Two French Photogs and a Dying Detroit

Marchand's and Meffre's photographs are wonderful. They remind me in a way of Joel Sternfeld's. Unmistakably large format (I think).
 
This is where bmattock would have joined in, with some (no doubt sharply worded) remarks about his city, and the trespassing involved in taking these shots. I miss Bill. He doesn't seem to post here anymore.
 
There is something tragic in these pictures. But there is something beautiful as well. A kind of fashination. thanks for posting the link.
robert
 
summar said:
Marchand's and Meffre's photographs are wonderful. They remind me in a way of Joel Sternfeld's. Unmistakably large format (I think).
Click to expand...

I don't see any resemblance to Joel Sternfeld's work here (other than the LF which is kind of a given for this type of work). Most of the time Joel Sternfeld's pictures have a focus. I don't mean focus as in sharp/unsharp but as in something that draws the attention. They show something that is happening or has happened (e.g. an elephant stranded on the road).

These guys have none of that. That in itself doesn't necessarily mean their work is bad but I went to their website and unfortunately have to say that I wasn't impressed at all. IMO, their photos are mostly lifeless interior and architectural shots of ruins which are always an easy subject. Their angles are uninspired and lack the required subtlety to make this kind of work interesting IMO.
 
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.
 
Beautiful, but sad photos.

It is a stark reminder of the long-term effect of corrupt unions, taxes, and heavy regulation on business. Companies either moved out of state, move out of country, or went out of business.
 
martin s said:
You have to check out their project photographing theaters. I only skimmed through it, but wow!

martin
Click to expand...

Really? I found that series to be the weakest of the bunch.

I'm actually baffled by the unanimous praise in this thread. It's plain old ruin porn. Their work is so superficial and it displays a sort of naive fascination with even the tiniest remnants of 1960s America that's so horribly stereotypical it can only come from non-Americans (I'm a non-American, too). It's like they want to hop on the 1960s/70s color photography bandwagon, not realizing that they're 30 years too late.
Actually, the more I look at their work, the more I find it pretty bad. Does it really require two people to come up with this kind of photography.
 
Last edited:
It is a stark reminder of the long-term effect of corrupt unions, taxes, and heavy regulation on business. Companies either moved out of state, move out of country, or went out of business

This was only part of it. The riots scared the white people away and this is what happens. I know, I live 20 mins away from Detroit. My parents both families are from the detroit area. When I was a baby the house was broken at night with myself sleeping and my parents in the other room. That was it, we'd be gone.

The last time I was down there walking along the road I was honked at by one Afro American and another one yelled, "Run white boy, Run.

The City of detroit was beautiful until the 60's after that Coleman Young brought it down.
 
Jamie123 said:
Really? I found that series to be the weakest of the bunch.

I'm actually baffled by the unanimous praise in this thread. It's plain old ruin porn. Their work is so superficial and it displays a sort of naive fascination with even the tiniest remnants of 1960s America that's so horribly stereotypical it can only come from non-Americans (I'm a non-American, too). It's like they want to hop on the 1960s/70s color photography bandwagon, not realizing that they're 30 years too late.
Actually, the more I look at their work, the more I find it pretty bad. Does it really require two people to come up with this kind of photography.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
I like the look of prosperous 1917 Detroit.

4a24908u.jpg
 
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.
 
Some good images except for (all of them were done with) the HDR-PS garbage. Too bad they didn't leave them alone. But this could be our future, and I don't mean HDR-PS, unless.........................................
 
Last edited:
The poster who described this as ruin porn had a good point--abandoned Detroit is getting a little overdone. I prefer Camilo Jose Vergara for this type of work, anyway.
 
Last edited:
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...

If you're referring to the series I posted, I mentioned they were shot with a Holga. i.e. plastic lens toy camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom