On 'Ruin Porn' - exploitation in modern ruins photography

<p>David, it's a small consequence, not "much consequence." I notice them and if they're technically superb (eg shot large format or incredibly-spliced digitally) I invest a moment or two in them. Not a minute or two, the way I might if they had a lot of consequence.</p>

<p>Photos of old, decrepit or disabled architecture can have a lot of consequence, just like any other photographed subject, provided they also have context. The same relation applies I think to an image of a Chicago skyscraper, a circus clown, a meadow, a pepper, a tree or a Yellowstone mountain.</p>

<p>Arthur, as you know we differ. A photograph "of" a Chicago skyscraper, a circus clown, a meadow, a pepper etc is likely to have zero consequence unless it's done well ("better" than a snapshot in some mysterious way, not just "composition" and the usual claptrap). You did mention context... many otherwise adequate photos are mere illustrations so have near zero consequence without the context: those photos may actually be <strong>unnecessary</strong> once the context is provided. <strong>Why bother with a photo if the context is presented well (written concisely and well)?</strong> My own prints usually come with notes providing context, so I'm admitting right here that this is a conflicted dynamic for me. I dislike mere graphics in photography, and I dislike schmaltz. </p>

<p>Unfortunately I did not read the whole article as my attention span is incredibly short. However. this Leary fellow seems think that every one thinks like he does (loser). I have seen many Ruin Porn series and love them. I don't care what happened or whatever he purports that everyone thinks, I just think it is a really cool area of photography with some amazing opportunities to express oneself. Sc$#( him is my honest opinion.</p>

 

<p>John, I think you should re-read my last post. What I was saying in terms of context is not a written accompaniement to an image, but the context of the architecture in respect of other elements of the image, or those sugested by the way the photographer has photographed the subject matter. In successful images of that sort, there can be a lot of consequence. Contrary to what you said, my examples of a Chicago skyscraper and all were given not to show consequence but to indicate the lack of it in many such images. I think you will see upon re-reading that we are in full agreement about consequence being dependent upon context being developed in the image. This is a bit off the subject of porn and my dislike of the use of that term that is taken out of context itself, rather than the columnist using a more apt term to describe what he feels about the depiction of decay or disabled architecture.</p>

<p>The ability to photograph old or disabled architecture and to make it say something visually and otherwise is seemingly quite rare. I have trouble seeing context in many such images, which are also sometimes just cookie cutter photographs of something already done</p>

<p>I didn't read the article.</p>

<p>The way I see it, the fascination that some people (myself included), have with urban ruins, is that, "One kind of experience has been completed supplanted by another. The change has been subtle, and a long time in the making. If you're younger than about 35 or 40, it means nothing to you because you don't have the context for "what was". You've been sold on the idea that this new experience is "better", and that will work on someone who lacks the historical perspective and context. The truth is that, for most working class people, the experience is NOT better." Maybe that's sentimentality. If I'm sentimental for a type of experience that is gone forever, then so be it, I've been called much worse.<br>

The way I see it there are some things that may be worthy of debate and/or are worthy of being "intellectualized", like say Pro Life vs. Pro Choice, the history of conflict in the Middle East, or one economic school of thought vs another. However, someone's choice of what subject matter they like to shoot and/or look at is NOT something that one has to defend. The way I see it, the point of art to be subjective? To have no "right" or "wrong".<br>

You like to shoot pictures of butterflies and your daughter's soccer games. Wonderful for you, but both subjects bore me cross-eyed.</p>

<p>I shoot the exteriors of abandoned buildings (they're not even in the ballpark of the images from the article), and I love to look at photos of urban ruins.<br>

I shoot ruins for several reasons, and none of them may be deemed "intellectual", but mainly I do it because I enjoy it regardless of what anyone else likes or thinks. Americans as a whole, are notorious for their low brow tastes and proclivities, from watching absolute hot garbage on TV to their reading tastes to their absolute fascination and preoccupation with 4th rate pseudo-'celebrities'. Given the low brow tastes of so many Americans, it seems hypocritical and disingenuous to focus on something as harmless as this.<br>

I also think that from a historical perspective, it will be important for future generations to know: "There once was a time when buildings were made by artisans and craftsmen, and not everything was just thrown up, like a concrete box." (referencing specifically the image of the IRT substation)-----"In the, 'throwaway' "Made in China" society that has predominated in the past 30 years or so, it IS important for future generations to know, "That there once was a time in this country when 'ordinary' people made things, things that were built to last for 50 or 100 years. Things that were often kept for their beauty, design, etc. long after they could no longer serve their intended use. Ever watch "Antique Road Show"? In the 1930's or whatever, a toaster wasn't just something to toast bread, some of them were virtual works of art. Examples of form following function. Devices that while they may no longer make toast, are still collected because of their beauty. And, they're often worth thousands of dollars today. The same can be said about a lot of items that were built 50, 70, 100 years ago. It's bigger than the item, it's about the process. Where was it built? How was the assembly line set up? How many people worked there? How many widgets did they churn out per hour?<br>

Rhetorical question: Do you think your $9.99 "Made in China" toaster from X-Mart will exist in 10 years? Will it be worth more than you paid for it? Will there be masses of people talking about it? The same can be said of your car or the artless, prefabricated, ugly, square, hastily constructed building that you work in?</p>

 

<p>Arthur, what you thought you "said" was not what you actually said. Rather than asking me to re-read something you didn't say. Re-read what you actually said :-)<br>

Beyond that diversion, we generally agree.<br>

As to "porn" ...that was a reasonable and effective metaphor for "cheap shot," IMO. An image of something so popular (orchids, Yosemite's Half Dome, Ferrari, beautiful woman) that it will inevitably turn on the most careless viewer. </p>

<p>John, we differ about use of language, I guess. You understand it differently, but that's OK (although it changes the meaning expressed). Porn or porno can be combined with graphic to indicate the "treatment of obscene subjects" in literature , or even "inflammatory literature". I see little connection of that or other accepted definitions of porno with the images of the OP andeven less with the word exploitation. Sloppy language usage that is I think only useful if you want to obfuscate something.</p>

<p>OK, language police, have a go at it if you will....it may elucidate matters.</p>

<p>Arthur, the term was used to convey an idea..he described cheap thrills, easy turn-ons. Like pretty pictures of old trucks, abandoned farms, glorious clouds etc. Those "subjects" often substitute for significance. </p>

<p> We don't live in the world of Webster. Webster simplifies a few ideas and has almost no interest in evocative language. </p>

<p>You're free to dislike the simile (that's how the term was used), the poetic license. It obviously inspired attention, even from you, and some participants here seem aware that it was used for that specific reason. </p>

<p>Webster deals in definitions, not poetic license. It's standard on this very Forum for some to rely on Websters when it serves their needs, rely instead on unique personal alternatives to proper word usage when Websters disagrees :-)</p>

<p>Poetic license (routine in journalism) fully explains the use of "porn" in this context. Obviously a very successful tactic.</p>

<p>I agree completely with Ian's response. He quotes Leary: "what is most unsettling . . . in [Andrew Moore's] photos is their resistance to any narrative content or explication." A photograph does not need to imply narrative content or explication. Leary's statement reminds me of the old saws about a picture being worth a thousand words or every picture telling a story. A photograph stands on its own. If the viewer wants to infer narrative content from a photograph, s/he is free to do so, but that has to do with the viewer, not the photograph.</p>

<p>I think the article might have had more credibility were it not on the (paint) Huffing-ton Post.</p>

<p>What's next, the DU or the Daily Kos?</p>

<p>Of course it is exploitative.... just as all photography is to some extent. Is it more so than photos of the Acropolis? Or Machu Picchu? I do not think so. There are good photos that are interesting and aesthetically pleasing. There are photos that are not. All of this indignation about subjects is self indulgent, self important nonsense</p>

<p>Ian, you'd be way ahead to merely indicate you grasp "Lost America"'s point.</p>

 

 

<p>@Everybody - thanks for the thoughts! A lot of great stuff to chew through; I'm glad to see all the various opinions presented in an intelligent and respectful way!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think the article might have had more credibility were it not on the (paint) Huffing-ton Post.<br>

What's next, the DU or the Daily Kos?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see how the venue in which the article appears has any influence on the validity of the points made. I'm not familiar with the DU or the Daily Kos, but if they wanted to hire me to write on abandonment photography, it's unlikely that I'd turn down the job.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ian, you'd be way ahead to merely indicate you grasp "Lost America"'s point.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It should be pretty clear that I grasp his point about the usage of the term 'ruin porn' having previously been neutrally used in the photo community to denote pretty pictures of buildings by my second response to him. However, I am not inclined to agree - whether or not a narrow community uses the phrase a certain way has no application to what I am writing about, which is the broader use of the term which has become commonplace in the last few years. The term 'hysteria' once meant a disease in which a woman's uterus would attack her brain; it is now a gender-neutral term denoting irrational panic. Likewise, 'ruin porn' is a term used far and wide outside of the photo community and it does indeed carry exploitative weight. Lost America's semantic argument fails, and he cannot "defend" the term against Leary's usage when the latter is prevalent in discussions of this topic in general.</p>

 

<p>Ian, good thread, good responses. Perhaps "ruin porn" is like the pretend-empathy of photographers who stalk the photogenic homeless or the schmaltz that passes for sensitivity... like the nature photography that goes over-the-top exaggerating beauty (purple skies, blurred water, HDR). More photographers love soap opera images than would care to admit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Exploitation is like porn. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Exploitation is like mining coal. If it's not done carefully, it damages section of the earth and surrounding water tables. Porn, on the other hand, regardless of how carefully it is produced, has the very likely effect of damaging the human beings to are used as its raw materials. Or as is more often the case, exploits those who have already been damaged either by sexual abuse, substance abuse, or desperate financial circumstances.</p>

<p>When I point my camera at a building, I don't do it physical harm. I don't corrupt its plumbing system. I don't depreciate its sense of self-worth. I don't complicate its ability to have healthy relations with other buildings. It my photos and others like it gain recognition, the old building may profit from revenues from other photographers and tourists, perhaps in some cases even up to the point of a restoration project.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I know it when I see it. Some pictures of people who live on the streets are exploitive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps, but is taking their photo as damaging as getting them to do some sort of pornographic act for money?</p>

<p>Mr. Leary's use of the word 'porn' was unfortunate. Photographing buildings has nothing in common with pornography. I don't see how further exploitation of Mr. Leary's poor choice of words brings value to anyone or any photographer, or to any building for that matter. Non-issue. Go take a photo of some old bricks and be happy. Nobody cares.</p>

<p><em>"Nobody cares."</em></p>

<p>Good observation, Dan.</p>

<p><strong>"nobody cares" is hilariously wrong. </strong> Everybody who posted here "cared." </p>

<p>The <strong>metaphoric</strong> use of "porn" was like a spotlight (Google <strong>similie</strong>). In addition to drawing attention to an aspect of photographic subject matter, it highlighted readers' ability/inability to understand an essential part of language (central to poetry). Some of the responses have an amusing defensive flavor, as well.</p>

<p>The author wrote for people who were willing to entertain an idea. Some found it impossible to get past the similie, which tells a tale. The anxiety-making term focused attention on elements of a photograph that are routinely overlooked by some: <strong>significance</strong>, and/or the matter <strong>context</strong>.</p>

<p>"porn" worked perfectly: it turned on everybody who posted, whether or not they "liked" the use of the term. Say 100 hail Marys. </p>

<p>And once again Dan South steps onto the stage with pomp and grandeur, not to join the discussion, but to belittle the discussion on the whole. Pete Seeger wrote that "to everything, there is a season", and I would posit that to every internet forum, there is a self-righteous jackanapes that gets a thrill out of posting incendiary comments and then patting themselves on the back for it.</p>

<p>Leary appropriates the phrase 'ruin porn' for use in his article, but he did not coin it; the phrase has been around in the Greater Detroit area for a good while now, and has been prevalent in various bodies of literature surrounding both cultural studies of the cities and ruins photography on the whole for a couple of years. It already exists, is used, and has a meaning, which everybody can agree is not the same meaning as the word 'porn' when used to denote provocative imagery of humans designed for sexual gratification. As I am very clear about in my article, the 'porn' component is clearly metaphorical - "Leary makes clear that the 'ruin porn' usage is centered on exploitation" - you do understand metaphor, yes? So acting as a blustering White Knight for poor abused women really does nothing, since they're not the topic at issue here. And besides, I rather think that Sasha Grey would take issue with your characterization of the porn industry, as would plenty of others.</p>

<p>But that's really not important, since you've demonstrated no interest whatsoever in actually discussing the topic at hand. Perhaps if you disagreed, for example, that the objects of exploitation in some ruins photography were either the historical & cultural context of the structure or the viewer of the image, you might offer an argument as to why this is so, but instead, you've written off the argument as a "non-issue" and ranted that "nobody cares". Congratulations. You're that schoolboy we've all had a class with that doesn't understand the lesson, and therefore belittles the topic of the lesson in order to assure his own ego that he's better than all that.</p>

<p>Fighting words. Maybe a bit of overkill, no?. From my remote (from Detroit) situation, Ian, I believe that Dan was treating the matter in a general way and not with specific reference to what you describe as the definition of "ruin porn" in the familiar to you Detroit context of that term. I wish you had stated the initial part of your last middle paragraph in the OP, as some of us unfamiliar with Detroit situation (yes, we know the city has taken some hard hits because of the poor choices of the auto industry) were trying to see the term in the more general light of photography of decaying nature and architecture.</p>

<p>In the general sense of old or degraded architecture photography, I think Dan is making some sense, as in his final comment which has also been similarly stated by others before:</p>

<p><em>"Mr. Leary's use of the word 'porn' was unfortunate. Photographing buildings has nothing in common with pornography. I don't see how further exploitation of Mr. Leary's poor choice of words brings value to anyone or any photographer, or to any building for that matter."</em></p>

<p>Like Dan, some of us unfamiliar with the on-going situation in Detroit, and the exasperation of the constantly in your face destruction to Detroiters, his response is not unexpected, especially as your choice of title of the OP is a very generic one. In the very specific context of the testy Detroit situation, ruin porn seems to make sense.</p>

<p>Notwithstanding this avoidable clarity issue, I think that the OP has allowed many personal and detailed comments on the perception photographers have of the general case of ruins photography (even the definitive one-liners).</p>

<p>I realize the intent of my response to Dan may not have been clear. I was throwing Dan's observation that "nobody cares" right back at him, not agreeing with it.</p>

<p>@Arthur - what I take exception to is the generall derisive and dismissive tone in which Dan posted. Comments like "Non-issue. Go take a photo of some old bricks and be happy. Nobody cares" reek of pompous egotism; while a number of posters have disagreed with my viewpoints and the viewpoints of others on the matter of 'ruin porn' to greater or lesser extents, they've all done so in a tone that encourages respectful discussion. Not so with this sort of blustering suggestion that the entire discussion is worthless. Obviously, some people do care, and obviously, it is an issue, or there wouldn't be debates going on about it. While I've generally tried to sit back in the bleachers and watch, to genuinely see where other photographers' opinions on the issue lie, I take exception to this type of internet forum know-it-all who just shows up to beat their chest and posture.</p>

<p>Personally, I don't much care for the 'ruin porn' terminology - I think it's loaded in certain ways, and that a more descriptive phrase such as 'exploitative ruins photography' might do a better job of conveying the message. But 'ruin porn' is now so widely used that it has escaped the more narrow discussion on Detroit and has been applied to ruins photography in general; this was one of the arguments I discussed in the article. But regardless of my feelings on the terminology, it seems to be inescapable - it's been used in discussions about ruins photography for a couple of years now, and whether or not it was the best phrase that could have been picked to discuss exploitative abandonment photography, it is the most common phrase used for this denotation at present. Since it has, in a sense, escaped the narrow realm of "Detroit analysis" and been discussed frequently in regards to ruins photography on the whole, it seems unavoidable to just accept the general intensional definition of 'ruin porn' and move the discussion to the concepts underlying it.</p>

<p>Detroit is <a href=" and beauty is not "porn".</p>

<p>To believe some of you, the statement 'nobody cares' is impossible to make truthfully, as if the utterance was enough to disprove the claim.<br>

And that just makes me suspect of your understanding of language, at least partially.<br>

Nobody cares, is just a common device to bring the larger world into the picture. Think of it like an 'establishing shot' of sorts.<br>

But yeah, as an intellectual, I hate it when people say shit like that. It's like a tourist telling me where to focus my lens. But then again, you have to wonder why they make the effort to say it.<br>

Don't you?</p>

<p>Iain, maybe the odd term "ruin porn" will be as passing as outdated terms like "stick-up artist" or "humbug" (one of our local colorful politicians, trained at London's LSE, still uses that one, in a quaint but effective way).</p>

<p>For something to be "ruin porn", does not the image content have to reflect that (the porn aspect, even in the non-sexual sense), instead of just being descriptive or documentary of old or degraded architecture or nature? The latter can convey other meanings or significations than "porn", and are sometimes a lot more powerful, but they too have to be evident in the image (or trigger our imagination).</p>