I also recommend this ‘discarted’ short: http://vimeo.com/13491562
“Thank You For Your Call,” an Outfest 2011 jury award winner for best documentary short about a widowed senior marginalized by the United States Social Security Administration because it does not recognize same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships as valid relationships.

There is also an incredible LA street photographer I was just introduced to that takes portraits that are definitely in the same vein. His name is Alexander Drecun, and he has a couple of photo essays on his site, but this is the LA-specific one: http://www.wix.com/adrecun/new-webpage#!__kingdom-come Incredible and really haunting.

Seriously – this is banal, derivative, second rate rubbish. Just saying it’s not exploitative doesn’t make it so.

these are great thanks Marina,

I second that! I’m not criticizing the work (although it does not apeal to me.)I appreciate art… and artist. Just felt compelled to comment. I have been homeless and was a homeless youth for 8 years. Compramising certian values and integrity were necessary. Homelessness is NOT a choice! No one wants to be homeless. Exploitation is just that… even when you you know their names. Exploitation is like pornography… “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”

Photography is intrinsically exploitative. Thinking otherwise is to be blind to one of photography’s strongest attributes.

I’ve no doubt Shawn Nee is a wonderful person but these street photographs are pretty mediocre.

Unimpressed with this series of images, to be sure I expected much more from Flavorpill on this topic. C’mon is superman your best friend?

These are very standard, fairly decent journalistic images – I do not believe there is any “art” involved. It’s a question of being in the right place at the right time. Shawn Nee is good at that, but his images are certainly influenced by many earlier black-and-white photographers who sought out the “discarded, homeless, freaky, mad” etc. to create sensational images. I do not see anything new about this collection – nothing that tells me anything about the world that I don’t already know. Isn’t that what art is all about?

When. Diane Arbus and Robert Frank did it, it was paradigm-shifting, showing the underbelly to the richest, most powerful nation on earth.

Now, it’s almost trite, maybe more akin to what Sinclair Lewis, Lewis Hine and Jacob Riis did, back at the tail end of the gilded age. There’s so much “material” out there now it doesn’t have the same shock value.

May this be the tail end of our gilded age.

either put them all on 1 page, or i give up on this site

Average photography not worth the profile. It makes the point to mention the format, but doesn’t even look like it was shot on film. When you compare the likes of Nee with, for example, any Magnum photographer of the past 50 years, this sort of work just pales in comparison. Not even in the same realm, let alone the same art form. Sorry Shawn, as someone said, you’re probably a really nice guy, just not a great photographer.

I agree with Charles • November 8th, 2011 at 10:25 am

Street photography is intrinsically exploitive — so that’s no problem — but these are a pretty ho-hum example of the genre and that is a problem. It’s easy to take a compelling shot of an addled wino or a gang banger.

Wow! I’m a bit surprised at all the critics. Does it have to have shock value to make it a striking photo? No, some of the images may not be shocking anymore per se, but they make you “feel” something. There is very little in this world that is “new” Most everything HAS been done before…. but each person’s perspective is different. To me they portrayed kind of a slice of life on Hollywood Blvd, and I thought they were shot very nicely. I personally really enjoyed them. And thanks to Marina for the link to the short. It was very touching as well.

Art is completely subjective. I can’t say anything other that what “Ro” has said above. Nicely said. The experience Shawn Nee must have had while taking the photos I am sure was priceless. Portrait, fashion, landscape photography and such is nice, but this genre of photography is much more meaningful in my perspective. And thus, more enjoyable to view.

I think Shawn Nee seems like a brave photographer, and I admire him for that. I also really liked the video on his site, a very personal look at an issue that walks the line between personal and political.

The whole “exploitive” argument is trite. It makes self-righteous people feel good about themselves, I guess. By that definition, almost every creative output is exploiting someone else, no?

The whole “exploitive” argument is trite. It makes self-righteous people feel better about themselves, I guess.

I hope this crowd feels better after unloading on the guy. Jesus. I can’t imagine taking the time to read a blog post on someone’s creative output and then trashing it because it didn’t meet my own very personal, specific standards.

What does it mean when you say you “enjoyed” these images, or found viewing them “enjoyable”?

The main thing I “felt” (if the only criterion is to make the viewr “feel”) is that the photog uses the camera to ogle humans at the margins, while keeping the lens firmly between him and his subjects. No overarching theme or thread (or feelin other than voyeurism) informs them, in my opinion.

Sure, it’s been done before, and better no doubt, but I enjoyed these photos and felt they had that perfect balance of comedy and tragedy, as well as emotional impact, mystery, and the little details, the extra five percent of effort resolving the tension just enough to complete the compositions.
The incredulous look on the face of the wino whose urine stream menaces the viewer, or the man kissing his beloved pet unwittingly creating a half-human monster. Hilarious. I like this guy’s work.

I agree with you, J.H. People were obviously “moved” enough to feel the need to comment. They were also moved enough to scroll through all the pictures and not just abandon them. That’s something. And as far as voyeurism… I think people don’t understand what it means anymore. It’s another $3 word used when a 50 cent word would do.

1. A person who derives sexual gratification from observing the naked bodies or sexual acts of others, especially from a secret vantage point.
2. An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects.