture all those senses and feelings and responses. I don't think we're looking to display it on our walls but to write it somehow tangibly on our consciousness.


----------



## eli452 (Dec 2, 2014)

"All happy families resemble one another, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."
Leo Tolstoy 
(Leo Tolstoy, was a Russian novelist, 1828-1910, wrote "War and Peace", "Anna Karenina"...)


----------



## Joe M (Dec 2, 2014)

It is not. Photogenic is absolutely the wrong word. However, reality is eye-catching and more precisely, stark and dark reality. I don't know about anyone else but my work and personal photos are virtually all "happy". I don't go on holiday, for a walk or go out for the day photographing a bride and take photos that are less than cheerful/happy/bright/ and just downright positive in every way. I remember long ago watching "One hour photo" and they hit the nail on the head with (to paraphrase) "if someone were to look at our photo albums, they'd assume we never had a bad thing ever occur in our lives. Every snapshot is a happy moment with everyone smiling". So when we see a snap of the darker side of reality, it has an effect on those of us who know of it but during the course of our daily lives it isn't something we come across regularly. Not photogenic but it can have an impact (like a lot of other photo subjects).


----------



## Besisika (Dec 2, 2014)

Sensitive topic you have!
As opposed to some, I actually found your photo successful and I agree that it can be photogenic.
Forgive me if I miss interpret the meaning of photogenic, English is my 4th language.
I allowed myself to use a definition I took from an online dictionary and I will interpret it my way: "forming an attractive subject for photography or having features that look well in a photograph"

Story tellers have the responsibility of relying correct info as they see it, and if one does that why he is guilty?
To me, beauty shot is an art, but photo story is fact.
This what differs photojournalist from portrait photographer.

Looking at your photo, I see a lifestyle photograph. This is how they live and you captured it the way you should; no digidy.
I have never heard a foreign photographer who went to Africa and pull up a beauty dish, with a make up artist and beautiful prop in order to shoot poor and dirty kids. There is no need to be hypocrite about it. Beautiful subject makes beautiful images. If portrait and beauty shots are your thing - be happy and live your life with it.
But that doesn't give you the right to judge that someone who shoot poor and dirty to be heartless.
Actually, it is the opposite. They have the courage to do it and they took the time to learn how to do it. It is not about the physical beauty; it is about the story. That's why it is called a photo-story (usually in sequence of 11 or more), or a lifestyle (as a single photo). Just another genre of photography. 

To me, if the story is interesting, anybody can call it photogenic; simply because it forms an attractive subject for photography or has features that look well in a photograph. That subject is not a blue eye, it is a sad story.
"One photo worth 1000 words" - another way of saying photogenic.

Make no mistake, I was born one of them. I put my first shoes on my feet at the age of 20; and these were military ones. 
Not because we are poor and dirty that don't deserve your beautiful camera and your talent to tell our story.


----------



## slclick (Dec 2, 2014)

It's not photogenic as another posted pointed out yet extremes are always captivating. They convey more emotion than average situations, thus they make better subjects than say a family of four dining at a buffet. Not to say that might not offer a unique image...anything COULD be a captivating photograph. The topic of what separates a snapshot from a photograph has been ground into dust, it's like discussing sensors or DR on the forum.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 3, 2014)

My guess is because many people have an emotional reaction to seeing it PLUS it's something most people either don't encounter, or selectively ignore when they do encounter it, so a photo that forces them to confront it takes them out of their element and elicits an emotional reaction to it as they ponder the story behind what they're looking at - "How did things become so bad for these people? How do they get by? What would I do if I was in their position?... etc."


----------



## Nelu (Dec 3, 2014)

Poverty is photogenic because it`s genuine, it`s a part of real life. It`s also photogenic because poor people don`t give a damn about privacy legislation and they don`t mind looking into your eyes and have their photo taken.
I find rich countries, especially in North America, like Canada for example, the worse places to take people photos.
We are obsessed with this privacy issue, I can tell you that...
Street photographers, I`m sorry for you guys here, in this part of the world 

Nelu


----------



## TeT (Dec 3, 2014)

slclick said:


> It's not photogenic as another posted pointed out yet extremes are always captivating. They convey more emotion than average situations, thus they make better subjects than say a family of four dining at a buffet. Not to say that might not offer a unique image...anything COULD be a captivating photograph. The topic of what separates a snapshot from a photograph has been ground into dust, it's like discussing sensors or DR on the forum.



+1


----------



## lion rock (Dec 3, 2014)

Look at the situation in several aspects.
Most photos of "poverty photos" are of the elderly. The elderly convey a sense of longevity, with their wisdom built into their features of wrinkles. The young, on the other hand, convey a sense of longing, longing for a part of life they may only hope for, striving to make a better life, however/whatever that they can do to get there. Look at their eyes. Hope and worse yet, somewhat with despair.

Another aspect is that we look at differences, of lifestyles, races, dresses/costumes, statures, and now, even religions with colored vision. We look at those and think they are different. With some photos of war torn countries, one can see the locals looking at the victors parading with hate or joy depending on how the locals perceive the victors to be.

Yet, one more aspect is the photos of dignitaries and celebrities. Sure, they're just as photogenic and interesting. Just as eye catching. Last night, at an Indian restaurant having dinner at a village near Christchurch, I saw photos of the owner with the Dali Lama and another with Prince Charles. Those are also photogenic, especially to the owner of those photos.

Photographing an aspect of life is not that it is photogenic, it is also reporting a fact of life not all of us see regularly, and so it reports on documentary, social interest, or, a means of showing us something we may learn from. Whatever it may be, I don't think it should take the message that poverty is bad. In Bhutan, the country is not rich by any means, but it looks to life with a different standard, that of "Index of Happiness". I shot photos there, and at a glance, you see poverty, too. yet, it's citizen gets free education all the way through high school, and if it warrants, the government provides for international college education.

So, I'd like to drop the word of "photogenic" for pictures I shoot of situations like these. I'll just say this style of photography is documentary.
-r


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 3, 2014)

Nelu said:


> I find rich countries, especially in North America, like Canada for example, the worse places to take people photos.




When your battery isn't frozen.

I like the fact that people can't just wander around aimlessly for half the year.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 3, 2014)

I am sure that is photogenic to some with $10k in camera gear on their neck.
The holiday pictures of the 40+ million ion the US below poverty level are for the most part uninteresting. 
Much in the same way I find a picture of two bums next to a drum with fire boring.
Poverty pics are for the most part are cheap emotion grabs, occasionally a picture can capture the essence of a situation and those usually come with a respect of those in the situation. The OP's pictures do not capture this, nor is this scene photogenic.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 3, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Nelu said:
> 
> 
> > I find rich countries, especially in North America, like Canada for example, the worse places to take people photos.
> ...



If you want poor in the US just go two blocks north of the White House and look at the street people in the park.


----------

