>>2840076>>2840077I'm not American, it just isn't possible for me to simply get a gun somewhere and carry it around while screaming for muh right to bear arms. Not like my confrontation would be much better if I lived in a country where firearms are sold like candy either way.
>>2840102>>2840107I mean, sure, simply grabbing photographic samples of poverty and packaging them "into cute little postcards of urban decay" with the sole purpose of profit and self promotion is obviously not an ethical thing to do, but saying you're not allowed to portray any sort of urban decadence is a nonsensical statement. If what you're displaying is conceived in a way that's not offensive to the locals, if you're simply shooting regular streets and columns of generic grey commie blocks that not even the residents consider to have any particular identity by themselves and you're not using it as means to an end, then you're really not doing anything exploitative. I'm not trying to do poverty porn here, I just genuinely like that part of town.
Plus, It's not like I'm comparatively rich either, not just was the "new Lumix" I was talking about was bought by 100£ at a second hand market but I also grew in that same neighborhood throughout most of my childhood. I passed by multiple locals around the area and most of them were nice elderly people who just smiled at me and stepped out of the way when I was shooting something even if they didn't really have to, literally no one else around the streets seemed to mind. The four people who attacked me and almost wrecked my camera weren't worried about being negatively portrayed, they were just hooligans looking to start trouble during a fun day of soccer.
TL;DR, representations of poverty are not intrinsically exploitative, if they're done with respect. I'm not trying to do poverty porn here, I just genuinely liked that part of town.
