Is modern-day photography ugly?

[johannielscom]

Some days ago I watched a 1999 documentary on Magnum. In it, a photographer explained that in 1999 Magnum suffered from a lot of applications for future members that sent in stuff that looked like the old days, like Capa and Cartier-Bresson work. And he confessed to having trouble himself to shoot contemporary, modern-day work. As he put it:'When I'm shooting a fastfood restaurant front in Wales and somebody passes by with sheep and a dog, I instantly aim for that.'

This gave me lots to think about, since I found it a very familiar-sounding statement. And looking around on the forum and in the gallery, I see this to be true for many submitting members here.

So now my questions: do you consider modern life to be 'ugly' in a photographic way? Are you (like me) a romantic old f*rt when it comes to photography? And, what do you do to photograph modern life in an aesthetically interesting way?

Posting shots is much appreciated, post some thoughts and observations with the shot please? :angel:

 

[back alley]

do i consider modern life to be ugly? leaving out the 'in a photographic way'...i'd say overall yes.
i love the old cars and motorcycles, the old cameras...old architecture...most things old are more familiar to me and thus more comfortable.

that being said, there are some beautiful new cameras, cars etc...

i try to appreciate it all but probably on a one to one basis, seeking out the individual things that i find beautiful.

 

[petronius]

Skip the romantic connotations of past years and think of the social and other problems behind the images of HCB and others of this time and you won´t find our time ugly anymore.

 

[jsrockit]

The great thing about photography is that what seems boring and "ugly" in our times eventually turns into something different in the future once nostalgia kicks in. I love photographing in todays world, but then again my girlfriend says I like to photograph ugly things more than beautiful things. I feel I photograph both and both are worthy attributes. 🙂

 

[johannielscom]

Petronius,

your pictures are a beacon to me when it comes to photographing modern day life in an aesthetically pleasing way.

Just thought I'd point this out.

Myself, I'm still struggling and more so since I saw that documentary and heard that observation...!

 

[tunalegs]

Depends on what ugly means.

 

[zauhar]

Johan, I find the urban landscape the most interesting visually - but that said the more modern that landscape, the more controlled, sterile and bland it tends to be.

There is, I think, a feedback in place. Older environments were more under the direct control of often chaotic human beings, resulting in a more chaotic and interesting scene. In contemporary society, human impulses are under tighter control, which is reflected in a cleaner and more sterile environment.

Of course, I have faith that any place or person can be interesting if seen in the correct lighting.

Randy

 

[hipsterdufus]

I tend to view images on an individual basis. I love the classics, but I've seen them so often that I'm a bit habituated to them. They often don't impact me as much as a fresh, new image. There are some modern photographers that do great work. I don't think any less of them if they aren't using old rangefinders and film.

 

[MIkhail]

Good question normally has 75% of answer (or something like that) 🙂

If you are shooting pictures to show the beautiful things in them, then your question makes sense, the answer can be yes or no.
If you are shooting pictures to present your own vision of harmony, made by forms and shapes then it does not matter what the subject matter even is.

“Art” usually based more to a second definition. Does not matter what the building blocks are, you are not showing off the building blocks, you are building a structure with them.
You can have 3 ugly people in the picture and the picture will be beautiful, as you compose, chose your own perspective, your rendering and express your message thru it.

P.S.
I wonder to how many people what I just wrote would look like nonsense…

 

[back alley]

Good question normally has 75% of answer (or something like that) 🙂

If you are shooting pictures to show the beautiful things in them, then your question makes sense, the answer can be yes or no.
If you are shooting pictures to present your own vision of harmony, made by forms and shapes then it does not matter what the subject matter even is.

“Art” usually based more to a second definition. Does not matter what the building blocks are, you are not showing off the building blocks, you are building a structure with them.
You can have 3 ugly people in the picture and the picture will be beautiful, as you compose, chose your own perspective, your rendering and express your message thru it.

P.S.
I wonder to how many people what I just wrote would look like nonsense…

so, beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

 

[mfogiel]

Most of modern photography is ugly, almost like of old photography, only you do not remember this. Perhaps it is more ugly, because nowadays everybody shoots colour without having the faintest idea why they do it.
It is not true, that there is no beauty around us, what is necessary is a good eye, a lot of hard work shooting, and a hundred times more work editing.
Have a look at this:

http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL53ZVNE

Apparently, he is using some cheap half frame digital japanese camera, and is not overly concerned with sharpness.

 

[MIkhail]

so, beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

No, completely different message here 🙂
I tried to explain with bricks example.


Example of Pinkhassov is a very good one. His picures are valuable because of his unique vision, not because he shoots beautiful things.

But you really have to arrive to understandig of this concept by yourself. It is much more difficult than save up for summilux though 🙂

 

[tunalegs]

Most of modern photography is ugly, almost like of old photography, only you do not remember this. Perhaps it is more ugly, because nowadays everybody shoots colour without having the faintest idea why they do it.

As opposed to shooting B&W because you have no other practical alternative? 😕

I tend to view images on an individual basis. I love the classics, but I've seen them so often that I'm a bit habituated to them. They often don't impact me as much as a fresh, new image. There are some modern photographers that do great work. I don't think any less of them if they aren't using old rangefinders and film.

Actually I was thinking about something the other day. Looking at famous old photos, I realized a lot of famous photos aren't very interesting. Yeah they may have been tremendously interesting when they were made, because they were new or only possible with just invented technology. But since then people have taken a lot better photos, which get little to no recognition simply because they weren't lucky enough to be first, even if in all other respects their work is better.

 

[back alley]

No, completely different message here 🙂
I tried to explain with bricks example.

so, beauty is in the eye of the creator?

 

[MIkhail]

so, beauty is in the eye of the creator?

Beauty is a relative term, based largely of your definition of it, which in turn is based on your upbringing, your education in visual art (or self education, does not matter) etc.

I am just making a point that the question is incorrect to begin with. It's like to say: nowdays paint is ugly, so whatever I paint with it does not come out as good as it used to be.

 

[jsrockit]

Actually I was thinking about something the other day. Looking at famous old photos, I realized a lot of famous photos aren't very interesting. Yeah they may have been tremendously interesting when they were made, because they were new or only possible with just invented technology. But since then people have taken a lot better photos, which get little to no recognition simply because they weren't lucky enough to be first, even if in all other respects their work is better.

Sometimes being the original / innovator is more important since they did not have the luxury of learning from their past. It most likely had nothing to do with luck.

I just find it funny that some have the balls to categorically call everything in modern photography crap. I would think that you have no idea what makes a great photograph if you feel this way.

 

[daveleo]

Making pictures of modern life . . . or not

Making pictures of modern life . . . or not

. . . . . So now my questions: do you consider modern life to be 'ugly' in a photographic way? Are you (like me) a romantic old f*rt when it comes to photography? And, what do you do to photograph modern life in an aesthetically interesting way?
. . . . .

Lots of us don't make pictures of "modern life" simply because (in my case, anyway) it's not what we care to make pictures of.
I think that photos of people living out their lives don't really become interesting until history makes them so, for some reason or another (nostalgia being one of the reasons).

Modern life (IMO) is not any more visually boring than it ever was to the people living in the times.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

We can't shoot the past, all we have to point our cameras at is the present.

 

[jsrockit]

We can't shoot the past, all we have to point our cameras at is the present.

But the results can never be anything but the past.

 

[Nomad Z]

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

But it will in another 20 years or so.