Jump to content

Aesthetics in Urban Documentary Photography?


cyanatic

Recommended Posts

<p>This may be more suitable for the Philosophy of Photography Forum, but I think it can justifiably be part of a Casual forum as well. And, to be honest, I think that some PN members find the POP forum a bit off-putting and might not participate if I placed it there. If does not belong here, well, my mistake.</p>

<p>The notion for the discussion arose in another thread which shall remain nameless for now. ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Julie H.: <em>I'd love to see a thread where you "urban documentary" photographers discuss your feelings about the place of aesthetics in your work (I'm not being sarcastic; I mean that sincerely).</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anders Hingel:<em> I agree with Julie about a thread "<em>where you "urban documentary" photographers discuss..... the place of aesthetics in your work</em>". Maybe someone should start such a threat here or over there.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm trying to quickly cobble this together during my lunch break, so I can only start with some general notes to give this some direction. I hope Julie or Anders might help channel this in desired direction should I not hit any of the points they were thinking of.</p>

<p><em>"urban documentary" photographers discuss your feelings about the place of aesthetics in your work"</em></p>

<p>"My work". I'd prefer to begin with a rough overview of the historical place of aesthetics in this type of photography.</p>

<p>Although there are "urban documentary" photographs and photographers which predate it, I think John Szarkowski's "New Documents" show at MoMA in 1967 was a watershed moment in terms of acknowledging the place of aesthetics in the genre. Yes, an argument can be made that Steiglitz (with the streets of New York), Evans (with clandestine subway photographs long before 1967), and others came long before that, but I am choosing 1967 as a defining moment.</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Documents">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Documents</a></p>

<p>But what are those "aesthetics"? Have they descended into sad parodies in the endless stream of "street photography" we now see all over the internet?</p>

<p>What are my feelings about their place in my own work?</p>

<p>Real rough because I have to go: I can only speak for myself -- A good deal, though not all, of the aesthetics I find are a kind of "found" aesthetic. Instinct leads one to a particular corner, or a street, to a particular light, or person, and one depresses the shutter button. For me, the aesthetics may be "felt" in the moment, but often do not reveal themselves until the editing process occurs later on.</p>

<p>Now comes the real hard part: what, exactly, are those aesthetics? (Damn you, Julie!) How can I even begin to talk about without explaining what the aesthetics are? Again, only for me, it initially comes more from the gut than the mind, and it involves a feeling. A sense of, "Ooh. Wow. This gets to me." This applies to my own work as well as the work of other photographers. Then, on further examination, different signifiers may come into play -- symbolism, social significance, surrealism, beauty of the light or what is revealed and what is hidden. </p>

<p>I will attempt to put up some examples, but I really, really do not want to use this as a way of showing my own work. I am comfortable having my work viewed, but not in the circumstance of a thread like this one because this is not about me, this is not an excuse to get exposure or critiques. I'll try to put up photos which, at this point in time (because it changes) have some significance for me. Whether they possess "aesthetic" elements (which I have poorly defined anyway) is another matter. I think they do, but what I call "aesthetic" may not seem so to someone else. Bla, bla, bla. In short, they are examples only, not the objects which are intended to be the sole point of discussion or example in this thread.</p>

<p> </p><div>00dgaw-560220484.jpg.6f1078e7f33d0071a1d284a6c3af1517.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Sample 3</p>

<p>Perhaps I am sensitive to misunderstandings, but I'm going to try to make this crystal clear: These are some recent samples of my work. They have some aesthetic value to me at this point in time. I do not apologize for them, but I also do not put them up here as examples of great work.</p>

<p> </p><div>00dgb3-560220684.jpg.a390a5e7ad928c10932834a7e148ca07.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Sandy Vongries -- Thanks. Yes, a very good book I think. He does an excellent job of discussing, and providing examples of, the very earliest occurrences of what later came to be called street photography. Although, I was trying to generate a discussion along the lines of what was suggested by Julie and Anders. Which will require participation from other photographers.<br>

(Amazon link for anyone who is not familiar with this book:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bystander-A-History-Street-Photography/dp/0821217550">http://www.amazon.com/Bystander-A-History-Street-Photography/dp/0821217550</a> )</p>

<p>And ...<br>

Examples of the work of other urban documentary photographers in which I find some aesthetic value.</p>

<p>I still haven't said a damn thing, hardly, about Julie's original topic. Certainly not in detail or with much meat on its bones...hopefully later. And hopefully others will join in.</p>

<p>[And a question: Does saturation in the historical period in which it is created diminish the aesthetic value of a given photograph?]</p>

<p>Ishimoto<br>

<a href="http://41.media.tumblr.com/8b60c4f6685da498ffece4e08600e09e/tumblr_mgnmwoPL0p1qcglluo1_1280.jpg">http://41.media.tumblr.com/8b60c4f6685da498ffece4e08600e09e/tumblr_mgnmwoPL0p1qcglluo1_1280.jpg</a></p>

<p>Klein</p>

<p><a href="http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_425932208_714017_william-klein.jpg">http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_425932208_714017_william-klein.jpg</a></p>

<p>Frank</p>

<p><a href="http://blog.ricecracker.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ntm5-1-16.jpeg">http://blog.ricecracker.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ntm5-1-16.jpeg</a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Often when I look at an example of street photography, I see yet another example of the typical clichés that are so common: people in situations that elicit pathos, such as the homeless and other down and out persons, people exhibiting some kind of emotional expression and usually unaware they are being photographed, unusual juxtapositions of people and objects, the close up of an old man’s face full of wrinkles and whiskers and the scars of a hard life, the attractive woman, etc. To be fair, landscape photographers are as guilty of pursuing clichés too, as well as portrait takers, wedding photographers, etc. We’re all guilty of it at some time or another. After all, clichés are popular for a reason, but after a while they start to lose their ability to elicit a feeling or fascination with the image: the aesthetic? </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Steve G, thanks! In regard to the initial concept of aesthetics in street photography, a couple of thoughts. First, I think that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I'll snip the dictionary definition to manageable size (no intent to exclude) " the branch of philosophy dealing with such notions as the beautiful, the ugly, the sublime, the comic, etc., as applicable to the fine arts". So, the guy I saw on the street yesterday, a cart with all his possessions, his two dogs, which looked better fed than he did, and who were certainly more obedient than mine, had, to me, a certain beauty. Not the scene itself, but the implicit relationship, the story. Great affection, loyalty, empathy, the context of the image. A second thought -- if the photographer has a mission, or more softly, a point to make, a sequence of photos, some of which may be profoundly ugly, may achieve beauty or a beautiful outcome. I have a predilection toward story photography, so that makes sense to me. Think of the WPA / FSA photo project from the Depression era. <br /> I must admit, when I lived in cities as a younger man I was an enthusiastic street photographer, but shied away from the grim, and looked for the ironic, whimsical, curious, and examples of the resilience of the human spirit. Just a couple of thoughts to scratch the surface. <br /> I still have all those old negatives, this has got me interested in going through them again.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Steve wrote: "what, exactly, are those aesthetics? (Damn you, Julie!)"</p>

<p>Heh! Here are some suggestions, though I obviously don't know what I'm talking about. Borrowing from Robert Hariman's beautiful essay 'Seeing the Stranger in the Mirror', try these out and tell me if they are completely wrong (I like them ... which may be a bad sign). Aesthetics of this kind of photography might be:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... to capture the presence, strangeness, and pathos of what it means to live as ordinary people in a society of strangers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Too dramatic, or too distant from gritty contact?</p>

<p>How about this one:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... To see society as such; to see how social behavior is systemic and habitual; to see the category system that undergirds social performance; to see how these things are literally set in stone and also in steel, plastic, wood, and glass; to see how the individual is constantly surrounded and prompted and guided by social cues in the built environment; to see how that environment is painted, carpeted, decorated, furnished, and otherwise suffused with meaning; to see how the individual must live amid networks of association that are deeply embedded, historical, and largely unconscious; to see how the familiar could appear strange, alien, or hostile precisely because it is human artifice -- to see all these things one needs to be able to see <em>things</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Way too long and <em>way</em> too dry, right?</p>

<p>How about:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lines of sight can become channels of meaning.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, but that only gets you a picture. Where's the aesthetics?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... a momentary but endless capacity for transformation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.... okay ... but that's <em>completely</em> formless. I think Steve better define this himself.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I think Steve better define this himself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks a lot, Julie. ("Steve! I think you should go poke that bear with a stick and see what happens!")</p>

<p>You, Sandy, and Steve J have all given me some starting points. I will have to continue this when I get home this evening. I do like Hariman's remarks and Steve's "feeling and fascination". And lines of sight as channels of meaning... hmm. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks Steve for taking the initiative.<br>

One can of course take the starting point in definitions and I found the "long and <em>way</em> too dry" five lines "definition" of Julie above (where does it come from?) the most compelling. It fits to what a photographical eye catches of visions in cities of any sort, any size and in any country. Personally I find myself in all these dimensions. I feel at home in cities because of the physical presence of humans and the signs of their life and history. So, for me that long and dry outlining of photography in streets is near my emotions and intellect. It is photography of "everyday aesthetics" in "streets": the beauty of humanity. But again, with the danger of repeating myself, such photography, as all creative and artistic expressions, needs to go beyond documenting the seen, it has to make the viewer see the unseen. <br>

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Steve et al,</p>

<p>I think this question first needs to be anchored in the meaning or definition of the word, then perhaps to see some examples or use in street photography.</p>

<p>Aesthetics is described (OED, others) : "Concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty. So in this context a street photograph would be noted as giving great aesthetic pleasure. If we consider what that may be, the synonyms can be things like decorative, ornamental, graceful, elegant, exquisite, beautiful, attractive, pleasing, lovely, stylish, artistic, tasteful, in good taste.</p>

<p>Aesthetics is also a group of principles that underly the work of a particular artist or artistic movement." But here can we consider street photography as an artistic movement? In that sense Cartier-Bresson had an aesthetic approach which might be considered as a pleasure of seeing our fellow humans in everyday activity and their relation, often amusing, to their environment An aesthetic of work that also included aesthetic street images - many of us will connect with memories of seeing the older lady sipping her wine with freedom and grace at a dinner table, the cyclist riding a road or lane bend in a city architecture that frames him and describes urban beauty, the two women walking beneath a set of two vertical statues sitting above them on the second storey of a building, the duck on the s-curved country road anchored by a distant tree (duck analogy for human presence?).</p>

<p>Other street photographers like Boubat had a particular ability to show beauty in quite simple everyday street things he perceived, like the little girl shrouded with dead autumn leaves in a Paris park, the children independently but also individually at play at a school in that city (an incredibly beautiful composite of junior humanity at serious play), the idealistic angel like photo of his proud girlfriend seen beside the darker image of her companion, or the shepherd and his troop seen in a stylistic circle in the field before him, no doubt the result of much patience.</p>

<p>Such images touch on aesthetics in terms of grace, beauty, exquisiteness, style and artistic compositions.</p>

<p>A lot of street photography, mine as well, touches on a harder view of humanity and there the the question of aesthetics is less important than atmosphere, contrasts, disequilibrium and other qualities that while interesting to a viewer are not always aesthetic,even rarely so. That was not the purpose (Why beauty? The eye is free to perceive other things).</p>

<p>Also, beauty aside, the frequent use of an approach in hard street photography (my label, you might have another) or other street photography can become the "aesthetic of the photographer", which has a meaning differentiated from that of beauty or its appreciation.</p>

<p>Another question I think is did Julie refer to a photographer's "aesthetic of street photography" or to the aesthetics of street photographer images? Not the same; or at least not obliged to be the same.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think an aesthetic is different from a genre, so I'm not sure there's a street photography aesthetic as much as different aesthetics that street photographers have. I'll compare briefly how I see Anders' aesthetic compared to Steve's. I think they share a genre but I find their aesthetics quite different. This is not a value judgment as I am not interested in critiquing their work here but rather understanding how the visual images they create communicate something significant to me about the street. I'm going to pick what I consider representative photos. I don't mean to limit their work to my descriptions. It's a general feeling I tend to get and it goes to how I would describe an aesthetic, which is how visual elements and composition, lighting, and placement, texture and design relate to content in order to give me a feel for the street as they approach it.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/17792307">ANDERS 1</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/17753215">ANDERS 2</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/16943752">ANDERS 3</a></p>

<p>While there are photos of Anders that certainly don't continue this sort of aesthetic, as I study his portfolio, I do generally get a profound sense of man within and sometimes dominated by a larger space, often including the elements of strong lighting and color (as in Number 1 above) as part of the space around them. I think there's often a sense of scale at work on the emotional relationship between people and place, also often an exploration of man's relationship to what's man-made. I rarely if ever get a sense of imposition from Anders's street work. It's observant.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/18082212">STEVE 1</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/18074123">STEVE 2</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/17875386">STEVE 3</a></p>

<p>Steve's people and places are often a bit more equally weighted and there's often a sense of dynamics among folks on the street more so than a dynamic of the folks with their surroundings. Again, this is a general feel I get from Steve's works (as from Anders's) and there are exceptions and alternatives in both photographer's portfolios. Picture 3 of Steve's gives me the most awareness of the three I chose of the effect of the design of the space on the scene and the people but, still, the dynamic of the members of the family plays an important role once I get past the geometry and visual impact of the background. Steve, while he doesn't seem like an imposing photographer, and doesn't seem invasive of privacy, does make me as viewer part of the scene, as if his people are either walking away from me or about to bump into me almost unawares.</p>

<p>Now, obviously, Anders uses much more color and in a very un-self-conscious way, IMO, though the color often acts like a punctuation mark. Both obviously participate in urban street photography and, as I said, I think that's their genre and I've tried to describe their different aesthetics.</p>

<p>I know I could have picked a different three photos from each and probably given a very different picture of each. Again, I chose photos that I thought generally showed their overall approach to the street, though each of them do not limit themselves to that general approach.</p>

<p> </p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Aesthetics in terms of beauty - I think the Cartier-Bresson and Boubat examples I gave (but sorry for not having the photos at hand) are near perfect. So are much of Franck and Gibson photos. Anders no. 1 and this one of Steve (http://www.photo.net/photo/17875390) come close to that for me.</p>

<p>Aesthetic defined as the principles that underly the work of a photographer is one that I would like to see something more of. Perhaps the graceful one of Steve I mention above convinces me of that in regard to his apparent overall approach, as I see a curiosity, respect and admiration for humanity (the four quite different women suggest that) in some of his work.</p>

<p>For what its worth, and street photography is not my usual bent, one or more of these may be of interest in terms of aesthetics and street photography and possibly my aesthetic (whatever that may be):</p>

<p><a href="/photo/17748311">http://www.photo.net/photo/17748311</a></p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/17676589</p>

<p><a href="/photo/18013433">http://www.photo.net/photo/18013433</a></p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/18087267</p>

<p><a href="/photo/17676590">http://www.photo.net/photo/17676590</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/11472733">http://www.photo.net/photo/11472733</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/11472740">http://www.photo.net/photo/11472740</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/11472738">http://www.photo.net/photo/11472738</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/16177852">http://www.photo.net/photo/16177852</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/17702372">http://www.photo.net/photo/17702372</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/11472734">http://www.photo.net/photo/11472734</a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If this gets too subjective e.g. "Beauty in the eye of the (particular) beholder(s), or a comparison of a limited set of photographers, IMHO, substantial value will be lost. This is potentially a very engaging and impactful discussion. To throw a Fox in with the chickens, let's add a soupcon of morality / humanity to our photographic subject choices, and consider ourselves, and our role as observers / recorders. As an example, I could not take photos if there was a need for first aid or other physical intervention.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Sandy, it's funny and not that unusual. I have the exact opposite feeling. If this is not kept specific, then aesthetics just becomes an academic exercise. I have a hard time relating to any of the descriptions Julie supplied because of their lack of specificity and lack of connection to actual work. In a sense, they don't relate to anything and could relate to everything. Any street photographer could claim that's what they are doing and, as a matter of fact, any portrait or landscape photographer could as well. And there would be elements of their work that could be seen in the light of those quotes. So they do serve a universal purpose but they don't address, at least for me, specific goals of different visions of the street. I see the quotes more as intellectual copouts for not addressing photographic specifics. Not a word in those quotes is said about HOW a photo would communicate those things. That's what I tried to do in looking at Steve's and Anders's work. Talk about HOW their photographs show the aesthetics I'm seeing and feeling in them. I do, however, understand what you're saying and do know that being more specific and bringing in how specific photographers relate to different types of aesthetics does not appeal to everyone and I respect that even though I prefer to be a little more hands on, practical, and down to earth while recognizing the limits of doing that.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Addition: Because I don't think there's such a thing as a "street" aesthetic per se, generalized quotes about street, to me, are not about aesthetics. Aesthetics in photography are about how photographic elements and qualities communicate a vision.</p>

<p>I also don't think what I've done is subjective. I think the quotes supplied are subjective. Nothing about those quotes is shown or imaged. It's in the mind of the writer and the photographer. What I've talked about is actually quite objective, not in the sense of an agreed upon reality but in the sense of making clear what we can see in a photo that suggests what is being communicated. People may disagree on what things mean or represent or how to interpret stuff, but if they give visual reasoning for their opinions, it's not merely each person being subjective, it's each person stating what they see that makes them feel a certain way. The quotes are all feelings or states of being. Photos are IMAGES (that convey or express feelings or facts or states of being).</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>How you see the world through a lens is your own aesthetic, or a visual approach to your subjects. Consider the variables that will make or break the moment: the light in the scene, placement of all objects--including the various color elements, angle of the shot. Basically, did you get what you wanted in that moment.</p>

<p>Then you move the stage of interpretation for viewing. Most likely editing will entail looking for one or more crops which strengthens or enhances the image impact. Such ratios as 4x5, 1x1, 2x3, circular, or others such as panoramics. Followed by development of the original shot into an object worth looking at by others. Clearly you will first-off be developing to satisfy your own creative need. Getting anyone else to even look at is another issue.</p>

<p>It is important to look at one word you used in the first message: documentary. This implies you are attempting to build a set of images of something specific that have a relationship. Such as all car accidents in a specific area for a year. Or beach life over a series of summers. People sleeping around town in all the various body poses. How about odd dressing attire or women in outrageous makeup. I fall into the documentary area. For the last year, the bulk of my photos, several thousand in color and IR, were covering the Polar Pioneer deep-water drilling platform, which floated in the Port Angeles harbor twice this year. The changes in light, location for the shooting (angle of the shots), and constantly changing objects in the harbor, made for interesting photos for the whole year. The changing weather really made it fun. And it finally forced me to try long exposures in the early evening as the sun dropped.</p>

<p>And it is all WORK! It gets tiring editing all of the material. One great image makes for a good days shooting.</p>

<p>CHEERS...</p><div>00dgeM-560224584.thumb.jpg.5818aa032eaab0fc25e9df84ed19d547.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Sandy, IMO, we each approach it in the way that strikes us as most productive and interesting. No amputations. There's plenty of room here.</p>

<p>I don't think Steve's original issue has general parameters. That's kind of my point. If you look even at the OP of this thread, you'll see that Steve started with something Julie said to him, which I'll re-quote here:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Julie H.: <em>I'd love to see a thread where you "urban documentary" photographers discuss your feelings about the place of aesthetics in your work</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I tried to discuss what I thought Steve's and Anders's aesthetics were and what the place of those aesthetics were in their work, and I tried to be visual and specific. Since I don't do much street work myself but have a lot of interest in and familiarity with it, I answered in terms of the place of aesthetics in <em>their</em> work.</p>

<p>I certainly don't mind hearing what you or others might think are some general parameters, especially since I have no clue what those would be. So have at it. I'm always open to learning.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As mentioned, there is the adjective aesthetic of the photographer which from my experience relates to his approach, values, principles, and the other aesthetic a noun that relates to nature of the qualities of the image, that is generally (and I agree summarily) defined for art in general as as beauty or order. The two can go together.</p>

<p>My examples of photos above, like those of Steve and Anders, are examples of thee two aesthetic definitions. Feedback on such images is I guess what the photographer seeks, with the viewer seeing or not either form of aesthetic, unless the photographer is undertaking the activity uniquely for himself. I see this thread as a good opportunity for interchange among us on that, as much as a word exchange of philosophy or different approaches. The subject is good. It focuses on one aspect of our personal photography and I hope incites us to give examples of our photos in which those elements of aesthetic are prominent and as such invite discussion. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Arthur, adjective, objective? And, a gauntlet thrown down! I would love to be able to immediately show examples -- unfortunately, my negatives are from a "past life", the boxes in the basement will take a bit to parse and convert. I'll take a quick shot at it in the morning and see what I can find. Cheers!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't know how Jack McRitchie would characterize his own work made on the streets of Osaka, Japan.</p>

<p>Here is one of his recent ones that instantly became one of my favorites:</p>

<p><a href="/photo/18159497&size=lg"><em><strong>http://www.photo.net/photo/18159497&size=lg</strong></em></a><br /> <br /> Yet, yet, it appears in a folder that has an enormous range of subjects and even approaches. I continue to be astonished by his ability to find something of interest literally anywhere.<br /> <br /> <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1087007"><em><strong>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1087007</strong></em></a><br /> <br /> Knowing the larger context (Osaka) gives a richness to the documentary nature of his work, although I do not ever remember reading anything written by him that suggests that he thinks of himself as a documentary photographer. Each picture has its own source of appeal, and yet all together these (and many others) do serve to document quite well a sense of what it is like to walk the streets of contemporary Osaka.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...