I sympathize withe the sentiment, but... A problem with this is the viewer cannot know what came from the camera. If the photo appears to represent reality, then manipulation that is obvious to the viewer is poorly done. Some manipulation is simply repairs. Sometimes the manipulation is essential to the art... considering Jerry Uelsmann and photomontage. Beauty comes in many forms.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
To elaborate, though, Your original question completely failed to consider the reality of photography's history. When the earliest photographs were being made by people like Fox Talbot and Louis Daguerre, they were surrounded by filth, squalor and ghastly architecture as well as beauty, grace and soaring columns.
They did what draghtsmen and painters have always done: they selected what they wanted to show. In their world, only the beautiful was permitted to exist. Others, like Jacob Riis, made pictures that examined the ugly and the unpleasant. That was the "truth" the social documentors wanted to project. Between these extremes were a myriad of photographers making pictures for many different reasons.
Modern life is as ugly, beautiful, banal, exciting, boring and fascinating as in any period of history or, I suspect, pre-history, so you edit your view of the world...
They did what draghtsmen and painters have always done: they selected what they wanted to show. In their world, only the beautiful was permitted to exist. Others, like Jacob Riis, made pictures that examined the ugly and the unpleasant. That was the "truth" the social documentors wanted to project. Between these extremes were a myriad of photographers making pictures for many different reasons.
Modern life is as ugly, beautiful, banal, exciting, boring and fascinating as in any period of history or, I suspect, pre-history, so you edit your view of the world...
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
To elaborate, though, Your original question completely failed to consider the reality of photography's history. When the earliest photographs were being made by people like Fox Talbot and Louis Daguerre, they were surrounded by filth, squalor and ghastly architecture as well as beauty, grace and soaring columns.
They did what draghtsmen and painters have always done: they selected what they wanted to show. In their world, only the beautiful was permitted to exist. Others, like Jacob Riis, made pictures that examined the ugly and the unpleasant. That was the "truth" the social documentors wanted to project. Between these extremes were a myriad of photographers making pictures for many different reasons.
Modern life is as ugly, beautiful, banal, exciting, boring and fascinating as in any period of history or, I suspect, pre-history, so you edit your view of the world...
Sejanus,
thank you for a constructive input to the conversation.
I feel you are correct with all your observations but my initial question was not so much about 'what is uglyness in a photo', but on 'how to capture modern life in photography, when you consider modern life to be ugly'. I'm interested in the mindset that these (you name 'em, no matter who) photographers had while creating photo's and a body of work(!) from things that were considered 'ugly, modern life' in their time.
Why do I want to know this? Well in essence I think I need to find a deeper meaning, a greater purpose for my photography.
Somebody dear to me told me, "I do not think your photography is special, I feel I could make those pictures." And lo and behold, they were right. My photos are often inspired by a day to day sense of beauty, I found. And they often block out content from modern day life that would allow people to identify them as contemporary. Like I said, "I'm a romantic f*rt" when it comes to my choice of subjects and scenery.
In short, why not quit altogether when it comes down to that?
I do not need to create photo's like those art school students, 'things that are new and never done before', I'm with Christopher on that. I do need to find me a way to include modern-day life into my photographs and be able to cope with it's ugliness at the same time. And I'd like to hear from others what their mindset is.
So I ask again, "Is modern-day photography ugly?" and I'd like to add "If you think so, why do you create it anyway? and "How do you put up with it?"
Still, any and all input welcome!
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
It isn't ugly unless you think it is.
How about that?
How about that?
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I'm sorry to have to say again: the question is invalid.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is one of those irritatingly true cliches. If you see ugliness, that's your perception, not reality. The environment in which you live is completely neutral, whether it be an inner city or the rolling hills and forests.
So, only you can deal with this because, if you perceive beauty in your environment, you can make "beautiful" pictures and vice versa. We always think our childhood was spent in beautiful places, because the young see beauty everywhere. I grew up in what many would think a truly ugly city but to me and my friends was a fairy land.
Listen to "Goin' Back" by Gerry Goffin & Carole King to hear one view of how to counter what you seem to be suffering from.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Or more briefly, what Tunalegs said...
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
If we want to produce honest photography, we must shoot photos that reveal how WE perceive the world. Otherwise, we are going to be forever frustrated and dissatisfied with our photos. Not everyone is going to like what comes out of our heads, but that's the breaks. Unless we are shooting hard news, photography is about interpreting reality, not creating xerox copies of it.
CaptZoom
Established
As a blanket statement, I can not affirm that "modern-day photography is ugly". So the short answer would be: no, I do not think modern-day photography is ugly. There are many many examples to the contrary. And there are plenty of examples that affirm your remarks.
I create photographs because its the best medium I have at my disposal for creating art. I've tried sculpting, ceramics, painting (oil and water paints), music (both playing instruments and creating arrangements), drawing and sketching. Baring photography, I'm quite skilled with drawing/sketching and playing the guitar. However, unlike photography I can not create new works with either. I can play for you Voodoo Child in its entirety without flaws and I can sketch a photorealistic sketch portrait, but in both instances I will have not concord anything personal. Both works would be sterile. Photography is where my skill and personal vision intersect allowing me to voice my concerns, my ideas, my notions of beauty. I can instill a part of me in every frame I create. And thus is the reason I engage in the activity. The external world has little to do with it. But I may be different because I have an audience of one in mind: me.
CaptZoom
Established
To all those that think skill and personal vision is not required for photoshop, I say: you are all very much mistaken. I do need to point out that I do not use PS nor do I have any desire to do so. By the same token, I do not discount those that are using the tools at their disposal to create a singular vision. If you think for one moment that the old masters wouldn't use any and all tools available to them for the creation of their photograph, you are mistaken again.
I have neither the skill nor the imagination to create this work:
http://www.featureshoot.com/2012/11...sing-hundreds-of-shots-from-exotic-locations/
If you think no personal vision, no skill in both handling a camera and post processing in photoshop is required, or the countless hours and dedication it took to create these works, I'm afraid that you've chosen to remain static and have closed your minds to new opportunities.
I have neither the skill nor the imagination to create this work:
http://www.featureshoot.com/2012/11...sing-hundreds-of-shots-from-exotic-locations/
If you think no personal vision, no skill in both handling a camera and post processing in photoshop is required, or the countless hours and dedication it took to create these works, I'm afraid that you've chosen to remain static and have closed your minds to new opportunities.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
This whole statement is a load of horse manure. Photoshop is not 'easy; or 'push a button and its done'. Digital work, done right, requires a very complex skill set that is actually quite a bit more complex than developing film and printing in the darkroom. I've done both for many, many years. Anyone who can claim that digital is for people without real skills is projecting his own lack of knowledge on others.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
+1
People talk about photoshop like it's some alien package that arrived from a far off gallaxy to corrupt our natural evolution.
It was created out of the imagination and skill of the human brain and is no less valid within our art form than a Durst enlarger or a developing tray or bottle of Rodinal.
gm13
Well-known
It may not be a valid question to those who have no problem with, or don't see the "ugliness" but for others it's very valid, and I've struggled with it numerous times, not solely from a photographic bent either.
Personally, I don't enjoy photographing things that aren't pleasing to my eye. I've taken pictures of decay-dead animals, dead buildings, squalor etc. all could be considered ugly but there was an element within each that I found interesting. IMO the majority of the external expressions of modern life for the masses is devoid of an interesting, unhomogenized, let alone beautiful, element. Mostly due to not expressing ourselves but the wishes of our advertisers.
What do I do about it? Look harder, wait, hope, travel someplace with an interesting backdrop and then more waiting till the elements combine themselves and maybe I'll be around to see it.
Or, failing that, just do street portraits, lots of beauty there.
Personally, I don't enjoy photographing things that aren't pleasing to my eye. I've taken pictures of decay-dead animals, dead buildings, squalor etc. all could be considered ugly but there was an element within each that I found interesting. IMO the majority of the external expressions of modern life for the masses is devoid of an interesting, unhomogenized, let alone beautiful, element. Mostly due to not expressing ourselves but the wishes of our advertisers.
What do I do about it? Look harder, wait, hope, travel someplace with an interesting backdrop and then more waiting till the elements combine themselves and maybe I'll be around to see it.
Or, failing that, just do street portraits, lots of beauty there.
Nomad Z
Well-known
You seem to be mixing two things together...
'how to capture modern life in photography, when you consider modern life to be ugly'
...and...
"Is modern-day photography ugly?"
Does an ugly modern life necessarily make modern-day photography ugly? If you think it does, and if you think modern life is indeed ugly, then you've painted yourself into a corner and have no chance of doing anything about it until you change what you think about one or both of those things.
The picture of the woman in the long dress that I posted earlier is a picture of modern life. It was taken two years ago in Stirling Castle in Scotland. I had spotted her outside chatting to a couple of people and passed her on my way into the great hall - I thought she looked interesting. Later, while I was in the hall snapping away, I noticed that she had come in and was standing where she is in the photo, with nobody near her. I saw my spot to get the angle I wanted, went there while prefocussing the lens and grabbed the shot. A handful of seconds from seeing the chance to clicking the shutter. After exchanging a nod with her, I went on to my next photo, and I heard her start her introductory words to whatever talk she was giving for the tourists. Turns out that she dresses up in the old-fashioned gear to lend some atmosphere to her talks.
It was shot on colour film (original attached), and I had no thoughts about how the final image would be done - it was just something that interested me, and the Victorian style sepia thing came afterwards. It's a 3-400 year old style of subject, rendered in a 100+ year old photographic style, but the reality is that it's a bit of costumery for a bunch of modern-day tourists.
Is it ugly? Is the photographic style ugly? Is the subject and setting ugly? Is the fact that I lied to to the viewer by cropping and cloning out bits of modern day paraphernalia and getting rid of the gap in the curtains ugly?
Is her costumery for the tourists ugly? Maybe it is. I like my edited version because it doesn't look like what it is in reality.
'how to capture modern life in photography, when you consider modern life to be ugly'
...and...
"Is modern-day photography ugly?"
Does an ugly modern life necessarily make modern-day photography ugly? If you think it does, and if you think modern life is indeed ugly, then you've painted yourself into a corner and have no chance of doing anything about it until you change what you think about one or both of those things.
The picture of the woman in the long dress that I posted earlier is a picture of modern life. It was taken two years ago in Stirling Castle in Scotland. I had spotted her outside chatting to a couple of people and passed her on my way into the great hall - I thought she looked interesting. Later, while I was in the hall snapping away, I noticed that she had come in and was standing where she is in the photo, with nobody near her. I saw my spot to get the angle I wanted, went there while prefocussing the lens and grabbed the shot. A handful of seconds from seeing the chance to clicking the shutter. After exchanging a nod with her, I went on to my next photo, and I heard her start her introductory words to whatever talk she was giving for the tourists. Turns out that she dresses up in the old-fashioned gear to lend some atmosphere to her talks.
It was shot on colour film (original attached), and I had no thoughts about how the final image would be done - it was just something that interested me, and the Victorian style sepia thing came afterwards. It's a 3-400 year old style of subject, rendered in a 100+ year old photographic style, but the reality is that it's a bit of costumery for a bunch of modern-day tourists.
Is it ugly? Is the photographic style ugly? Is the subject and setting ugly? Is the fact that I lied to to the viewer by cropping and cloning out bits of modern day paraphernalia and getting rid of the gap in the curtains ugly?
Is her costumery for the tourists ugly? Maybe it is. I like my edited version because it doesn't look like what it is in reality.
zauhar
Veteran
True. But the argument that 'the human brain created it' only goes so far.
Years ago the Turner network came up with technology for colorizing old black and white films. It was advanced tech for its time. I even found the look of it appealing in some cases, since it reminded me of hand-tinted photos of bygone days.
None of that made it Good. It was rightly denounced by many, including some of the original filmmakers.
I have been entwined with computers my entire adult life. They are incredibly powerful, useful, infinitely adaptable. I just spent the afternoon concocting a multithreaded programming example for my students. I studied Chris Crawford's Photoshop example and greatly benefitted (thanks Chris!) I am no backward luddite . But I recognize that we need to develop and support a tension between the virtual and material worlds, and right now the latter is neglected at our peril.
Randy
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Hi Randy,
I agree totally with you and I confess I'm not a photoshopper or someone who is particularly esconced in the digital world.
I just get a little tired of the general hysteria from people who lock themselves in to one train of thought.
CaptZoom
Established
gm13
Well-known
Hmmmm, yes I've combined modern life lived by humans (specifically where I've found them here on the east coast) with modern photography. It's mainly due to the camera I'm using and the forum I'm on. My rangefinders are people cameras, street photography preferably. Not that they don't get pointed at a landscape or other occasionally but that is a subject relegated to the digi SLR typically.
By no means do I think modern photography is "ugly" I just find a lot of modern life lived by humans to be!
As said somewhere previously, time will weed out the weaklings...hopefully.
As for your attached photo, what I find appealing in this modern shot are simply its elements, her dress probably didn't come from walmart, the flagging on the floor didn't come from home depot, the plaster on the walls is probably adhering to lath with horse hair binder and the table is most likely solid wood, not some flimsy particle board crap. AND there are NO ads, WIN. I probably would have cropped out the tourist corral post but it adds a bit of shallow modern comment I suppose.
Edit: found your original attachment and saw the cropped version. good points/questions in that post also.
Nescio
Well-known
Dear Johan, dear Sejanus,
My feel is that, as in many cases, the discussion about what is to be understood by a term, a word, a phrase or a concept that in this case is the 4 letter word "ugly" is a sterile one. Ugliness opposed to beauty is a distinction as artificial as it can get.
I may be wrong, but not being a native speaker and also a Dutchman like Johan, I somehow understand how difficult it can be to express ones thoughts especially when posting on a phil of photo thread. Perhaps the word or the concept discussed here would benefit from changing it into "mediocrity". Not by a lot, I know, but at least it would shift the subject of conversation towards ANOTHER kind of perception of reality. Words are so innocent compared with what other persons make them to mean.
I've read the posts of both of you. I don't know Johan personally, but I regard him as an intelligent contributor to this forum with lots of knowledge on the gear side of things. I don't know who Sejanus is either, but I've read quiet a few intelligent comments from his hand as well, but many on the good old track of cynicism that so well suits many of the European off continentals.
So, back to the question... as modified by me without asking permission...
Mediocrity is something that interests me a lot, basically because it has become a commonplace as a SUBJECT. I'm not going to discuss Instagram again, because that's like rushing into a supermarket full of worm cans. But take Martin Parr, as he's been discussed on this very thread. This summer we had an exhibition here in Barcelona with lots of his tourist and modern kitch photo's. The traditionalist in me says it's crap. The documentalist in me says it's interesting. The contemporist in me thinks it's funny and the analist in me is still struggeling with footnote 4b.
However, mediocrity, ugliness or whatever you'd like it to call, is a reality in contemporary expressions of art (no capitals, please). I suspect, but it is nothing more than an intuition, that it has something to do with some sort of post modernist realism (for lack of a better word).
Perhaps ugliness or mediocrity have become expressions of our perception of our visual life. In this sense it is that I understand the question of the OP and not if a third world scrap dump with hungry children is "beautiful" or not.
Nescio
My feel is that, as in many cases, the discussion about what is to be understood by a term, a word, a phrase or a concept that in this case is the 4 letter word "ugly" is a sterile one. Ugliness opposed to beauty is a distinction as artificial as it can get.
I may be wrong, but not being a native speaker and also a Dutchman like Johan, I somehow understand how difficult it can be to express ones thoughts especially when posting on a phil of photo thread. Perhaps the word or the concept discussed here would benefit from changing it into "mediocrity". Not by a lot, I know, but at least it would shift the subject of conversation towards ANOTHER kind of perception of reality. Words are so innocent compared with what other persons make them to mean.
I've read the posts of both of you. I don't know Johan personally, but I regard him as an intelligent contributor to this forum with lots of knowledge on the gear side of things. I don't know who Sejanus is either, but I've read quiet a few intelligent comments from his hand as well, but many on the good old track of cynicism that so well suits many of the European off continentals.
So, back to the question... as modified by me without asking permission...
Mediocrity is something that interests me a lot, basically because it has become a commonplace as a SUBJECT. I'm not going to discuss Instagram again, because that's like rushing into a supermarket full of worm cans. But take Martin Parr, as he's been discussed on this very thread. This summer we had an exhibition here in Barcelona with lots of his tourist and modern kitch photo's. The traditionalist in me says it's crap. The documentalist in me says it's interesting. The contemporist in me thinks it's funny and the analist in me is still struggeling with footnote 4b.
However, mediocrity, ugliness or whatever you'd like it to call, is a reality in contemporary expressions of art (no capitals, please). I suspect, but it is nothing more than an intuition, that it has something to do with some sort of post modernist realism (for lack of a better word).
Perhaps ugliness or mediocrity have become expressions of our perception of our visual life. In this sense it is that I understand the question of the OP and not if a third world scrap dump with hungry children is "beautiful" or not.
Nescio
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Nescio,
thank you for putting me out of the misery I created with the phrasing of my initial post. You've said it better than I myself could.
Your Martin Parr statement sums it up so good, I'd like to use it for a signature! (Can I?)
Nomad,
This is the exact problem I find myself painted into that proverbial corner with: If I want it to mean something in documenting modern life, I don't like it and if I find it visually and aesthetically pleasing, it depicts life from Days Gone By.
I really like your cropped&improved version of the woman's portrait most and am also interested in reading how it came about, thank you for that. Thing is, I'm looking for an m.o. that will support me in creating a body of work, as opposed to a single image.
If there's one thing I'm certain about, it is that time will not weed out Martin Parr (whether he's a 'weakling' or not) simply because he shaped a body of work and stuck to his visions.
My 'work' currently is offline and I'm not printing either. I need time to redefine and this thread is (hopefully) helping me to do so. At the moment I'm re-thinking my whole approach and it's all open ends, I might even (gasp!) sell the Leica stuff which I really love and get me something else to work with, or give up photography completely.
Thanks for your kind words and input, Nescio and Nomad Z (and others!), much obliged!
thank you for putting me out of the misery I created with the phrasing of my initial post. You've said it better than I myself could.
Your Martin Parr statement sums it up so good, I'd like to use it for a signature! (Can I?)
Nomad,
This is the exact problem I find myself painted into that proverbial corner with: If I want it to mean something in documenting modern life, I don't like it and if I find it visually and aesthetically pleasing, it depicts life from Days Gone By.
I really like your cropped&improved version of the woman's portrait most and am also interested in reading how it came about, thank you for that. Thing is, I'm looking for an m.o. that will support me in creating a body of work, as opposed to a single image.
If there's one thing I'm certain about, it is that time will not weed out Martin Parr (whether he's a 'weakling' or not) simply because he shaped a body of work and stuck to his visions.
My 'work' currently is offline and I'm not printing either. I need time to redefine and this thread is (hopefully) helping me to do so. At the moment I'm re-thinking my whole approach and it's all open ends, I might even (gasp!) sell the Leica stuff which I really love and get me something else to work with, or give up photography completely.
Thanks for your kind words and input, Nescio and Nomad Z (and others!), much obliged!
zwarte_kat
Well-known
There are people who complain, and people who get to work. Never has it been easier to not only photograph, but also to travel to wherever you want, to print, to communicate and find subjects, to exhibit. Never was it so easy to share images to a group as large as possible, both in general and within a niche subject/scene. Pictures have never been more important than now, it's their abundance that scares people. Not their supposed lack of quality. I am sure that there are both more amateur as well as pro photographers in the world than ever before.
But to get back on topic...
Pictures of old things inspire because they strengthen the concept of what once was (but no longer). I am sure many have read Barthes' Camera Lucida. He more or less says photography is about death, a moment that once was but will never return. And the photographs that will touch you most personally are the ones from the lost past. Your old neighbourhood, old fashion, old trains. Those moments are death, like your deceased family members.
Now a photo of your deceased grandfather likely won't appeal so much to others, but deceased buildings, streets, signs, jackets and deceased photographic media like BW film all kicks us in the nostalgia balls. In many cafes I see old coca cola adds now for decorations. In the future too, shall many current things evoke nostalgia and touch us.
I think the images that will stand the tests of time most are the ones shot in the current modern environment. All others are either artistic visual expressions (abstract works) that can stand the tests of time like paintings anyway, or they are wannabe records of a different era, escapes from reality, victims of a nostalgia fallacy. In a way, instagram is a more relevant medium right now than film. It is a stamp from our times. Our Kodak (or maybe polaroid is a better comparison).
Ads and signs, plastics and electronics (including photoshop) are part of our world, not some evil (someone rightfully joked "alien") separation. I choose to include them in my photographs, here are some examples. They might not be good photographs, but I believe the modern "ugly" elements actually make them less bad
R1146375 by Rudy Shots, on Flickr
_DSF7672 by Rudy Shots, on Flickr
DSCF0473 by Rudy Shots, on Flickr
DSCF1242 by Rudy Shots, on Flickr
But to get back on topic...
Pictures of old things inspire because they strengthen the concept of what once was (but no longer). I am sure many have read Barthes' Camera Lucida. He more or less says photography is about death, a moment that once was but will never return. And the photographs that will touch you most personally are the ones from the lost past. Your old neighbourhood, old fashion, old trains. Those moments are death, like your deceased family members.
Now a photo of your deceased grandfather likely won't appeal so much to others, but deceased buildings, streets, signs, jackets and deceased photographic media like BW film all kicks us in the nostalgia balls. In many cafes I see old coca cola adds now for decorations. In the future too, shall many current things evoke nostalgia and touch us.
I think the images that will stand the tests of time most are the ones shot in the current modern environment. All others are either artistic visual expressions (abstract works) that can stand the tests of time like paintings anyway, or they are wannabe records of a different era, escapes from reality, victims of a nostalgia fallacy. In a way, instagram is a more relevant medium right now than film. It is a stamp from our times. Our Kodak (or maybe polaroid is a better comparison).
Ads and signs, plastics and electronics (including photoshop) are part of our world, not some evil (someone rightfully joked "alien") separation. I choose to include them in my photographs, here are some examples. They might not be good photographs, but I believe the modern "ugly" elements actually make them less bad
R1146375 by Rudy Shots, on Flickr
_DSF7672 by Rudy Shots, on Flickr
DSCF0473 by Rudy Shots, on Flickr
DSCF1242 by Rudy Shots, on Flickr