Redseele
Established
Hello all,
I just finished a photo-project titled "Between Personal Stories and the City: Civility in New York City subways". You can check it out in my photography website here:
http://www.culturelookingsideways.com/subway-civility-intro/
This is a mixture between photography and social sciences. My objective was to use photography in a creative way to supply that which social research cannot. Basically, I have started working on these photo-ethnography projects in order to ask myself whether it was possible to use photography as an alternative methodological approach to qualitative research methods.
I am a PhD candidate in sociology. In my research work a lot with theory, I write and read extensively about individuals living in society… but in so doing there is always something missing, something that cannot be grasped rationally: aesthetics and poetics. My photography is an attempt to do through images what I cannot do with the written word, to say something that cannot be “said”. I'm not a documentarist or a journalist: My intention is not to show something through photos but to better understand and interpret that which I cannot grasp rationally or through traditional sociological research. In that sense I'm quite influenced by Takuma Nakahira (of Provoke fame) who wrote in 1968: "Today, when words are torn from their material base-in other words, there reality-and seen suspended in space, a photographer's eye can capture fragments of reality that cannot be expressed in language as it is."
I know it may sound strange to ask for this around here, but I would love it to hear if you have any comments about the project in general. Do you think I get my point through? Do you think it works?
Thank you all in advance,
Luis
I just finished a photo-project titled "Between Personal Stories and the City: Civility in New York City subways". You can check it out in my photography website here:
http://www.culturelookingsideways.com/subway-civility-intro/
This is a mixture between photography and social sciences. My objective was to use photography in a creative way to supply that which social research cannot. Basically, I have started working on these photo-ethnography projects in order to ask myself whether it was possible to use photography as an alternative methodological approach to qualitative research methods.
I am a PhD candidate in sociology. In my research work a lot with theory, I write and read extensively about individuals living in society… but in so doing there is always something missing, something that cannot be grasped rationally: aesthetics and poetics. My photography is an attempt to do through images what I cannot do with the written word, to say something that cannot be “said”. I'm not a documentarist or a journalist: My intention is not to show something through photos but to better understand and interpret that which I cannot grasp rationally or through traditional sociological research. In that sense I'm quite influenced by Takuma Nakahira (of Provoke fame) who wrote in 1968: "Today, when words are torn from their material base-in other words, there reality-and seen suspended in space, a photographer's eye can capture fragments of reality that cannot be expressed in language as it is."
I know it may sound strange to ask for this around here, but I would love it to hear if you have any comments about the project in general. Do you think I get my point through? Do you think it works?
Thank you all in advance,
Luis
Redseele
Established
BTW, just for the sake of details, I shot almost every single picture there with a Leica M3, an M6 and an M8, both film and digital. I think since I started shooting rangefinders my photography in general has changed a lot.
Addy101
Well-known
Some nice pictures there - not all are my cup-of-tea, but there are some very nice pictures! TFS.
However, I don't really see the sociological relevance apart from showing people from all walks of live (well, not all, a lot) use the subway. The introduction didn't help me, it just talked about communication, but not all the pictures were about communication.
You write: "my objective was to use photography in a creative way to supply that which social research cannot." However, what was your research question? What is your conclusion? I see pictures of people in their daily setting, but what do these pictures show us? What insight does it give us? If it is sociological research, there must be something we can learn.
Disclaimer: I studied political science at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and I hold a degree in the social sciences. I, however, didn't keep up with the latest developments in sociology and political science isn't mainstream sociology.
However, I don't really see the sociological relevance apart from showing people from all walks of live (well, not all, a lot) use the subway. The introduction didn't help me, it just talked about communication, but not all the pictures were about communication.
You write: "my objective was to use photography in a creative way to supply that which social research cannot." However, what was your research question? What is your conclusion? I see pictures of people in their daily setting, but what do these pictures show us? What insight does it give us? If it is sociological research, there must be something we can learn.
Disclaimer: I studied political science at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and I hold a degree in the social sciences. I, however, didn't keep up with the latest developments in sociology and political science isn't mainstream sociology.
"Civility" implies interaction... The photos show a lot of what might be called tacit interaction. That is, mutual awareness and respect for personal space along with acceptance of a squeeze on that space. Four, it seems to me, go further with direct interaction.
George Bonanno
Well-known
I think your pictures are good, two are very good.
However, what I don’t understand is your wordy dialogue. Do I need to know all that ?
Take a ride on the wild side, take the 6 from end to end.
However, what I don’t understand is your wordy dialogue. Do I need to know all that ?
Take a ride on the wild side, take the 6 from end to end.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
That might be the point; that people don't interact anymore because of deep social divisions in our society, which are even worse in a place where the cost of living is extreme, like NYC. I often wonder how most people live in such a place. I've seen it written numerous places that an average apartment in New York City is $3000 a month.
That's $36,000 a year. About half of American workers earn LESS than that a year, and in NYC that just covers your rent. You need to pay utility bills, you need to eat, you need to buy clothes and other necessities of life, you need to pay for transportation, medical care, things for your kids if you have them.
One of our NYC members (I think it was photomoof) mentioned once that you have to make at least $50,000 a year for an individual with no kids just to survive at the most spartan, basic level there. That means to stay out of poverty, you have to earn more than 70% of Americans earn, and what is a middle class income in most of the country.
NYC is not all rich people; there are middle class people and poor people there. How do they survive? I'd like to see the OP or someone else explore that question with photography and writing.
rpavich
Established
Ok...here is my uninformed non-socialogist comment:
I read the intro in it's entirety so that I could "get" the pictures, but the pictures didn't at all support the words.
Almost all of the images (except for a few) showed folks not "interacting from different classes" but instead being isolated. A packed train and nobody is even looking at each other...they are all isolated.
If the essay was about isolation and how folks DON'T interact...I'd say you'd have something with those images.
That's just my observation. I liked what you had to say, but the pictures didn't support it.
I read the intro in it's entirety so that I could "get" the pictures, but the pictures didn't at all support the words.
Almost all of the images (except for a few) showed folks not "interacting from different classes" but instead being isolated. A packed train and nobody is even looking at each other...they are all isolated.
If the essay was about isolation and how folks DON'T interact...I'd say you'd have something with those images.
That's just my observation. I liked what you had to say, but the pictures didn't support it.
Bille
Well-known
Refreshing layout
nongfuspring
Well-known
I think the project is interesting, and for me raises some questions about the overlap between visual ethnography/sociology, documentary photography, and art. I've been pretty interested by the idea of visual ethnography and at the same time I'm also often a bit confused by the way that it can be carried out - where/when it should be affective, where/when it should be a site for analysis, when/if it can be allegorical. It's reductive to divide photos up under headings like that, but it seems that in this kind of practice there are a lot of objectives that may not always go hand in hand.
It's clear that in your photographs you had a fairly specific idea of how you wanted your photographs to look; moderately grainy high-ish contrast BW, when in digital colour it comes across as a bit VSCO-ish (not necessarily a criticism). There's a combination of the classic documentary look and the maybe more hip/advertorial filter thing going on, and I'm curious about how you came to those visual decisions in relation to what you wanted to achieve in the project.
Another thing I was wondering about is if you think there is any difference between visual ethnography and any other kind of documentary (or even non-documentary) photography other than context. Is this visual ethnography because of your companion introduction or is it visual ethnography because of it's essential visual content/intent of the images?
Sorry if this is really more a bunch of questions than a commentary.
It's clear that in your photographs you had a fairly specific idea of how you wanted your photographs to look; moderately grainy high-ish contrast BW, when in digital colour it comes across as a bit VSCO-ish (not necessarily a criticism). There's a combination of the classic documentary look and the maybe more hip/advertorial filter thing going on, and I'm curious about how you came to those visual decisions in relation to what you wanted to achieve in the project.
Another thing I was wondering about is if you think there is any difference between visual ethnography and any other kind of documentary (or even non-documentary) photography other than context. Is this visual ethnography because of your companion introduction or is it visual ethnography because of it's essential visual content/intent of the images?
Sorry if this is really more a bunch of questions than a commentary.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I like the layout, too.
The text is a nice riff on what makes the subway a socially important space in New York. But...the photos don't really capture significant moments, in my view. There are too many pictures of the backs of people's heads or people looking at their phones--ordinary scenes that don't reveal the subjects very much.
I wonder if it might better serve the thesis to actually talk to strangers, photograph them head-on, offer up some quotes about their experience on public transportation, HoNY-style?
Good to see M photography put to interesting use! The photos are technically very nice.
The text is a nice riff on what makes the subway a socially important space in New York. But...the photos don't really capture significant moments, in my view. There are too many pictures of the backs of people's heads or people looking at their phones--ordinary scenes that don't reveal the subjects very much.
I wonder if it might better serve the thesis to actually talk to strangers, photograph them head-on, offer up some quotes about their experience on public transportation, HoNY-style?
Good to see M photography put to interesting use! The photos are technically very nice.
konicaman
konicaman
I'll second that. I think you'll have to interact a bit more if you want to bring the photos closer in contact with your project.
That being said, I like your photos; it is urban daily life for you. It is always hard to evaluate photos of your own time - i doubt if very many people would have been interested in the many contemporary photos of Vivian Maier in her own time...
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I think, I faved #4 on Flickr 
Nicely done in terms of layout.
Nicely done in terms of layout.
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
My problem with the photos also.
I ride the subway at least once a day, for a fairly long distance, going through two burroughs. I ride on a reasonable mixed race and economic line, the F, meaning it serves many races, unlike some "rides" which have a tendency to very homogeneous.
A lot of the time I just read, but at least 10% of the time I have long fairly intimate talks with strangers about our lives, and the city. Conversations with many people I would not often get a chance to talk to.
I am almost always a minority on the train, older, more white, affluent, and educated. While I remain aware of my situation, I still find the trains full of folks more interesting than myself.
The amazing thing about the subway, is once one pierces the protective NYC bubble, almost everyone is friendly and open, willing to reveal and share amazing details. I grew up in the midwest of the US, where people are so angry below the surface, and seem to share little real public intimacy with strangers.
In addition to talking -- visually how amazing it is. There is such a variety of beauty, dress, ethnicity, and language. Recently I spent a few weeks in Italy, and it is not long before I begin to think to myself, where are they hiding the Dominicans, Irish and Yemeni?
Making photos of more than waiting, is not easy. I seldom comment on RFF photos, but in this case I will make an exception, as though I was still a professor in NYC, you have to work a lot harder, you got the easy shots, now you know what is down there, you have to go back for the money shots.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Your photos represent who you are, a little scared to face up to your fear of taking images of people head on. Too many backs of people. Too many shots that try to make a statement, but just ever so slightly miss.
I've been riding the subway since I moved here in the '70s. People do not really want to interact with strangers. People want to get from point A to B with as little trouble and stress that living in a big urban center can allow. Subways are not about "civility" as I see it. They are a necessary means for people to quickly travel distances for work. Mostly middle class or below. The recent plethora of car services such as Uber, show there are people who are willing to pay a premium.
Your images tell me that you never been to the furthest reaches of some subway lines such as the G, 4,5, 7, etc.. The riders look entirely different then what you portray. I ride the C train everyday. Tons of blue collar workers, construction workers, kitchen helpers. It remains so until it reaches the Upper West side when white collar workers on Wall Street come on. Now that's a scene.
I don't mean to just criticize, but your words and images do not go hand in hand for me. Keep exploring. Keep shooting.
I've been riding the subway since I moved here in the '70s. People do not really want to interact with strangers. People want to get from point A to B with as little trouble and stress that living in a big urban center can allow. Subways are not about "civility" as I see it. They are a necessary means for people to quickly travel distances for work. Mostly middle class or below. The recent plethora of car services such as Uber, show there are people who are willing to pay a premium.
Your images tell me that you never been to the furthest reaches of some subway lines such as the G, 4,5, 7, etc.. The riders look entirely different then what you portray. I ride the C train everyday. Tons of blue collar workers, construction workers, kitchen helpers. It remains so until it reaches the Upper West side when white collar workers on Wall Street come on. Now that's a scene.
I don't mean to just criticize, but your words and images do not go hand in hand for me. Keep exploring. Keep shooting.
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
How different we are, maybe people just find me non-threatening, they talk to me all the time.
I just find the subway endlessly amusing.
But I have been riding a lot longer than you, my mom yelled at me when she first noticed that I had figured out that my milk tokens fit into the subway, and only cost 5 cents. I think the subway was a dime?
I think, from what I've seen of Keith... he has a tough look on his face a lot. Me too... outside of the occasional female or, maybe while photographing, I rarely get strangers randomly talking to me.
scottyperry
Newbie
The photos are nice but what is the direction? No, I did not read the intro, but I do not think a great photo series needs a wordy intro to describe what its about. To me, a viewer, should be able to transcribe a message from the photos; either one that is in line with the direction of the series or one that is personal.
Keep shooting and pushing.
Keep shooting and pushing.
JP Owens
Well-known
I guess I just don't get it. A lot of photos of mostly disconnected people, on the way to somewhere. I've pretty much lost interest in "street" photos in general, though. Perhaps because there are just so many of them these days. Perhaps because they are mostly snaps of folks doing nothing in particular.
There are too many "observers" with cameras out there. Show me some personal interaction.
There are too many "observers" with cameras out there. Show me some personal interaction.
That's what facebook / instagram are for...
Nothing wrong with observing at all... it'll always be relevant to those who like that type of thing. Conversely, you can also choose not to view it or be into it.
Redseele
Established
Thank you very much for your comments so far. Yikes at some of them, I am constantly humbled by the fact that I get some harsh critique sometimes. However, as an academic who (fortunately) can only advance my work through conversations and peer-reviews, I am kind of used to (and extremely thankful) for feedback. I think as photographers sometimes we tend to develop our photographic journeys mostly in a lonely manner, but if I only accepted my own points of view I would never be able to see new ways to develop.
ANYHOW... I would like to address some of the comments above. First of all, "civility" does not imply interaction. That was my point with this project to begin with. "Civil society" (which is conducive to democratic practices and the construction of a democratic society) requires interaction between individuals who consider each other rational and equal. Civility, on the other hand, requires "contact". Contact, unlike interaction, relies more on the internal worlds of people (disconnected as they might be on an everyday basis) seeing and ACKNOWLEDGING other individuals as members of a same imagined community.
This was what I wanted to put an emphasis on with the pictures. New York City has lost over the last 20 years a lot of what people used to appreciate about it: its communities, the normality of interaction with strangers, the edginess of the city. Yet, New York City still holds an important vibe of belonging: one is a New Yorker amongst many others who are similar and very different at the same time.
Second, in regards to my non-confrontational stance with my subjects. That is actually something I partly did on purpose. I did not want to intrude, I wanted to make it a point that I could shoot a scene that could speak about the normality of civility in NYC subways. There are some pictures in which I purposefully shot people's backs. That is something I do a lot in my own photography (you can see it in my Tumblr) not because I'm afraid to confront them, but rather because I wanted the viewer of the photo to sort of be able to connect to the point of view of the people in the pictures. In that sense, I am not really documenting but rather trying to create an impression that we (photographer me and viewers) can get in the eyes of the subjects in the photographs. I know it sounds convoluted and truthfully I did use to do this because I didn't like shooting people a la Bruce Gilden, but in the last couple of years I realized this is part of my style and it actually works to depict the point that I'm trying to get across. I do, however, still need to work a lot on this since it is obvious to me that not everyone thinks like I do.
Third, as I said in my bio description, I'm not a documentarist or a journalist. With this project I did not want to show something, I wanted to understand people's internal worlds. But I think that getting this point across is impossible without explaining what I'm trying to do. That is the reason why I need the written introduction to the project. Perhaps it is the fact that I am all too familiar with the works of Foucault, Bourdieu, Benjamin, Adorno and Barthes, but I really do not believe the idea that "images speak for themselves". In particular, because this project is meant to be a way to intersect photography and social research, I think that the introduction and explanation about the project is absolutely necessary.
As you can see, there is a lot that you guys have mentioned and justly criticized about my project. I deeply and wholeheartedly thank you for this. The beauty of publishing these things on the internet is that I can still work to perfect them. I am taking notes of all your comments (as well as many others I have received from people I know personally over the last week or so) to make further revisions to this, my first serious photo-ethnography project.
Thank you and I apologize for the length of this post.
ANYHOW... I would like to address some of the comments above. First of all, "civility" does not imply interaction. That was my point with this project to begin with. "Civil society" (which is conducive to democratic practices and the construction of a democratic society) requires interaction between individuals who consider each other rational and equal. Civility, on the other hand, requires "contact". Contact, unlike interaction, relies more on the internal worlds of people (disconnected as they might be on an everyday basis) seeing and ACKNOWLEDGING other individuals as members of a same imagined community.
This was what I wanted to put an emphasis on with the pictures. New York City has lost over the last 20 years a lot of what people used to appreciate about it: its communities, the normality of interaction with strangers, the edginess of the city. Yet, New York City still holds an important vibe of belonging: one is a New Yorker amongst many others who are similar and very different at the same time.
Second, in regards to my non-confrontational stance with my subjects. That is actually something I partly did on purpose. I did not want to intrude, I wanted to make it a point that I could shoot a scene that could speak about the normality of civility in NYC subways. There are some pictures in which I purposefully shot people's backs. That is something I do a lot in my own photography (you can see it in my Tumblr) not because I'm afraid to confront them, but rather because I wanted the viewer of the photo to sort of be able to connect to the point of view of the people in the pictures. In that sense, I am not really documenting but rather trying to create an impression that we (photographer me and viewers) can get in the eyes of the subjects in the photographs. I know it sounds convoluted and truthfully I did use to do this because I didn't like shooting people a la Bruce Gilden, but in the last couple of years I realized this is part of my style and it actually works to depict the point that I'm trying to get across. I do, however, still need to work a lot on this since it is obvious to me that not everyone thinks like I do.
Third, as I said in my bio description, I'm not a documentarist or a journalist. With this project I did not want to show something, I wanted to understand people's internal worlds. But I think that getting this point across is impossible without explaining what I'm trying to do. That is the reason why I need the written introduction to the project. Perhaps it is the fact that I am all too familiar with the works of Foucault, Bourdieu, Benjamin, Adorno and Barthes, but I really do not believe the idea that "images speak for themselves". In particular, because this project is meant to be a way to intersect photography and social research, I think that the introduction and explanation about the project is absolutely necessary.
As you can see, there is a lot that you guys have mentioned and justly criticized about my project. I deeply and wholeheartedly thank you for this. The beauty of publishing these things on the internet is that I can still work to perfect them. I am taking notes of all your comments (as well as many others I have received from people I know personally over the last week or so) to make further revisions to this, my first serious photo-ethnography project.
Thank you and I apologize for the length of this post.