Can Beauty and Horror Co-Exist in Photography

Let me start by saying this topic is similar to the discussions in

other threads, but it's kind of a sideways take. There is an on-

going dialogue regarding the importantace or value of surface beauty

vs. content in photography. My use of "vs." seems perjorative but

is not meant to be. Obviously, both have a value.

 

So here's the question du jour; can horrific, disturbing, or

difficult content be the basis for beautiful images? I've attached

two pictures. The first is by Joel Peter Witkin and is relatively

tame for him. The second image, taken in Afghanistan, is by James

Nachtwey. Both photographers deal with images that often repulse

viewers, but at the same time can be beautiful...at least they are

to me.

 

I'm not really interested in what you think of these two

photographers specifically. Many artists have created Art out of

horror...Goya and Picasso to name just two.

 

So what do you think? Can beauty and horror co-exist? Or, does

content always trump the surface and negate any beautiful asthetic

no matter how pleasing?<div></div>

I have always thought that photography was like all other art forms, and sometimes art is only meant to make people think. When I look at any type of art I try to ask myself how does it make me feel? The first image, not much of anything, but the second, sadness. As an artist your job should be to make people look at their world and their own lives in a new way, I should hope. And it should not matter what the image is of, it can always be beautiful, if well crafted.

Yes. Jim Nachtwey and Robert Frank photographed some of the most

horrific/beautiful images ever recorded imho. different genre but

still the same. Eugene Richard's last book *stepping through the

ashes* is also double edged. it's the best document of the 9-11

aftermath, beauty cloaked in haunting juxtapositions.

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/smith/smith_minimata.jpg

 

Co-existing experiences of beauty and horror? Certainly. IMO, if looking at this picture doesn't arouse both the viewer is already dead.

I am not sure what you mean by 'beauty' in this context. The strength of an image derives in part from the skilled and intelligent use of inherently photographic qualities to support the photographer's intended communication. IMO photography's limited range of such qualities (compared with other visual and literary arts) means we often see a commonality of photographic styles across disparate subjects which leads to the uneasy feeling that horrific subjects are being 'beautified' because the stylistic devices employed are associated with more pleasant subjects.

 

For example, the Nachteway image above is very reminiscent of some of HCB's Indian images in style. The formality and tranquility of the image for instance. Irving Penn springs to mind too. Yet the subject matter is unconnected. Steve McCurry's work has the same stylistic heritage.

 

It seems to me photogrpher's often appropriate visual language from one genre to depict another type of subject resulting in mixed messages for the viewer familiar with the chosen 'dialect'. I don't know if you are thinking specifically in structuralist terms, but perhaps this is an example connotive/denotive meanings clashing as well as complementing each other.

 

Is this a result of the photographer's personal taste? I would be interested to hear who Nachteways favourite's from the past are. I would put my money on Penn, Avedon, HCB being in there.

 

Good question.

Apologies to Nachtwey for typo.

Well, first, I would say that they can. Since you can view any photograph on several levels and some aspects only become apparent after studying the image for a time. There is a subtlety that exists in the truly great pictures that separate them from the shots meant merely to shock.

 

This is an important consideration. Some photographers... artists... feel that they need to evoke an emotional response in the viewer and it is easy (a 'cheap shot') to simply photograph something disgusting (rotting corpses, mangled bodies) to wrench that emotional response out of people. But that is as far as those kind of shots go. There is no deeper meaning aside from the initial shock value.

 

Knowing that a photograph can be more interesting if there is more 'meat' to it and extension of the 'shock shot' is 'absurd juxtaposition' where objects that are not usually found together are placed in a single image. Some photographers base their entire careers on 'absurd juxtaposition' thinking that they are being extremely clever and 'creative'...ho hum.

 

So, I feel that it IS possible for two diverging aspects (such as beauty andn horror) to coexist in a single photograph. They are rare and classic pieces which cannot be easily duplicated by using shallow tricks like 'shock value' or 'absurd juxtaposition'.

Your examples have nearly answered the question.

Have a look at some of Leslie Hancock's work on here. There are some pictures which are quite beautiful until you realise what they are and then they take on a horrific dimension. The link provided by William Perlis is, perhaps, a better example still. I think the answer is a clear yes, but it is difficult to have the two in balance.

I don't think photographs are any more limited than humans in the number of emotions they can portray or experience simultaneously.

i'm going to say yes, considering joel-peter witkin is one of my favourite photographers.

 

i think you could have showed a much better example of his work, for instance "woman once a bird" is a beautiful, horrific piece of work.

What if bananas where straight?

"Or, does content always trump the surface and negate any beautiful asthetic no matter how pleasing?"

 

IMO good aestetics reinforce the content and make the photo more striking.