Is modern-day photography ugly?

[sanmich]

About nostalgia:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1605783/

I have a 1967 photo mag, and most of it is total garbage. excessive use of super wides mainly.

The only things that I personally find annoying today and which were different some decades ago is the density of cars, and the uniformization of the human/urban landscape.
Other than that, one can still take breathtakingly good pictures in a black and white rectangle, even if the format is not exactly new.

I do agree that with the easiness of life today, some general atmosphere of sloppiness and lack of serious dedication seem prevalent.

 

[tunalegs]

This kind of work is what is now what the art world promotes. In addition to technical sloppiness, there seems to be a race to find the most meaningless, empty compositions possible. I think the root of it is an obsession with 'originality' and 'newness' that causes people to believe that straightforward, honest documentation of the real world is unacceptably 'un-original' because it 'has been done before.' The problem with that worldview is that the world, the real world, is in constant change; it is always 'new' and 'original', even if you photograph the same thing 100 different times over a period or months or years...

I think the popularity of sloppiness has nothing to do with originality but is more of a sort of folk appeal, a "hey look I don't know what I'm doing but I'm still doing something!" type of deal.

In the comics industry, a lot of the independent publishers actually look down on polished artwork, because they're trying desperately to perpetuate that alternative comics are not made by talented artists! 😀 They want and expect their readers to believe that somebody who can't draw just decided to sit down and draw a 150 page narrative, and had apparently never thought about making comics before. Yeah, as-if. So it has to look crude and sloppy. It's a sort of faux-folk art. Basically they want to perpetuate the idea that alternative comics are crappy and weird - and they rarely tolerate anything that doesn't fit that mold. Kind of ironic that some things are just "too alternative" for alternative comics...

 

[Sparrow]

I think this says it all myself

 

[Roger Hicks]

(1) Sturgeon's Law (90% of anything is crap)

(2) Homogeneity may be increasing by some definitions but is decreasing by others. The space that is allowed (by the galleries and the media) to be explored in the arts (not just photography) is much bigger than it was.

(3) I too have many old photo magazines, and Michael is right: my 1939 bound annual collection of Miniature Camera Magazine is pretty bad. But it's not as bas as most of the 1890-1910 Pictorialism/Linked Ring kind of stuff.

(4) The Neue Sachlichkeit (cf Gursky) ain't as neue as it used to be.

(5) There've always been pointless fashions in all arts, not just oversized prints and the Neue Sachlichkeit but in painting too: think of the Fauves. About 10% (cf Sturgeon again) were any good.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I refuse to produce crap.[/QUOTE

Really? We all produce crap, so far as someone is concerned. More importantly, we also produce gold, so far as someone else is concerned.

What's more, the original question was just plain silly. With all the many millions of people making pictures in myriad locations for a multitude of purposes, these generalisations don't even rise to the level of absurdity.

Photography is a personal business, unless you are determined to be paid for your pictures. In that case it becomes a matter of satisfying someone's demand, be that person an editor, a gallery owner, a bride or whatever.

So, to answer the original question: "yes, no, maybe or what!?" is all I can say.

 

[bigeye]

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.'

To narrow the topic a bit, Magnum must try to be avant garde; to do so, it needs to have fresh, distinctive and original works.

So now my questions: do you consider modern life to be 'ugly' in a photographic way?

Not sure how we jump to this question, in this context, but Magnum and photo journalism are focused on current news events. I don't think this changes; it will always be gritty, often ugly. (This is site is weighted toward streetshooting, a pseudo-journalistic type, and less fields of flowers and grazing sheep, so it too will be 'darker' than naturephotographers.net. )

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?

Yes, I believe that it is a virtue to produce something that delights and is beautiful. Marek's Pinkhassov example hits the mark: A Magnum photographer producing 1) contemporary images that are distinctive, fresh, 2) timeless and 3) beautiful.

- Charlie

 

[peter_n]

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.

Good composition, capturing the decisive moment and solid technical execution are not fashion trends, but requirements to produce a photo that clearly communicates to a viewer the moment or emotion that the photographer was trying to capture.

+1 to both these comments.

 

[zauhar]

I lost track of what this thread is about. Is it about style of photography (framing, preferred focal lengths, compositional style) as a function of time, or differences in the stuff being photographed (the people and places) over the decades?

If the latter, it has to do with changes in the man made environment and human fashions, which I suppose can't be separated cleanly from how we choose to document them. And of course technology - digital capture and manipulation are recent inventions, and have changed the strategies used to collect images and the look of the final product.

For what it's worth, I think the 1940s represent an era of good fashion sense, and the 70s are ugly, and that is sometimes reflected in my reaction to photos . (You were wearing that? Really?) But does that have anything to do with photography, or more anthropology ? On the other hand, HDR photos are a product of a specific technology that produces a distinct "look", as do other postprocessing methods, and may contribute to modern photos being seen as - ugly?

Randy

 

[mfogiel]

@ tunalegs

"Quote:
Originally Posted by 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."

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

Whatever you decide to do, it is a choice, be it if you draw, paint or make photographs.
If you look at the history of painting, the study of colour has always been very important, colour was never used without a reason. Today, people put colour in their pictures, because they find it inside their files, not because they chose it in some critical way.

 

[Dana B.]

I live in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. It's a sprawling, monotonous postwar exurb, whose demographics have largely flip-flopped in the past few decades. When I reach for my camera, do I wish to be a photographer of record, recalling the AAA boulevard shots of yore? Do I wish to record the searing California sun and clear skies at high noon, the light most residents experience? Do I want to document the endless strip malls, with their multicultural businesses small and large, and the repitition of national chains from Arbey's roast beef to McDonald's?

Or must I look for that exceptional moment? The rare storm that will add pop to modernist architecture? The old rustbucket that has nothing to do with the shiny freeway stampede? The odd man or woman on the street, who somehow stand out among the dog walkers, baby strollers and bus stop ilk that make for most L.A. street life? Do I look for signs and murals, the true backdrops of Los Angeles? Or do I strain to find rare angles that more resemble Rome?

For me, photography is a hunt for what's interesting. It's also a willingness to venture out, to be there, anywhere, where there is activity. And the longer I practice it, the harder it gets.

 

[gm13]

I see a lot of modern life as ugly and often find photographing it with any inspiration difficult. Regardless of how much time passes I can't imagine ever feeling nostalgic for the ubiquity of the plastic bag, softdrink logo emblazoned adverts over an otherwise appealing shop front, clothing as ad etc. Yes, it is symptomatic of the times and documenting it is accurate and can be done well but beautiful in itself is not what I'd call it. Personally, I can't but see them all as signs of a glaring disconnect from life and each other and this interpretation lends a lot to the ugliness I see. Not that we all fall prey to the "thneed" being advertised but the search to fill the void with goods (and cheaply made disposable ones at that) IMO is a disconnect from Life. Back in the "glory" days of the classic photographer his or her images were often filled with folks whose clothing was probably local, maybe they knew the tailor/seamstress and you didn't see ads all over them. It's all social commentary I know, and the comment I often see is that life has become a search for the disposable Thneed. It feels a bit empty, soulless maybe, the difference between Wonder bread and pulling a loaf out of the cast iron dutch oven.

I'll spare you further elaboration but that's the jist from here.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thneed

 

[tunalegs]

@ tunalegs

"Quote:
Originally Posted by 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."

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

Whatever you decide to do, it is a choice, be it if you draw, paint or make photographs.
If you look at the history of painting, the study of colour has always been very important, colour was never used without a reason. Today, people put colour in their pictures, because they find it inside their files, not because they chose it in some critical way.

But is that any less valid of a reason to choose B&W because it looks "artsy" or because "colors are hard"? 🙂 Most people who shoot in color shoot in color because the world is in color. If that is their reason for doing so, I believe it to be perfectly valid.

I see a lot of modern life as ugly and often find photographing it with any inspiration difficult. Regardless of how much time passes I can't imagine ever feeling nostalgic for the ubiquity of the plastic bag, softdrink logo emblazoned adverts over an otherwise appealing shop front, clothing as ad etc. Yes, it is symptomatic of the times and documenting it is accurate and can be done well but beautiful in itself is not what I'd call it. Personally, I can't but see them all as signs of a glaring disconnect from life and each other and this interpretation lends a lot to the ugliness I see. Not that we all fall prey to the "thneed" being advertised but the search to fill the void with goods (and cheaply made disposable ones at that) IMO is a disconnect from Life. Back in the "glory" days of the classic photographer his or her images were often filled with folks whose clothing was probably local, maybe they knew the tailor/seamstress and you didn't see ads all over them. It's all social commentary I know, and the comment I often see is that life has become a search for the disposable Thneed. It feels a bit empty, soulless maybe, the difference between Wonder bread and pulling a loaf out of the cast iron dutch oven.

Anybody can point a camera at something beautiful and take a photo of something that is beautiful. It takes skill to point the camera at something plain and make it look beautiful. Most of Ansel Adams photos would be perfectly boring if they were just snapshots of the same scenery - he had to do work to make them look good.

For instance most people thought steam locomotives looked ugly and old fashioned in the 1950s, O. Winston Link made them look majestic and timeless. Sure those photos seem packed with nostalgia to modern eyes, but at the time he was turning something very plain and dreary into something amazing.

 

[johannielscom]

Creating a style and a vision for photographing modern-day life?

Creating a style and a vision for photographing modern-day life?

...snip...

Anybody can point a camera at something beautiful and take a photo of something that is beautiful. It takes skill to point the camera at something plain and make it look beautiful. Most of Ansel Adams photos would be perfectly boring if they were just snapshots of the same scenery - he had to do work to make them look good.

For instance most people thought steam locomotives looked ugly and old fashioned in the 1950s, O. Winston Link made them look majestic and timeless. Sure those photos seem packed with nostalgia to modern eyes, but at the time he was turning something very plain and dreary into something amazing.

That's what I mean. Exactly that.

Thing is, I want to learn how to do that. It's not just a technical trick, it's a way of seeing, of envisioning. Technical skills are an aid to that, but it starts with a vision.

I find it hard to envision this in modern life. Yet, if I want to produce shots that are going to be of any meaning over time, this what I have to do. I have to create a frame to work from, to build a style and a theme with.

As said before, Martin Parr admittedly achieved it, but I do not like his work. Petronius also achieved it and I admire his eye, his vision, his ability to distinguish and single out those situations and scenes. Yet, not my style either.

Have any of you worked on this? Creating a style and a vision for photographing modern-day life? Digitally, film, P&S, Leica, MF, sheet film, I don't care, I'm interested in the process you went through. Not to copy but to shape-shift parts of it into something of my own.

Even if you tried and gave up or found out what didn't work for you, I'd be interested!

 

[pakeha]

Is modern-day photography ugly?

yes - no -sometimes

subject that really does not need a Niagara of words..

 

[tunalegs]

That's what I mean. Exactly that.

Thing is, I want to learn how to do that. It's not just a technical trick, it's a way of seeing, of envisioning. Technical skills are an aid to that, but it starts with a vision.

I find it hard to envision this in modern life. Yet, if I want to produce shots that are going to be of any meaning over time, this what I have to do. I have to create a frame to work from, to build a style and a theme with.

As said before, Martin Parr admittedly achieved it, but I do not like his work. Petronius also achieved it and I admire his eye, his vision, his ability to distinguish and single out those situations and scenes. Yet, not my style either.

Have any of you worked on this? Creating a style and a vision for photographing modern-day life? Digitally, film, P&S, Leica, MF, sheet film, I don't care, I'm interested in the process you went through. Not to copy but to shape-shift parts of it into something of my own.

Even if you tried and gave up or found out what didn't work for you, I'd be interested!

I mostly photograph garbage and plants, and I don't show most of my photos to anybody. :angel:

In my collection of photos I have this image:

There is something about that dog in the corner that really makes this photo work IMO. It's a neat snapshot of history otherwise, but that blurry dog in the foreground transcends time. I have never worked a thresher, much less a steam engine - and so while that is interesting in its own right, the dog is what makes this image relatable. I know what dogs are, I've seen them around. Here's another one, poking its head into the photo, too close to the photographer, just peeping into the frame. I can relate to that - and suddenly the whole scene is made so much more candid and genuine. Just because of some doofy thing in the photograph that isn't even the subject.

As a photographer I'm drawn to this image because I can see that the photographer - was a photographer. 🙂 You can clearly see that they dodged the machines and foreground. I find myself empathizing with this person, they wanted to make good photos! That makes it so much more intriguing to me because I can relate to that too.

In any event I'm rambling. The point is, that image above could be like any other old snapshot of some antiquated thing - like millions of other old snapshots. But because it contains elements that are still relevant to me, as a modern viewer, it becomes more than that. Maybe that will set you thinking.

 

[charjohncarter]

I live in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. It's a sprawling, monotonous postwar exurb, whose demographics have largely flip-flopped in the past few decades. When I reach for my camera, do I wish to be a photographer of record, recalling the AAA boulevard shots of yore? Do I wish to record the searing California sun and clear skies at high noon, the light most residents experience? Do I want to document the endless strip malls, with their multicultural businesses small and large, and the repitition of national chains from Arbey's roast beef to McDonald's?

Or must I look for that exceptional moment? The rare storm that will add pop to modernist architecture? The old rustbucket that has nothing to do with the shiny freeway stampede? The odd man or woman on the street, who somehow stand out among the dog walkers, baby strollers and bus stop ilk that make for most L.A. street life? Do I look for signs and murals, the true backdrops of Los Angeles? Or do I strain to find rare angles that more resemble Rome?

For me, photography is a hunt for what's interesting. It's also a willingness to venture out, to be there, anywhere, where there is activity. And the longer I practice it, the harder it gets.

Well, put. This is my problem too, and when the rain does fall I don't know how to shoot it. I live near San Francisco and there you will be able to capture some strange scenes. But like you I want to just go out and shoot, not make a project of it.

 

[Doug]

Older photographs have been filtered by time. We see mostly what has become durable and of lasting interest. But current photography has not yet been sorted clearly to separate the dross from what is important to the era. I think we will need the perspective of time, the view back from the future.

 

[johannielscom]

Older photographs have been filtered by time. We see mostly what has become durable and of lasting interest. But current photography has not yet been sorted clearly to separate the dross from what is important to the era. I think we will need the perspective of time, the view back from the future.

That is indeed a very valid observation in this, thanks for that!

 

[gm13]

Anybody can point a camera at something beautiful and take a photo of something that is beautiful. It takes skill to point the camera at something plain and make it look beautiful. Most of Ansel Adams photos would be perfectly boring if they were just snapshots of the same scenery - he had to do work to make them look good.

For instance most people thought steam locomotives looked ugly and old fashioned in the 1950s, O. Winston Link made them look majestic and timeless. Sure those photos seem packed with nostalgia to modern eyes, but at the time he was turning something very plain and dreary into something amazing.

I agree, finding an interesting shot amid the everyday is what makes it challenging, though my point was less about the "plain everyday" element, it's an issue with the ubiquity of plastic, the actual and metaphorical. That locomotive may have been ugly to some but I'm sure it was built well, thoughtfully, and derived a grace through the function of its form. And it will last, was meant to. I guess I find beauty in elegant, less ephemeral design. El Cap speaks for itself, yes the right light will add to its majesty but in my opinion, that's easier subject matter than modern street. There is much more inherent beauty (imo) in either of these examples than in walking advertisements with logo emblazoned hoodies, hats and plastic bags staring down at a little box, disconnected from their surroundings. I find that really challenging to make interesting, uninspiring also.



Still not bad but it loses a little something to my eye...

 

[CaptZoom]

So now my questions: do you consider modern life to be 'ugly' in a photographic way?....And, what do you do to photograph modern life in an aesthetically interesting way?

Sorry about the paraphrasing of your post, but I kept the relevant questions I'm considering.

I consider modern life in big cities to be extremely ugly, specifically the categorization of individuals into clearly definable homogenous groups is disgusting. Do I consider modern life to be ugly in a photographic way? Not by a long shot. I consider almost all if my paid work (commercial product photography) total crap, but my clients think the photographs are worth significant amounts of money. The photos are technically nearly perfect. They are crap none the less, they are after all a perfectly executed photograph of a product designed to illustrate the qualities of the said product. There is no meaning to them beyond this. Therein lies the problem with modern photography: the commerciality of the medium. Photographs are being turned into products.

The entirety of my personal work is in photographing the mundane. I find this to be gratifying, interesting, insightful, and entertaining. I shoot almost exclusively in bw; I do not have the ability to pre-visualize my photos in color- bw on the other hand is natural to me. I try to incorporate action into my frame; this helps make each photo a story.