In Lewis Hine's "Social Photography" I can't be sure of whether or not he is in favor of social photography. He makes it clear that these kinds of photographs will make it into the public, but he also has a negative attitude towards advertising. Maybe he feels that all of these photos of, for instance, child labor, will become so advertised that people will become numb to them. Or he feels that such a sensitive issue should not be thrown about in such a cavalier way.

These few sentences are one source of confusion, "I wonder, sometimes, what an enterprising manufacturer would do if his wares, instead of being inanimate things, were the problems and activities of life itself, with all their possiblities of human appeal. Would he not grasp eagerly at such opportunities to play upon the sympathies of his customers as are afforded by the camera" (110). My impression is that he feels that people are taking advantage of the struggles of every day life by photographing them and then selling them. Perhaps he is correct. Social photographers do make a living, that is they make money, off of photographs of horrible things, and they may or may not have the intention of actually doing anything about whats in the photo. For example someone on assignment for a newspaper may be asked to go take pictures of child labor or poor people on the street; however, it is hard to believe that anything like that would be photographed for purely selfish reasons. I believe social photography and even the advertising of it is almost always for the benefit of those in the photographs. At least I hope so. I do agree that advertising goes to extremes, and usually for unnecessary or even harmful things, like cigarettes.

Art, and now photography have always been, at least partially, about representing the current state of things. Social photography doesn't stray from the usual, although perhaps it shows a side of society that used to be taboo in art. It is not, however, a bad thing.