Two French Photogs and a Dying Detroit

You gotta respect anybody who wanders around Detroit w/ a camera.....and their life in their own hands. I sure as hell wouldn't do it.
 
I agree that it is "ruin porn", I often see such stories outside America as a sort of way of glorifying America's "demise". It gives viewers in other countries the feeling that their own lives are much better in comparison.

Detroit brought about it's own demise, through the previously mentioned corruption and social policies. These might not have been a big factor back in the day when competition from overseas manufacturers was scarce, but things changed in the '70's. Why build cars in Detroit when you can do it more cheaply in Canada or Mexico? And, they simply have to be built more cheaply to compete with the likes of Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and VW.

Natural selection seems to apply to cities just as it applies to life. It's sad to see Detroit pass away, but hopefully something better will grow in it's place, and perhaps other cities will learn a lesson from Detroit's story.
 
martin s said:
Hey Jamie,

So I wanted to be in bed an hour ago, but I thought I might actually defend those guys. You can safely disregard everything I say and walk away from this thinking this has to be some sort of hyped hoax - yet, you could believe me when I say there's a whole new world to be discovered you might actually appreciate.

First of all I'd separate - you can't look at this kind of photography the same way you look at Nachtweys or Pellegrins work.
What's typically promoted and loved on this website is the "Decisive Moment". It's all about capturing something right then and there, something that only happens once - in a split second. This - Meffre and Marchand - is not about the Decisive Moment. It's the exact opposite. Judging them the same way you judge other photography wouldn't do their work justice.
Yet, there are things to appreciate. For example take how beautifully 'build' the images are - compositionally near perfection (for me, that is). The angle, the perspective, the distortion and framing - everything has been thought through to the greatest extent. I have a hard time coming up with any way their shots could have been improved.

Take a second, scan the frame from corner to corner; really look at the picture. We're used to just take a quick look and move on, this doesn't work here. It's all in the detail.

Looking at this kind of photography on a monitor at home doesn't make much sense either; but before giving up on this all together I'd recommend checking out similar photographers in a museum. Looking at 8x10 enlarged to cover a wall is a stunning experience.

There's a lot to be said about this kind of photography, I'd recommend reading up on the Bechers, the Düsseldorfer Photo School and maybe check out people like Gursky, Stuth, Ruff, Höfer, the Bechers themselves, Sternfeld, Epstein, and even people like Crewdson.

It does take time though. Those photographers probably don't obey the standards you set for photography; they're different, and still very amazing. Maybe it'd be easier to come from architecture or painting than from photography, or what 'we' call photography.

Cheers, martin

//EDIT: Hey Jamie, please give me your thoughts on this, even if you completely disagree. I'm actually curious.
Click to expand...


I actually don't care much for ''Decisive Moment'' photography. I like it but don't love it. What I really love is the kind of work we're talking about here. 60s/70s/80s american LF color photography like that of Stephen Shore, Joel Sternfeld, Joel Meyerowitz, Mitch Epstein or, more recently, photographers such as Alec Soth, Mark Power (maybe also Todd Hido). I'm also a huge fan of Jeff Wall. Crewdson is good but in print his work looks too artificial so I have a hard time loving it.
I like the most of the photographers of the Düsseldorf school but sometimes have a hard time making an emotional connection to the work.

Ok, so by now I should've established where my photographic interest lies. The problem I have with the work of these two french photographers is not that I don't like this kind of work. In fact I love it. I just think that they fall terribly short of what it should be about. It's like they're just going ''let's find some old American buildings, they'll look good in a picture''. They just rely on the nostalgia factor of their subjects which is very easy with ruins and run down buildings. Other than this there's nothing there.
 
You know..this type of story has been done on Detroit so many times... starting back in the 60's and then again in the late 70's and so on. Detroit is a compounding failure of ideas that all failed on a social and economic level. But finding a run down section of a city takes no effort at all...and no inspiration either. The Editors of Time are lacking most of all.
 
I agree, it's been way overdone. But maybe it's good for Detroit! With all of the press they've been getting, they should be able to build a new economy on ruin tourism.
 
Trius said:
The Detroit series photos don't do much for me. If they are large format, then my opinion is that either the processing for web or the development wasn't very good. Maybe prints on paper would change my opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to get too far into this however I'd agree w Earl on the LF take. I'd rate this set as typical reportage. I've been shooting this type of material over 5 years. Here's someone who has a website full of UE including Detroit... http://www.seangalbraith.com/

The photographers got a great promo from Time. They should be ecstatic.

BTW, check Sean's section on Guantanamo... filed under "Projects"
 
Last edited:
Shoot it before it's plowed under.....

Shoot it before it's plowed under.....

I posted this link because I found the theme interesting, and more-so because one of the actions being discussed (actually for some time now) is to demolish and plow approximately 25% of the urban portion of Detroit back to rural countryside.

So, I'm guessing that the recording of what's currently still standing is of some consequence.

It sounds like there is some serious consideration that all that will change. Obvious question... who pays.
 
I really liked the first half or so of the slideshow from the Time site. Yes, urban decay has been done, done again, and done again and again. And most subjects we see shot today, even posted on (god forbid) RFF HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOT.

Ok, Im over it, Im not going to make a list of every subject/theme/graphic anybody has already shot since the invention of the camera, and rack my brain trying to figure out what has not been shot, just so I can shoot something for purposes of novelty, especially if its just to get some attention or accolade. Im simply going to shoot what I want to shoot, and perhaps thats what these French fellows have done.

Now if NYC or Chicago or Paris or Tokyo or any other major metropolitan area with a rich history went belly up tomorrow, then damn straight fotogs would be shooting the hell out of the place. Will they be condemned b/c they are re-shooting urban decay? Why, b/c "its been done before"?! I dont think they would be condemned, given that they are beautifully shot fotos.
And to me, thats part of the beauty of fotography--> capturing a moment in time: one moment of a string of several infinitessimal momemts, one after the other, after the other. Whether its Bresson's "decisive moment", Jeff Walls decisive moment, Nan Goldins' decisive moment, or these French dudes decisive moment: its simply a moment in time that has been captured in the context of history, our human history: either very intimate moments amongst few individuals or moments that capture a larger audience as in these Detroit City shots.
Anyway, just a few thoughts, til tomorrow all..........
 
fotomeow said:
I really liked the first half or so of the slideshow from the Time site. Yes, urban decay has been done, done again, and done again and again. And most subjects we see shot today, even posted on (god forbid) RFF HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOT.

Ok, Im over it, Im not going to make a list of every subject/theme/graphic anybody has already shot since the invention of the camera, and rack my brain trying to figure out what has not been shot, just so I can shoot something for purposes of novelty, especially if its just to get some attention or accolade. Im simply going to shoot what I want to shoot, and perhaps thats what these French fellows have done.

Now if NYC or Chicago or Paris or Tokyo or any other major metropolitan area with a rich history went belly up tomorrow, then damn straight fotogs would be shooting the hell out of the place. Will they be condemned b/c they are re-shooting urban decay? Why, b/c "its been done before"?! I dont think they would be condemned, given that they are beautifully shot fotos.
And to me, thats part of the beauty of fotography--> capturing a moment in time: one moment of a string of several infinitessimal momemts, one after the other, after the other. Whether its Bresson's "decisive moment", Jeff Walls decisive moment, Nan Goldins' decisive moment, or these French dudes decisive moment: its simply a moment in time that has been captured in the context of history, our human history: either very intimate moments amongst few individuals or moments that capture a larger audience as in these Detroit City shots.
Anyway, just a few thoughts, til tomorrow all..........
Click to expand...


For me the issue isn't that it's been done before. I have no problem with that. The issue is that, IMO, their photos rely solely on the (for lack of a better word) 'natural' appeal of such ruins and abandoned buildings. They add nothing to it and I find their approach to the subject utterly uninspired and generic.

As for the socioeconomic aspects of the subject matter. In the article I linked to earlier you can read that not all of those ruins have something to do with the economic downturn of the city. From a photojournalistic point of view their project is very superficial. Abandoned houses might be one aspect of Detroit's economic struggle but I doubt that it's the most relevant or even the most salient aspect. Every city has abandoned buildings. I live in a rich and clean Swiss town but if I photographed every abandoned building around I could make it look like a ghost town. I've never been to Detroit but this photo series looks like they weren't really interested in the story in all its depth. It's like they just went there to get some cool pictures of ruins.

As for your last comment about the ''decisive moment''. I think you really misunderstood Bresson's concept of a ''decisive moment''. Not every photograph has a ''decisive moment'' just simply because it depicts a moment in time. ''Decisive moment'' means that the moment captured in a photo is decisive in so far as the image would have turned out completely different had the photographer not clicked the shutter in that precise moment. In this vain I think one can really not speak of a decisive moment in Jeff Wall's work.
 
Mackinaw said:
I was born in Detroit, many years back, and lived in the metro Detroit area until the late 1970's. I still return many times a year to visit family. No doubt these photos accurately capture part of the city that's in decline but they also give the unfortunate impression that the entire city is as depicted in the photographs. It is not. Like any big city, there are parts that have seen their better days but there are also parts that are doing relatively well. Detroit is hardly the city it was back in 1950 when about 2 million folks lived there, but it isn't a ghost town either.

Jim B.
Click to expand...

i can't help but echo these sentiments. i have seen a LOAD of the decaying detroit projects and frankly it is becoming a bit of a cliche' and a vapid one at that. there are people that live there (it's just down the road from me) and i would LOVE to see stories about the people that choose to raise families there, own homes, continue to reside there etc. etc. that's where the story is to me and it seems frequently missed.
 
Jamie123 said:
As for your last comment about the ''decisive moment''. I think you really misunderstood Bresson's concept of a ''decisive moment''. Not every photograph has a ''decisive moment'' just simply because it depicts a moment in time. ''Decisive moment'' means that the moment captured in a photo is decisive in so far as the image would have turned out completely different had the photographer not clicked the shutter in that precise moment. In this vain I think one can really not speak of a decisive moment in Jeff Wall's work.
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the input everyone, makes for a discussion rather than everyone concurring with one another.

I do understand Bresson's concept of a "decisive moment", I was simply expanding its definition to correlate with photography in general, and ways of reinterpreting "decisive moments" in other fotog's work. And defining Bresson as a "decisive moment" photographer is a gross oversimplification: it just happens to be what he is famous for, but he had long career in photography where all of his work is not "decisive moment" fotography, it just happens to be his claim to fame.

In the same vein, Jeff Wall has had a long career, and I would not typecast his entire set of works to a narrow vision, technique, or theme. Again, I was reinterpreting the concept of a "decisive moment" as applied to others' work; Regarding Jeff Wall, his image of Milk (1984) certainly speaks of a particular moment, does it not? (link for Milk here at http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...all+photography+milk&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

In any case, just wanted to clarify so as to avoid misinterpretations.
Again, thanks for the discussion.
 
fotomeow said:
Thanks for all the input everyone, makes for a discussion rather than everyone concurring with one another.

I do understand Bresson's concept of a "decisive moment", I was simply expanding its definition to correlate with photography in general, and ways of reinterpreting "decisive moments" in other fotog's work. And defining Bresson as a "decisive moment" photographer is a gross oversimplification: it just happens to be what he is famous for, but he had long career in photography where all of his work is not "decisive moment" fotography, it just happens to be his claim to fame.

In the same vein, Jeff Wall has had a long career, and I would not typecast his entire set of works to a narrow vision, technique, or theme. Again, I was reinterpreting the concept of a "decisive moment" as applied to others' work; Regarding Jeff Wall, his image of Milk (1984) certainly speaks of a particular moment, does it not? (link for Milk here at http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...all+photography+milk&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

In any case, just wanted to clarify so as to avoid misinterpretations.
Again, thanks for the discussion.
Click to expand...

I talked of Bresson's concept of ''decisive moment'' not of Bresson as a decisive moment photographer.

As for Jeff Wall, I'm quite familiar with most of his body of work. I'm not sure I'd speak of a decisive moment in his Milk image as I don't think this concept, as Bresson used it, can be applied to staged photography, although I admit one could argue about that. In any case, if I had to name one image of Jeff Wall's that conveys a decisive moment it would probably be A Sudden Gust of Wind (after Hokusai)
 
I live and work and shoot in the Detroit area. Ian Wilms and others do the city very well. I suspect Ian could do any city equally well - he's talented. I do think Wilms pics' subject matter can be found in many older industrial belt cities though. Nothing unique about Detroit in that regard, except maybe the (dis)proportion of blight.

I have a lovely cyanotype from RFF's own Dante Stella of the Central Depot (the first image in the OP's link). I much prefer Dante's rendering to the looming LF style of Marchand and Meffre. I see there mostly an "abandonment of hope" sensibility. In contrast, Dante's print displays the depot side-on from a distance in an almost transfiguring light, such that the building could itself be presiding over some kind of dawn. (Yes, I like the picture a lot.)

What Jim and *emra* say rings true for me. The deathwatch approach feels like a dilettante's pessimism: a lazy photographic syntax for describing a very challenged city and population. There's plenty going on here that deserves a more hopeful, rejuvenating interpretation. Put away that LF rig & tripod, grab something in small format, meet me and we'll shoot Eastern Market on a Saturday, or one of the music fests. We'll capture another side to this city.
 
Last edited:
IMO the "best" coverage and most involved coverage is from a Detroit resident who has a series of blogs named "sweet juniper" he covers everyday life and also the fabric of Detroit. It's an honest and fair presentation of the good and bad of Detroit. He's a hell of a photographer too. This site is just part of his entire work. You can work backwards to his other material.

http://www.sweetjuniperphoto.com/search/label/detroit
 
xayraa33 said:
I like the look of prosperous 1917 Detroit.

4a24908u.jpg
Click to expand...

That was a beautiful time; and a beautiful photograph to prove it. Knowing mankind's nature, the lesson that comes out of Detroit's decline won't be heeded, but there is hope. And Los Angeles, please take note.
 
yes, a great site - thanks, jan!

jan normandale said:
IMO the "best" coverage and most involved coverage is from a Detroit resident who has a series of blogs named "sweet juniper" he covers everyday life and also the fabric of Detroit. It's an honest and fair presentation of the good and bad of Detroit. He's a hell of a photographer too. This site is just part of his entire work. You can work backwards to his other material.

http://www.sweetjuniperphoto.com/search/label/detroit
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom