<< prev •
today •
next >> •
comments (35) •
archives •
about •
faq •
NY Times Interview •
Underground Exhibition
19 May, 2006 • Express Train
Photography © Travis Ruse • photoblogs.org • listed
Photography © Travis Ruse • photoblogs.org • listed
Photography © Travis Ruse • photoblogs.org • listed
I like your shots in the "underground". All of this shots are very nice and so interesting. Thanks for sharing! ;)
I don't get this photo. What , has he been begging for change? The background people studiously look elsewgere.This photo has steroetypical racial overtones, has nothing original and should be withdrawn.
Sid, You're probably not a photographer and you don't get it. If he were white, the reaction would be exactly the same. Capturing the passengers looking away is showing how most people are, self absorbed. (I'll just think happy thoughts till the bum moves on to the next car) There's a lot of truth in this picture and these days, I think it's evil to delete the truth...
Thanks Matt. And thanks Sid for considering the image under a serious light. I appreciate your concern but Matt is very much correct in his observation of what is actually happening. As for why I made this photo and posted it.....it is the same reason for all my postings, it's what was happening on the way to work yesterday. This gent can be seen on the Brooklyn trains many mornings. I'd say this is not only HIS commute to work but also his place of work.
Interesting comments. I viewed as a guy counting out some change - maybe to get a cup of coffee? Isn't it odd how our experiences color the way we view things? Since there aren't any panhandles out here on the prairie it would never occur to me.
yeah I got that about the people looking away that's why I brought it up. The fact is he's not white, he's black and this plays into racial stereotypes. BTW , you have no idea who I am. What I don't get is why Travis posted it. This reaction of the people in the bg is as old as the subway, there's nothing redeeming or original in the photo. It's cliche.
I believe it's possible to find cliche in many, many of the images found on this site. As I said earlier I'm trying to document my (and many others) experience. Should I never show a panhandler because we've seen it before? If that's the case then I should probably not have ever even started this project, or any project for that matter.
p.s. I like this dialogue, but lets keep it civil and just discuss the concerns Sid brings up.
Sid, you're right I don't know you and even if you were the curator at MOMA I'd still tell you that you're wrong. The photo is totally original, even if the event itself is an everyday occurence. I haven't seen a better photo of this situation, have you? It's redeeming in the fact that it is disturbing and makes you think. The gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" is growing daily and bothers me a lot. Every image doesn't have to be "art" to be worthy...
When I first saw this photo I thought it was a little odd. The first thing I noticed was that no one was looking at the camera, which I think is pretty a pretty rare occasion. I think Travis captured the moment pretty well. I don't see it as a stereotypical issue though. If that man were white, brown, dirty, or clean the situation would have been no different once he or she starts asking for money.
Matt,
I would'nt necessarily call the three people in the bg "haves" - probably living paycheck to paycheck.They look overwhelmed themselves. If this is such a common occurance I bet Travis could photo document "panhandlers on the subway" as a series unto itself, what's so special here? This image does'nt strike me as anything but expoitative of this guy, the people behind him who are probably decent folk, and a perpetuation of stereotypes, not only of the panhandler but of the three as well.How do we know one of them did'nt just give some change, then see the camera and tense up? Some people gave change.Plus people will say, Hey this guy's got a decent shirt a nice umbrella - get a job. He's black.
Sid, I usually don't comment on people's photos, but you shat all over this image and said it wasn't original and had no redeeming qualities and shouldn't be posted. I felt the image was thought provoking, well concieved and worth posting...
Matt, I did'nt "shat" all over it. I'm giving my honest impressions and thoughts. But you responded to exactly zero points from my last post.I responded to some of yours.
I also was trying to figure out what the deal was with this photo. I didn't think the man in the foreground was a panhandler. He's counting out change, but, like the farmer's wife, I thought he was maybe getting off at the next stop and counting out change to buy a newspaper or something at a kiosk in the station. (And I'm NY born-and-bred, BTW.) He's well-dressed, clean, obviously listens to the weather report before leaving home. Sid, it seems to me you're the only one here who let the man's race influence the decisions you made about the photograph (and the photographer.) As for the people in the background, I don't think they're "obviously looking away." I think they're zoned out, which is how NYers generally ride the trains. If a three-ring circus was going on in the middle of the car, most people would still sit that way. We just wanna get where we're going, man. Travis, I think you mentioned several times before that your camera is not obvious, and most of your subjects are completely unaware that you are photographing them. Can you please clarify this?
A lurker - All that you say plays right into the stereotype of this guy that I'm pointing out. Why is he panhandling as Travis acknowledged he has if he's looking like this.... What, is he too lazy to get a job?
Sid -- we have no idea why he is panhandling, and anything you or I say about that can be nothing more than conjecture. We can make up all sorts of stories -- he's mentally ill, he's doing it for fun, he forgot his wallet, etc. -- but they'll only be stories. One of the mysterious and attractive things about photography (to me, at least) is that, as much as the photographer might desire to show the truth in the images he shoots, the truth is that even the camera tells stories. It cannot possibly be objective. It gives us a frozen split-second of time -- the onlooker supplies the backstory. And the backstory we supply says much, much more about us than it does about the photograph upon which we are commenting. This entire conversation, for example, ceased to be about the man in the photo a long time ago.
Panhandling for fun? Forgot his wallet? Ridiculous.... Mentally ill, well he's sharp enough to carry an umbrella. Was it raining that day or in the forecast BTW? I also reject in some measure your claim that the backstory we supply says more about us than the photograph. This is not abstract art. It's pretty straight forward. Sure a little conjecture is possible, but the thrust of the photograph is what it is.
sid, I think you're looking too deep into the photo and refusing to look at it any other way but that of your own. Anybody can criticize any piece of work to the point where it means absolutely nothing. If everybody did that without looking at it from other angles, all forms of art would be meaningless.
Mona Lisa? So what? It's a portrait of an imaginary woman. She doesn't even have eye brows, but yet it's valued greater than $608 million.
NYer
I have;nt critized any of Travis's other pieces, I've praised several as a matter of fact and generally enjoy his work. This one does nothing for me for reasons explained above . So tell me how you see this piece, don't just lash into me....
NYer
I could say the same thing - noone is looking at the piece as I see it.And BTW ,I understand what others are saying, they just have'nt swayed me with their arguments. See if you can, I'm waiting.
I don't need to sway you, we're all entitled to our own opinions. Just letting you know there are more ways than one to view a picture. I too don't see your main argument as a good one (about racial stereotype).
BTW: No one is lashing anyone. Just my $0.02 cents.
Nyer
Thanks for letting me know there's more than one way to see a picture, I had;nt heard that before.... How many of the commenters on this thread are black? My guess is zero.
First of all., we are people, don`t forget this at the start and at the end as well while a new phto of a black or red person comes up..
Well I'm glad you learned something but you're still not seeing it: If that man was any other color, as soon as he opens his mouth to ask for money it would be the same picture. If there was a black man on the bench and a white man counting change, what would be the chance of him digging into his wallet? My guess is zero.
Race is not an issue in this picture. No, we're not all black here but we are not all white either. I'd laugh at you if you think blacks are the only ones faced with stereotypes and prejudice. It's okay to be mad when someone of a certain race is under the spotlight, but it's okay for that same person (or a person from that same race) to scream "ching-chong-chung pork fraied rice!!" to a passing Asian person or "wet back!" to a Mexican minding his business.
Regards,
NYer
Sid:
As far as the whole race thing goes, I think this particular photo was a coincidence (that the 3 whites in the bg look more prominent than the one black in the fg). But does that mean it should be deleted? Absolutely not. That is what we call censorship, and it ruins the art world. That is why we have our First Amendment rights.
Are you entitled to feel that this is discriminatory? Absolutely! That's your right, and I wholeheartedly encourage you to voice that right. But your rights stop where others' begin.
Plain and simple, please don't tell Travis to take down this photo.
Nyer
Sorry, I can't have an intelligent conversation with you, you're not up to it. I've learned nothing from you, I'm assuming you got my sarcasm but I can't be sure,you state nothing but platitudes and inanities and you make false assumptions. Goodbye, I'm done here.
K
This photo is weak, amateurish , not up to the photographer's standards.It's student quality.
Yes I did notice your sarcasm in just about every single post of yours.
I'm interested in knowing where I made "false assumptions"? The part where I switched scenarios (you keep avoiding this topic), or where I was talking about race (experienced first hand, so don't give me that bullshit)?
WHAT conversation? There is no conversation here when you keep thinking blacks are the only ones facing race issues in America. You're pointing out what's not there and making a big deal out of it. You see a black man counting change and light skinned people looking away and you automatically assume it's some race issue.
Having read some of these comments I guess what I find interesting is that its not so much the picture that is provocative but how emotional race relations are today. There are a lot of ghosts in the closet that make us uneasy. Some are reading so much into this picture, so much of themselves, projecting their own fears? Insecurities?
I was standing next to Travis when he took this picture. The doors opened, the man walked into the car, nobody looked away, they barely noticed... Travis just reacted and took a picture of yes a pan handler, its a fact of the subway, its a part of our culture. It was also just a moment observed. The man was striking, as was the next guy who walked on with a bicycle. Later in my subway day it was a 40 year old woman walking thru the car screaming for money, Travis may have shot her too, it's the moment that stood out that day from the many that passed by.
Yes there is much to discuss about race, poverty, the haves and have-nots. This whole argument here seems to have gone off the rails and become very emotional. Why are we all uncomfortable with this image... I don’t know but we all need to perhaps examine ourselves a little closer and not the intention of the photographer or this picture. Maybe the picture is just a mirror.
It was such a fleeting moment and Travis simply observed and put it out there as yet another facet of life on the NYC subway.
Bravo Ruse
P Newton,
Sorry PN, the photographer has to take responsibility for his work and all the implications that stem from it. Calling it just another fleeting moment is bs when it's frozen for all to see. I stiil don't think there;s been a black person who has commented on the thread.... This image does'nt exist in a vacuum but within a context of America's history and the history of photography. That's why I say it was'nt even worth posting in the first place, it's old hat, been seen, done and documented, promotes stereotypes and is of student quality.Someone please tell me what makes this photo interesting in any way, from the subject to the framing to the lighting to color balance it's a big who cares.
I agree with Philip Newton.
I must say, this is quite an interesting discussion. I think the picture is as objective as it can be. It begins to become subjective when, as the farmer's wife pointed out, we start to view the image in the light of our own experiences. Frankly, Sid, I agree with the comments that this has nothing to do with race. And I'm black.
I don't think Travis captured something which was any more mundane than usual, or any more distinctly queer. I think he just made a factual representation of the subway as it is. And, as he said before, these are things that really exist. Maybe the man isn't a panhandler. Maybe he is. This objective nature of the photo, on the surface, remains mum about that.
Sid, you keep mentioning about 'stereotypes'. Huh? I doubt that anyone, Travis included, is giving this image a controversial nature by proposing some stereotypical racial themes behind it. Furthermore, panhandlers are not stereotypically black. And black people are not stereotypically panhandlers. Would the discussion of this picture have been dramatically different if there was an added element of a person who was black, just like the standing man, also seated nonchalantly, aloof and indifferently on the seats?
In my humble unadulterated opinion, I think this image was very worthy of posting, just like those many other images within Travis' collection. I don't think Travis should be unfairly hounded for his fair representation of subway life as it is. He's not writing a slanderous news story. He's only capturing life, in its colored form (no pun intended, Sid), to the best degree of accuracy as there is. Additionally, in the event that no one else on the train seemed to have ever noticed the man, Travis Ruse surely did.
Great shot Travis. (Haven't been around much because of computer problems...)
Derval
This is a decently dressed guy who is panhandling. Why? I'm sorry but the "blackness" of the individual is definitely an element here. Why is'nt he looking for a job? Why does he beg instead? He does'nt seem to be in too bad a shape. Sure, invent other scenarios, but by all objective appearances he should'nt be begging - that's what panhandling is.There is definitely a history of the stereotype that this guy represents.Lazy, jiving the system, beaten down by "the man", lacking dignity in some eyes, receiving "welfare" . It trancends merely panhandling.
As you point out and discuss, perhaps the dynamic would be a little different if one of the people in the bg was black, but noone is so the point is mute, other than on an intellectual level ,and that discussion would be affected by the attitude of that person in that imaginary photo.
Perhaps if Travis did a series on the down and outers in the subway, covering a spectrum of indivduals, it might put this shot in a fuller context.
Okey-dokey... I think this discussion has reached its expiration date.
Derval
You asked about the stereotypes and I explained how I felt it was relevant. If you deny those stereotypes you deny the reality of the political climate of our country now that it's been overrun by Repubs. Remember Bush1 ran that Willie Horton ad (look it up) . He played on a stereotype. How often do you hear repubs today say thay don't want to be paying taxes for the gov't to hand out welfare? They are innundated by the stereotypes I laid out above and worse. Travis has captured an element of that stereotype and splashed it all over the internet. If you deny that you deny reality. Sorry you're uncomfortable about it, I would be too. And am.
I think everyone has pretty well made their point on this subject. Unless you have something new to add to this conversation as it relates directly to this image I’d like to close this thread. I appreciate everyone who felt the need to voice their opinion. Thanks, Travis
.... Another man living in black skin weighs in:
I’m finding this entire *subjective interpretation of images regarding (possible) racial stereotypes* discussion a little trite in light of the state of the world today and the cataclysmic direction it is quickly heading in. In only a matter of weeks or months, this topic of panhandling, stereotypes and race will seem awfully insignificant against the back drop of a likely nuclear holocaust (WW3) and a probable financial collapse!
Yes, this is a bit off of the current topic of subjective (racial, or not) interpretations of subway images – but if we want to discuss stereotypes isn’t the group that is running the United States government a fair and worthy topic for discussion also?? People nowadays often tend to think of a stereotype as a negative assessment or idea against a particular minority/ethnic group.
I contend that America has been co-opted by a relatively *small group of rich white men* that use their well established and super corrupt network of BANKS, corporations, politicians, mainstream media, education system, courts and military control to further their insatiable greed for power and money at the expense, control, suffering and blood of the lesser people in the world. Things are terribly awry when 10% (or less) of the people control 80% (or more) of the world’s wealth and vital resources. It’s no wonder that the West’ elitists hate Chavez and Venezuela so much!
I’m sure that the bankers and their cronies looking on at this forum are delighted & much amused at how the little people are divided and against one another on these small matters of stereotypes. Meanwhile the true murderers, torturers, rapists, terrorists, molesters and PANHANDLERS of MEGA PROPORTIONS (Carlyle Group, Haliburton, Exxon, Congress, APAIC, etc...) are given a pass. These super criminals who are above the law have sold the people lies solely to go to war for profit (and for the Zionists - Khzars in Israel) against lesser nations. Astonishingly, they are now pulling this same stunt yet again, this time against Iran!
The Constitution? Ha! The smoke of that illusion has finally and fully dissipated! The U.S. is now a police state and dictatorship that is no longer governed by a system of laws, checks and balances (if it ever truly was). These things have all been purposefully orchestrated by a relatively small group of rich white men that would love to see the people cut each other down over mundane and diversionary issues. It’s the same old story of divide and conquer. Blacks against Whites, Mexicans against Americans, East against West, Democrats against Republicans, Liberals against Conservatives, Jews against Muslims, the poor against the affluent and on and on, while the bankers pick up the pieces (and all of the profits)!
Nonetheless, it all turns out very well in the end. Everyone will receive his or her proper comeuppance (or inheritance).
The Most High God clearly states in His Word, “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” Daniel 12:2
Yes people, now is the time to wake up.
With that said, Travis – I enjoy your site.
Rasheed
I don't think anyone can trump a WW3 post! So with that I've figured out how to close a comment thread.....